Many conservatives consider Texas Congressman to be a crank, fascist, antiwar fanatic, neoNazi, a kook, crazy, and other opprobrious adjectives. But if this were the 1920s, Ron Paul would be the prototype conservative. So what has happened?
For years the Old Right Conservatives ruled the GOP. Indeed, from 1919 to 1947 they controlled the GOP and ran the government from 1919 to 1931. So what do the Old Right Conservatives believe in?
First of all, we (since I consider myself to be in the ORC camp) believe in the rule of natural law. That means all people are equal and have equality of opportunity. We believe in the sanctity of life and being governed by the Judeo-Christian principles as outlined in the Bible.
Secondly, we believe the role of the Federal government is to adjudicate disputes between states and provide for the national defense. That's it.
Thirdly, we believe the states should be the preeminent ruling polity in the United States. The states should rule and set their own rules for welfare, taxation and social issues without the interference of the Federal government.
Fourth, we believe the United States should not get involved in ANY foreign disputes or send troops on foreign soil unless it affects the national security and safety of the United States. We are opposed to all foreign aid. We believe the US should have the strongest national defense in the world. We are not anti-military and support the military. We are just against getting involved in foreign disputes if it does not affect our national security.
Fifth, we believe in the nationhood of the United States. We are opposed to all illegal immigration. We welcome all legal immigrants and hope they become citizens. We believe our language should be only the English language for political and business transactions.
Sixth, the United States Constitution should rule in all matters. If it is not specified in the Constitution, then no political entity or elected official has the right to create new powers in the Constitution.
We are NOT libertarians. Libertarians believe in open borders and unlimited immigration. They also believe in abortion on demand and the national legalization of all drugs.
We ORCs believe the states should rule. For example, if Vermont wants to legalize homosexual marriage and legalize all drugs, that is Vermont's business. If that state wishes to create a socialist economy and have state control, that is their right. On the other hand, if Mississippi wishes to ban ALL abortions and make it a crime punishable by death for performing an abortion, Mississippi should be allowed to do that. If Mississippi wishes to make homosexuality a crime punishable by a jail sentence and drug usage punishable by imprisonment, it should have that right. And if Mississippi wishes to have a capitalist, free-market economy, it should have that right to do so.
From the founding of our Republic until 1931, state government spending was TWICE the amount of Federal government spending (except for war). The Feds were rarely involved in controlling the economy and sending troops overseas. Until 1917, all of our wars were fought on the North American continent. And with the exception of the War of Northern Aggression ("Civil War" to you Yanks.), there was no military draft. Indeed, Old Right Conservatism was the ruling belief. It is hard to believe that until 1901 all drugs were legal and until 1934 marijuana was legal (I'm not advocating drug legalization. I'm opposed to the use of drugs and never tried drugs--or tobacco or hard liquor.).
That changed with the Federal income tax in 1913, the Federal Reserve banking system and America's entry into a stupid war in Europe in 1917. But the main invasion of Federal power came during the Great Depression and World War II. Today the Federal government wants to reign supreme in our lives. In fact, they are now telling us what light bulbs to buy (honest!).
The ORCs faded away with the Cold War. But they made a comeback after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. For 150 days, there were no enemies to the US. Then came the first Bush's foolish invasion of Iraq. And thirteen years later his son decided to invade Iraq again. The neoconservatives took over in the first Bush's administration and run the GOP.
The neoconservatives believe in big government conservatism and the foolish notion of spreading democracy to lands that are under a different government structure. They are in favor of big government--just not as big as the liberals would have. They have taken a page out of liberal President Woodrow Wilson's foolish playbook and are trying to make the world "safe for democracy." We are now involved in the tar pits of the Middle East with no exit strategy in sight.
Read the Republican Party platform of 1964 and compare it to the one in 2004. You would not recognize that it is the same party. The GOP has morphed into a liberal party but just not as liberal as the Democrats. The Old Right was prevalent in the 1964 platform as far as domestic policy was concerned. The neoconservatives wrote the GOP 2004 platform.
Ron Paul is an Old Right Conservative. He is campaigning as such. If you read Joseph Scotchey's book Revolt in the Heartland, you would know exactly where Ron Paul stands (It is an excellent book with great sources.). He is a radical only because he wants to go back to the roots of limited government in the domestic and foreign spheres. He is condemned as a nut and a kook. But that was the common sense of our nation from 1789 to 1913.
The Old Right Conservatives' credo has been the same from the founding of our Republic to the present: Less government, more responsibility---and with God's help, a better nation.
In the 2008 Presidential race, there is no question as to whom the REAL conservative is. It is Ron Paul.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Why I'm for Ron Paul
I know Texas Congressman Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Key West, Fla. of winning the Republican Presidential nomination. My friends tell me I'm wasting my vote. And others say Paul is a political "kook."
Nevertheless, I will do all I can to help Paul and I'll vote for him in the GOP primary on March 11th. The reason is the bankruptcy of ideas in the Republican Presidential race. ALL the candidates are for growing the government. The questions are which one will do it the least and the efficiency of that growth. Day by day some candidate has some scheme on how to attack global warming or combat Iran. And ALL of them support the war in Iraq.
I am not a neoconservative or a libertarian. I am like Ron Paul--an Old Right Conservative (hereafter abbreviated as ORC). I'm for giving the states more rights to chart their own destinies, stay out of foreign affairs and limit the powers of the Federal government. Unlike the New Left who wants us to pull out of Iraq because we are an evil and rotten people, I'm for pulling out because Iraq was never a direct threat to the safety and well-being of the US. If Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction, he would have gone after Israel or Iran--not the United States. Ron Paul is the only one who is in favor of pulling out of Iraq.
Most of all, I'm tired of big government running my life. Now the government is going to tell us what kind of light bulb we should use. No, I am NOT kidding. By 2012, the 100-watt incandescent light bulb will no longer be sold. You will have to use a CFL bulbs, or compact fluorescent. Indeed, the government may make it illegal for an individual to use an incandescent light bulb in his home. That is the goal of the environmental wackos. Other than Paul, I have YET to hear a word of protest about this dim bulb bill Congress passed just a couple of weeks ago. Right now, I'm stocking up on incandescent light bulbs. Let the Feds come after me.
When does all this nuttiness end? Why is Paul the only one protesting this idiocy? Where are Romney, Huckabee (He'll preach the bulbs to come on.), Giuliani, Thompson and McCain on the growth of idiocy on the part of government? When does government get out of our lives? In the People's Socialist Republic of Massachusetts, you can be fined $912 by the state for not having health insurance. This is freedom? Thank Mitt Romney for that. And this guy wants to be our President?
Where do we draw the line? Mike Huckabee wants a national ban on smoking. I don't smoke and I don't allow it in our office. I don't go to restaurants that have smoking. But that's MY business. I don't want government telling places you can't have smoking. Smoking bothers you? Boycott the place. But the last thing we need is government dictating to businesses they must ban smoking. For God's sake--is this the United States or a dictatorship?
Now there's a war on trans fats. Okay, we all know fatty foods are not good for you. But now New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who may run for President as an independent) demands all restaurants and fast-food places ban trans fats. You don't like foods with trans fats? Don't eat them. Can't you read the stinking ingredients? Or are you too stupid or lazy?
Government loves to run our lives so we can fit the images the elite wants us to be. We must not smoke (What about booze? Why isn't there a war on booze?), eat fatty foods, not have guns, not drive big cars (I drive a Beetle. But that's MY business--not the government's.), not use incandescent light bulbs, not be uninsured for health insurance, be socially tolerant of every perversion that hits and let the government dictate to us their diktats. And yet there is not ONE candidate other than Ron Paul who is complaining about omnipotent government snuffing out our liberties.
I'm tired of getting involved in every foreign dispute because we don't like the government. I was a cold warrior because I was totally opposed to communism. And yes, the Soviet Union and Red China were direct threats to our liberty. But the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union fell starting in 1989. Now we have the Islamofascists. It's strange we didn't mess with them until the first Bush had to wage war against Iraq in 1990-1991. That was a totally useless war that dragged us into the Middle East mosh pit. Now we are stuck in a permanent war in Iraq with very little chance of getting out in the next ten years. Iran could be our next war. The Middle East wars will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars with no end in sight. When do these foreign entanglements end? We are knee-deep in NATO. Do you know if Russia attacks Estonia, a member of NATO, we are obligated to come to Estonia's aid? We are talking armed conflict, folks.
I'll write in another post as to what the Old Right Conservative (ORC) philosophy is. But Ron Paul is a firm spear carrier for the Old Right. I'm tired of big government conservatism. In fact, I'm tired of big government period--both in the domestic and foreign spheres.
It's time for a change in direction in the GOP and the nation. It's time to elect Ron Paul as President.
Nevertheless, I will do all I can to help Paul and I'll vote for him in the GOP primary on March 11th. The reason is the bankruptcy of ideas in the Republican Presidential race. ALL the candidates are for growing the government. The questions are which one will do it the least and the efficiency of that growth. Day by day some candidate has some scheme on how to attack global warming or combat Iran. And ALL of them support the war in Iraq.
I am not a neoconservative or a libertarian. I am like Ron Paul--an Old Right Conservative (hereafter abbreviated as ORC). I'm for giving the states more rights to chart their own destinies, stay out of foreign affairs and limit the powers of the Federal government. Unlike the New Left who wants us to pull out of Iraq because we are an evil and rotten people, I'm for pulling out because Iraq was never a direct threat to the safety and well-being of the US. If Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction, he would have gone after Israel or Iran--not the United States. Ron Paul is the only one who is in favor of pulling out of Iraq.
Most of all, I'm tired of big government running my life. Now the government is going to tell us what kind of light bulb we should use. No, I am NOT kidding. By 2012, the 100-watt incandescent light bulb will no longer be sold. You will have to use a CFL bulbs, or compact fluorescent. Indeed, the government may make it illegal for an individual to use an incandescent light bulb in his home. That is the goal of the environmental wackos. Other than Paul, I have YET to hear a word of protest about this dim bulb bill Congress passed just a couple of weeks ago. Right now, I'm stocking up on incandescent light bulbs. Let the Feds come after me.
When does all this nuttiness end? Why is Paul the only one protesting this idiocy? Where are Romney, Huckabee (He'll preach the bulbs to come on.), Giuliani, Thompson and McCain on the growth of idiocy on the part of government? When does government get out of our lives? In the People's Socialist Republic of Massachusetts, you can be fined $912 by the state for not having health insurance. This is freedom? Thank Mitt Romney for that. And this guy wants to be our President?
Where do we draw the line? Mike Huckabee wants a national ban on smoking. I don't smoke and I don't allow it in our office. I don't go to restaurants that have smoking. But that's MY business. I don't want government telling places you can't have smoking. Smoking bothers you? Boycott the place. But the last thing we need is government dictating to businesses they must ban smoking. For God's sake--is this the United States or a dictatorship?
Now there's a war on trans fats. Okay, we all know fatty foods are not good for you. But now New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who may run for President as an independent) demands all restaurants and fast-food places ban trans fats. You don't like foods with trans fats? Don't eat them. Can't you read the stinking ingredients? Or are you too stupid or lazy?
Government loves to run our lives so we can fit the images the elite wants us to be. We must not smoke (What about booze? Why isn't there a war on booze?), eat fatty foods, not have guns, not drive big cars (I drive a Beetle. But that's MY business--not the government's.), not use incandescent light bulbs, not be uninsured for health insurance, be socially tolerant of every perversion that hits and let the government dictate to us their diktats. And yet there is not ONE candidate other than Ron Paul who is complaining about omnipotent government snuffing out our liberties.
I'm tired of getting involved in every foreign dispute because we don't like the government. I was a cold warrior because I was totally opposed to communism. And yes, the Soviet Union and Red China were direct threats to our liberty. But the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union fell starting in 1989. Now we have the Islamofascists. It's strange we didn't mess with them until the first Bush had to wage war against Iraq in 1990-1991. That was a totally useless war that dragged us into the Middle East mosh pit. Now we are stuck in a permanent war in Iraq with very little chance of getting out in the next ten years. Iran could be our next war. The Middle East wars will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars with no end in sight. When do these foreign entanglements end? We are knee-deep in NATO. Do you know if Russia attacks Estonia, a member of NATO, we are obligated to come to Estonia's aid? We are talking armed conflict, folks.
I'll write in another post as to what the Old Right Conservative (ORC) philosophy is. But Ron Paul is a firm spear carrier for the Old Right. I'm tired of big government conservatism. In fact, I'm tired of big government period--both in the domestic and foreign spheres.
It's time for a change in direction in the GOP and the nation. It's time to elect Ron Paul as President.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Mike Huckabee: The GOP Liberal
Much has been made of the meteoric rise of Ex-Governor of Arkansas Michael Dale Huckabee in the political polls in the past couple of months. He is wowing the social conservative voters of Iowa with his views on abortion and the social issues. He comes across as a good-ole-boy who can charm the socks off the average voter.
Nevertheless, he is the most liberal candidate on fiscal issues. And while a lot of Southern Baptists are supporting him because he is a former Southern Baptist preacher, he is actually a liberal in the Southern Baptist wars.
In 1979, the conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention (Hereafter abbreviated as "SBC.") wrested control from the moderate wing. They elected Adrian Rogers as President, who was a well-known conservative from Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tenn. When Huckabee became president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention in 1989, he appointed liberals to head major committees in that state convention. NOT ONCE DID HE APPOINT A CONSERVATIVE TO A MAJOR POST. Paul Pressler, one of the architects of the 1979 takeover of the SBC, considered Huckabee a liberal in the Baptist wars. He is not supporting Huckabee for President. Oh, yes. Huckabee will not allow the churches he formerly pastored to release any of his sermons he preached. How come?
I agree with him on abortion and gun rights. I have mixed feelings about his stand on the homosexual marriage issue. As an Old Right Conservative, I think the homosexual marriage issue should be settled on the state issue. If a state wishes to legalized homosexual marriage, that is that state's business. But under no circumstances should another state be forced to recognize that marriage. Huckabee would have a Constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.
His record as Arkansas' governor is one of fiscal liberalism. Under Bill Clinton, the per capita tax burden rate was 9.8%. When Huckabee left office, it was 11.1%. He was for raising taxes to pay for his pet programs. He wanted to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants to go to college paying the same tuition rate as in-state students. He was all for illegal immigration in his state.
When it came to crime he made Mike Dukakis look like a flaming conservative. In his 10 1/2 years as governor (July 15, 1996-January 9, 2007) he gave 1033 commutations. In the 17 1/2 years of his three predecessors, only 507 commutations were given out. One of his parolees, Wayne Dumond, went out and raped and murdered a woman.
I'll admit a Presidential candidate has a faith that influences his stands on politics. But there is a difference between the other Republican candidates and Huckabee. He is a Shining Path believer. He's personally against smoking. Fine. But he wants a NATIONWIDE ban on smoking. Period. Would we have a Federal Agency to Rid Tobacco (F.A.R.T.) to implement this? He lost a hundred pounds because he was diagnosed as a diabetic. He's to be commended for that. But he wants to spend Federal funds to make people lose weight. He has always been in favor of illegal immigration and giving them benefits because "That's what Jesus would do." His foreign policy would be "Christ-like" and initiate a lot of talks with hostile powers. Well, I have no objections to that. But what happens when they don't want to talk? He wants to abolish the income tax and have the "Fair Tax"of a 23% sales tax? He said that is the kind of tax a "true Christian" would support. A 23% sales tax on groceries and prescription drugs would be a horrendous burden to the poor.
In the past twenty-eight years, Arkansas had three out of four governors that had morals or ethic problems. Bill Clinton (1979-1981, 1983-1993) had problems with the fairer sex. Jim Guy Tucker (1993-1996) had financial scandals and was forced to resign. Frank White (1981-1983) was honest and had a scandal-free administration. And then there was Huckabee.
Huckabee didn't mess around with the babes. You won't find any scandal remotely connecting him to any of that. Give him credit for that. But he sure liked the gifts. He tried to run off with $70000 in furniture that was donated to the Governor's Mansion when he was governor. He was cited on five occasions by the state's ethics commission for his accepting gifts. He made appointments to various boards and commissions to some of those donors. He demanded the state GOP pay for some of his personal expenses.
Huckabee as a person is not as nice as he seems. On the outside, he is very charming, witty and kind. But when conservative Republican state legislators in Arkansas challenged him on his policies and programs, he would get nasty and vindictive with them. He would tell them they "didn't drink the same Jesus juice he did." He made it seem like you were challenging God Himself if you disagreed with him. Is this the guy you want for President?
Do not take Huckabee lightly in Mississippi. I have talked to a lot of people in the Southern Baptist church I attend and they like him a lot. Even though our Presidential primary isn't until March 11th, the primary may still be very important because the Republican Presidential nomination may still be undecided and in a state of flux. Huckabee comes from a state that borders Mississippi and the Southern Baptist connection may just be the right combination for victory in this state.
But if Huckabee is the nominee, the Clinton machine (assuming Hitlery is the nominee) will make toast out of him. He'll be beaten like a bongo drum. The Clinton machine will make him look like a religious kook and ethically challenged (They should talk. But the mainstream media will pick up the Clinton attacks and skewer Huckabee.).
Under no circumstances will I vote for Huckabee for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Nevertheless, he is the most liberal candidate on fiscal issues. And while a lot of Southern Baptists are supporting him because he is a former Southern Baptist preacher, he is actually a liberal in the Southern Baptist wars.
In 1979, the conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention (Hereafter abbreviated as "SBC.") wrested control from the moderate wing. They elected Adrian Rogers as President, who was a well-known conservative from Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tenn. When Huckabee became president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention in 1989, he appointed liberals to head major committees in that state convention. NOT ONCE DID HE APPOINT A CONSERVATIVE TO A MAJOR POST. Paul Pressler, one of the architects of the 1979 takeover of the SBC, considered Huckabee a liberal in the Baptist wars. He is not supporting Huckabee for President. Oh, yes. Huckabee will not allow the churches he formerly pastored to release any of his sermons he preached. How come?
I agree with him on abortion and gun rights. I have mixed feelings about his stand on the homosexual marriage issue. As an Old Right Conservative, I think the homosexual marriage issue should be settled on the state issue. If a state wishes to legalized homosexual marriage, that is that state's business. But under no circumstances should another state be forced to recognize that marriage. Huckabee would have a Constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.
His record as Arkansas' governor is one of fiscal liberalism. Under Bill Clinton, the per capita tax burden rate was 9.8%. When Huckabee left office, it was 11.1%. He was for raising taxes to pay for his pet programs. He wanted to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants to go to college paying the same tuition rate as in-state students. He was all for illegal immigration in his state.
When it came to crime he made Mike Dukakis look like a flaming conservative. In his 10 1/2 years as governor (July 15, 1996-January 9, 2007) he gave 1033 commutations. In the 17 1/2 years of his three predecessors, only 507 commutations were given out. One of his parolees, Wayne Dumond, went out and raped and murdered a woman.
I'll admit a Presidential candidate has a faith that influences his stands on politics. But there is a difference between the other Republican candidates and Huckabee. He is a Shining Path believer. He's personally against smoking. Fine. But he wants a NATIONWIDE ban on smoking. Period. Would we have a Federal Agency to Rid Tobacco (F.A.R.T.) to implement this? He lost a hundred pounds because he was diagnosed as a diabetic. He's to be commended for that. But he wants to spend Federal funds to make people lose weight. He has always been in favor of illegal immigration and giving them benefits because "That's what Jesus would do." His foreign policy would be "Christ-like" and initiate a lot of talks with hostile powers. Well, I have no objections to that. But what happens when they don't want to talk? He wants to abolish the income tax and have the "Fair Tax"of a 23% sales tax? He said that is the kind of tax a "true Christian" would support. A 23% sales tax on groceries and prescription drugs would be a horrendous burden to the poor.
In the past twenty-eight years, Arkansas had three out of four governors that had morals or ethic problems. Bill Clinton (1979-1981, 1983-1993) had problems with the fairer sex. Jim Guy Tucker (1993-1996) had financial scandals and was forced to resign. Frank White (1981-1983) was honest and had a scandal-free administration. And then there was Huckabee.
Huckabee didn't mess around with the babes. You won't find any scandal remotely connecting him to any of that. Give him credit for that. But he sure liked the gifts. He tried to run off with $70000 in furniture that was donated to the Governor's Mansion when he was governor. He was cited on five occasions by the state's ethics commission for his accepting gifts. He made appointments to various boards and commissions to some of those donors. He demanded the state GOP pay for some of his personal expenses.
Huckabee as a person is not as nice as he seems. On the outside, he is very charming, witty and kind. But when conservative Republican state legislators in Arkansas challenged him on his policies and programs, he would get nasty and vindictive with them. He would tell them they "didn't drink the same Jesus juice he did." He made it seem like you were challenging God Himself if you disagreed with him. Is this the guy you want for President?
Do not take Huckabee lightly in Mississippi. I have talked to a lot of people in the Southern Baptist church I attend and they like him a lot. Even though our Presidential primary isn't until March 11th, the primary may still be very important because the Republican Presidential nomination may still be undecided and in a state of flux. Huckabee comes from a state that borders Mississippi and the Southern Baptist connection may just be the right combination for victory in this state.
But if Huckabee is the nominee, the Clinton machine (assuming Hitlery is the nominee) will make toast out of him. He'll be beaten like a bongo drum. The Clinton machine will make him look like a religious kook and ethically challenged (They should talk. But the mainstream media will pick up the Clinton attacks and skewer Huckabee.).
Under no circumstances will I vote for Huckabee for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Conspiracy, anyone?
There is an old cliche' I use when I go to political gatherings or observe politics on television and radio: Just when you are as cynical as you can get and you have reached the maximum in cynicism, you go to a political rally and find out there's room for more (cynicism).
As we all know, Sen. Chester Trent Lott has resigned his Senate seat. And we all know Congressman Chip Pickering announced he was not running for another House term. And, good ole Dickey Scruggs has been indicted for trying to bribe a Federal judge. For those of you in Mississippi who have been hiding under a rock for forty years, Dickey is Lott's brother-in-law.
Now I've been in politics since I was ten years old. I have seen things that seem so surreal it blows one's mind. In fact, a science fiction writer couldn't make some of this up. For example, when President Richard M. Nixon was reelected by eighteen million votes on November 7, 1972, nobody in his right mind would have thought Congressman Gerald Ford would be President in less than two years and Jimmy Carter would be President a little more than two years after that.
Now this is sheer speculation and maybe nut job thinking. But remember, this is politics where you can trust very few people. Sen. Lott knew all this stuff on Dickey was coming down months ago. He knows he will be implicated in some of Dickey's machinations (along with Mike Moore and Jim Hood) and he would be forced to resign. He told Chip Pickering he would resign by the end of the year. (For the politically uninitiated, Pickering is Lott's protege'.) Therefore, Pickering would be appointed as his successor to the U.S. Senate. So it would be best if Pickering were to announce he was not running for reelection.
Nutty? Think about it. Pickering is NOT going to run for a state office in 2011 or 2015. His cousin Stacey Pickering is now the Auditor-elect. Now Stacey is going to be running for something in 2011--either for reelection or for Lt. Governor. It all depends what Dewey Bryant does in 2011. If Dewey runs for Governor, Stacey will probably run for Lt. Governor. Chip would not run for Governor for two reasons: 1. Voters would be very reluctant to vote for members of a family (They are cousins.) for the two top state positions. 2. Chip would be engaged in a nasty primary against Dewey. Chip may win, but it would split the GOP.
It was Lott and the late Governor Kirk Fordice who got Chip his start in politics. Back in 1996, the top GOP areas were Rankin County, Lauderdale County and Forrest County. Cong. Sonny Montgomery stated he was retiring that year. Lott and Fordice encouraged Republicans in Rankin County to run for the Congressional seat. They were State Senators Mike Gunn and Dean Kirby and the 1994 Congressional GOP nominee James Dabbs. All three were led to believe they would get the support of the GOP poo bahs. Instead, in the first primary, those three candidates split the populous Rankin County GOP vote and Meridian's Bill Crawford and Hattiesburg's Chip Pickering slipped into the runoff. As we all know, Pickering won the runoff.
So who will Gov. Haley Barbour appoint? My gut feeling Chip Pickering will get the appointment. This may be his only opportunity to be Senator. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts Sen. Thad Cochran will run for reelection in 2014. If a Republican other than Pickering succeeds Lott, then the earliest Pickering can run would be 2020. If Cochran were to retire after his next term, than it could be 2014. And there would be others besides Pickering to run for that seat. He may fade into political obscurity for six years and lose to someone who has a "name". Does he want to risk not getting the appointment? And if he wants Barbour to appoint him, he'll get the appointment. The GOP poo bahs will see to that.
We'll see. The Chinese have an ancient curse for this: May you live in interesting times.
As we all know, Sen. Chester Trent Lott has resigned his Senate seat. And we all know Congressman Chip Pickering announced he was not running for another House term. And, good ole Dickey Scruggs has been indicted for trying to bribe a Federal judge. For those of you in Mississippi who have been hiding under a rock for forty years, Dickey is Lott's brother-in-law.
Now I've been in politics since I was ten years old. I have seen things that seem so surreal it blows one's mind. In fact, a science fiction writer couldn't make some of this up. For example, when President Richard M. Nixon was reelected by eighteen million votes on November 7, 1972, nobody in his right mind would have thought Congressman Gerald Ford would be President in less than two years and Jimmy Carter would be President a little more than two years after that.
Now this is sheer speculation and maybe nut job thinking. But remember, this is politics where you can trust very few people. Sen. Lott knew all this stuff on Dickey was coming down months ago. He knows he will be implicated in some of Dickey's machinations (along with Mike Moore and Jim Hood) and he would be forced to resign. He told Chip Pickering he would resign by the end of the year. (For the politically uninitiated, Pickering is Lott's protege'.) Therefore, Pickering would be appointed as his successor to the U.S. Senate. So it would be best if Pickering were to announce he was not running for reelection.
Nutty? Think about it. Pickering is NOT going to run for a state office in 2011 or 2015. His cousin Stacey Pickering is now the Auditor-elect. Now Stacey is going to be running for something in 2011--either for reelection or for Lt. Governor. It all depends what Dewey Bryant does in 2011. If Dewey runs for Governor, Stacey will probably run for Lt. Governor. Chip would not run for Governor for two reasons: 1. Voters would be very reluctant to vote for members of a family (They are cousins.) for the two top state positions. 2. Chip would be engaged in a nasty primary against Dewey. Chip may win, but it would split the GOP.
It was Lott and the late Governor Kirk Fordice who got Chip his start in politics. Back in 1996, the top GOP areas were Rankin County, Lauderdale County and Forrest County. Cong. Sonny Montgomery stated he was retiring that year. Lott and Fordice encouraged Republicans in Rankin County to run for the Congressional seat. They were State Senators Mike Gunn and Dean Kirby and the 1994 Congressional GOP nominee James Dabbs. All three were led to believe they would get the support of the GOP poo bahs. Instead, in the first primary, those three candidates split the populous Rankin County GOP vote and Meridian's Bill Crawford and Hattiesburg's Chip Pickering slipped into the runoff. As we all know, Pickering won the runoff.
So who will Gov. Haley Barbour appoint? My gut feeling Chip Pickering will get the appointment. This may be his only opportunity to be Senator. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts Sen. Thad Cochran will run for reelection in 2014. If a Republican other than Pickering succeeds Lott, then the earliest Pickering can run would be 2020. If Cochran were to retire after his next term, than it could be 2014. And there would be others besides Pickering to run for that seat. He may fade into political obscurity for six years and lose to someone who has a "name". Does he want to risk not getting the appointment? And if he wants Barbour to appoint him, he'll get the appointment. The GOP poo bahs will see to that.
We'll see. The Chinese have an ancient curse for this: May you live in interesting times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)