First David Blount, now John Reeves. The Jackson Free Press just flip-flopped on backing a candidate when he did something on one thing they didn't like. The JFP has supported State Representative John Reeves rather strongly as shown in the following thread, http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=12176_0_9_0_C. In fact, here are comments by Donna Ladd:
"He seems to be the Lincoln Chafee of the local GOP. Hopefully, he won't meet the same fate because he dares to vote against Mr. Lobbyist....
Also, can I tell y'all how classy Reeves was during this whole thing. It was such a contrast to some of our other "leaders," especially from the GOP, but not only. ....
He really came across to us as a class act. I'd certainly call him a leader for the New Mississippi..."
This summer the paper endorsed John Reeves:
House, District 71/Republican — John Reeves. We enthusiastically endorse John Reeves. We like Reeves because he thinks independently of political dogma and cares passionately about the city of Jackson. He helped orchestrate a $2 million one-time legislative gift to the city, helped change a law so the city could make money off traffic tickets, fought to keep the King Edward project going, and even spearheaded a bill to bring recess back to schools and take trans fats out of the cafeteria.... http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/print.php?id=14411_0_27_0\
"We like Adrienne Wooten, but our board still voted for John Reeves due to his devotion, over all, to the city and for his seniority in the House—and because he’s a Republican willing to defy King Barbour. (We encourage Wooten to keep at politics, though, and look forward to endorsing her in the future.)" http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=15336_0_7_0_C
The JFP also got a little miffed when someone accused it of being liberal: "Did they mention, per chance, that we also endorsed John Reeves? Didn't think so. GOP schmucks..." http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=15358_0_67_0_C
Soooooo...... after the lovefest with John Reeves, the JFP threw a tantrum today and endorsed his opponent in the middle of the election itself when it discovered the Republican, gasp, might actually vote for Jeff Smith, who is trying to replace Billy McCoy as the Princeps Senatus of the House. Mr. Smith is backed by Governor Barbour, who is a Republican. It publicly backstabbed Mr. Reeves in headlines at the top of its website:EDITORIAL: Vote Today for Adrienne Wooten
Now that the re-vote for the District 71 race has officially turned into a referendum on House Speaker Billy McCoy, the JFP publicly urges voters in that district to return to the polls today and cast your vote for challenger Adrienne Wooten. The JFP endorsed Reeves in the general election due to his strong recent support of Jackson and despite his conservative record, and we liked that he has been willing to challenge Gov. Haley Barbour, which most Republicans are afraid to do. We believed a strong incumbent could help Jackson get back on her financial feet after a disastrous two years under a fiscally inept mayor. However, we are dismayed to see that Reeves is, essentially, promising his vote to fellow Republicans against House Speaker Billy McCoy, who is an excellent representative of the people's interests against corporations, and who provides a check and a balance for Barbour's too-vast influence on the Mississippi Senate.
If you live in District 71, please go to the polls today and vote for Adrienne Wooten for the House of Representatives. We support change and progressive thinking and believe that Wooten can provide that for Jackson, as well as help ensure that Gov. Barbour, and the special interests he serves, will not gain control of the House. The polls are open to 7 p.m.; spread the word.http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=15752_0_27_0_C
Once again when a candidate doesn't vote the right way on one issue, Madame DeLadd stitches the name of Mr. Reeves on her quilt while issuing a fatwah against the apostate, hoping a jihad by her followers will swamp Mr. Reeves at the polls. It shows a lack of maturity as since she can't get her way with everything, she publicly backstabs her so-called "leader for the new Mississippi." Opposing someone who has worked very hard to support Jackson in the legislature because he opposes someone who looks out for North Mississippi while ignoring Jackson shows that when it comes down to it, its not about supporting Jackson but feeding her hatred for Barbour.
Such treatment of so-called JFP allies is fast becoming the norm. First it was David Blount who saw his endorsement rescinded. Now former JFP paramour John Reeves sees his endorsement taken away as well in the fatwah. One can only imagine the message this sends to future candidates. Unfortunately, the old saying about being here today and gone tomorrow applies to JFP endorsements as well.
17 comments:
And you are surprised? ha ha. JFP looks foolish once again.
she doesn't realize how much this stuff cheapens her endorsements. Don't bother me. However, she is the one trying to be taken seriously as a newspaper. Keep rescinding endorsements and candidates will just blow them off for their precious interviews.
Of course, Juan Williams is not radical enough for her so what do you expect. It reminds me of when Friedeman bashed Cochran in one of his CL columns, saying he received a conservative rating from the American Conservative Union (like who cares who they are) of ONLY 80%. There are just some people who if you don't vote their way on every issue, will throw you under the bus.
You nailed it. Lack of maturity. Flip-flopping an endorsement right in the middle of the day while the polls are open. LMAO. You can't make this stuff up.
That is not covering the news, its trying to be the news.
just like on election day for the D.A. when it published a story on the website saying Smith supporters were stealing her magazines then when you read the actual story, there is nothing to it.
I love Donna, and I love the JFP, but the swap in endorsements bothered me. The first editorial endorsing them was tough and likely cost a few friends--but John Reeves has been a longtime advocate for the City, as well as an investor.
Further, in my mind, there was NEVER any doubt that he would NOT vote for Billy McCoy and vote for Rep. Smith. And I disagree that the election "officially turned into a referendum" on the Speaker's race. It did no such thing. It was still about who would best serve Jax. Nothing changed.
Again, I have a ton of respect for the JFP in general and Donna in particular, but this disappointed me. Coupled with the jagged edge rubbed against Sen. David Blount (how I love writing that! Such a great guy--), it may make candidates nervous about even the slightest misstep. Instead, the endorsement of the paper--which I take very seriously--should look at a range of issues, and pick the best person from that range (heck, JaJam's poll currently has 14 issues in its range).
That's what the JFP did the first time, and they should have stuck to it. Leave single-issue voting to the Dobsons and the brainless.
That was a good comment. I can definitely respect your opinion as a defender of the JFP. I read her defense of the flip-flop and I'm sorry, it didn't hold water. She needs to be careful as it makes her out to be an idealogue who only votes for someone who is "pure". It reminds me of Emily's List fighting Senator Landrieau in the last election because although she is completely pro-choice, she was against some abortion procedures. When you start turning on your allies in this fashion, it will come back to haunt you.
See my post on Juan Williams a couple of Friday's ago. I think you are going to start seeing more of the same. Feel free to comment again. That was very well written and thoughtful.
Considering that I withdrew endorsements for John Arthur Eaves and Jamie Franks, I'd be one to talk. But the big mystery to me all along was why the JFP was endorsing Reeves anyway, since (a) he's a Republican and the JFP is a Democratic paper, and (b) his support of Smith was not exactly a secret.
Further, in my mind, there was NEVER any doubt that he would NOT vote for Billy McCoy and vote for Rep. Smith. And I disagree that the election "officially turned into a referendum" on the Speaker's race. It did no such thing. It was still about who would best serve Jax. Nothing changed.
The mid-election day flip-flop smacked of opportunism. As if Ladd was desperate for an excuse. McCoy continuing as Speaker was being used as a campaign issue well before the general in November. McCoy himself was pushing the issue by funding favored Democrats with VPAC money. McCoy's Speakership was not some new blip on the political radar. Neither Ladd nor David Hampton made anything resembling a case for McCoy based on a detailing of what he accomplished as Speaker. In fact, House Democrats have very little to show legislatively for the last term. Instead both Ladd and Hampton used the tired argument of needing balance versus Barbour.
Half-hearted, half-baked and pressure from Babs.
... it will come back to haunt you.
With each election, and we have 'em every year, I believe it is clear that candidates are opting out of JFP interviews. The audience is micro, that is well known, so there is little upside to the visibility. You might be damned if you do because your opponent can cherry pick one for material but you certainly aren't damned if you decline. There is no 'gotta have' cachet to a JFP interview.
Even the interviews themselves, if you read them carefully, are different depending on the candidate's stripe. The questioning in the sit-downs they do with Republican candidates is harsh and antagonistic versus the ones they conduct with Democrats.
That is why I think the Chaney interview was so outstanding. The JFP questioning was adversarial but Chaney kept knocking every ball right out of the park. He disarmed them with his mastery of the subject matter. The stones throw reach of the JFP didn't buy Chaney anything but his turning the tables on them had to be enjoyable.
I have mixed thoughts about it. I liked it when Ross gave them an interview. Something to be said for going into the enemy's camp without fear.
Ross gained nothing and lost nothing by giving them an interview to a Fondren based entertainment weekly.
Even the candidates Ladd gushes over in local elections don't win or lose because of an interview with the JFP. Ladd/JFP doesn't, and can't, move the needle. I think with each election more candidates realize that. They spent two years carrying Faye Peterson's water using the experience they gained from their heavy lifting for Harvey Johnson and Peterson still lost.
Ladd calls candidates out online, she offers them a chance to respond, she says she'll give them or even a candidate's official staffer a blog and yet she has had no takers beyond Fleming and Allen -- and where are they now? StateDesk has been a bust from the day she came up with the concept.
Experience has proven to any politico paying attention that there is no agreement to maturely disagree with the JFP in online discussion. The 'guiding' moderation Ladd touts as the secret to the JFP's web community success only illuminates in one direction. Even when she lures a politico into giving it a try she and her choir attack them relentlessly despite the politico's good faith effort to engage.
You said it yourself above. With her stunt of yesterday she has further cheapened the few remaining reasons why a candidate would consider investing any time with the JFP. Faye Peterson's loss proves you wouldn't be doing it to reach voters.
Can't disagree with your analysis. Not at all. I noticed how Stuart Rockoff was treated on that site. It was very ugly. very mean. He even offered to correspond with her privately and she very publicly slapped him in the way she said no. It was obvious that in her mind Blount was on the same level with the Jim Crow democrats or was one of them so therefor he was not worthy of any of her respect.
FAYE PETERSON should have WON the DISTRICT ATTORNEY's race she LOST because voters didn't RESPECT the CREATIVE CLASS.
WE SHOULD LISTEN to DONNA LADD and we will all SUFFER for electing ROBERT SMITH just like we SUFFER for electing FRANK MELTON.
JOHN REEVES deserved his ENDORSEMENT early on but he didn't RESPECT DONNA LADD and THAT'S WHY HE LOST.
"JOHN REEVES deserved his ENDORSEMENT early on but he didn't RESPECT DONNA LADD and THAT'S WHY HE LOST."
What!? You've got to be kidding. Ray Carter is that you?
I know who it is but I'm not saying. I will say its not Ray. Ray don't show me the love since I went out on my solo career and broke away from Donna and the Harveys.
Having said that, if I was Ms. Wooten, I would say to hell with the JFP. She only got there endorsement because of Reeves backing McCoy. If I were her, I would say "screw you" to them and stay away, I don't need your help. That endorsement swap was bush-league and her defense of it shows a real cluelessness on how much it hurts her credibility. No one trusts a loose cannon.
loose cannon? As if I have room to talk.
And who the hell is the creative class? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? She lost b/c she lost. Simple as that.
Voters in Hinds county are NOT the sharpest knives in the drawer. Is Shuler going to be a good DA? Who knows. If I was a bettin' man, I would bet no... but, just off what I've seen of him in the courtroom.
I have nothing against Faye. She was always really nice to me. However, I know we could do better than Faye or Shuler.
Post a Comment