Vote Today Until 7 p.m.: JFP Endorsements for Mayor and City Council

Beautifully written and well thought out, as usual. Thanks for this much-anticipated announcement.

A great article. Well written and makes us understand why you chose who you chose and didn't eliminate the positives of the other candidates.

Makes good points to consider as we choose who we will support in the election.

No surprise you would pick Junior for mayor.

I think you made the best decisions, and I enjoyed reading the article. I agree that Harvey and Horhn would be our best options for mayor. If Harvey wins, I really hope they work together to help Jackson grow.

Just one thing puzzled me...Why was there no discussion of Crisler? Did you decide to just give details on your top 3?

Disappointing but unsurprising choice. Harvey is a roadblock to economic development; ask anyone who tried to do business with his administration.

It was actually a surprise to us. I think it's safe to say that all of us were ready to support a different candidate during the campaign. I know I was.

But when all was said and done, Harvey Johnson's strengths stacked higher than the others for reasons expressed already, among others. We find the "roadblock to eco-devo" argument specious, as much progress indeed occurred on this watch. However, as we discuss above, he has some fixin' to do, and we believe his pledge that he will do it, starting on day one.

Fat Harry you obviously have on blinders. The economic development that is in progress now is because of former Mayor Johnson. There are plenty of business people who never had been able to get business with the City until the Johnson administration.

Thanks Jackson Free Press...you endorsed the best most qualified person. Lets get this city "Back on Track".

Harvey is an impressive speaker and can "talk the talk". But, he failed to produce. His administration had two ineffective Chiefs of Police. He should not get a 3rd term.

Good choice

Even if Harvey didn't produce, at least it would not be a giant step backwards like Frank has done. I do not agree that Harvey was unproductive, I just think he did a poor job of communicating with the citizens and media of Jackson.

The red tape and hoops that are in place now in the city departments needs to be completely overhauled, regardless who gets elected. It's terrible when you hear about potential businesses getting fed up with dealing with the city and the permit department, so they just give up and take their business elsewhere. A change in policy would directly improve the city's revenue and boost citizen confidence. I hope whomever is elected can establish the groundwork to get this done in the first 100 days.

As an occasional reader, I am definitely curious to know what measuring tool the Jackson FreePress uses to determine which candidate they choose to endorse. The beauty of our country is that each citizen has the right to vote for the person they support regardless of what the media says.

After all, this would not be the first time the media has attempted to lead the people in the wrong direction.

Factually, Louis, Johnson's last chief, Robert Moore, was quite effective, but wasn't given time to finish what he started. He wasn't perfect, but crime had reached a 20-year low on his watch. There was much false reporting about him and what he said, but we should be at the point of dealing in fact, rather than rumor.

We agree with Chip about the red tape, which Johnson addressed with us in greater detail and with the most comprehensive plan of any of the candidates. See endorsement above for some discussion of "JackStat." We want to see this started on the first day in office—it's much more important than passing out white cowboy hats to City Council.

I'm sure there's a better choice than Harvey.

If I were a voter, I'd ask Johnson at every turn how he is going to put this accountability program in place to hold him accountable for his promise. "JackStat" should be a word of the campaign! Pass it on.

Not that Harvey Johnson is a bad choice, but I would rather see someone else get the endorsement. But that's just one man's opinion and I will respectfully disagree.

I do agree with Harrison Michael. Anyone other than Stokes.

Brian (Fry), we relied on everything we could for our endorsements: interviews, public forums, documents, personal dealings and so on. It was a particular challenge this year based on the sheer numbers of candidates. We put the most time into the mayoral endorsements, inviting the five we considered the top candidates (based on what we had seem already) to have an in-depth discussion with us. We also talked to voters and other people who knew and had worked with candidates.

There were many good and passionate candidates, including many young ones such as yourself whom we hope to see continue running for office, but we chose the ones we thought would best serve the city in these roles starting this July.

We also focusing in the positives in these endorsements, as should be obvious. We were impressed most with candidates who spent the most time talking about what they can and will do, rather than what is wrong with other people.

Interesting selections. I fugured you guys would pick either Johnson or Horhn, and I can tell by your response that you haven't completely ruled Horhn out. I'm glad you did not endorse Fair, and I'll just leave it at that. :)

I'm in Ward 2, so Tom Stingley was one of the people I was thinking about voting for. I also thought about Stacey Webb and Van Siggers.

I think I went to high school with Harrison Michael, but I can't remember. Dagner-Cook is someone I would love to see back in the saddle again, and based on how much my niece and nephew loved Marshall Elem. before they had to transfer, I think Tony Yarber would make a good councilman.

Ladd, these are my opinions, which i have struggled with. They differ, apparently, greatly from yours. I trust you do not consider them "specious" because they differ from yours.

i don't think you really can speak with authority on the "roadblock to eco-devo" arguments, which you find specious. There is a well-documented, often reported (even if it was from the evil empire newspaper) history of Johnson's "my way or no way" attitude in dealing with businesses, developers, other politicians, and even constituents during his tenure.

Truth is, progress was made in Jackson, IN SPITE of Johnson, just like it is being made IN SPITE of Melton. Just ask the developers in Jackson and the ones from out-of-town that couldn't get a meaningful audience. MUCH of the development Johnson takes credit for was actually started way back during the Ditto administration.

Just ask the Parkway folks if Johnson was the reason they decided to do the Pinnacle Place in Jackson rather than move north like Butler Snow.

I'll give him some credit for leadership on the convention center, though he certainly wasn't the primary force. He just claims credit for it. Without constant work by John Horhn and some behind-the scenes bi-partison support from Leland Speed (that must have been a sight as much as he and harvey hate each other), the bill never would have passed, in large part because of Harvey's perceived arrogance by the Senate. (That's my opinion, but I also think it's fact!)

In general, he was indecisive, he was a pain to work with, he had no clout/respect in the legislature, he could not work well with other govt leaders in the metro area (i don't either, but our mayor needs to as part of his job), and he has virtually no respect from the organized business community - black or white.

Moreover, his "pledge" to do better, which you hang your hat on, is not worth much to me. He had 8 years to "act" and not talk. Talk time is over for him. It's time to give others besides Melton and Johnson a chance to act.

In my humble opinion, Johnson would be a huge step backwards; will not do anything to heal the political wounds and division in this city that he helped create; would not provide any kind of enthusiasm for more development; has not indicated that he has what it takes to overhaul city government; (in fact, i'm not even sure he wants to); and he hasn't done anything in the last 4 years to demonstrably SHOW that he has changed, other than say so.

In short, it looks like you fell for a smooth-talking, articulate, and intelligent gentleman's line. That's just my opinion, of course. If i didn't have has last 8 years of non-performance deeply embedded in my mind, it would be easy to fall for that. Harvey is the one who gave us Melton on a silver platter. The anti-Harvey vote was as big as the pro-Melton vote.

I'm sure you'll jump me and poke all kinds of holes in my positions and suggest maybe i'm an idiot or something because i disagree with you. Or, that may arguments are just "specious."

Those are my OPINIONS. I'm not pretending to be anything i'm not (though i do remain anonymous to hide from my boss who would probably fire me for blogging on the JFP). I'm just a john q citizen. I'm not a trained journalist or skilled writer, i'm not rich; (i'm not tall, dark and handsome either, by the way). I love this city and want what's in the best interest for the future of my family and friends here for the next 50 years.

I endorse Marshand Crisler or John Horhn. Not sure which one i'll vote for yet. I'm disappointed you haven't helped more on that decision. Those are just my opinions.

And that’s the truth ... sho-nuff.

For the record...though my tag-line was hijacked:-) that wasnt me. Really. And dont know if that was an attempt to make folks think that it was. I, Kamikaze, will not be making a public endoresment this time around..at least not today. lol

What's funny is I thought it was you Kaze the whole time until I saw it was actually FriendsofJackson... haha.

Obviously, those are your opinions, Friends! Everyone is posting their opinion. If someone finds your argument specious, that's their opinion. No one is trying to offend you by disagreeing, I assure you. We're trying to have adult conversation here.

You're OK, we're OK, everyone's OK. And that's the truth, sho-nuff.

;-)

As for substance of your comment, we're confident we didn't fall for anything. That is actually an advantage of choosing a known quantity rather than going with someone without a track record in a particular job—which we decided was hard to do this time around, after the mess that Melton made (after being elected based on really bad and false reporting by the Ledger and others, btw). The endorsement above explains this pretty well.

Johnson's biggest negative is that people such as yourself are so down on him (which I understand in large part)—and he hasn't done enough to counter those perceptions of him. We hope he does a better job of that and, if not, we will be more likely to endorse someone else four years from now (depending on the options, of course) after he has had a chance to reverse the severe problems Melton has hoisted on us.

The JFP has never looked for a mayor to be a savior, or everything to everybody, or universally liked. We want someone who can get the job done without causing major negative drama or scandal to the city or being someone who just does the bidding of powerful people without question. Even with his negatives, Johnson is the person who best fits all of that this time around.

I will tell you that one thing that gave us great pause about the two men you endorse: they both gave really, truly rotten answers when asked about the Two Lakes project. Neither showed any awareness about concerns about the cost or efficacy of the project and essentially vowed to help make them happen from day one. They really sounded like they had not done any research on a project that is very controversial—we have written about the pitfalls in great details, which neither seemed to realize—and that could prove to be one of those major boondoggles that our state speeds forward with, only to regret it later. We might as well have been talking to John McGowan about it.

H. Johnson, on the other hand, said he had supported it in the past, but would need to revisit it and look at the options closer before moving ahead. that was a much more intelligent answer that shows respect for the magnitude of the project and the controversies around it.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing either Horhn or Crisler (or Fair or R. Johnson) run again in four years after spending more time getting ready for this office.

thanks for taking the time to respond to the substance of my comments. I still respectfully disagree with you about Harvey, but hey, that's democracy. I voted for him both times before, but i won't this time unless he's in a runoff with Melton. Melton's just plain evil. It's time for somebody new.

p.s. didn't mean to piss kamikaze off. never met him, but he looks a lot bigger and meaner than i am. i just like his stuff. Now HE'S somebody i could get excited about running for mayor.

Does anyone find it interesting that the Jackson Free Press endorsed Harvey Johnson on the first day that he violated Mississippi campaign finance reporting laws? He keeps stating that he has "learned". Well, he certainly does not appear to have "learned" much! Seems like procrastination continues to be his middle name. And if he was not the procrastinator then he definitely did not surround himself with good managers to make sure that the report was filed on time. How's that for leadership.

Victory, I'm not up on all the details of this yet, but one of our reporters was working on campaign-finance reports when I left the office tonight. He said that the Johnson campaign was saying that the earlier Ledger story had gotten the story wrong about him filing late, due to conflicting deadlines, which actually allowed today as a deadline. And someone told me tonight that the Ledger had changed their story online about it to reflect that. (If they did, I hope they also ran a correction.)

So I'm not sure on this; I'm sure Ward will have the complete story tomorrow morning, so check back.

Otherwise, what I'm really miffed about on finance report front is that (a) the city clerk charges 50 cents per page for these reports, which take no time and few equipment and supplies to copy, and (b) they won't be posted on the secretary of state's Web site until next week, presumably after the primary. We have got to bring more accountability into the public-records process in this state, and fast.

So many people you talk to in government are offended that you dare ask them for information. Infuriating.

I am really pissed!!!! The city of Jackson has a web site. Why can't the financial statements be posted on the city's web site? Folks, this is 2009. Why should any citizen have to pay anything to get the reports or have to wait until after the primary election to get them online? I am not a computer genius but I know I can scan something onto my computer and upload it immediately. You can not tell me that the city of Jackson does not have IT people who can make this happen. When are the citizens of Jackson going to demand that city government be responsive and work for the people. Not having these reports on line within 24 hours after they have been filed is criminal!!!

Thank God our leaders aren't solely elected by the media, despite having an influence.

I'm curious if any one of the candidates showed a serious interest in getting the city website and other technology up to par with the rest of the nation? It seems we are way behind in Jackson.

Izzy, I'd have to check our notes, but I think all of the candidates we interviewed did. And H. Johnson talked a lot about how technology now is such that tracking systems such as JackStat would be much easier than 10 years ago.

And no questions: Those finance reports should go up as PDFs the minute they get them. The city clerk and the deputy city attorney spent 30 minutes arguing with me about why 50 cents a page made sense -- they could have scanned them by then and made them available in e-mail!

That conversation was scary. They simply did not understand why the access to information was my point. I told them I could get the reports; it wasn't about me. It was about the public. They didn't get it.

We talked in-depth to Johnson about his problem and how the culture has to be changed, as well as the other candidates. And it has to stop at the very top. When people ask for information, hand it over immediately without hesitation or excess cost unless there is a real reason not to. Otherwise, you immediately build distrust. And you must, must hire people who understand that. If they don't, FIRE them.

hi im new here (go majors!) and i agree that the city needs to use technology better. i would like to pay my water bill online like my other bills. i just looked at the campaign finance reports on the clarion ledger (doesnt tell me much) and all of them are hand written except for marshand crislers. that tells me that he is the only campaign that can use technology. im a first time voter but i have tried to be informed from the news and this paper and the presidental race. i just think that he is the best we can elect, just like i think obama is. i want someone who can relate to me and my friends and can use technology the way i can.

Harvey is a politician. Of course he's going to tell the media what they want to hear. Accountability? Sure! Open government? I'm all for it! Make a pledge to do better this go-round? Of course I will! Surround yourself with competent individuals this time? I have learned my lesson!

A comment in this thread worth noting is this: There are plenty of business people who never had been able to get business with the City until the Johnson administration.

And I'm sure those people are lining up to give campaign contributions to get those behind-closed-doors city contracts.

As for the "specious" argument re: Johnson's micromanagement and "my way or the highway" approach to businesses...please check the difference in the Commercial Permits issued during Johnson's tenure as compared to today. And please come up with a better excuse than Go-Zone.

Joyt, I thought the same thing when looking at the finance reports. It may just be because of whomever completed the reports for him, if Crisler didn't, but even so it says a lot to me that his campaign is more technologically advanced than the rest in regard to the finance reports. Simple things like that can push voters one way or the other.

Harry, you sell us short. We do not ask the kinds of questions that elicit easy sound bites. We had an intense conversation with H. Johnson about his weaknesses—not the kind that draws out what-you-want-to-hear kind of answers. Our ability and willingness to do this is what makes sound-bite candidates fearful to talk to us sometimes, especially without their people circling them.

We're quite confident that this wasn't a case of tell us what we want to hear.

And look: the JFP has not steered our readership wrong, yet, on candidate choices. We have done in-depth research across the board on the candidates, their strengths and their potential weaknesses (including scandal potential). We have the community's best interest at heart. We are focusing on the positive in these endorsements, as well as delving into our choice's negatives to give you a sense of how he is responding and pledging to change those problems. And in fact, he brought up many of these issues himself, which I've liked to see.

We ask Jackson to trust us. Four years ago, we did everything in our power to warn people against Melton. But too many voters wanted a fast-talker, regardless of deep he thought, or what kind of skeletons might have been lurking in his closet. And too many were willing to say anything about the then-current mayor, whether it was true or not, and too much of that has become conventional myth. I have heard two editors (one no longer an editor) say in public forums that The Clarion-Ledger did not report the whole story about Melton because it wasn't "what people want to hear."

If we were here just to please the powerful (including some of our own friends, although many don't like us much), we would go with easy choices that follow conventional myth and damn the warning signs about possible serious problems in the future. Many people (including advertisers) would have liked us to do that four years ago. Had we done that, we would have been just another media outlet, just more citizens, with egg on our face now.

But we did not follow the herd into the Melton corner—not because we were brilliant. But because we took time to do our homework and determine that it was not the right thing to do for our city, and we have been proved dramatically right, in ways I couldn't even have imagined. And we are in that position once again: We are following the motto that Todd has developed for the JFP over the years: Do the right thing and wait.

The JFP is not a scandal sheet, and I am not going to sit here and list out every possible problem we see with potential candidates. But everyone needs to look at our track record and understand one thing: We did not take this decision lightly. And we are making it based on a mountain of information.

You don't have to agree with the endorsement, but you really do need to try to understand what is behind it if you care about the city and not just complaining because someone doesn't agree with you.

I have always believed in what I thought was the guiding principle of JFP. I thought your staff had courage to do detailed expose on our present mayor and others down the line.

I have always known that there are few fair evenhanded publications which search for the truth. And I understand there are forces at work in the majority of media which render the result to be propaganda not news.

Now that I have properly prefaced my love and appreciation for the fact that you guys get it right most of the time, you did not get it right with several of your endorsements.

Ward 6 I have no basic issue with your selection other than this. An elementary principal is not going to have the time to do both jobs. Admittedly, I do not know what his plans are, but there is no way he can do both jobs. While councilman is advertised as a part-time gig, it more of an all the time job. If he does great with the children Mr. Yarber is to be lauded however he cannot do both well.

Ward 5 Cook, her best day was spearheading a smoking ban in Jackson Restaurants and while choosing her is not necessarily a bad thing; couldn't we do for some new blood. Time and time again your endorsements return to the old gaurd. Guys HELLO it's four years later. What has she done in the last four years to improve her community while not in office

Ward 4 Mr. Brown I'll admit is his own man. I also feel that he was sent home by a political machine as opposed to a better candidate, however this is politics and Frank and Bo are big boys. However, who at JFP actually kept a tally on what Bo did for his constituents while he was in office. Yes I will admit it is hard to prove the nonexistence of some things at times. What economic development did he bring to the inner city. What has he done in the last four years except not be in office? What coalitions did he form and support for a better Jackson. Alas, my city is about much more that spirited debate with the mayor..isn't it.

Ward 3 Kenny must have a viable option, you can just pick someone because you do not like Kenny Stokes

Ward 2 Did JFP really fairly and thoroughly investigate you choice here. This ward is currently suffering from leadership vacuum. Did you really look to see if he could fill that void.

Is JFP still truly interested in the free exchange of information in the marketplace of ideas.........or has the last bastion of free press in the entire State of Mississippi faded into sith like shadows of propoganda

Donna, I appreciate your response. It is just very troubling when almost every businessman, lawyer, and banker I talk to says the same thing about the Johnson administration. The commercial permit numbers bear this out. And I'm still very bitter about the Braves stadium not being in Jackson (a la Memphis Redbirds). According to the Braves organization, that was a direct result of the Johnson administration's meddling.

I also fail to understand your invective against the Two Lakes plan. I have a very good understanding of the project and cannot for the life of me understand why the organization that puts out BOOM Jackson would be so adamantly opposed to the project. "High rise condos overlooking the levee?" Give me a break.

Thanks for the kind words, search. ;-)

Clearly, you disagree with some of our choices, but your point that we always go with the old guard is clearly not true based on what you said yourself! We certainy didn't do that in Stokes' ward, which you also criticize us for. I'm not sure us disagreeing with you means that the last bastion of free press is fading into the sunset, etc., but I appreciate the drama and emotion. ;-)

We don't expect people to agree with every choice, but we did research them and have reasons for them. In some of the wards, there were a wider variety of choices than in others. And some of the people we leaned toward initially fell off the list after we started looking at them more closely. And some of them, such as our choice to replace Stokes, impressed our reporters mightily in public, as well as many of our readers.

Again, as I say about the mayoral choices, these endorsements are focusing on the positives, and not any negatives that we might have unearthed that pointed us away from certain people (other than incumbents who were in Melton's pocket, which is already a public concern).

One last thing I will say: I edited an unsubstantiated accusation out of your post, and I have deleted other anonymous posts about that Council candidates. The JFP is not a place to push anonymous accusations, true or not. If you have something you would like us to investigate, please call Adam Lynch at 601.362.6121 ext. 8, identify yourself, and then provide the sources and documentation to back up any accusations.

We have learned from experience that a lot of stuff flies in the waning weeks of campaigns. Some is true; much is not. But if you want something to get out through this medium, you need to step forward and present the information in an ethical fashion so that we can see who/what the source is and then have the information to look into it. Otherwise, don't try to post it here.

Harry, the permit problem is bigger and deeper than the Johnson administration, and has a whole lot to do with the way things were always done here. (We're looking into this now.) The good news is that Johnson presented the best plan to fix the problem. We will hold him to it.

The Braves thing, as is everything, is more complicated than its biggest supporters think. And we've already said that we do not believe that big stadiums and arenas are the be-all, end-all of economic development (nor are Convention Centers, for the record). That doesn't mean he could not have handled it better. It just means that in no way is a deal-breaker.

As for Two Lakes, please go back and read our multi-year coverage on this. There are red flags all over the place that are being ignored by this project's supporters. Just because it sounds good doesn't mean it will work out that way and that it is not a massive boondoggle.

This organization, regardless of what publications we put out, does not support any development no matter what (just as we do not believe that anybody who waves the money should, for instance, build our Convention Center hotel). From the very first issue of the JFP, we have been in favor of a reinvigorated city, but we have also cautioned against too much emphasis on downtown development, the problem of gentrification and giving developers too much leeway. We have been consistent on those points, as well as our warnings against Two Lakes. The funny thing is that authorities on this issue who aren't just blindly following it echo our warnings.

Just as Jackson needed to do on Melton four years ago, it needs to read the fine print on this project and demand major accountability -- or preferably a different option altogether. Blaming the suburbs for this one is just not good enough. It's bigger than city-vs.-suburb.

Are any of the candidates supporting any notion of impeachment if he/she can not govern the city in the proper manner? It would say a lot about the candidates that supported something such as this. It would have come in handy during the last 3 1/2 years.

Can a mayor be impeached?

I'm not sure if "impeachment" is the correct term regarding mayors, but surely there is some way to get rid of an incompetent mayor.

Not, not under state law. Once again, the state tells us what we can and can't do. Sigh.

What about a recall election?

Recalls aren't allowed either. Having lived in California during the 2003 recall election for governor, I'm rather opposed to recall. Probably because of the circus-ness that goes along with it.

It seems that if you plan on trying to recall a government official, you have to have substantial reasons for doing so, and it is quite controversial, expensive, and would take a large toll on the city as well. I would hope it would never need to be used, but it would be nice to have the option there in order to keep government officials in line and hold them accountable for their actions.

I don't agree with Harvey Johnson getting another chance at being Mayor. I worked under his previous administration and he was not a great communicator. In my opinion,he did not have his employees best interest at heart. We did not receive pay raises(which was one of the reasons,a lot of city employees voted for Frank). I say give new blood a chance to improve the city.

Personally I'm leaning toward Chokwe Lumumba or Stacey Webb for Ward 2. I'll go with Harvey Johnson for Mayor. Hopefully he's learn from his mistakes.

Psyharden

I agree with on Mayor, I'll probably go with Johnson to and I'm definitely going with Stacey Webb for Ward 2.

I really like Webb's intelligence and energy for me he is by far the best and safest choice the Ward 2

Search4Truth, your concern about the Ward 6 post is indeed a valid one. However, let me attempt to put your mind at ease... I am a true student of systems management. I believe that in order for any organization to function fully, a system must be in place that dictates the functionality of the organization. The principles of systems management do not include micro-management as a part of it. When I entered this race, I entered it with the full confidence that my staff and I had implemented a system that allowed the adults and the building to be engaged in the teaching and learning process WITHOUT the micro-management of the instructional leader (principal). So, I often inspect what I expect. I conduct frequent quality assurance checks. But, at the end of the day, the people who run this elementary school are the staff and students who have been empowered to do so. No, I am not the average school leader. I am a leader who believes in the idea that the organization works best when all hands are on deck. That's the philosophy I will take to City Hall as I engage our citizens to be a part of our trek back to the top.

I just heard that a new Jackson State polls has Melton in first place, followed by H. Johnson and Crisler, I think. Anyone have details?

I heard this afternoon that one campaign has a "real poll" that shows HJ in the lead, followed very closely by crisler. the poll also showed that melton and horhn are running neck and neck in a distant third.

Tyarber, I assume you're Tony Yarber? Thanks for showing up to address concerns. I do like your talk about systems management. Boy is that lacking in our city government right now.

Friends, that poll sounds similar to Chism's last one, except he had Melton running more ahead of Horhn. Of course, that was almost a week ago.

I'm also hearing that The Clarion-Ledger has a poll coming, but I don't know who's doing it. We are also hearing that they have decided not to endorse.

Chickens. ;-)

Also a word of caution, I've noticed some posts coming in with allegations against a Council candidate under different names, some sharing IPs, and all saying they are going to vote for one of his opponents. They're popping up on different blogs and sites basically saying the same things.

Watch for tricks at this point in the campaign. If they have real allegations they are willing to support, they will reveal themselves. Otherwise, it may well be trickery by an opponent. We'll keep our eyes on it, considering we know who the accusers are endorsing.

Hey Ladd!
Tony Yarber is(affectionately known as) TYarber.
I try to be as responsive as humanly possible. Part of that ole principal job of mine. :-)

Funny, I mentioned the Ledger poll, and they posted about it. ;-)

This story is useless, though: Their poll found that most Jacksonians believe the city is headed in the wrong direction. No ####.

Who is the Southern Research Group of Jackson, by the way? That's the group that did their poll. Just curious.

Wow Ladd, Mr. Yarber is impressive and he is very articulate, but did you speak with Johnnie McDaniels he is the only candidate in Ward 6 to ever actually prosecute crime in the City of Jackson. He is smart and extremely articulate as well. The good thing about it is that whether its McDaniels or Yarber I feel Ward 6 will be in safe hands.

If the Clarion Ledger doesn't endorse a mayoral candidate. I will never read that paper again

French, not to take away from it, but we don't find being a prosecutor any more relevant to being a good council member than being an educator. In fact, I am so concerned about the condition of the school board that the second sounds even more appealing at this point. And it's not like the condition of the schools have nothing to do with crime, of course. I'd rather put more focus on prevention than prosecution, if we really care about curbing crime.

Right, Psyharden. The Clarion-Ledger helped deliver Frank Melton on a silver platter (not to mention endorsed Bush for a SECOND term), and now it may not have the courage to endorse a candidate when there are actual real choices.

Just another sign of its shrinking irrelevance. The meme I'm hearing these days is comparing it to The Coffee News.

And its city election coverage is about as bad as I've ever seen it.

Please note: I think there is a missing element to this endorsement matter please read the following. It is not my intention to offend nor mislead but merely to inform as it relates to progress in building Jackson's future.

Why I Think Everyone Should Look Closer at the Jackson Public School Board Appointment Issue

I read the endorsement issue of the Jackson Free Press and I wanted to respond in an open setting but I didn’t want to come off as sour about not getting the endorsement of the Jackson Free Press as some of the reasoning was sort of solid from a logic perspective. Still, I must admit I am sad about it (ok just ward 6- smile) but that isn’t the reason I am penning this message. The reason I am penning this relates to the problem brewing relating to the Jackson Public School board appointments. In your endorsements you endorsed Stingley, Harrison, Brown, Cook, Yarber... I sort of guessed the Jackson Free Press would endorse those with the exception of Stingley and Yarber. Here is the unseen problem... of those endorsed Brown, Harrison, Cook, and Yarber can’t vote on school board related matters. This will create a serious problem with quorum and place Jackson Public Schools in a compromised state with several school board members needing to be replaced years ago. Although, I will note that it is doubtful that Harrison will beat Kenny Stokes so there might be a quorum. I still remember the Dr. Ivory Phillips school board situation with not enough city council members there or able to vote. This matter could get really political should someone on the city council decide not to attend the meeting on school board matters.

To that end, there could be a lot of 2-2 split votes spelled out meaning wards (1 and 7) versus (2 and 3) with no way to solving the problem by law. I am still looking up that part. A worse scenario could be the votes being held up by any disappointed with a selection council member or any of the able to vote council members in a 3-1 vote that need quorum. I believe this is an important matter and something to note should all of the Jackson Free Press endorsements win. What is everyone's opinion? I wonder how any elected mayor will handle this.

Von Anderson
Candidate for City Council Ward 6
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
601.400.7811

"I just heard that a new Jackson State polls has Melton in first place, followed by H. Johnson and Crisler, I think. Anyone have details?"

I heard about this too. Check the date of the polling. I think it was done a while ago.

That's good to hear, News Junkie. None of the other polls I've heard about have Melton in the lead. We'll see what the Ledger's says tomorrow.

Just saw your post, Von. It is a very thoughtful one, and does assume that all of the JFP endorsements will come to fruition. We have a winning record, to to speak, with endorsements overall, but I would be very surprised to see us sweep. ;-) And if we do, that means we have a mayor who will make different school-board nominations than the current mayor, so that belongs in your what-if equation as well.

That said, it is tough to make an entire slate of endorsements based on one issue, as important as the school board is to us. The same goes for crime, and other issues facing the city.

Thanks, though, for posting and making us all think about an important issue!

Now, I want to say a few words about the Crisler campaign. We've had people ask why we did not discuss him more in the endorsement, and I understand that he is upset about it, although I haven't heard from him directly to ask us why. But I think it's fair to him to say a few things, as he has been helpful to the JFP and admirably a critic of Melton from the beginning, back when it wasn't popular (we know how tough that was to do).

I am only speaking for myself here; our editorial board had four people, so bear that in mind.

I have seen two Crislers: Crisler the down-to-earth councilman, and Crisler the candidate for mayor. The two seem dramatically different to me. The second seems highly managed by other people, and in ways that don't seem very smart. He is talking too much in sound bites and seems armed with flippant phrases that mean little in a time when the city really, really needs substance (such as that canned question for H. Johnson in the debate that drew a great retort from the former mayor about a second-chance God).

We don't need someone who runs like Melton did with lip service, and I think Crisler could get beyond that, but is being handled poorly. Just the fact that he seems to be allowing Melton's conservative white base to look like they are running his campaign (even if they're not) shows to me that he seems in little control of his campaign. That strategy may help him short term, but I doubt it will long-term.

Unlike some people, I believe that you can at least in part judge a potential candidate by the campaign decisions they make and the people they surround themselves with, and what those people do when the candidate isn't looking, and whether he seems to be aware of what's going on in his name. If he runs a sound-bite campaign, he will get support from people who believe in sound bites (see Melton, four years ago).

I'm not posting this to "go negative" on Crisler, even as we have tried to keep the endorsements very positive. I am posting it to explain that we fully realize that the Crisler who we have seen during the campaign may not be the real one, and that the real one might be a good mayor at some point after a different kind of campaign. But as of now, his campaign has not delivered a candidate, or communicated enough specific ideas well, that we could endorse.

As for Robert Johnson, we liked him as a person and he is solid talker on crime issues. But he is too one-dimensional, and is not running for police chief. We also still worry about his gruffness in a management environment, but less than we used to. We think he's softened up a bit. ;-)

I will say that it was amazing to have such a tough choice and be able to delve into the issues in our one-on-one conversations. We appreciate the candidates' willingness to have those conversations with us without campaign people in the room.

Also, I think it would be great to have a mayor with a wide variety of support, including conservative whites. But a candidate needs to watch telegraphing, falsely or not, that he is THE candidate of the city's most conservative side. I mean, an endorsement by Wyatt and a call for Sun readers to split their families between primaries; Jonathan Jones stepping down; and Jeff Weill endorsing Crisler the same day -- I mean, who is orchestrating this stuff??? Is the candidate in charge of his own campaign? Is he maintaining message control? What happens when he doesn't deliver what the Fordice folks wants?

There are many good people supporting Crisler, of all races and for the right reasons, but like it or not, this co-opting of his campaign is feeding into the conspiracy theories about Crisler and giving even those of us who don't buy that stuff so easily pause. Someone pointed out that the guy on North State who usually has the humongous sign about Wicker has one about Crisler. I suspect all this speaks more to the herd mentality of many in North Jackson, but still it's a bit mind-boggling.

Considering I have lots of respect for this newspaper, these last two posts border on hit pieces along the lines of what Rep. Evans just wrote in the Jackson Advocate. I doubt you have even been down to the Crisler headquarters or bothered to address these issues to Apa or Crisler before you posted them. They are false accusations based on your ideas of what your perception is about the campaign. Of the few whites I know which are heavily involved in supporting Crisler they were Johnson supporters last time. Just because Mounger and Speed donated money doesn't mean they are running his campaign.

I expect post like yours from kids like newjack or Rep Evans in the Jackson Advocate; but not from someone who claims to be progressive.

Weill has supported Crisler from the get-go. He spoke highly of him at a party at his house weeks before your conspiracy theory about Wyatt, Weill and Dr. Johnson trifecta. Maybe you didn't notice but the Northside Sun has a deadline publication date too, and the election was just a week away when this happened. Weill went on to reaffirm his support for Crisler at the Capitol days later. Think about how you felt when peopled questioned Harvey's ad and your endorsement that followed the next day. I know you are better than this.

Crisler's campaign is ran by people who were heavily involved with Obama and campaigns for Democrats all over. They are young and progressive and see beyond race when it comes to running a campaign. That tells me a whole lot about the man running for mayor. Much more than the hate I hear from his detractors or the theories about his conservative support. You can claim that he is a sound bite candidate based on a few 90 second answers; but his Four P's are the best short message out there. "Any chance God..." isn't a sound bite too? His website and plans are very detailed - especially on crime and development. I think someone pointed out on here correctly that Johnson is going to tell you what you want to hear to get reelected, and you seem to believe that he has changed. Great. But, considering who many of his supporters still are it doesn't seem likely that we will see much change. Johnson got some things done on the public side; but he was not a friend to private business. The Union Station, Telecom Center and Convention Center are all government related and add very little the tax base in the grand scheme of things. It is hard to find a solely private business, like the ones that came to fruition under Melton, that happened under Johnson's terms. Trust me I know that Melton is no godsend; but, he did allow Heidel to work with private businesses so we could get some real money moving into this City once again. I'll give Johnson the King Edward; but after that the cupboard is bare.

I knew this paper was going to endorse either Horhn or Johnson from day one, and my prediction came true. As a Crisler supporter I wasn't too worried about it because very few votes are going to be swayed by either this paper, the Clarion Ledger or the Northside Sun. Yet, when papers like the Jackson Advocate, who cater to the lowest common denominator, pull stunts like they just did then that is where the danger lies in educating the public. With the JFP support of Downtown Partners, and BOOM magazine you are a member of the Capital Street Gang which only wants to keep blacks on the plantation if either Horhn or Crisler are elected as Rep. Evans tells the Advocate readers. Those of us with half a brain know that isn't true. Yet, if you go and post conservative conspiracy theories about Crisler's campaign based on your perception; and that it is being run by others without oversight by the campaign or any real facts then you are parallel with the message of Rep. Evans. And that is as far from the message of Obama, hope and change as you can get.

I don't necessarily think Harvey's a bad choice, but I do think it's time for Jackson to move forward with a fresh voice, rather than moving back to the old guard. Too much of that happens in Jackson, where positions of power seem to get passed along like the party joint amongst the same people. Perhaps he'll have fresh faces in his 3rd term, but with the nature of politics, I doubt it will be at more than a token level. The man had his chance and got whipped by King Frank. That tells me a lot in and of itself. Frank should not be used as a measuring stick for selecting the next mayor. He's an abberation. I know many people are comfortable with Harvey, but now is the time for bold, fresh new leadership.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing the criteria for selecting the "top five candidates." Was it polling? I ask that because it would seem to me that popularity or the degree to which someone has a chance to win should not rule out opening the process up to all of the 10 Dem candidates. One of the other five may be just as capable of running the city effectively. I'm not saying that's the case, i don't have a horse in this race, but it would seem that a publication like the JFP would not be in the business of essentially shutting out less popular candidates. If the editorial board was truly "open-minded" and "undecided", why not invite them all? Just my opinion...

I like Crisler as a candidate and think he'd probably make a fantastic mayor, though I haven't spent the kind of time on him that Donna has. But I have to say that my early reasons for not supporting Crisler were exactly as Donna describes here--I saw a lot of the wealthy white folks who supported Melton support Crisler before other candidates even entered the race, and before he had any reasonable chance to establish a policy platform.

I later decided that I had no problem with this myself--I think these folks just wanted Melton gone and committed early because they didn't think anybody with better odds than Crisler would be entering the race to do the job--but I agree that it's problematic, I think it's a perception that is probably going to hurt him, and it's something he will need to address, especially if he becomes mayor.

For my part, I'm voting for John Horhn but I understand the JFP endorsement. Harvey deserves a third term; Crisler, Horhn, and Robert Johnson all deserve a crack at being mayor; I'm sure all of them can deliver; so for me this isn't a question of who deserves it or doesn't deserve it, or who can perform adequately. It's a question of which among the most viable and qualified candidates can perform best, which is a question I'm glad I have the luxury of asking this year, and it's not hard to see how someone could ask that question and arrive at Harvey Johnson as the answer.

Birdseye, you make good points. I was for harvey before. i think we need change. melton is awful. harvey is just damaged goods and can't move this city where it needs to go. did he get a raw deal 4 years ago; well, yes, even tho some of it was his own making. did the non-JFP media screw him 4 years ago; well, yes, though again, he brought some of it on himself.

more than ever, we need somebody that can break down barriers, that can put disparate factions together, and doesn't come to office already so tainted and damaged that LARGE chunks of the populace won't be able to work with him. I'm just not convinced that he even wants to work with them.

See here in lies the problem Tom. You are posting without knowing all the facts. A lot of those wealthy white people went to another candidate to back him; yet, that candidate said they were not going to run. So, upon further review allegiances were formed with other candidates. So, when that first candidate decided to run, who does have some of that wealthy white Melton money too, as Donna and Kaze pointed out to the WPS rumor mongers, he wasn't going to suddenly get back all those who approached him in the first place. To make the claim that because someone supported Melton and now supports Crisler, thus making Crisler less of his own man or that he can't form his own platform is scurrilous.

The other thing that is even more misguided is that somehow because a wealthy white person or a conservative supports a black candidate that the candidate isn't pro-black enough or in the pocket of the supporters. There local elections are not about R's and D's. They are about people who want a new Jackson, a prosperous Jackson over those who are happy with their fiefdom - like Stokes, those that think like him, and those who won't ever see outside the box much less the inside. We just finished a presidential election that showed people of all races can and will support a black man to be president; yet, somehow when that happens locally it is a ploy, a ruse, a white power play that will sudden make Jackson go from almost 80% black to majority white in one day. Come on think people. Leland Speed didn't need to build a building downtown. David Watkins didn't need to buy the King Edward and Standard Life building. Duckworth didn't need to develop the Electric Building, etc... etc... etc... in a majority black town. A town and county where very few white people will ever hold office. It's not like they are doing this for any other reason than the fact that they love Jackson and they want to see the best of it come alive. Everyone of these wealthy white people that have aligned with any one of the candidates could have packed it up and moved on to one of the burbs or another town in another state and still been wealthy and productive. But, they haven't. And a majority of the time they don't get a pat on the back for their efforts. Nope, they get accused of racism, being plantation owners, or worse because they support this or that black candidate. It is one thing when you hear that from callers on Charles Evers show or Blunston's show or in the Jackson Advocate from the likes of Jim Evans or Parker-Weaver. But, when supposed educated progressive people like yourself push the same crap just in different prose it stinks even worse!

Birdseye, the first three sentences of your post essentially say that if I was part of the good old boys' network and knew what was going on behind the scenes, I would have a right to have an opinion about the movement behind the Crisler campaign; but that since I'm not old enough or rich enough to be, I should not draw conclusions based on the information available to us mere plebeians.

That so-called line of reasoning is exactly the sort of thing that makes me suspicious of candidates who receive early and unexplained support from rich white donors. Because I heard the same line from the same people re Melton--"shut up; you don't know what you're talking about; we're the ones with the information; trust us to run the city"--and you see where it got us.

Crisler is a great candidate, IMHO, and I think he would probably make a fine mayor. But if I didn't share Donna's concerns re his support base before, I certainly do now.

If you have information I don't have, share the information and the means to vet it. Otherwise, you can take "all the facts" and shove 'em. I find this sort of appeal to privilege to be a tiresome and unsatisfactory substitute for actual, you know, facts.

And I don't really think you're doing Crisler any favors, either. If he read your post without wincing, he's a better man than I.

Birdseye I don't believe in a conspiracy; however, Chrisler is no Obama. He is a power hungry politician with very little substance. I agree White support does not make him a sell out; however, I think the deep pockets (Black and White) who support him recognize that he is malleable and can be easily controlled.

It's not a question of whether you are part of any network as you claim I am. For your info, I make very littel money, have very little power and live in a low income area! But, I talk to people and I follow the races from the ground not the newspapers. It's not hard to get involved in a campaign, you just have to be willing to go to their headquaters. I've even been to Horhn's on I-55 and Harvey's on State St. It is a well established fact that Horhn was the man of choice before he declined at first. Second, Crisler was the last person for formally announce, so all these initial claims you make are not very valid. I seem to recall a big time white donor standing right behind your man at his announcement. Is that Horhn's puppet master or is Crisler the only one who can be mastered? That seems to be your line of reasoning based on facts that you don't seem to be privy too or you are just ignoring when they are mentioned by Kaze or Donna as during the WPS dust up. I hae a hard time seeing the owners of Bravo's as puppet masters or members of the Capital Street Gang.

It is the likes of Rep Evans (this dude make decisions for all of us in the state), and particular Harvey supporters (one on this blog) who are dissing Horhan and Crisler as worshipping at the alter of the white man, so you must be ignoring facts as they relate to your man and not to Crisler. Sure I am defending Crisler more, I like him; but, Horhn is a target of these racist attacks too? Or do you not realize that?

What you see as an appeal to privilege is just brushing aside my point in some snot-nosed "I'm better than you" way. So, if you accuse rich white people of racism, like Rep Evans has, it is ok. No other white person, even if they are not in the WPS, shouldn't take notice or offense. I sure hope anyone black or white with any common sense gets offended when anyone of any race uses racism to try and win an election or to disparage a person running. But, when you go and try to dismiss my points as some kind of classism to boot, you are no better than Mr. Evans or the others who use race-baiting to try and sway public opinion. I don't care if a person is white or black; but, if they get dirty with race to further an agenda then they are backward ass and no good for this City. Nobody rides Dr. Cooley when he builds an empire in this City and out at Nissan. No one questions the motives of other black leaders when they decide to do something good for Jackson. But, let it be a white person (remember how much Stokes and gang bitched about that project some guy tried to do in his ward?), and all bets are off from certain people and leaders in this area on it being anything other than some white power grab. The opportunities are here for anyone to take - you just have to take them! And it must be even worse when a poor person like me actually says something about it. Yet, unless someone starts to say things then we are going to be plagued by WPS conspiracies, plantation talk, and continued racism on both sides by the small (but vocal) minded people around here.

(1) I never said anything negative about Crisler, and Donna said very little that can be construed as negative about Crisler. The issue is not Crisler; it's how his base of support came together. If you smear Crisler with this "worshiping at the altar of the white man" foolishness and then try to pin it on me and Donna, you're not helping his campaign. Don't spread nasty rumors about your own candidate!

(2) Jeff Good is a friend of mine, and I don't consider the other names you mentioned to be villains either. But when a candidate gets conspicuous early support from one group, it's not unreasonable to wonder why.

(3) You mentioned that Horhn was approached by these people and turned them down. I'm assuming what he turned down was not campaign checks, so what are you suggesting that they offered him that he declined and Crisler accepted? Specifics, man.

(4) There is a white power structure. Period. It's not a conspiracy; it's a realistic description of how homosocial networks can congeal in an institutionally racist environment. I am not suggesting that everybody who uses the phrase "white power structure" uses it in this sense but that's what the phrase has historically meant.

(5) Jim Evans isn't a bad guy. I like him as a person (my family has known him for over 20 years), and he's a tireless advocate for the oppressed in Mississippi. I'm very glad to have him in the legislature despite being extremely offended by that ridiculous op-ed he wrote for the Jackson Advocate last week.

(5a) Hey, see what I did there? I expressed my respect for Jim Evans while condemning a specific thing he did. Try that with the people you're criticizing and let me know how it goes.

I just got out of a meeting (an exciting one with a group of Jackson youth from public and private schools; yay!), and I'm exhausted, although it was exhilarating. So I'm too tired to read these posts word-by-word, much less respond indepth right away.

I will say a few things fast, though, for the record: My concern about Crisler's campaign have not been that he has intentionally consented to be a "puppet" of a conservative base—but that he is running a campaign that seems to be telegraphing that, and I rather doubt he means to, to give him the benefit of the doubt. But HE needs to be in control of his campaign and make sure he's personally connecting well with the full community.

Bear in mind, though, that we did not endorse based on Crisler's support from conservative whites; we endorsed Johnson based on the best conversation with us, along with his track record of honesty and progress—all the reasons we state in the endorsement.

Secondly, I have spoken to Crisler about some of my concerns about his campaign, but they have gotten stronger for me in recent days. The problem with a campaign isn't going to be apparent to those inside the echo chamber (ask Melton and his supporters four years ago); it's going to be from those of us on the outside looking in. If I didn't care, I wouldn't even bring it up. It's not a hit job, and it was nothing to do with Jim Evans' hideous comments in the Advocate. Evans is a straight Melton man, and I've already lost respect for him and his baiting. He could get more done without it.

And it's not "small-minded" to be concerned about who supports a campaign en masse. It can actually be real concern about a candidate's campaign being co-opted outside his control. I expressed the same concerns to Robert Smith about Ed Peters, et al, during his campaign. Unfortunately, it was before the hammer fell on Peters, so not enough people cared.

Thirdly, we didn't shut out less popular candidates. We decided based on Adam's interviews with every single Democratic candidate, as well as their own campaigns, platforms, appearances and such, to choose the five we thought would be good mayors and then interview them in a one-on-one, substantive way to come to a consensus our final decision. This was our procedure, and it worked very well. Of course, if any of you would like to endorse and do it a different way, by all means.

Lastly, we knew the JFP would get hit hard from whatever side we did not choose on this one, as we always do (and usually anonymously). We're used to it; it's part of this job, and it's part of serving the community responsibily. The pushback, for the record, is nothing like it was when we dared question and criticize Melton four years ago. Full Web sites were set up to try to take us down then, but failed, I'm happy to say. ;-)

OK, now I nap. Everyone please be respectful to each other. Life's too short for ugliness.

Oh, and what Tom said. ;-)

I'm also curious about what Horhn turned down that Crisler didn't. Birdseye, you might be digging a more curious ditch here with your posts.

It's like you two want to selectively ignore facts. It was known a long time ago that Horhn was interested in running for mayor, just like a lot of candidates that are in the race. So, some people inquired - that is much different from offered - and he then said he wasn't going to do it. The word "declined" was used as in "I've declined to run for mayor." Not "decline" your offer of x, y or z. No where did I say he "turned down something" or that Crisler "took" something. Quit twisting my words, as you so like to say! That is so like someone who spreads rumors or eats them up for a living! So when the other candidates decided or announced they were running, people had to support someone. So, then Horhn then decided he would run. So, those that inquired had already decided who to support. And you can go ahead and ignore your posts to newjack and others, I don't care. But, to sit and questions someones campaign because they bring a rainbow coalition to the table is so... well... so yesterday and non-progressive. So, not Obama! I never said a thing until you decided to jump on the "OMG conservatives or Ward 1 people are supporting Crisler more than anyone else" rant, so therefore he's not a leader. You've endorsed Harvey, why take the back-handed cheap shot upon awaking this morning when no one had posted squat about Crisler and your lack of support. If it came in emails or conversation at the bars maybe you should take the high road and leave it at that? Hmmm?

And Tom, I'm sorry you are not making sense. So, does that mean I should rally to the side of outwardly racist people because I respect them for other things they've done? I'm sure his rant was just a satire piece and he's not really like that? Call me when this paper lets go of the fact that some white candidates have spoken at the CCC or whatever the heck it is group because they've done some good elsewhere. For real, it's like an echo chamber in here when someone calls out a JFP'er for an obviously small-minded post. And then to get all snarky about being anonymous, when 95% or posters are anonymous is so elitist and dismissive. I am not on here spreading lies or rumors about anyone. Only here to call your posts poppy-cock! But, why should I expect anything less to someone who disagrees with something said here.

I stated for the record that I knew who you were going to be endorsed; and don't feel who you endorsed makes hill nor beans in this race. This is this papers 2nd mayors race, and last time didn't work out too well either. But, then you come on here and spew the same small-minded argument that the opposition is putting out about Crisler (and Horhn when it gets down to it)without a shred of proof or facts to back it up. Just your perception that a group of people support a candidate because of some ultimatly wrong reason without giving credit to the candidate who earned that suppport through his ideas, his vision and him campaing staff. Who are either of you to judge the hearts of supporters who support Crisler or any other candidate? Is every supporter of every candidate a perfect person? No. But when you lump in the lot of them under some WPS or conservative group you are showing that you are not thinking real hard and taking a cheap shot at the same time.

Birdseye dont call me a kid because im not voting for crisler. I stay in his ward and if he cant run ward six correctly than he cant run Jackson.

So like i said crisler want win because Jacksonians want vote for him.

Birdseye, I don't know which anti-Horhn argument you think I'm making. Since I will be voting for John Horhn (and have consistently supported him since before he even announced his candidacy), I'm guessing it must not be a very persuasive one. Marshand Crisler and Harvey Johnson are both fine candidates who deserve to be mayor and would stand out in any ordinary election year. I just happen to prefer Horhn. It isn't reasonable to expect everybody to line up behind the same candidate in a year when the candidates are this good.

I would advise you to please cool your heels and knock off the conspiracy theories. You're not helping your candidate at all. He is from everything I've seen a great guy, and deserves better advocacy than you're giving him.

Question. Why is it so hard to sell crisler as mayor, they have spent all this money and put his momma and aunt on radio spots and still most everybody i talk to aint buying.

NewJack, he's running against an incumbent mayor and the guy who served for 8 years before him--that's a tall order. Horhn faces the same problem.

Folks predicted a perfunctory Johnson-Melton runoff for a long time; I don't think Melton's gonna be on the ballot May 19th but I don't know who will be there instead of him. If I had to bet right now I'd say 5:4 odds it'll be Crisler. And it's not inconceivable that it could work out to be Crisler-Horhn with both of the mayors shut out of the runoff.

Tom HJ will be the next mayor

newjack you were the one who was calling crisler the puppet of the WPS on these boards. That is very narrow-minded. Tom, you seem to be missing the point that Horhn is the butt of these WPS, plantation attacks too. But, considering he's barely cracked 4th place in any poll I can understand how you are missing that point.

Now, since the two really rightwing blogs in town hate Crisler, with one even claiming this paper was in the tank for him. Since the Jackson Advocate types hate Crisler. And since this paper doesn't see Crisler as a good candidate, then I know I have chosen the right person to support. Crisler has hit the middle of the road Jacksonian's heart and pulse. The Jackson first jacksonian wants a candidate that only wants what is best for Jackson for everyone - not just the group they subscribe to for their group think.

Ladd

At the end of the day, sadly, you're not any better than the Clarion Ledger. Yes, i usually agree with your positions. Yet, your heavy hand in these blogs continues to blow my mind and turn me off.

You lose credibility with all but a small core of folks when you continue to Lord over us peons when you disagree with. Is it really possible for you to refrain from stomping on a thread here? I'd much rather hear Birdseye and Tom Head duke it out, rather than having your professional "my opinion is better than anybody else's viewpoint."

I know it's your paper, but you don't serve the "cause" well by reminding us over and over and over . . .

and, as for your last post, it's pretty well known in the 'hood that Horhn was approached by a multi-racial group and and was asked about running for Mayor. He said no thank you. It doesn't take a James Bond to figure that out. The choice left for those alleged "elitists" you talk about was Melton, Harvey and Marshand. Obviously, there are a lot of folks in the "power structure" that think Melton and Harvey are just not what we need in Jackson right now.

The "power structure" in this case really means a wide variety of black and white, rich and poor, diverse folks (I was NOT one of them and initially had my feelings hurt). To be honest, i dont think any of the major candidates for mayor are CONTROLLED by anybody. Certainly, they all have their friends and those that can influence them. But control? give me a break. Take your conspiracy theories back to television (or perhaps Louisiana politics).

Birdseye, I'm glad you support Crisler. He's a worthy candidate. I happen to think Horhn is a better candidate, and have explained some of my reasons why. I do not particularly care if you disagree with me. That does not hurt my feelings.

FoJ, my intent with Birdseye really wasn't to duke it out with him, and I'm always happy to read Donna's contributions to these threads as she has spent substantially more time with most of these candidates than I have.

If the Crisler Campaign is a "conspiracy" then every political campaign is a conspiracy. Unless you have some proof to the contrary, I am going to mark that wordage down as unfortunate.

Likewise, pulling up a dead Governor, to pair with conservatives. Perhaps the JFP does not understand the deep Patriotism of some of us, conservative or not. We hold our Veterans in high esteem and consider their service to our Country priceless. Crisler is a true Mississippi hero to many of us and we are proud of his years of service. Without Patriots there would be no Freedom of the Press.

In the meantime, please refrain from painting us Crisler supporters all with the same brush. To attempt so branding such a large number of Jacksonians is beneath you.

And, as stated the other day, WPS is a racist generalization of many good business persons and professionals and should not be used by liberals but only by bigots.

The fact that you support Harvey Johnson, Jr. for Mayor does not bother me at all. The justifications for your support do bother me.

JackStat is nothing new. Johnson was advocating for this years ago under another name. There are better incarnations available using newest GPS technology and any Mayor other than Melton would already have it on board. Many Cities our size do.

The Floods of 1979 and 1983 were very real to Northeast Jackson. The solution offered by Two Lakes or One Lake combines relief from this threat with great economic development potential. Your objections are noted to this solution. Any person who does not seek immediate relief from flooding is not worth electing as Mayor of Jackson. Such relief has been too long coming and has been bogged down by politics.

Southern Research Group of Jackson can be Googled and is located on Briarwood Dr. Their history certaily seems credible.

Birdseye i still say crisler is a puppet and just because i dont agree with you im not narrow minded. Jacksonians dont want crisler and tuesday you will see. I have a right to my opinion like you.

Yall mad because yall writing whole articles to justify Crisler.

Ah, campaign season. It's when Donna realizes that I'm sane compared to some people. :D

It seems yall getting mad at the JFP for endorsing HJ. They endorsed the right man. Yall say that Crisler can get along with all jacksonians but yall fail to realize a real man dont try to make everybody happy, because it cant happen. Man like it was with Frank Melton i got a strong feeling about crisler, he aint the one trust me.

I'll be honest if the JFP would have endorsed someone besides HJ i would have been mad and disappointed like Birdseye and razor.

The Ledge released their mayoral poll and it shows Crisler with a slight lead over Harvey Johnson 15.5% to 14.4%. Melton comes in third with 11% and John Horhn fourth with 7%. Going by the C-L poll, no candidate would even get out of the teens.

I saw the electoral map of Jackson from the 2005 elections on page 26 in the JFP and it had some pretty interesting results. Melton had more than 75% of the vote in northeast and southeast Jackson, but milder support in west, northwest and the portion of north Jackson west of I-55. I expect that map this time to be more pinkish and white.

I should've also noted that the C-L poll had 37.5% of respondents who say they were undecided, so really, this primary is really up for grabs.

It is obvious that NewJackson has a limited range of thought. I don't believe I am MAD at the JFP, I am attempting to dialogue on portions of the above narratives and disagreed with some.

Many reasonable people can disagree without being disagree-able. Its called maturity. Worth striving for.

And, Golden Eagle, such a large group running could possibly put Melton back in charge. This is the frightening scenario.

FriendsofJackson, get over yourself with the "stomp on" the threads thing. If we didn't respond and try to explain our choices, and be transparent, people (possibly including yourself) would complain that we speak from on high without engaging with readers.

So, whatever. It's clear that you just don't agree with me, and therefore, want me to shut up and go away. The answer is simple: No. So please keep discussing issues, and stop whining about me posting. I've been posting on my own site and both participating and, in some cases, leading many discussions for seven years, and I'm not going to stop because you'd rather me shut up and go away. If you haven't figured it out by now, Friends, it never works to try to silence me or anyone else at the JFP, so I suggest that you save your energy.

Now, back to the discussion.

(And, yes, Ironghost, good point. <smile>)

Reading back through the comments since last night, I can see that Crisler supporters aren't happy with our endorsement, which is to be expected. NewJack, as he points out, would have been ripping us apart along with others had we endorsed Crisler or Horhn. This is just part of the game.

I don't have a lot to add, except for this: Read my comments more closely, Crisler supporters. I did not do what Birdseye says above that I did. This is an outright distortion:

I never said a thing until you decided to jump on the "OMG conservatives or Ward 1 people are supporting Crisler more than anyone else" rant,

I am not criticizing white conservatives voting for Crisler; what I have said is that he should have a better handle on his own campaign if he wants to win (and show that he can manage a good staff as mayor). As it is, the message that the campaign is telegraphing, purposefully or not, is that the same conservative white Melton base has turned to him now, and that is highly likely to increase distrust of his campaign by many people, and not just black ones. That plays into the hands of the people pushing the conspiracy theories.

Put another way, the burden is on Crisler to ensure that he is seen as the candidate of everyone. I know that may hurt Crisler supporters (or strategists) to hear, but I'm not sure he's pulling this off right now. And I'm not sure he knows it, because it sounds like he's in an echo chamber of sorts. Y'all are so defensive toward any criticism that you want to blame the messenger rather than exploring the criticism or even trying to understand what it really is. I hope Crisler reads this thread because maybe *he* would get it.

IMHO, ego isn't going to win this election. In fact, quite the opposite. It's not four years ago. And because of the way four years ago, people are suspicious and need to understand that a candidate is more than empty sound bites on behalf of one part of town. Personally, I don't believe Crisler fits that bill, or wants to, but I do think he has some serious message-control work to do if he wants to win. And he needs to run his campaign, or have someone running it who understands Jackson. Or, who bends over backward to try to—and that includes really listening to a variety of voices, rather than just complaining about criticism. We've been down that road with Melton.

And Birdseye, you could not known who I, or the JFP, was going to endorse. I personally have changed my mind at least three times over the campaign, as new information came in and as we heard more from candidates. So declaring that is just plain goofy and meaningless.

And Razor, please don't use personal insults like that on NewJack. He's posted here for a while, and is perfectly capable of thinking, just as the rest of us.

Ladd i think its funny how razor is throwing insults, it just proves my point that Crisler is not the man for the Job. We saw these same comments from the melton campaign when people questioned Frank Melton. Lashing out without restraint.

Well, you've thrown an insult or two yourself, NewJack.

Remember that you can't judge a candidate based on what supporters post or say. It's more important to look at what staffers are doing and saying, as well as the overall message being projected on his behalf.

I expect supporters of whatever candidate to act up. It's the campaign and the candidate that really matter.

Per Razor's comments about Two Lakes:

We aren't saying that the next mayor shouldn't be concerned about flood control. Of course he or she should. We question an outright embrace of a plan, Two Lakes, that we (and many smarter than us on these issues) believe is outright flawed on the very subject of flood control, not to mention other points.

The One Lake plan may well be a more viable option, but when Crisler brought up Two Lake to us (he was the one who essentially added it to our question line-up with his comments), there was no nuance or apparent understanding of the legitimate concerns about that project. He made it clear that he was fully on board with McGowan's vision. We were all floored by the force of his comments, considering the very problems our own paper has reported with that project. He just seemly completely unaware of the legitimate concerns, and blamed it all on suburban politics. In other words, he was whole-hog behind it clearly without taking time to do the homework to understand the magnitude and potential downside of the project. And in a divisive way, pitting Jackson against the Rankin County side in a false dilemma.

Not good.

It is also an issue that can give insight on whether a candidate is willing to consider an issue dear to the heart of many rich and powerful Northeast Jacksoners and potentially take a stance on it they won't like—if the research and realities point that direction. We want to know that the next mayor will not simply repeat the wishes of powerful supporters on their pet issues without stepping back and being willing to go a different direction if it's merited.

Had Crisler (or Horhn) said something like: "Flood control is a major concern for Jackson. I will immediately put together a team to examine all of the options including Two Lakes, One Lake and other potential solutions," that would have been much more comforting. But both are full on board with the option that many developer-supporters want, without discussing the concerns that could mightily affect citizens who don't own the property that would benefit from Two Lakes in many ways.

Ladd, you're not a good listener. Good talker, yes. Good writer, yes.

But, your posts are very defensive. You can dish it out, but you can't take criticism worth a damn. Yes, I know, it's YOUR paper. But, you're constant "over explaining" only weakens your credibility. You really don't have to analyze every single post or tear apart every post you disagree with. You, being the journalist you are, should know that.

You are a real talent and a gem for this whole damn city. And, frankly, i put you on a different plateau than the rest of us peons and consequently expect more of you than the rest of the whole media and citizenry here!! Sorry if you don't like that but it's your own fault! lol.

So, I personally don't want to see you minimized by your own blogging, or, at least in MY OPINION, your overblogging. You should try a little self restraint. You don't have to be such a control freak, you know. NOBODY is above criticism or improvement.

What I don't want, (i suspect most of the loyal bloggers on your site would agree with me), is for our only real online voice of intellectual discourse and dialogue in this city compared to the likes of Lange, Jackson Jamblaya, Othor and, hell, even the C.L. stuff.

Perhaps you can just sleep on it and try to see if there might be just a single ounce of logic in what i'm trying to say.

That's all i'm saying on the subject.