Haley Barbour: Taking 'Village Idiot' Statewide
I've not yet said anything about Haley Barbour's alleged lack of knowledge about the Council of Conservative Citizens. Quite frankly, what is there to say? Previously, I would have thought it would be self-evident, but now there's this.
So let's recap. First Barbour tries the whole "I didn't know" defense, claiming a lack of knowledge about the organization that tarred Trent Lott and even gave Dick Gephardt a reason to explain himself for prior dealings. Now, it's this:
Barbour said in an interview Thursday that white supremacist and anti-Semitic views on the CCC site are "indefensible," but he does not want to tell any group it cannot use his picture or statements."Once you start down the slippery slope of saying 'That person can't be for me,' then where do you stop?" Barbour said. "Old segregationists? Former Ku Klux Klan like (Sen.) Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.? You know?
"Once you get into that, you spend your time doing nothing else," Barbour said. "I don't care who has my picture. My picture's in the public domain. It gets published in newspapers every day."
That's a far cry from "I do not wish to be associated with racists or racist views, that does not reflect my personal philosophy." Then again, perhaps it's not a far cry from using the stars and bars on campaign material. Worth noting ... no explanation for why Barbour was in attendance at a CCC event. And no doubt, there are others of both parties who likewise are deserving of scorn. Slight tweak here being that Barbour used to be head of the RNC, right? This is becoming a crystal clear case of showing what you're willing to profit from politically. That Barbour is essentially willing to profit from the votes of racists, and going so far as to toss a bone to them is sickening.
Go ahead ... someone try to toss out an explanation for Barbour.
NOTE: Chris Lawrence has some further local coverage and there's a few good points to cover here (all quoted references are paraphasings of arguments made ... if anyone feels I've misstated the argument, speak now or forever hold your peace):
Comments
" ahead ... someone try to toss out an explanation for Barbour."
OK, I'll give it a shot... (deep breath)
He's an idiot.
How's that? And he wouldn't get my vote, but then he's not a Texas politician. And I will not indict all Republicans because of this jackass. I think individual actions speak to individual character and I don't extrapolate. Otherwise, no Democrat would stand a chance of getting my vote until the day Al Sharpton kicks. Fair enough?
Didn't like the guy in the RNC days. Oh, wherefore art thou, Atwater! Oh, right. dammit.
Posted by: Ulysses | October 17, 2003 01:09 PM
Thanks for the link, Greg. (I really should drop by more often...) I'll try to clarify things a bit:
- The picture: the CofCC guy on the right was the emcee of the rally. No, I have no clue who had the questionable judgment as to invite that guy to emcee the rally. But I'll probably be hazarding a good guess in my next post on the topic.
- The importance of the CofCC: I think this ties to the big, underlying question implied under the "picture" paragraph. I basically agree that Barbour's dancing around when he should be in damage control mode: besides, repudiating these folks is almost costless.
- "Welcome to Mississippi.": Heh.
Posted by: Chris Lawrence | October 17, 2003 09:45 PM
Likewise, I need to frequent your site more often than I do. But its a given when news breaks out in MS that I check in. Nice work ... keep it up.
Posted by: Greg Wythe | October 18, 2003 11:44 AM
William Lord, the m.c., is the field director of the CofCC, and used to be Trent Lott's campaign manager. Although I understand that there is some effort to try and make a separation between the rally, which is sponsored by a group raising money for buses for private (segregated) schools, and the bbq which is sponsored by the CofCC, it used to be together and is now apparently separated only by a wall of words. The people putting on the rally are either CofCC or have long-standing ties with them, and whether they choose to call it separate or not, it seems to be more a matter of semantics (tongue-footsie) than anything else.
The reason that Barbour doesn't distance himself from these folks (which may look easy from another place) is that he doesn't want to risk turning off those voters (who may well vote for John Thomas Cripps instead, the League of the South man for governor). Although Cripps doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, this is a very tight race between the two front runners, and if enough votes are siphoned off to third-party candidates, it could throw the race into the Democratic controlled legislature for a tie-breaking decision, just as it did last time.
So, the answer in a nutshell is that it's politically expedient to pander to these guys. And Haley knows well that Musgrove, and many, many other politicians, Democratic, black, white, etc., can't afford to kick too much, because they've done their own pandering to the CofCC. I have an editorial on this subject if you care to read it:
http://www.mississippipolitical.com/houseed.htm
I think the people of Mississippi have got to take a stand and make it politically disastrous for a politician in order to cut the power from the cofcc; they thrive off the pseudo-respectibility they get from the appearance of the political powers-that-be at their functions, and even have the nerve to claim to be "mainstream" It's time to let everyone know that the mainstream and the cofcc don't run in the same river.
Posted by: C.W. | October 24, 2003 12:36 PM