Voting For Mayor

Like most of the people I have spoken or corresponded with on the issue, I have had a difficult time deciding how to cast my vote for Mayor of Jackson. I do not see either of the Democratic candidates as a disaster; nor do I see either one as a savior.

The two men have far more in common than their partisans will admit. The JFP's excellent analysis of the two candidates is worth your time; the Clarion-Ledger's Sunday piece is also helpful.

I detest the caricatures that have been cast like stones in this campaign (and plastered on my car): Marshand Crisler as the tool of business interests, who will favor the white community, and Harvey Johnson as overly race-conscious, who will favor the African-American community.

In my opinion, both men are Democrats in the national sense of the word -- they plan to govern as liberals (meaning they believe in the power of government to lead problem-solving in the community) but from a pro-economic development, pro-law enforcement perspective.

I previously posted my basic thoughts about the Johnson/Crisler runoff; I will not repeat myself here. I will simply state the two central reasons why my vote in the run-off is for Marshand Crisler (Of course, I don't speak for Matt or any other resident or visitor in my World).

First, Councilman Crisler seems more willing than Mayor Johnson to approach law enforcement from a consolidated, county/city model. He may not re-appoint Sheriff McMillin as police chief, but he will certainly require the JPD to work with the Hinds County Sheriff's Office to minimize turf conflict and duplicative efforts and secure the most efficient, effective crime prevention program for the City. Given Robert Johnson's endorsement, one wonders if the former Chief might be re-appointed to that post in a Crisler Administration; that would be a welcome move.

Second, Crisler is more likely to maintain the momentum for business and economic development in the City. Harvey Johnson can rightly take credit for the Convention Center complex. But government projects can only initiate economic development; to complete the job, the private sector must be engaged and motivated. That's the secret of every national Democrat's success, from Wilson through FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton, and it's the model of the Obama Administration (Geithner-haters notwithstanding).

The small number of non-residential permits granted during the Johnson Administration, as compared to the Melton term (an eight-fold increase), is an objective indicator of Mr. Johnson's lack of appreciation of the role of the business community in building Jackson. And it's clear that the business community returns the favor.

One other point: some have said that Crisler will be "Frank, the Sequel." The question whether Deputy Crisler's "took a bullet" encounter actually happened during an invalid house raid is fodder for those concerns. See the posts on Jackson Jambalaya, which first brought these issues to light. But it's worth noting that Crisler was 25 years old then, a relatively new deputy, and unlike others in his unit, was not charged with wrongdoing at the time.

And unlike the late Mayor, Marshand Crisler has experience in local government, both as a Councilman and in the Sheriff's Office. Frank Melton, all too often, thought running government was like running a medium-sized business -- the top gun gives the orders and watches as the squad obeys. Crisler has been overseeing city government for eight years and knows better than that.

My vote is for Marshand Crisler. I hope he prevails in the runoff and in the general election. But I won't be upset if Harvey Johnson is the victor instead. Even if this is the "As Good As It Gets" election, Jackson will take great strides forward under either Democrat.

If At First You Don't Secede . . . (Part III, the "Lily Whites")

This Sunday, the Clarion-Ledger interviewed Wirt Yerger in its "Sunday Morning With" series. You can find it here.

One part of the interview with the senior Mr. Yerger caught the attention of one of my readers:

Question: For our younger readers, explain the conflicts between the "Lily Whites" and "Black-and-tan" factions of the GOP back in the 1960s.

Answer: In the first place, we weren't the "Lily Whites." I came into it after a lot of those battles had been fought. In 1956, it was all over and the "Black-and-Tans" had in large part faded away. Essentially, Mississippi had a puppet party controlled by interests in Washington, D.C., with no discernable purpose in helping advance policies in Mississippi. I understand a lot of people wanted to make race a defining issue for their own political purposes, but to me, principles have always been more important than race. I have always advocated a colorblind society. We need that badly still.

The problem, as my reader points out, is that a contemporaneous article in the Clarion-Ledger documents that the battle between the "Lily Whites" and the "Black and Tans" was still raging as late as December 1959.

In 1956 both factions of the Mississippi GOP sent representatives to the national convention. In the December 1959 C-L piece, Mr. Yerger himself was quoted in his role as state party chair and as a member of the "Lily Whites" on the national party's decision that year to allow Mississippi's 1960 convention delegates to be selected by the state party chair (again, Mr Yerger). He said then that the national GOP's ruling assured the "Lily Whites" of recognition as the true representatives of the Republican Party in Mississippi.

The December 1959 Clarion-Ledger article is here.

If your eyes are better than mine, you can see it above.

Why should we care? Because the history of a group sets the course for the group's development and future. It's especially important because the leadership of the Mississippi Republican Party and its officeholders puts a high premium on the concept of "party loyalty." A long-time member of the State GOP has a lot better chance of being nominated for leadership than does a recent convert. Kirk Fordice and Haley Barbour are the most recent, obvious, examples.

There's no need to witch-hunt: a lot of people made bad decisions in the 1950s and 1960s. But truth is never a bad thing, and the Mississippi Republicans have certainly not "always advocated a colorblind society." Shame on the Clarion-Ledger for letting the Republicans get away with their revisionist history.

Dr. West Bites Back

When we last visited, I was astonished by the chutzpah of Dr. Stephen Hayne and Dr. Michael West, the Fabulous Forensic Fabricators who videotaped autopsies that, according to recognized experts in the field, committed "forensic fraud" by, among other things, pressing a defendant's bite mold into a deceased child's chin so as to make "bite marks."

You can see the video for yourself at:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/131527.html

And my previous post is:

http://jimcraigsworld.blogspot.com/2009/02/quacks-with-bite-forensic-fabrications.html

Now Dr. West has surpassed himself. Dr. West gave a whining screed of an interview with the Clarion-Ledger's Jerry Mitchell published here:

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009902280349

Give the poor guy a shoulder to cry on, and who knows what you might learn:

I've exonerated three or four times as many people as I've convicted," he said. "I'm a little old dentist from Hattiesburg, and I've got the top lawyers in the country coming after me. The New York Times wrote an editorial on me. Why? They can't stand the evidence."

Yep, that's it. The Gray Lady bothered to write an article about a Hattiesburg dentist because they "couldn't stand the evidence." I'm sure the editors in Manhattan spend all day worrying about Mississippi defendants.

But in any event, which exonerations would you be talking about, Dr. West? Not Kennedy Brewer and Levon Brooks. After spending more than 15 years each in prison for crimes that they didn't commit, Mr. Brewer and Mr. Brooks were set free in hearings. The District Attorney personally apologized to them.

But Dr. West not only didn't exonerate them -- he still thinks they were involved in the crimes! Jerry Mitchell reports:

In each case, West testified he found those men's bite marks on the victims.

More than a year ago, DNA identified the real culprit, who told authorities he strangled, sexually assaulted and killed two, 3-year-old girls. He said he never bit them.

West - who said he hasn't practiced forensic dentistry in three years - stands by his testimony he gave in those trials, saying the two men must have bitten the girls before they were killed.

Oh, well. I guess we'll find those exonerated prisoners some other time. Or maybe we need to use Dr. West's famous blue light to find them. You know, the one he uses to see evidence nobody else can see. (Yes, he really says that).

But the most interesting thing about the West interview is that he revealed this stunning secret:

He said, "I'm personally opposed to the death penalty."

Shut my mouth. All this time the Periodontal Prevaricator has been sending prisoners to death row for crimes they didn't commit, he was really against capital punishment deep in his heart.

What's next? Dick Cheney is "personally opposed" to gun control? Rush Limbaugh is "personally opposed" to prescription drug abuse?

In the world where Michael West's blue light shines, anything is possible.