Jackson Jambalaya

Who says that Haley isn't backing Tate/ After all Tate has supported the Governor 100% since he's been in office. And after looking at the campaign reports, Pickering only has $60,000 compared to Hewes $600,000 and Reeves $1,200,000.

good point.

Yep, Tate is running and will blow everyone else away!!! You will probably see a million of his neat ads (the one's he doesn't have to pay for in the next few weeks!

Yeah, he's going to blow Hewes away.

Not a surprise to me. I received a poll call a few months ago asking who I would vote for in several situations. It was very obviously skewed towards Tate Reeves (whom I like) so I just told the caller to just mark Tate Reeves in all the right places and save us both some time.

Lets see.

Haley will not be governor after 2011. That means you are going to need a strong LG who knows how to work the legislature even if the Republicans are down by a seat or two in the Senate. Assuming Phil is governor, you will still need a strong LT.

Now, you have Reeves, who has never been in the legislature, who looks like a dork and sounds like a dork and is a horrible candidate BUT is sitting on top of a nice warchest OR Hewes, who has been in the Senate for years, has clout, has a strong base from the coast, and is well respected by the business community and understands business. Hewes would be much stronger Lieutenant Governer and is a better candidate.

but go ahead, you same homers ridiculed me when I made the same criticisms about Crisler and I was right. Notice I haven't said a word about their positions on the issues because I assume they are both conservatives and very similar in that respect.

If you are comparing Reeves to Crisler then that is a nonsensical argument.

I agree. Crisler is a lot sharper.

Tate is a great guy, and if he met you he would probably think you were a dork too.

Tate will be a fine Lt Gov. I like the fact that he has not been in the legislature....hopefully he will have sense not to trust a single one of them.

Tate also likes to eat. Expect him to look like Haley in about 15 years. I support him for that sole reason. I don't want skinny cats runnin' the show**

Ask Tate about the screwed up MPACT program and investments with the program's money into products not suitable which lost a LOT of money.

I don't think you'd want him running the state, and especially I wouldn't want HIS face representing us on television, newsprint, etc. Would be as bad as Haley's bloatedness.

Obviously, you guys don't know Tate. He is probably the most well read, smart business man mentioned. It is only to his benefit that he owes no favors to all the legislatures as other do. He also has a great presence and national reputation given his small tenure in politics. The State is lucky that he is willing to serve in any capacity. If you don't know him you should find out. Look at the big picture guys!!!!

Basing your decision as to who should run the state or legislature on looks (whether weight or dorkiness) is nonsensical as well. Personally I'd rather have a dork run my money and my state over an idiot that's gotten by on his looks his whole life. There's a reason the dorks of our world are our financial leaders over the hotties.

Tate really would be best for the LG office. As previously stated, he's outside of the whole legislature game & owes no favors. He'll be fair & look out for us on the important issues. He's gained MS a lot of great contacts all over the nation already. Tate's future is only looking up.

I think Hewes would be the best choice for that job. He's done a pretty good job in the Senate, well liked, respectable businessman on the coast, and knows how it works. Resumes don't lie and for the job, Hewes has one that is much stronger.

No surprise. Your dislike for Reeves has been apparent for a long time.

Who said I don't like Tate? I'm just saying how he looks and comes across. What has he done to show he could handle the Senate in terms of running it? Aside from the warchest, what is it about his resume that suggests he can actually run the Senate or would be better than Hewes? I've yet to read any of you homers giving specific reasons other than he is an outsider.

Who said I don't like Tate? I'm just saying how he looks and comes across. What has he done to show he could handle the Senate in terms of running it? Aside from the warchest, what is it about his resume that suggests he can actually run the Senate or would be better than Hewes? I've yet to read any of you homers giving specific reasons other than he is an outsider.

Well what sort of experience did Phil Bryant have Kingfish "to show he could handle the Senate in terms of running it?"

He can shoot.

You argument of experience vis-a-vis Bryant, for instance, is without merit so you duck. No surprise there either.

Guys --- the problem with Tate - who is no doubt a smart guy - is that he is wholly lacking in personality, and doesn't even really do a good job of faking like he has one.

I think he has done a good jog as Treasurer. However, you can't tell me that he would've even gotten to the position that he is in now if he wasn't running down ticket from Haley Barbour against a black man -Gary Anderson.

Please, not this shit again. Gary Anderson lost because Gary Anderson ran an absolutely terrible campaign.

If you need to play the race card head on over to the JFP where DonnerKay is serving up red meat once again today. She'd be happy to help you to a plate of guilt.