Ellington

Sen. Charlie Ross, R-Brandon, is confident this year. The 50-year-old senator is running for lieutenant governor against State Auditor Phil Bryant in the primaries, and possibly against Democratic Rep. Jamie Franks of Hernando in the November general elections.

The Rankin County resident, living just outside the city of Brandon, is a military man, having served as a fighter interceptor pilot during the uneasy years of the Cold War, guarding the northern border of the country against a Russian North Pole bomber attack that never happened. He later served as a C-141 pilot during Desert Storm. Ross graduated in 1978 from the U.S. Air Force Academy, with a bachelor of science in economics. From there, he got his law degree from Harvard Law School.

Ross lives with his wife, Sharon, and has three kids.

Ross won an election to the Senate in 1997 after serving a brief stint in the House. He made a name for himself championing tort reform to the point that the American Tort Reform Association presented him with its Civil Justice Achievement award.

Tell me about your early life. You have some serious military experience, right?
I went to the U.S. Air Force Academy for undergrad and then came back to Columbus, Miss. for pilot training. I chose Columbus because of my wife, whom I met in high school. She finished up (her education) at about the same time I finished pilot training. Then it was off to see the world in Minot, N.D. This was 1979.

Why did you take the military route?
I've always believed in public service. My dad was a career sergeant in the Air Force, and I was offered an appointment to the Air Force Academy. I was interested in playing football there, but I was too little and too slow. It was a great education, though. My family was never an affluent family. It was an education paid for by the military. It was fulfilling because it's great serving your country, and it's a great leadership training institution.

Where did you grow up?
My mom and dad are both from Webster County. He retired from the Air Force when I was in third grade. I was born in Greenville, where my father was stationed at the base there. My dad is the hardest working man I've ever known. After his time as a career sergeant in the Air Force, he had a hardware store for a while, and he worked at a furniture factory in Eupora. Then, he was the supervisor for the city maintenance department until he retired. He always had a pick-up truck with a tag that said, 'I fight poverty. I work.'

How many siblings did you have?
I have one brother. He's not even two years younger than me. He lives in Vicksburg—an engineer with the Corps of Engineers over there. We still wrestle on occasion.

Tell me about small-town life, which seems to be fleeing Brandon recently. Have you noticed?
Rankin County is growing by leaps and bounds. We don't live in the city. We live in the county, but you can't tell that you're not in a city because the residential area is so developed. The key to growth in the county is that people care about their community. Taxes are low, so it's affordable to live, and local leadership understands that an environment with a thriving private sector is what attracts business and attracts jobs. Another key is we have extremely strong law enforcement. Another key is we have strong public schools.

How are the housing codes? Any restrictions on rental property? My understanding is that some of the suburbs discourage affordable rental property that contribute to single-mother residences.
Oviously, the municipalities have zoning ordinances, and the county, I believe, has its own zoning ordinance—I'm not positive. Generally, the people in the community take pride in their community, and you don't have to have government dictating the best way to ensure an attractive community.

Why would you want to invest almost $2 million to campaign for lieutenant governor?
I tell everybody that I love Mississippi. This is a special place, and I really believe that Mississippi needs a strong, decisive, conservative lieutenant governor who knows how to get things done in the Senate. "He who wants to be great among you, let him be your servant." The key to success is serving others. ... Besides, lieutenant governor is the natural progression. The lieutenant governor's job is to run the Senate and to do that you need somebody who's been there and knows how that body works. You need to know the personalities, you need to know the rules, you need to know how to fight smart and fight hard in order to get things done.

What kind of changes will you encourage in the Senate?
The Senate has gone in the right direction in the past few years. We passed comprehensive tort-reform legislation that is a model for the nation (according to) publications like The Wall Street Journal, and that legislation has transformed Mississippi from a judicial hellhole to a model that states want to emulate. Because I wrote the bill, I get invited all over the country to tell what we did and how we did it. ... Medical malpractice premiums were going up 25 percent a year. Now, they're down 30 percent. Lawsuits against doctors are down 90 percent, and the reports I'm receiving say doctors no longer feel they need to practice defensive medicine because of a fear of liability.

We passed that bill in June of 2004. Earlier, in 2004, Toyota was looking at Mississippi and Texas and said their primary reason for not choosing Mississippi was our bad legal system. We passed that bill and now you see Toyota in northeast Mississippi. Our legal system is no longer a millstone around our neck.

So what changes are you going to encourage in the Senate?
I think the question is, "Is the Senate going in the right direction?"

Aren't the questions one and the same?
Tort reform came about because of strong leadership picking a place we need to go and then good politics to bear on that, rather than letting politics determine where we need to go. You can't be a good leader by sticking your finger up and testing the winds. A leader forms public opinion as well as responds to it.

Another way in which the Legislature, in general, has moved in a more commonsense conservative direction, which is good for Mississippi, is the castle doctrine law. If you're in your home, your business or car, and somebody's breaking and entering, you can defend yourself anyway you want to—even if you feel like you need to shoot them—and the law will stand behind you. It will presume that you acted reasonably. The common-sense fact is that the first line of defense against crime is the individual.

That brings us to gun control. What are your thoughts on the matter?
Law-abiding citizens with guns are not a danger to anybody. It's the criminals with guns that are a danger. I'm real proud of legislation this year that increased the penalty to 10 years for a felon in possession of a firearm or commitment of a crime with a firearm, and the sentences have to be served consecutively, rather than concurrently. Matches don't cause arson. People with matches cause arson, and guns don't cause crime. Criminals do.

Let me talk about Jackson.

I think the city's crime problem was in your announcement speech in Brandon a few days ago.
Yes, it was. The first duty of the federal government is to defend the borders. The first duty of the state government is to keep people safe within those borders. If we don't do that, government has failed, even if it does a lot of other things well. We need to prioritize fighting crime in Mississippi, and Jackson is Exhibit A, case in point. I have a 17-year-old. My rule is he can't go west of I-55 after sunset. I just think it's too dangerous. ... (W)e cannot afford for people to feel unsafe in Jackson.

If it takes more district attorneys, if it takes more judges, if it takes more prison space, we need to spend the money to get it done, even if it means there being less left over for other areas. It's not just Jackson. In the rural areas of the state, the illegal drug situation is tearing the fabric of society apart, and I was very proud of the fact that this past year we dramatically increased the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics' budget. We made sure the Mississippi Crime Lab is fully funded and fully staffed. I was talking to a sheriff yesterday, and I asked him what's the turnaround time for the crime lab. He said, "About a year." That's unacceptable.

Well, we do have only one crime lab serving the whole state, for starters.
Then we need to make it bigger or make more of them, or contract with private labs—whatever it takes. Law enforcement needs to be the first priority, because if you're not safe, nothing else matters.

We're taking giant strides to make Mississippi more attractive to business. Business creates jobs, and if there are not good jobs in Mississippi, our children aren't going to stay here. Families are important. We have moms and dad, cousins, double first cousins, and that is a big part of Mississippi. All that can be gone in one generation if our children don't have economic opportunity here. One of the big things about tort reform is that it removes obstacles to quality health care, which is crucial to a quality of life. By the same token, we've managed to balance our budget without raising taxes. That's crucial because businesses need a stable tax environment in order to make long-term decisions.

The next step we need to make is in our education system. I agree with Hank Bounds, the (Mississippi) superintendent of education, that we need to restructure our curriculum so that students have more options in high school. After getting the basics—math, science and so on—you should have an option of a curriculum designed to prepare you directly for the work force rather than to go directly to college.

Any examples?
When I was growing up, it was called "shop." I'd like something like that, design(ed) for the Mississippi economy.

Which knocks us up against the brick wall of funding it, of course.
The great thing is, because we went through the process of about three years of balancing our budget, we're now in a position to where if there's a good idea, we can fund it. We fully funded (the Mississippi Adequate Education Plan) this year, unlike the last time we did four years ago—we did it that time by robbing Peter to pay Paul. We couldn't sustain it. This year we did it with recurring revenue because we spent four years balancing our budget. That means we can continue to do it in the future and have money to think about how to make the outcome better.

This is important. It's vital that we fund education at an adequate level. It's also vital that we not measure success by the amount of money we put into it but by the outcome.

I've had some legislators say that this year was unnatural in terms of funding, with the flurry of construction and production on the (Gulf) Coast. Some legislators argue that it's not entirely the work of good planning, but also the incredible amount of temporary money we have flowing from hurricane-damaged areas. Can we expect MAEP to get full funding in ... 2010?
MAEP got funded for a couple of reasons. We had the discipline over the last three years to balance our budget. Last year, a deal was struck, so to speak, whereby we would phase in MAEP full funding over three years. Well, the Department of Education this year realized they had made an error in calculating how much it cost to fully fund MAEP by about $35 million. That made it possible to phase it in this year, and going forward, we'll pay for it with recurring revenue that will be here this year and next and the next year to come, and I'm confident that we can do that.

The Department of Education only adjusted that MAEP figure by about $35 million, though, which really isn't all that much considering the full cost of MAEP, which was about $2 billion—just a couple of pebbles in a bucket.
I think it made a lot of difference. Thirty-five million dollars is not a drop in the bucket, according to my math. You're hot on the point, though. We have a lot of state revenue that we know much of it is one-time money. I was very proud this year. We only spent 98 percent of the amount of revenue we had come in. The other 2 percent was put into a rainy day fund, because we know the economy is going to slow down, and we need to continue to do that into the future because it's a given that the business cycle is going to go up and down, and needs to have a pad in order to cushion the downturn.

Is more tort reform in order?
The tort reform we passed was comprehensive and good. You'll always need to tweak the system. At the present time, I don't see a need to change it. We did it right. We did it once, and now we could move on to other things.

I would say that one aspect may be necessary—call it legal reform phase two—is upgrading our judiciary. I was able to push through a bill that provides trial judges more support staff a year from now. Trial judges have been woefully inadequately supported, and they need law clerks and secretaries. We were able to double the amount of support staff they have.

Are we talking Hinds County or statewide? I know Hinds is a big issue with you.
Statewide. Every chancellor and circuit judge. The other thing we did that was very important as far as our legal system goes was we provided support money for judges dealing with youth court matters, because that takes a lot of time. It's not just deciding a case and putting it in the file. You have to do a lot of follow-up. I think those are two important steps forward that will improve both our civil system and our criminal system.

Taking you back to tort reform now. Most of the people I know, back in 2004, were really intrigued with the idea of tort reform because we were led to believe that our insurance rates would go down, but nobody that I can think of is bragging that their rates went down. I know mine haven't. Were we supposed to actually benefit from that, or was tort reform aimed to benefit somebody else?

Mississippi has benefited. I gave you Toyota as an example. After we fixed our legal system, it was no longer an obstruction to them coming here. Mississippians have benefited because of quality health care. Hospitals can recruit doctors. I heard stories of neurosurgeons going back into practice after the passage of tort reform in rural areas of the state. In Marshall County, in rural north Mississippi, they're delivering babies again. Now as far as insurance rates in general, they had gone down 2 or 3 percent before Katrina. Katrina was something that was the greatest natural disaster in the history of the country, but property and casualty rates were going down. They're going down 2 or 3 percent where previously they were going up dramatically.

But I'm not feeling the difference. You say property and auto rates did go down?
Property and casualty rates, yes. Auto and homeowner rates did go down.

There are a few doctors who are complaining that their malpractice rates haven't dropped. Are they just being cynical?
I don't know who those doctors are, but prior to the tort reform, their rates were going up 25 percent per year. Since the tort reform, they've gone down 30 percent. Rush Hospital in Meridian had about 120 doctors that worked there. The premium went down $700-and-something-thousands dollars.

So we can dispute what these doctors are saying?
I've been all over this state, and doctors tell me that tort reform is great and it's made such a difference. They don't have to worry about liability and greatly reduced their malpractice insurance.

On the news this morning, Allstate announced that it was raising its rates again in Mississippi. It just doesn't seem like tort reform did anything long term. At what point do we move beyond tort reform and start talking insurance regulation?
We did some insurance reform this year in the Legislature, and it was critical legislation to keep insurance companies in Mississippi. We had the windpool bill. It did two things. It put some state money into the windpool—the government run insurance pool to cover wind damage—to keep the rates as affordable as possible. The second thing it did was it provided that if there's another storm like Katrina, there's recoupment enough to where the insurance companies can recoup their losses over a long period of time rather than having to do it in one policy year. This has been done in Texas and Florida and other places. They said this was essential to being able to continue in business in Mississippi. And you know what? Keeping the insurance industry in Mississippi is essential for people being able to rebuild, because you can't get a loan without insurance, and without a loan you can't rebuild.

Nice idea, but is there fear in you of trying to regulate them?
Your question assumes we don't regulate them now. We have a Department of Insurance and a commissioner of insurance, who has very broad authority to approve rates. He has to approve every rate increase and decrease and make sure it's in the public interest. He has to approve the policy language of every policy issued. It's wrong to say that we don't have a regulatory system in place.

What about Attorney General Jim Hood's idea of addressing State Farm's decision to no longer carry homeowner insurance in Mississippi? His idea was to force any company that wants to offer auto insurance in the state to offer homeowner's insurance, as well.
That's a bad idea. The way you get insurance companies or any other business to come to Mississippi is by making the market attractive to them. You don't do it by telling a private business who they have to sell to and who they can't sell to, because the insurance companies will pull up and leave Mississippi. Back during the tort-reform fight, that's what they were doing. They were pulling up and leaving the state because it was a hostile environment to them, and the insurance market is a national market. Mississippi is only about 2 percent of it. We are not in a position to where we need to create a hostile environment. There should be fair regulation that protects the insurer. I don't know if we have the legal authority to do it, and they'll just go elsewhere.

Yeah, but you have to admit that the industry has tried to manipulate state laws in the past. This is not the first time State Farm, in particular, has attempted to manipulate state law. I know a few people who complained that State Farm refused to offer them insurance in 2001, in the heat of the tort-reform battle—just like they're doing now. It seems that they're really trying to maneuver legislators to make decisions in their favor. Should we look at them with more scrutiny?
If a company denies a claim that is covered by the policy, they should be sued. That's what we have courthouses for. I don't think we should force insurance companies to cover losses for which they did not receive a premium. I also think that the key is fair and balanced regulation that protects the consumer but also provides a stable environment for the insurance companies. An individual policy-owner may have been wronged by an insurance company. In that case, the insurance commission should act aggressively in that particular instance and that individual policy-owner should be able to recover through whatever means they have, be it legal action or not. I strongly condemn any insurance company that wrongfully denies a claim.

But by the same token, I don't think we should treat the industry as an enemy, and I think it doesn't add to the debate at all—and it's not helpful at all—to call them robber barons, like some public officials have. They are essential to the recovery of the Mississippi Gulf Coast and essential to the state's economy.

What are some of the key aspects of conservatism that you adhere to?
The first principle is that government should attend to its major responsibilities first. The first responsibility is to provide public security. Secondly, government should provide an environment where the private sector can flourish because that's where the creativity comes from and the entrepreneurship comes from. That means a stable environment where there are predictable rules, and people know it's a level playing field. I think government should live within its means. If the program is good, you should be able to identify where the money's coming from on the front end. If you can't identify where the money's coming from, and you can't get enough political support for that program, then maybe it's not that good. Government should be run like a business or a household. You should live within your means.

Traditional values are very important. I'm very pro-life. I believe in the sanctity of life, and I believe that a government's legitimate role is to protect the unborn. We passed a bill this year that says abortion is illegal except in the instance of it threatening the life of the mother or of incest, but we said it's not effective until Roe v. Wade is overturned. I think we should take that clause out about Roe v. Wade, and if Mississippi has to be the test case, then Mississippi has to be the test case.

Thou art begging for battle on the national level. Are you ready to drag the state into that?
I think it's a battle worth fighting. Let me say this: The final thing to conservatism that I adhere to is that the government is not the answer to everything. The government is good if it stays within its proper role, and in Mississippi, that includes educating our citizens. I've seen, so many times, where it's the individual and local communities that come forth with the good ideas, and the government needs to stay out of the way. You'll be surprised at what people do.

The key to effective government is strong leadership. There are two aspects. You have to have a vision of what's important, but—just as importantly—you have to have leaders who will turn that leadership into law. Without implementation, that leadership is just talk. I think I have the record for that. I led the tort reform bill; I led the castle doctrine bill, a law that makes it a capital crime to commit murder on a school or a university property; Jessica's law, which requires sex offenders to register for life if it's a young child who's the victim. Probation is part of their sentence. The judge can require them to wear ankle bracelets, and they can't live within 1,500 square feet of a school.

I was behind the law that says people on the sex offender registry commit a crime if they work at a daycare center or a school, and those places have to check the registry before they hire somebody. If they fail to do that, they've committed a crime themselves.

What's your take on state taxes? Are they low enough, or do you want to keep them low, or will you raise or lower them accordingly, as justified?
I favor cutting taxes. I don't think anybody has ever taxed themselves into prosperity. ... I also believe in being responsible. We've spent four years balancing our budget. It's very important to build up our rainy day fund, and when we get that accomplished, we need to look for a tax cut. We haven't had one in several years.

How'd you feel about the grocery tax reduction?
I didn't like the tax swap idea. The two issues should be separated, and we should deal with them separately.

So if they were separated, you would have favored reducing the grocery tax, right?
I've introduced a bill to cut grocery tax in the past, and I would still be able to support reducing the grocery tax. I also want to reduce some other taxes.

What about the tobacco tax increase?
I don't believe in raising taxes, and going to a dollar is too high, when in the surrounding states the average is about 50 cents. If you got to look at a comparison, it needs to be the surrounding states, not the nation as a whole.

Do you agree, though, that raising the tax would discourage smoking and ultimately be a good thing for the state?
I'm sure it would—it may in some cases, but if you went to $1, people would go across the state line and buy them. Ultimately, we don't need to mix up taxing policy with health care policy. If the tax needs to be adjusted, let's adjust the tax, but the idea of raising taxes—I'm just against that, especially when you're going to $1, which is punitive. If someone wants to put another proposal on the table, fine, but the one we had in front of us this past year, when you scratch the surface, it had problems. 1) It very likely could have wiped out four years of hard work. 2) The first proposal that the advocates were working for would have killed municipalities, and 3) those two issues shouldn't be tied together. If they're strong enough to survive on their own, fine, but they shouldn't be manipulated by tying them up together.

You know, the Stennis Institute jumped through a lot of hoops to get out a detailed report on how effectively tobacco revenues would replace the grocery tax. Was that report wrong?
We got the Stennis Center report the last week of the session, and it was a lengthy report. If you read the report, like on the grocery tax, it depends on whether it includes convenience stores or just grocery stores, what type food you're talking about and lots of variations there.

Did you arrive to your own conclusion independent of Gov. Haley Barbour?
Yeah. I mean, I have a mind of my own, but I will tell you that I think Gov. Barbour is a very good governor. I think he's been good for Mississippi. I like his philosophy, and I trust his judgment. Does that mean I think exactly like him on every single issue? No. But it does mean that I recognize leadership, and I think he has been a strong conservative leader for this state.

This might be your chance to advertise your independence, then. What are some of the issues where you and the governor have parted ways?
I'm not going to discuss conversations that I may or may not have had with the governor—

No, I mean—
—but what I will tell you is that I think the priority is building on the successes that we've had. I think fighting crime has to be a major priority. I think work-force training is the next step in making Mississippi attractive to business. I think that we need to do everything possible to maintain traditional Mississippi values—Mississippi is pro-life—I think we should push that. And the other thing I think is essential for the integrity of our election system is voter I.D. It's time we had it. If you go to the movie store, you have to show I.D. If you go to the airport, you have to show I.D. Many businesses demand you show I.D., and it's just common sense to apply that to elections. People have died for the right to vote, and I think we need to protect the integrity of the system. I just do not agree with those people who say that it's not necessary.

Backing up: I know you have no desire to speak on your private differences with the governor, but is there any legislation that, perhaps, you two have differed on?
I've been very supportive of the governor on the major issues. As far as any particulars, the governor doesn't take a position on every issue, and I don't call the governor on every issue, so it would be speculation on all the little issues. But on every major issue I've been supportive of him.

You said earlier that you wanted to close down the last abortion clinic in Mississippi. Did you get to fully divulge your reasons behind wanting to do so?
I'm an advocate for life, and I do not think abortion is a way to solve an unfortunate situation. One wrong does not fix a previous mistake. ... (T)here's another side to the abortion issue. We took one major step in the Legislature where we provided tax credits for people who adopt, tax credits they can deduct from their taxes the amount of legal expenses involved in an adoption. I really think that it's important that we provide a supportive environment for women who find themselves in a difficult situation, and I think that is an affirmative step, which we need to place more emphasis on to try to provide options other than abortion.

Mississippi has one of the highest teen birth rates in the nation. Do you see a relation between this and the fact that we only have one abortion clinic?
I think that's an asinine connection.

So where is the South going wrong in teen pregnancy? This is the Bible belt.
That is an issue that government can do—well, first of all, government and every piece of legislation we enact should consider the impact on families. And our welfare system, for years, discouraged people being married. I think that's wrong. It's counter-productive. I'd have to go back and check. On the state level we eliminated the marriage penalty. Obviously, education is very important, but ultimately, institutions like churches and local communities provide the environment for families to thrive. Ultimately, I think economic opportunity is a big key to the whole thing, because if you have economic opportunity it makes it much easier for people to get the information to make the right choices. The best anti-poverty program is to provide somebody a job.

You mentioned alternatives to abortion. Which ones would you focus on instead?
I think that adoption should be made as easy as possible in Mississippi within the guidelines of making sure the adoptive parents are capable of taking care of the child.

I'm going to be crass for a second. What do you say to the argument that ending abortion raises the crime rate after 20 years? Some of the women who resort to abortion are 1) poor, 2) young and 3) unmarried. Some presume these are the same women who have a higher rate of producing offspring who become a burden on society.
That is a crude statement and I just reject it—reject it outright.

Do you think the federal court would uphold the state's decision if we decided to put some teeth in our anti-abortion law?
There's a new court in Washington. That new court just upheld the new law banning partial birth-abortion, and we'll see.

Did you support fully funding MAEP?
I voted for the appropriation bill relating to MAEP every time it has come out.

Including 1997?
Now, in 1997 that was the authorization bill. I voted for it the first time, and then when I received the numbers and realized that it assumed unrealistic money projections, I voted against it. The second time, once it became law, I voted to fund it each time it came up.

Somebody's probably going to hurl this at you at some point in your campaign so get ready: 1997 was the same year state legislators voted to increase their pay an extra $10,000. You were in on that vote. What's your response?
You have to pay people in government in order to attract quality people, and the pay was raised $10,000. That's not a lot of money for people who take off time from their regular jobs. I don't make money in the Legislature. It costs me money.

What's your advantage over your opponent?
The person presiding over the Senate needs to have experience in the Senate. I have 10 years of experience. I have a record of not only being involved in the fights over the major issues, but in being in the very center of them. I don't think you can lead by avoiding the big issues, and my record indicates that I've been in the center of the big issues. ... I know how to get things done. I hope that's what voters will consider.

Previous Comments

ID

81172

Comment

I support Charlie Ross and will be voting for him in the next election. Good interview. I like his stance on gun control as well. He's right ya know.... If you're not safe, NOTHING else matters.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T19:47:46-06:00

ID

81173

Comment

Adam Asked: [quote]Mississippi has one of the highest teen birth rates in the nation. Do you see a relation between this and the fact that we only have one abortion clinic?[/quote] This has to be one of the most appalling questions I've seen. Are you implying that we'd cut the teen birth rate if we allowed more to die faster?

Author

Ironghost

Date

2007-04-25T20:25:16-06:00

ID

81174

Comment

"I think that's an asinine connection." That's why I love me some Charlie Ross. He is a compulsively, almost pathologically straight shooter. Haley uses guile, folksiness, and connections; Ross uses blunt intellectual force. That's the real difference between the two, if you're curious.

Author

laughter

Date

2007-04-25T21:18:46-06:00

ID

81175

Comment

Iron, I think that's exactly what he means... Law talkin' - on whatever radio show comes on in the morning (the one with Dave?), they always rip on Charlie for NOT talking about illegal immigration. They say that Bryant is the only politician out there talking about illegal immigration. I know Charlie talks about it, why do they say that?

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-26T06:56:21-06:00

ID

81176

Comment

"We got the Stennis Center report the last week of the session, and it was a lengthy report." Ross That is not is exactly true, well its not true at all. It's a lie. The entire senate recieved those reports in early February. Each Senator, including Ross , also recieved a single page handout for their district detailing how much revenue the tax break would generate for the municipalities in their district. In Ross' District 20, the projected additional revenue would have been $530,275.85 annually.

Author

jd

Date

2007-04-26T08:07:41-06:00

ID

81177

Comment

Dunno, clerk. Haven't caught much of local talk radio lately. My guess is that it's because Bryant has made illegal immigration a major campaign talking point, whereas when Ross talks about it, he tends to emphasize that it's mainly a federal responsibility, as in the above interview. As serious as the immigration problem is, Ross has the right approach. Mississippi's budget and public attention spans only allow for a couple of major legislative priorities at a given time. As a statewide issue, immigration has to be a couple of notches further down the list, simply because there's less that the state can do.

Author

laughter

Date

2007-04-26T10:40:08-06:00

ID

81178

Comment

It has to be a federal priority, rather than a backburner issue as it is with BushCo. I don't see how having some Municipalities that condone illegal immigration and some that oppose it 100% and enforce laws accordingly is going to help in the long run.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2007-04-27T07:38:18-06:00

ID

81179

Comment

not a conservative ask about the policies on illegal aliens

Author

Skinnyp

Date

2007-04-30T15:46:33-06:00

ID

81180

Comment

Alright, please let me say, @ giving Lynch the "Big Head", where else would you read answers to these questions? Mostly figured where he's at givin he's in my district. This stuff helps me decide how I vote. Bravo to Ross for concenting to the interview, Bravo to JFP for asking the damn questions we really want to know.

Author

Doc Rogers

Date

2007-04-30T19:52:16-06:00

ID

81181

Comment

Ross is on something of a tear regarding voter ID today, telling media that he's requested that the governor call a special session to address the issue: You have to show I.D. when you cash a check, when you rent a movie, when you apply for a job, when you check into a hotel, when you rent a car, when you go into a health club, when you check into the hospital, and the list could go on. We protect your rights in all these instances by requiring identification. The same needs to be done for our voting process. I've posted his full press release and statement at StateDesk. Is it cynical to assume this is an electioneering tactic?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2007-05-01T11:27:17-06:00

ID

81182

Comment

Right. What happened the GOP mantra of no regulation? They've never been able to show a great need for it. We all know this is about trying to get some Dems to stay home. (And convincing a certain type of conservative that the politician pushing for voter ID is trying to get certain Dems to stay home. Which may be worse.) Remember the story Ayana Taylor did for us on voter ID? (She won a first-place AAN award for this one, along with two others.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-05-01T11:33:06-06:00

ID

81183

Comment

You'd have to convince the Democrats that voter ID doesn't automatically mean we're sending black voters back to the 1950's. I mean, I've been in Kentucky where this has worked. Black, White, Purple, no question about it. Show up with something they'll accept, and you're in. Now that I think about it, I'd bet One American Dollar that if Mississppi went to Closed Primaries, the Dems would suddenly drop their objections to Voter ID. After all, the Dems can count on many districts providing good ole Democratic Representation regardless of how bad things are...

Author

Ironghost

Date

2007-05-01T12:33:26-06:00

ID

81184

Comment

No, actually, Iron you shouldn't have to do that. The point is that you should not pass new regulation unless you can prove it's needed. Republicans can't do that. It's all based on rhetoric—and ironic rhetoric at that. If they don't want to be considered racist (or racist-pandering), then why push for legislation that is unneeded that makes it look like they are trying to return to the tactics of old? It doesn't make sense. And, if I haven't said it before, I don't care what the Dems think, either. This is more of a Libertarian issue, or should be.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-05-01T12:55:36-06:00

ID

81185

Comment

What's racist about showing ID?

Author

APK

Date

2007-05-01T16:40:03-06:00

ID

81186

Comment

No one said anything is "racist" about "showing ID," APK. The issue here is why Republicans are so intent on requiring it in a state with such a history of voter intimidation—WHEN THEY CANNOT SHOW WHY WE NEED IT. That is, the anti-regulation party—yeah, right—cannot give us a good reason to pass a regulation that could be used to intimidate some voters. Therefore, it is frivolous regulation. And, believe me, they wouldn't push for it so hard if they didn't think it would keep black voters out of the polls. Many Republicans will tell you that themselves. It's a political game. It's disgusting that Ross tried to pull that stunt today. Surely, he can find something better to do with his campaign than pander to Mississippians' worse instincts. It's time we move past wink-wink race politics—and pushing for voter ID is not doing that.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-05-01T16:42:52-06:00

ID

81187

Comment

[quote]And, believe me, they wouldn't push for it so hard if they didn't think it would keep black voters out of the polls. Many Republicans will tell you that themselves.[/quote] Yeah, got proof? I mean, I can shovel plenty of stories about stunts the Dems pull to keep blacks going to the polls on their behalf. Is that fair? Picking up absentee ballots in bulk and delivering them to nursing homes? Politics isn't fair in Mississippi.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2007-05-01T17:33:13-06:00

ID

81188

Comment

You will note, Iron, that in order to criticize Republicans for something, one does not have to defend Dems, or even like them. Or vice versa. The binary thing is really tired. Proof? Well, yeah. The "southern strategy," which includes voter ID, has been openly discussed by Republicans, especially in recent years (remember the apology to the NAACP). The good news is that not all Republicans race-bait, and many are disgusted by this archaic tactic. Apparently, Ross is not one of them. Let's just call him "old school." We haven't done our interview with Bryant, yet, but I fully expect him to be quite refreshing next to Ross. Hopefully, he won't stoop to the same level of political ploys.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-05-01T17:36:56-06:00

ID

81189

Comment

Here's an interesting piece from Missouri after they went through a Voter ID bill: Voter ID story. Ultimately, it was rejected as unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court because of the costs involved, etc.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2007-05-01T17:49:07-06:00

ID

81190

Comment

Right. And then there's that problem that is is NOT NEEDED. Find a new political saw, Ross et al. You're behind the times on this one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-05-01T18:20:02-06:00

ID

81191

Comment

Same old, Same old, Todd. It's full of the same arguments that I've seen here. I'm not cowed by the fact Missouri's Supremes turned it down for some vauge reasons.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2007-05-01T19:31:54-06:00

ID

81192

Comment

How would you "prove" that voters are not who they say they are without some basis for comparison -- i.e., some form of voter identification? It's like a teenager arguing that the store clerk can't card him, because the clerk hasn't seen his ID, and therefore can't prove he's under 21. Oh, and then there's the argument that people who are so ignorant as to think that showing a driver's license or birth certificate is somehow dangerous have no business governing a democracy, anyway. Or to put it more gently, wouldn't the "progressive" thing be to undertake a comprehensive adult education program in impoverished areas about why government is your friend, and ID's are good? As opposed to simply shrugging and saying, "You can't PROVE our electoral process is really THAT corrupt. So no need to safeguard the process"? Wouldn't you guys be irate -- I mean, you're always irate, but wouldn't you be even more irate-- if the tables were turned, and the evil southern strategizin' Republican good ole boys were saying, "Y'all can't PROVE that local Republican officials are rigging voting machines, so there's no need to regulate"?

Author

laughter

Date

2007-05-02T15:04:29-06:00

ID

81193

Comment

In every other advanced democratic country voters must identify themselves. But then again, in those countries people also have reliable health insurance, a rational defence policy, and subsidized child care. Hmmmm

Author

Willezurmacht

Date

2007-05-02T15:15:36-06:00