Friday, September 7, 2007
John Eaves' New Ad "Ideas"
"I've got so many ideas to move Mississippi forward I've got to talk fast"
- Raise Teacher Pay
- Cut Grocery Tax
- Health Insurance for Children
- (Push Companies to) Pay Claims
- Cut (Reconstruction) Red Tape
- Get Tough With Employers (Who Hire Illegals)
- Create Jobs (By Investing In Mississippi Companies)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, it's official: John Eaves is jumping on the anti-immigrant bandwagon, and Haley Barbour isn't.
ReplyDeleteBarring some major screwup on his part, Barbour gets my vote in November.
He attacks the problem (companies that employee illegal immigrants), and not the symptom (illegal immigration). I don't see how that is the "anti-immigrant bandwagon" as you so term it.
ReplyDeleteWhen employers are forced to find legal labor then they will force congress to come up with a solution; until then, the debate (and right-wing immigrant bashing) will continue.
What Eaves advocates is a necessary step. Do you see another solution that isn't specifically punitive to immigrants?
John, my issue isn't with his policy. My main issue isn't even with Phil Bryant's policy. It's with the way they have presented the arrival of Latino migrant workers as a problem that needs to be solved. In Bryant's case, this was two items out of a 33-point agenda. In Eaves' case, it was one item out of a seven-point agenda. One of the seven things Eaves wants to tell us (with Latinos walking in the background on the video) is that he's going to deal with this influx of immigrants on the coast.
ReplyDeleteUntil Eaves brought the topic up, the gubernatorial race, at least, did not involve this dynamic. Now it does.
"Bryant's case, this was two items out of a 33-point agenda. In Eaves' case, it was one item out of a seven-point agenda."
ReplyDeleteYou're assuming what is his agenda is off of 1 ad?
If you want to look for an immigration emphasis look to the ad Bryant did exclusively on the topic of immigration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eiuTFVIORY
Bryant has emphasized immigration substantially more than Jamie Franks, no question. That's one of the reasons why I still intend to vote for Franks.
ReplyDeleteBut Eaves has emphasized immigration, now, substantially more than Barbour has--and, damningly, has even made the first serious move on the issue. I recognize that he hasn't been able to mount a real candidacy yet and is desperate for issues he can claim as his own, but he lost this potential voter with that one. And given the state's growing Latino population, I'm quite certain I'm not the only person who will be unable to support Eaves from here on in.
Which is fine; he no doubt expects to gain more than enough anti-immigrant fence-sitters to make up for the support he'll lose, much like Ronnie Shows did when he pandered to anti-Mexican sentiment in the merged district race against Pickering. It's probably the same gamble Eaves made on school prayer, Bible classes, abortion, gay rights, the Confederate flag, and whatever he decides to sell out on next week.
But at the end of the day, he panders and he has nothing to show us in the way of qualifications, so the only point of his candidacy is to fill up the second slot on the ballot.
My one consolation is that I know that in November, he'll get creamed so badly in the race against Barbour that we might get a more credible candidate in 2011. People will look at his numbers, realize that the party would have been much better off with a serious contender like Frazier or Blackmon, and potentially go that route next time around. I hope so, anyway. If the Eaves candidacy is the future of the Mississippi Democratic Party, it's a pretty bleak future.
Hey tom head:
ReplyDeleteWell it's official, in November you get my vote to MOVE OUT OF MISSISSIPPI! Barring some major screwup, people like you will continue to ruin this state!
Oh, knock it off, Micah. You're not fooling anybody.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone see Laura Hipp's blog? Apparently, it isn't even an original bad ad. I can't post a link, but I'm sure it isn't necessary. Looks like Eaves' ad is much like his candidacy, just plain strange.
ReplyDeleteTom:
ReplyDeleteDespite his kicking 65,000 children off their healthcare, killing public health programs, and possibly engaging in corruption you might support Barbour because he has run a campaign that hasn't spoken to hot button issues?
Tom, and I realize you're only putting this much effort into it because you linked to this post, this is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteLiberals have often been said to have been fans of a circular firing squad and often as in this case I'd have to agree.
Because you disagree with the tactics of one of the Democrats you will leave open publicly the option of supporting his incumbent even though that Democrat likely agrees with you on far more issues than the Republican.
And when someone (me) attempts to defend that Democrat they've turned "a blind eye" to "racism, theocracy, and homophobia."
That's the circular firing squad if I've ever seen it.
It is unreasonable to expect a candidate that agrees with you on everything (unless you can afford to buy one like many Republicans) and getting so upset over the style of the politician while failing to take the time to study the substance is irresponsible.
Send the campaign an e-mail with your questions before calling the policies bunk.
Two examples of plans you questioned whether they'd work:
The "Kid Care" plan is based on a plan in Illinois that has been successful and is going to save money in the long run.
Biblical Literacy classes may not accomplish everything he says they will, but they are constitutional and have been implemented without challenge in number of districts (none in MS) in the last few years.
If all you read on state politics are Republican views; sure you'll get the opinion that Haley is acceptable while John is not, but don't rely solely on what is available online or think that Haley wouldn't run a far worse (bloody shirt) campaign if he was behind at this stage.
John,
ReplyDelete1. I am not a Democrat. I am an independent who usually votes Democratic but has no party loyalty.
2. Certainly if he is not going to stand by lesbians and gay men, feminists, non-Christians, Christians from minority denominations, opponents to the Confederate flag, first-generation Latino immigrants, etc. etc. etc., then I am under no obligation to stand by him.
3. It's not about who agrees with me. Sometimes it's just about who will do the least damage.
4. "Bible classes to teach kids right from wrong" are not biblical literacy classes. Biblical literacy classes teach Bible content in a religiously neutral way. Look up Lemon v. Kurtzman; there is a set of standards that any such proposal must meet, according to Supreme Court precedent.
5. Eaves' campaign is its own circular firing squad. By attacking core Democratic demographics in an effort to appeal to crossover voters, he is whittling down his own base.
6. If "Kid Care" is something he believes in, that should be the centerpiece of his agenda--not something he casually mentions as part of a commercial whose main purpose, let us admit, was to drop in the bit about immigration.
7. If "Kid Care" is something he plans on implementing, then he should revise his platform so that it's mentioned there somewhere. Maybe he can stick it in the empty space between the paragraph where he attacks casino gambling and the paragraph where he attacks gay families.