Mississippi
In consideration of the Larouchite who is challenging Mississippi Senator Trent Lott for 2006, Eric Fleming (response found in a post a couple days later, and a couple blog entries up)…
A choice between a person who sayseth:
In all fairness, let’s start with the truths. In the past, I have attended LaRouche events, as have several of my legislative colleagues. I have actively participated in causes with LaRouche, like fighting the closing of DC General Hospital and stopping the country of Mexico from selling their natural gas and oil rights to Enron. I have even given a glowing endorsement for his candidacy for President of the United States.
,a glowering endorsement of a Lyndon LaRouche presidency… versus a candidate who sayseth:
“I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”
… a glowering endorsement of Strom Thurmond’s 1948 Segregationist Campaign.
One candidate is excoriated, rightly, for his associations. And will receive less than 30% of the vote. The other is the fourth most powerful Republican Senator (downgraded from first most powerful due to those comments), and will receive over 70% of the vote… following his declaration of adoration for such a “problem solver”.
Two nutballs. One mainstream. One not mainstream.
Is there a third-party candidate Mississippians can vote for?
……….
UPDATE: The state Senator replied over at Politics1.com. The relevant postings:
Rep. Erik R. Fleming: I have enjoyed reading the comments posted about this issue, yes even yours, Corey. It is good to see people expressing themselves in a forum that is not driven by advertising dollars or other limitations. I am happy that Ron wrote that article because I know there is another forum out there devoted to true political discourse.
Now having said that, I did not respond to save my campaign. I repsonded because I felt that I needed to tell my side of the story, since that opportunity was not given to me prior to the article being published.
Without splitting hairs, I do not like polarizing comments, no matter if it is from LaRouche or Lott. Lott is one of my constiuents, so I have dealt with him. I have been involved with issues that LaRouche has been involved with. I have met with other controversial figures in the political diaspora, i.e. Sharpton and Farrakhan. You don’t always have to agree with them, but as a public servant and a political junkie, I have availed myself to those opportunities.
To be honest, I have not been involved with LaRouche since the end of the Presidential Primary. I have not returned their calls or attended any functions. I didn’t become important to them until I was an elected official, so they have tried to use me, and rightly or wrongly, I have used them to have access to certain opportunities, i.e. Mexico.
I am sorry to those people that believe that my association with Larouche is an insult to their sensibilities and has diminshed their hopes of unseating Lott.
I will press on with my campaign, though this cloud hangs over my head. I made a bad judgment call and I have to live with the consequences. Like someone wisely said on another blog, the primary will weed out the pretenders and the contender will emerge. If that is me, I will be honored and will fight a vigorous campaign.
I do not expect humans to forgive me for my mistakes, but as I pray for forgiveness from God, I also ask for wisdom to do the right thing. My mistake was fighting for a cause and not being careful of who was in the fight with me.
Even my letter of endorsement was a form of protest to deal with the issue of inclusion within our party. I knew then, as I know now that he can never be elected President. That, however, was the worst mistake of all, but my anger clouded my instincts at the time.
I am glad that Ron wrote the article because it has exposed some truths that I did not know. I have known from friends that LaRouche’s tactics have been at times brutal (NY, circa. 1970) and that there are serious rifts among grassroots activists because of him. But I was puzzled why so many black civil rights activists were in this guy’s corner, so curiousity led me to the conferences.
Those close to me told me in no uncertain terms that if they were going to support me, that LaRouche could not be involved with this campaign. To this date, I have kept my word.
I will not take up anymore space on this blog concerning this matter. To those who have given me the benefit of the doubt, I am humbled. To those who have not, I understand. And to Corey, I hope that one day you just deal with me as a run-of-the-mill Democrat as oppose to something that you think is worse. Oh, and your numbers are wrong, the worse I can do is 36 percent.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. If you would like to directly ask me questions about this, or anything else, feel free to e-mail me anytime.
Corey: Rep. Fleming,
If you see this and would like the opportunity to bring a sense of closure in a public venue to your association with Lyndon LaRouche, you can choose to answer this simple question:
*Do you completely denounce the consipracy theories espoused by Lyndon LaRouche in addition to all of the racist and anti-semitic comments made by Lyndon LaRouche?*
It is a fairly simple question that I hope can be answered with a yes or no.
The opportunity now exists for Rep. Fleming to choose to bring closure to his LaRouche associations once and for all.
Rep. Erik R. Fleming: Yes
Curious tidings about all this. A protest “support” for anyone else on the ballot instead of the Democratic standard-bearer would make more sense in, say, 2000 or 1996 when there’s literally no one else on the ballot instead of Clinton or Gore. (Thus, I can point you to a guy I know who voted for Lyndon Larouche in the 2000 Democratic Primary due to disgruntlement at Gore/Lieberman.) I don’t know what was on the Mississippi ballot… but I’m pretty sure a Dennis Kucinich was on the ballot, who looked as good a protest (and an authentic one at that) instead of the figure of Lyndon LaRouche.
It probably doesn’t matter all that much. If Lott retired (which he isn’t, having made noises as of late about regaining a spot in the Republican leadership), the Mississippi Democratic Party (what of it there is) would then find a “top tier” candidate and run him (her?). As it is now, there’s probably a party prescient captain or rich businessman who can get the nomination. (I firmly believe in a matter of principle that a political party — whether Republican or Democrat — for its survival has to contest every seat, even unwinnable ones, as a basic show of support for what party members there are to continue their basic fight. And to avoid nominating a stench of, say, LaRouchitism that would cripple the party forward. Beyond which, lightening sometimes does strike… Scandals befall a candidate. We almost had a Democratic Senator from Kentucky defeat Jim Bunning. Had the Democratic Party not managed to replace Torricelli with Lautenbergh at the last minute in 2002, Republican Doug Forrester would be the current Senator from New Jersey.)