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.

Horhn, Crisler Agree: No Offer to Endorse in Exchange for Paying Debts

The Jackson Free Press is reporting the response of both Sen. John Horhn and Councilman Marshand Crisler to the flyer that was stuck on my (and many others, I presume) car yesterday:

"I was approached by both campaigns and actively approached by the Crisler campaign," Horhn told the Jackson Free Press. "A number of offers were made by the Crisler campaign, some of which were quite lucrative. ... The fact of the matter is that the Crisler campaign fell all over itself trying to recruit me to their campaign with promises of elimination of my campaign debt and a few other things. And for them to suggest otherwise is absolutely ludicrous. They put the money on the table. The Johnson campaign has no money."

Also according to the JFP story, Councilman Crisler says the flyer is false, and claims he did not approve the flyer:

At a press conference this morning, mayoral candidate Marshand Crisler denied allegations, made in two new fliers supporting his candidacy, that his opponent Harvey Johnson bought the endorsement of state Sen. John Horhn, a former mayoral candidate. When asked about the fliers, Crisler first responded, "I denounce any negative politics and that one in particular." When the JFP's Adam Lynch and Donna Ladd asked directly whether Horhn had ever offered to sell his endorsement, Crisler replied, "No."

I'm glad to hear it. Now I want to know who was behind the flyers.

House of Hypocrisy, Part Two

Our local conservatives are singing from the same hymnbook as their heroes, the House Republicans. One particularly ugly rant was posted on the blog Jackson Jambalaya, attacking an article written by Ronni Mott of the Jackson Free Press. The title of the JJ post was "Is Ronni Mott a Liar, Hack, or Just Plain Stupid?" You can read the whole post here: http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-ronni-mott-liar-hack-or-just-plain.html

What the JJ blogger calls a "lie" is this sentence by Ms. Mott: "The [stimulus] bill’s passage proved to be highly partisan—with Obama and the Democrats on one side and the nearly the entire GOP lined up against it—despite the president’s best efforts to reach across the aisle."

Ronnie Mott's whole story is here: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/stimulus_transparency_021709/

Perhaps our local conservatives should check the actual statements of the House Republicans. Now that the stimulus bill has been enacted into law, they are falling all over themselves to tell their constituents what wonderful things have been included. One of many catalogs of these comments has been posted on Jake Tapper's blog on ABC News' website. You can find it here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/back-at-home-co.html

Here's a sampling of what House Republicans say when they get back home:

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, for instance, issued a press release last week heralding how he "won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners" by working with Democrats to pull a provision from the Senate bill that he feared would hurt American Indian and Alaska Native owned businesses.

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., issued a press release saying, “I applaud President Obama’s recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America’s future.”

Rep. Pete Hoesktra, R-Mich., "tweeting" to his homefolks: "If you know of someone thinking of buying first home, now may be the time. Stimulus incentive is very generous! Up to 8k! Check it out."

In New Jersey, Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., toured a Army Corps of Engineers construction site that will likely get stimulus dollars. "This is a classic example of a "shovel-ready' project," he said.

In Kirksville, Mo., Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., visited Truman State University where he said: “Within the stimulus package there is some Pell Grant money, which is a good thing. It helps students be able to pay for their education and that's kind of a long term stimulus effect there. I mean obviously that's not gonna provide a job in the next 120, 180 days, but the ability of someone to get an education is an economic development tool."

Sen. Kit Bond, R. Mo., heralded $2 billion in funds in the stimulus bill to jump start low income housing projects. "Bond says the $2 billion amendment is small potatoes in the nearly $800 billion package, but it will save jobs, employing more than 3,000 people in Missouri alone," the local paper reports.

So if Republicans had "no input" into the stimulus package, why are they falling all over themselves to TAKE CREDIT for it?

What happened -- just as Ronni Mott reported -- is that the Obama Administration reached out to Republicans, then included spending items and tax cuts that had their support. (The President also excised items after Republicans complained -- the family planning funds come to mind).

Only after they got much of what they wanted through private discussions, did the Republicans quail about the overall cost of the bill. Their complaint that they "never saw the language" until the day it was proposed rings hollow -- the Bush/Paulson bank bailout was only a page long but had support from both sides of the aisle.

So leave Ronni Mott alone, folks. She's dead-on right. Again.