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.

The "As Good As It Gets" Election

Jackson mayor foes win endorsements (Clarion-Ledger, May 13, 2009)

So what now, Jackson? Former Jackson Police Chief and Mississippi Commissioner of Corrections endorses Marshand Crisler; State Senator John Horhn endorses Harvey Johnson.

I admit to some ambivalence at this stage. My main concern in the first primary was to prevent Mayor Melton from being re-elected. That was doubly accomplished on Election Night. As I see it, Harvey Johnson is well versed in the analysis of municipal government. He has studied, taught and consulted on urban planning throughout his career. He served two terms as Mayor and began several projects (Convention Center, Telecommunications Center) that are just now coming to fruition. My gut tells me that he's more able to call his own shots than Councilman Crisler.

But while Harvey Johnson knows urban government in theory, he was less than artful in practice in his previous terms. His relationships with the Legislature and other metro-area mayors were strained. His own former police chief, Robert Johnson, has endorsed his opponent.

Jackson is not a self-sufficient island. Can Harvey Johnson build the support we need to lead the City forward?

Marshand Crisler is young, assertive, and obviously connected to law enforcement and the business community. The endorsement of both Sheriff McMillin and former Chief Johnson speaks volumes in his favor. Also, the consolidation of city and county law enforcement, which Crisler supports by way of re-appointing McMillin to be Chief of JPD, may be a far more efficient and effective means for addressing municipal crime. Further, Crisler is the only former City Council member to run for Mayor; that is an experience that may bring a politics of consensus-building to city government that has been sorely lacking in recent years.

But one wonders about the slightly too "well-prepared" Crisler. Does he speak his own mind, or is he a little too "connected" to business and law enforcement interests? And Kingfish at Jackson Jambalaya has raised some critical questions here and here that have yet, in my opinion, to be put to rest. We've suffered one "Lone Ranger" Mayor; would a Mayor Crisler follow the Constitution even when it's inconvenient to do so?

It's not an easy choice. The pay rate for Jackson's CEO can't be expected to draw out the "Best and the Brightest" -- and the job is a political graveyard, not a stepping-stone to higher office. So, to steal Jack Nicholson's line, this choice is "As Good As It Gets."

We have a week to decide . . .

You Crossed The Line, Kingfish

Ok, I know conservatives hate "political correctness" and all that, but it's over the line to refer to Italians as "dagos" as was done in today's Jackson Jambalaya post (which you can find here )

And it doesn't help that you claimed in a later post that "Some of my best friends are Italians. In fact, some of the best sex I've had has been with female Italians."

It just makes you sound like an ignorant cracker. Or a peckerwood. Take your pick.

Is The President Tough Enough For You Now, Kingfish?

Kingfish, the host of local blog Jackson Jambalaya, posted a rather incendiary suggestion on Sunday, titled, "Dear POTUS, Here's How a REAL Leader Dealt With Pirates." The whole post is here: http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/

His general notion is that the President should follow the example of Julius Caesar, who according to Plutarch, had pirates executed by cruxifiction. Kingfish finishes:

"Perhaps the pussy-in-chief should take some lessons from Caesar instead of finding this 'annoying' as Reuters reported. Several crosses with pirates hanging from them on the Somali coast will get their attention more quickly than will a nuanced discussion about habeas corpus or other fancy Latin lingo."

I don't think the words "Navy SEAL Snipers" can be considered "fancy Latin lingo." But I'm sure the operation (personally approved by the President) won't be enough to convince our friends on the Right. They'd rather have a Caesar: a military dictator who ruled by force. Great plan.

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.