The Democratic Party is essentially weak as my kitten, but it needn't be that way. Indeed, with the right platform, they may be able to make inroads to the Republican monopoly. In fact, an article in today's Jackson CLARION-LEDGER, page 2B, could help galvanize Democratic support.
I'm not a Democrat, but my opinion of the Rankin County GOP is unprintable. In fact, I seriously considered becoming a Democrat back in 2000. I went to the state Democratic Party convention in Jackson that year. I just wanted to observe what was going on. While there were your flaming liberals, I met a lot of conservatives who hated the country club wing of the GOP. If it had not been for a former Rankin County Democratic official who cursed and yelled at me when I was at the convention, humiliating me in front of a lot of folks, I just might have switched. Thanks to this jackass of a sea hag "lady", I decided I wouldn't switch. I would have hated to see her at Rankin County Democratic Executive Committee meetings and having her cursing me in the crudest terms.
Nevertheless, the Democrats are not hopeless in Rankin County despite the demographics. Let us assume the Democrats would nominate social conservatives (i.e., pro-life), otherwise they wouldn't stand a chance. Here is what they should propose and I believe they would be winning issues:
1. The article I referenced in the first paragraph referred to development in Castlewoods. There are a lot of people who are tired of all the development in Rankin County---including me. If I were a Democrat, I would say this: "From Florence to Flowood, from Pearl to Pelahatchie, we are becoming a concrete jungle." I would point out that all of this development has raised our taxes and destroyed the environment. Look at Airport Road. It used to be tree-rich. Now all the trees are being chopped down in the name of "development." Do we want a concrete jungle and traffic gridlock? Do we want to destroy the natural habitat in the name of "development?"
2. Taxes have gone up under GOP rule. I thought the GOP was the party of lower taxes and less government. That hasn't been the case in Rankin County. This unrestrained development is raising taxes and causing traffic congestion. Follow the scenario: We need a good tax base, so we allow more development. Development comes and there is more traffic congestion. So we raise taxes for infrastructure. Plus because more people move in, so more schools have to be built. So we raise taxes to build the schools. To pay for the taxes, we need more development. Notice the vicious cycle? Has the GOP done anything to stop the cycle? Do you believe in Martians?
3. Emergency bidding has cost the county money. Why can't we accept the lowest bids at ALL times, including the purchase of vehicles? I thought the GOP was conservative when it came to spending those coins.
4. Does the Rankin County Board of Supervisors give money to non-government organizations? If so, why? Does it give money to the Rankin County Chamber of Commerce? If so, why? If business is so great in Rankin County, why can't the Chamber of Commerce support itself and not get a dime from the government?
5. Why not zero-based budgeting? That has always been a Republican mantra, but they sure as blue blazes don't follow it. The Democrats would be wise to implement zero-based budgeting. They should turn the tables on the GOP and make them look like big spenders.
6. Have impact fees. If we are going to have unrestrained "cowboy" development in Rankin County, shouldn't some of these developers pay some impact fees to finance the infrastructure where their developments are located? If there are impact fees, shouldn't they be raised?
The Democrats in this county may be surprised at the disenchantment over all this development. The "concrete jungle" is a real possibility in Rankin County and this present bunch of supervisors doesn't even care. If the Democrats have any sense, they would address these issues and nominate candidates. Even in Castlewoods, Crossgates and the Reservoir, there is a lot more disenchantment with all this development than you think.
If I were the Democrats, I would come up with a thorough platform on how they would deal with county matters. People are tired of just the "Development Voice" as propagated by the Republican Party. They are looking for an alternative. Will the Democrats step up to the plate and provide the alternative? If they do, I'd be more than willing to help the Democratic nominee in the election (so long as that individual is conservative on social issues). My disgust with the county GOP is overwhelming. And believe me, I am not alone.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Monday, November 27, 2006
Why Richard Redfern Lost
I was very much surprised Richard Redfern lost. When the candidates qualified, I would have given Redfern the edge in being elected Chancery Judge. He is well-known and is a very likeable guy. I've talked to him before and found him to be a very gracious person. So why did he lose?
Here are the reasons I believe he lost. I've talked to a lot of people and here is what I found:
1. The fact he misrepresented Dan Fairly's record. He was cited by some State Supreme Court committee for that when he stated Fairly was never a judge (He was judge pro-tem for the city of Flowood). Earlier, he was admonished for using "Judge" preceding his name, letting voters think he was the incumbent.
2. A few long-time Rankin Countians remembered he ran as a REPUBLICAN for Justice Court in 2003. He was appointed as Justice Court Judge and later narrowly defeated Charles Tillman for the post. That special election was nonpartisan. So it was going to be interesting if he was going to run as a Democrat in 2003. After all, he was once chairman of the Rankin County Democratic Party in 1996 (He graciously invited me to the state Democratic convention as his guest.). He ran for DA in 1991 as a Democrat, losing by over a hundred votes to John Kitchens. Imagine the shock of a lot of Democrats when he ran as a Republican in 2003. In my opinion, I think he would have been elected if he had run as a Democrat. A lot of Democrats are angry over party-switchers and may have taken it out on Redfern at the polls.
3. It was "time for a change." Richard Redfern has been in politics in Rankin County for years. Dan Fairly was the "new kid on the block." People were willing to give Fairly the benefit of the doubt.
4. Dan Fairly wisely appeared on talk radio. In a low-profile race such as Chancery Judge, that was one way to get the message out. On at least three occaisions, Fairly appeared on WJNT's "Kim Wade Show", which airs Monday through Friday 5-6PM. Conservatives listen to that show and is the leading drive-by talk show in the area. Fairly came off as a staunch conservative whom conservatives could easily vote for. Redfern did advertise on WJNT, but did not appear on the show (at least when I listened to it, which is every day except Wednesday).
5. Fairly was a formidable opponent. He was well-funded and had plenty of advertising. I have at least four mailouts he sent out.
6. One of Redfern's fliers it stated the churches Fairly and Redfern went to--Redfern is a Baptist and Fairly a Presbyterian. This is not as innocuous as it seems. A few people felt it was to get fellow Baptists to vote for Redfern. What was the purpose of bringing out the denominations of the two candidates?
This is not to knock Richard Redfern. I believe he would have been a good judge. He is fair and honest. And as a person, I happen to like him. But this was not his year.
Here are the reasons I believe he lost. I've talked to a lot of people and here is what I found:
1. The fact he misrepresented Dan Fairly's record. He was cited by some State Supreme Court committee for that when he stated Fairly was never a judge (He was judge pro-tem for the city of Flowood). Earlier, he was admonished for using "Judge" preceding his name, letting voters think he was the incumbent.
2. A few long-time Rankin Countians remembered he ran as a REPUBLICAN for Justice Court in 2003. He was appointed as Justice Court Judge and later narrowly defeated Charles Tillman for the post. That special election was nonpartisan. So it was going to be interesting if he was going to run as a Democrat in 2003. After all, he was once chairman of the Rankin County Democratic Party in 1996 (He graciously invited me to the state Democratic convention as his guest.). He ran for DA in 1991 as a Democrat, losing by over a hundred votes to John Kitchens. Imagine the shock of a lot of Democrats when he ran as a Republican in 2003. In my opinion, I think he would have been elected if he had run as a Democrat. A lot of Democrats are angry over party-switchers and may have taken it out on Redfern at the polls.
3. It was "time for a change." Richard Redfern has been in politics in Rankin County for years. Dan Fairly was the "new kid on the block." People were willing to give Fairly the benefit of the doubt.
4. Dan Fairly wisely appeared on talk radio. In a low-profile race such as Chancery Judge, that was one way to get the message out. On at least three occaisions, Fairly appeared on WJNT's "Kim Wade Show", which airs Monday through Friday 5-6PM. Conservatives listen to that show and is the leading drive-by talk show in the area. Fairly came off as a staunch conservative whom conservatives could easily vote for. Redfern did advertise on WJNT, but did not appear on the show (at least when I listened to it, which is every day except Wednesday).
5. Fairly was a formidable opponent. He was well-funded and had plenty of advertising. I have at least four mailouts he sent out.
6. One of Redfern's fliers it stated the churches Fairly and Redfern went to--Redfern is a Baptist and Fairly a Presbyterian. This is not as innocuous as it seems. A few people felt it was to get fellow Baptists to vote for Redfern. What was the purpose of bringing out the denominations of the two candidates?
This is not to knock Richard Redfern. I believe he would have been a good judge. He is fair and honest. And as a person, I happen to like him. But this was not his year.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Why I'm Voting for Harold Taylor
I will be the first to tell you I don't agree with the Libertarian Party (LP) on a lot of things. Unfortunately, I cannot vote for the Republican or Democratic candidates. Senator Trent Lott and State Rep. Erik Fleming leave a lot to be desired.
Sen. Lott is no conservative. He can spend those Federal dollars like it's going out of style. That $700 million railroad crossing near a gambling casino is just too much. He may be conservative on the social issues, but not on economic issues. He'll bankrupt the government for Katrina relief efforts.
Erik Fleming, like Lott, is pro-life and pro-gun. He's also in favor of pulling out of Iraq ASAP, which I agree. But he wants to spend money for universal socialized medicine and other big government schemes. I can't vote for him.
Harold Taylor wants to reduce government and get out of Iraq. I'm not in favor of legalizing hard drugs and I'm vehemently opposed to abortion. But his positives far outweigh his negatives. He's far better than Lott or Fleming.
Taylor doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Key West in July. But at least he's got principles and is willing to stand up for them. Lott will sell out his beliefs for Federal dollars. Plus his dive during the Clinton impeachment hearings was despicable. Fleming would give voting rights to convicted criminals. If you are a principled conservative, you're only vote is for Taylor.
As for Congress in the Third District, I'm not voting for Pickering or Giles. My box turtle Pokey Jo has more brains than the two of them put together. I'll just leave it blank.
How sad this is the best we can do. I think Jim Hightower said it for me thirteen years ago when he said, "A third party? It would be great if we had a second party." I guess when God created politicians, He created many of them to be lamebrained idiots.
Sen. Lott is no conservative. He can spend those Federal dollars like it's going out of style. That $700 million railroad crossing near a gambling casino is just too much. He may be conservative on the social issues, but not on economic issues. He'll bankrupt the government for Katrina relief efforts.
Erik Fleming, like Lott, is pro-life and pro-gun. He's also in favor of pulling out of Iraq ASAP, which I agree. But he wants to spend money for universal socialized medicine and other big government schemes. I can't vote for him.
Harold Taylor wants to reduce government and get out of Iraq. I'm not in favor of legalizing hard drugs and I'm vehemently opposed to abortion. But his positives far outweigh his negatives. He's far better than Lott or Fleming.
Taylor doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Key West in July. But at least he's got principles and is willing to stand up for them. Lott will sell out his beliefs for Federal dollars. Plus his dive during the Clinton impeachment hearings was despicable. Fleming would give voting rights to convicted criminals. If you are a principled conservative, you're only vote is for Taylor.
As for Congress in the Third District, I'm not voting for Pickering or Giles. My box turtle Pokey Jo has more brains than the two of them put together. I'll just leave it blank.
How sad this is the best we can do. I think Jim Hightower said it for me thirteen years ago when he said, "A third party? It would be great if we had a second party." I guess when God created politicians, He created many of them to be lamebrained idiots.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Knox Ross for Mississippi State Auditor?
I have talked to my political contacts in Rankin County and I have been informed Knox Ross is thinking of running for State Auditor on the Republican ticket next year. As a CPA and a mayor of a small town (Pelahatchie), he has the credentials to be an excellent State Auditor.
Here are the things working in his favor:
1. He is a CPA. The last time a CPA was State Auditor was when Hamp King held the post. He left in 1984. Since then, ambitious politicians have served in the post. Ross knows what constitutes a good audit and would be very effective as a State Auditor.
2. He has electoral experience. He is in his second term as mayor. Being a mayor of a small town (1100 people ain't big.), he would have hands-on experience on city financial matters. He would already understand a lot of the municipal financial and other governmental sector financial audits.
3. Being a CPA in Pearl, I know people who know him. They think very highly of him. Unlike the extremely arrogant pretty-boy Phil Bryant, Ross would be down to earth and easy to talk with. People tell me he is very polite and humble. They also tell me he knows his taxes and accounting.
4. If he is elected State Auditor, I think he will stay in that position and not use it as a
stepping stone for higher office. Hamp King never ran for higher office and he was one of the most respected public officials the state has ever had.
Nevertheless, he faces hurdles. First of all, he has no name recognition. Even in Rankin County, not many know him. Pelahatchie is on the far eastern tip of the county, far away from the urban areas. I know who he is, but I'm a political and accounting junkie.
Secondly, he will be running against a "name" candidate in the GOP primary: State Sen. Stacy Pickering. He is related to Congressman Chip Pickering and the Congressman's father, Charles Pickering. The Pickerings have money and contacts. Look for them to use them to help Stacy. And don't think Stacy is going to stay on for more than a term or two as State Auditor. He'll have other political ambitions.
Third, Ross is going to need money. Ross, like me, is a small-town CPA. He doesn't have the coins to finance his own campaign. He's going to need some big donors to help him. At least Ross is from GOP-rich in votes Rankin County. Rankin County casts between 15% to 25% of the GOP vote in a state Republican primary.
When I vote in the primary, I'll definitely vote for Ross (if Ross runs). If the State Attorney General's office requires an attorney to serve in that post, shouldn't the State Auditor's position require a CPA to serve in that post? Ross would not only know what is going on as a State Auditor when it comes to audits, he also wouldn't use it as a political post.
Ross is not a pretty-boy blow-dried politician. But he is intelligent, hard-working, honorable and has the qualifications to be an excellent State Auditor. He would be great for the state if he was elected to that post.
Here are the things working in his favor:
1. He is a CPA. The last time a CPA was State Auditor was when Hamp King held the post. He left in 1984. Since then, ambitious politicians have served in the post. Ross knows what constitutes a good audit and would be very effective as a State Auditor.
2. He has electoral experience. He is in his second term as mayor. Being a mayor of a small town (1100 people ain't big.), he would have hands-on experience on city financial matters. He would already understand a lot of the municipal financial and other governmental sector financial audits.
3. Being a CPA in Pearl, I know people who know him. They think very highly of him. Unlike the extremely arrogant pretty-boy Phil Bryant, Ross would be down to earth and easy to talk with. People tell me he is very polite and humble. They also tell me he knows his taxes and accounting.
4. If he is elected State Auditor, I think he will stay in that position and not use it as a
stepping stone for higher office. Hamp King never ran for higher office and he was one of the most respected public officials the state has ever had.
Nevertheless, he faces hurdles. First of all, he has no name recognition. Even in Rankin County, not many know him. Pelahatchie is on the far eastern tip of the county, far away from the urban areas. I know who he is, but I'm a political and accounting junkie.
Secondly, he will be running against a "name" candidate in the GOP primary: State Sen. Stacy Pickering. He is related to Congressman Chip Pickering and the Congressman's father, Charles Pickering. The Pickerings have money and contacts. Look for them to use them to help Stacy. And don't think Stacy is going to stay on for more than a term or two as State Auditor. He'll have other political ambitions.
Third, Ross is going to need money. Ross, like me, is a small-town CPA. He doesn't have the coins to finance his own campaign. He's going to need some big donors to help him. At least Ross is from GOP-rich in votes Rankin County. Rankin County casts between 15% to 25% of the GOP vote in a state Republican primary.
When I vote in the primary, I'll definitely vote for Ross (if Ross runs). If the State Attorney General's office requires an attorney to serve in that post, shouldn't the State Auditor's position require a CPA to serve in that post? Ross would not only know what is going on as a State Auditor when it comes to audits, he also wouldn't use it as a political post.
Ross is not a pretty-boy blow-dried politician. But he is intelligent, hard-working, honorable and has the qualifications to be an excellent State Auditor. He would be great for the state if he was elected to that post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)