State Sen. Chris McDaniel said famously last month that “I’m looking for a fight” in either challenging incumbent Mississippi U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker’s re-election bid, running again for the seat held by U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran (that McDaniel narrowly lost in 2014) if and when he stepped down, or running for lieutenant governor of Mississippi in 2019.
In the days that followed, Cochran announced his decision to step down from office on April 1 – an announcement coming well after McDaniel had already qualified to make the U.S. Senate race against Wicker. McDaniel’s decision to challenge Wicker was an 11th hour decision clearly impacted by the filing deadline in the Wicker race. What, pray tell, was a big, bad swamp drainer, freedom fighter, and liberty lover like McDaniel to do if Cochran decided not to step down as predicted?
McDaniel chose to challenge Wicker and when Cochran’s retirement announcement indeed came, it was evident from polling that McDaniel’s U.S. Senate political ambitions faced a far tougher challenge against the incumbent Wicker than for the open seat vacated by Cochran.
Long before McDaniel formally announced his challenge of Wicker, the then-junior senator methodically put together a grassroots organization across the state, geared up a campaign staff, and raised a formidable campaign war chest. When McDaniel formally entered the race against him, Wicker’s forces launched a blistering TV ad campaign that focused voter attention on McDaniel’s actual record as opposed to his lofty and often fact-challenged campaign rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Cochran’s retirement announcement prompted Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant to make a decision about appointing a successor to fill the Cochran’s seat until a special election on Nov. 6, 2018.
Given that Cochran’s retirement announcement was a telegraphed political decision for several months, Bryant had plenty of time to develop a short list of contenders and to carefully vet those individuals. Bryant chose former three-term state senator and two-term state Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce Cindy Hyde-Smith of Brookhaven.
Smith is a conservative family cattle farmer and a stockyard owner. As a state senator, Smith chaired the Senate Agriculture Committee and became an expert on broad agriculture policies. Smith co-chaired President Donald Trump’s Agriculture Policy Advisory Committee.
That announcement prompted the entry of Democrat Mike Espy, the former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and former Mississippi Second District U.S. representative, into the race for the Cochran seat. Then came McDaniel’s announcement that he was, in fact, not running against Wicker but instead jumping into the race for the open Cochran seat with Smith, Espy, and whomever else may decide to throw their hat in the ring.
Assuming McDaniel eventually does what he has said he will do and removes his name from the 2018 Republican U.S. Senate Primary for the seat held by incumbent Mississippi U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker – something he in fact hasn’t yet done – the flamboyant Ellisville trial lawyer and state legislator will face the very fight he claimed he was looking for.
For the good of the Republican Party, mind you (or so they said), McDaniel’s supporters tried to lean on Bryant to appoint McDaniel to hold the open seat until the special election. But Bryant bucked that pressure and appointed Smith, one of McDaniel’s Mississippi state Senate colleagues, to the post.
In 2014, McDaniel challenged an old lion in Cochran who was not by temperament confrontational or mean-spirited and who was hampered by declining health. He was not inclined or physically able to counter some of what he understatedly called the “shenanigans” of the race. He didn’t hit back much.
In Smith and in Espy, McDaniel will face veteran public officials who can give as good as they get. Both have been through tough prior campaigns and tough circumstances before. These opponents won’t be made McDaniel’s punching bags. They will hit back.
Say you’re “looking for a fight,” Sen. McDaniel? Congratulations, sir. Seems you found one.
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Sid Salter: In Hyde-Smith, McDaniel will face a formidable opponent who can hit back.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Sid can always be counted on to carry the water.
If you were looking for a quick article to plug with Hyde’s name for a title, well congratulations, Sid, you found one.
That was one of the most lacking Salter articles I’ve read.
It’s nothing more than a timeline of events (that are already well-documented). No substance.
It’s almost like he was forced, against his will, to write something.
You Think? What an anonymous post!
Dang! What a lengthy article with only three sentences having any connection to the title of it. What evidence does Salter have (he certainly presented none) that Hyde-Smith can 'give as well as she can get' or whatever he said? So far, the governor has done her talking for her and has even bought space on this blog to talk about her qualifications and her 'toughness' and how proud of him we should be for the interim appointment.
So, now we have Salter, appearing as a barefooted, freckle-faced farm-boy sucking on a wheat straw, toting the water for the lady rancher. I'm afraid it's going to take a lot more than Salter and Bryant toting water to keep Miz H-Smith in the senatorial seat.
Next up in the wings of this blog we can expect a woman's group to come out and claim McDaniel has always hated and disrespected women.
Governor bought no space on this website. The Mississippi Republican Party did as can any other political party, PAC, or whatever you want to call it. I haven't approved some comments because they make false statements that CHS and the Governor spent tax money advertising on this site. Definitely not true. CHS bought ads with her campaign account. Period. The Governor has not bought any since the 2015 election. Take those lies somewhere else.
KF it appears you’re taking sides in this thing. Appears.
I hate to take up for Chris McDoogle, but there’s been a ton of “misinformation” about him that was fair game. However, you won’t have it against CHS.
And which entity paid for the Families First Ads? I assume the GOP paid for the Op-Ed pro- CHS post.
It’s going to get ugly.
Show me where I've taken sides? Come on, put up or shut up. Sid Salter has a syndicated column. It runs here every week. I pay a fee for the right to publish it. I'm not going to reject his columns just because you don't like the content. He could have very easily written a pro-McDaniel column and it would have been published here as well.
The Mississippi GOP purchased ad space on this site. That includes the right to post content. Don't like the content, take it up with them.
More misinformation from you. Families First is a non-profit. They have produced a few videos. Four or five of them have been posted. CHS appears in one and you freak out.
So, as I stated earlier, show me where I have taken sides. You are more than welcome to purchase ad space and promote your guy.
When the time comes CHS will have plenty to say about McDaniel and their time in the senate together. It will segue into the perfect argument why he isn't the person to go to Washington. Bryant picked the right person.
Chris "Poodle" McDaniel ran from a fight with Senator Roger WICKER after blistering tv ads just like a poodle running from a fight with a bulldog.Instead Chris McPoodle would rather fight a woman.
Why so quick to bristle and get your britches in a knot, Kingfish? Nobody 'lied'. I failed to see the fine print stating the Republican Party posted the advertisement (if indeed it is an advertisement). And even if I had, it
I'm sure I'm not alone in assuming the Governor or his handlers had sent over the ad with a check. And it's also noteworthy that you have NOT bothered to comment about the fact that it's highly irregular for a political party, much less a sitting governor, to take sides early on pitting one republican against another. Or did that elude you?
And why have you not bothered to comment on the fact that (regardless of who paid you to run the 'ad'), we have both Salter and the Governor assuming the lady candidate needs others to tote her water and apparently can't carry her own. Had this all be reversed, yes, you would have lambasted McDaniel and you know it.
As this thing continues to roll out, it'll be interesting to see whether your claim of neutrality holds water or whether you simply tote it like Phil and Sid.
A syndicated column that runs here every week? So far, you've run, what, two of them?
Amen, Kingfish at March 28, 2018 at 8:28 AM. And can
"Take those lies somewhere else." apply to all comments on all posts from anonymous know-it-alls who know nothing and pretend to be in-the-know?
I’m curious. Why do you pay for Salter’s column? He’s a horrific writer who almost never offers original insights. I don’t see what value headed. Is it just that he’s one of only a few who writes regularly about state politics?
10:59 - you know not what you speak.
The Governor has not taken sides in a fight between two republicans. The candidates in November will all run as non-partisan, not as Repubs and Dems.
The Governor did take sides in supporting the reelection of a Republican Senator. Nothing at all unusual about that, in local or state elections. Besides, the Governor is free to do whatever the hell he chooses to do - he is an individual after all, and expresses his personal opinion. You don't like it? Don't listen to him. But just like you can express yourself, so can the Gov. Also, he does it under his name, not under an Anon on a blog post.
3:57...where did you get that whack-shit-notion? It is standard for a sitting governor to NOT endorse or engage in partisan political races other than to speak in support of 'the party' in general....never a politician in particular. It's very unusual, but, this is, after all, cowboy Phil. And YOU're, after all...uninformed.
"When the time comes CHS will have plenty to say about McDaniel and their time in the senate together."
Which can easily be diffused by this bucket of cold water: "I remember serving with you. Remind me which party you...weren't you a Democrat then? I seem to recall you marching to the drumbeat of Democrats like Billy McCoy."
CHS as you people like to call her, is a total puppet with a personal inability to craft original thoughts. She'll say whatever Phil's handlers tell her to say. And of course by retaining Cochran's staff, she'll be able to operate from his tool chest of non-ideas. I just wonder if she'll allow Cochran's current wife to stay on the payroll during this interim appointment.
Kingfish; You admitted zapping comments "because they make false statements that CHS and the Governor spent tax money advertising on this site".
Why didn't you simply offer a retort that that's not true or 'you must have misunderstood'. Most of us probably 'thought' the governor's and Smith's comments were being floated with tax money as advertisements here. Yet you later insisted on screaming that a poster 'is lying' when the same suggestion was made.
Instead of zapping the comments, why not simply explain? Anyway, nobody believes that's why you rejected the comments to begin with. You're in the bag for CHS. But, you'll zap this one too.
HA! Our favorite troll is back. I'm in the bag? Yup. I've written critical stories about her in the past but ok, don't let facts get in your way as usual. They never do.
And in the age of Google, false information or smears never disappear, and you know that, which is why you keep trying to do that. Nice try.
Thank you , KF, for caring about spreading false information.
Ironic this morning that those criticizing you for not posting false information are probably the same ones who jumped on CLs inaccuracy.
I don't fault Sid for reviewing a time line as a part of his piece. It's quite obvious that many lose sight of the time lines of various stories and sometimes, the timelines do tell the story.
And, it doesn't surprise me that zealots don't like Sid's thoughtful columns. I don't always agree with Sid's interpretations or conclusions, but I do appreciate that he doesn't invent stories or engage in conspiratorial thinking. I appreciate KF for the same reason. And, I happen to think it's important to read even those with whom I don't agree to be sure I've not drawn the wrong conclusions.
7:19 AM nailed it re CHS.
She will do and say what she is told by the GOP establishment.
Having a hard time finding 'critical stories about her in the past'. Please help.
But, the reality is we're not 'in the past' now and what you might have written 'in the past' (Even if we could find it) is not applicable to her interim appointment or to what Phil has said on here or the paid ads you've posted or to the elections in general.
1:24 said. "I’m curious. Why do you pay for Salter’s column? He’s a horrific writer who almost never offers original insights. I don’t see what value headed."
I like JJ. I like KF. 1:24 is right though. Save your money KF. I know Sid and I like him personally. But he adds nothing to this blog.
Well, if you can't find it when there is a search box at the top of the page, that's your problem.
So you are saying I should not post paid ads? As usual, you have a reading comprehension problem. See folks, this is a classic example of a troll. It doesn't matter what you say, he is not trying to have a serious discussion but do the heads I win, tails you lose thing. Sort of like the people who would blame Bush for causing 9/11 but then say he was a dictator if he did anything.
The spreading utensil must be working off a hangover this morning.
Paid Political Ad for Hyde-Smith appearing in top right corner of this blog page. Claims she's a 'lifelong conservative'. Does that include all those years she was a democrat or just the few years since she decided to be a republican?
I was intrigued by this comment by Kingfish and decided to take him up on his challenge to search the archives: "Yup, I've written several critical stories about her (Hyde-Smith) in the past....".
I'm sure I might have missed one, but here's all I found in the archives related to Cindy Hyde-Smith and none of them are critical in nature except for a few negative comments by board participants about cats:
An article back in 2012, six years ago, quoting a letter sent to an editor regarding cats at the Ag Museum.
A thread in 2014 about her campaign buying her a Dodge Charger.
Something about the opening of the Madison farmers Market written in 2014.
Contrast the above with what might be fifty or so blog threads/stories critical of McDaniel. Hoping to see a more fair and balanced series about these two as we go forward with the campaign. It might be helpful if McDaniel would purchase ad space here to ensure balance. Reporting on candidates should not be based on whether or not they pay to have ads run. And, no, I won't buy ad space for him since I don't know the man and don't really have a dog in the hunt for Cochran's job.
Of course if this post of mine sees the light of day it will be followed by a verbal assault against me for daring to say what I've said. That's OK too.
And what stories were critical of McDaniel? My Epigrams and Interludes posts? I was critical of both Cochran and McDaniel campaigns. Are you saying I should not have covered the nursing home story, because that was big news. Are you saying I shouldn't have covered the courthouse incident? Just want to make sure and see if that is what you are advocating. I also posted a story about a Cochran team member ripping up yard signs in Starkpatch and getting caught.
Facts don't support your assertions. Truth is, if someone doesn't agree with you 150%, they are the enemy.
What I'm suggesting (and seems others are as well) is that you're already off on the path of protecting Hyde-Smith and continuing assaults on McDaniel. Forget Cochran. The dilemma facing us now is Hyde-Smith vs McDaniel.
You have been openly critical of McDaniel over the years and are already being protective of Hyde-Smith and dismissing it by claiming you're not allowing posts because they claim she's using state money for her ads. That's a straw-man. How many posts have you killed because they were critical of or untruthful about McDaniel? Take a guess. I'd say zero or close to it. Fair is fair and that's all we expect and ask for. Simple neutral fairness (unless it's an editorial). We deserve it.
I'm not going to allow posts that falsely claim she is spending tax money on advertising on this website. Get over it. It's a lie and I'm not going to allow it to be spread on here, troll. The only comments about Hyde that I've not allowed made that false accusation. You don't have the right to make those false accusations. There are quite a few reader comments on here that are very critical of her and the man who appointed her. There is also nothing stopping the McDaniel campaign or friendly PAC's from buying ad space on this website as well. I treat them all the same. Keep on making stuff up, it's getting funny as you consistently beclown yourself.
Kingfish; Everything that was posted at 10:50 is true and sadly, you know it. For several years you've allowed a hundred or more posts regarding McDaniel that you knew were untrue (sometimes you call them lies) plus libelous remarks. Whatever denigrates him as a person and as a candidate is just peachy. It won't stop until he or his campaign start paying for ads on this blog. It's not unlike Jessie Jackson shaking down corporations. He'll ease off when they make a contribution.
You seem to mistake my allowing comments for approval. There is a difference. A pity you don't know it.
I tried to get the Guv to not appoint anyone who would use the interim seat to run as an incumbent but to instead appoint someone willing to serve the state and not seek the office as a career move.
Back in '62 we thought we were going to replace 'Eastland style' 'insider' politics with persons who truly believed in 'public' not 'self' service we didn't forsee the day when we would have GOP party and political office holders in the roles for self perpetuation rather than working for all.
Having the Guv appoint his choice for our next elected senator is maybe similar to a church pastor naming an interim deacon and telling the congregation this is who he wants them to select.
I think a lot of Cindy and admire her work but I've tried to let her know i can not support her in seeking election to the office while holding the seat. If she had declined being the Guv's handpicked replacement for Thad and sought the office as a candidate in the special election, I would have been glad to support her, but I simply cannot under these circumstances.
Of course, coming from he who cares?
Post a Comment