H. Barbour, Defense Cutting, Amnesty Granting, Presidential Machine?

[Schadenfroh]

Looks like Governor Barbour is going to make a push for the presidency, kinda breaking his previous style of behind the scenes man at the federal level.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/haley-barbour-president-pac-bradshaw

In the past few weeks, Haley Barbour has been snapping up top GOP political strategists for his likely presidential campaign. Barbour hired former Republican National Committee communications guru Jim *** to work for his political action committee
...
Barbour's latest hire to his PAC is Sally Bradshaw, a Florida politico who has advised former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and worked on Mitt Romney's failed presidential campaign in 2008. Despite her ties to Romney, who's still considered a frontrunner in the 2012 race, Bradshaw told the Miami Herald that Barbour "is the right fit for me."

In a minor break with mainstream GOP:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51378.html

America should slash defense spending — and consider shrinking its presence in Afghanistan, Haley Barbour said Tuesday night.
...
"We can save money on defense and if we Republicans don't propose saving money on defense, we'll have no credibility on anything else."

In the same speech, he seemed to have stopped just short of saying we should pull out of Afghanistan and that nation building is hopeless:

"I don't think our mission should be to think we're going to make Afghanistan an Ireland or an Italy" or a Western-style democracy, he said.

This comes in an environment where both Democrats and Republicans favor maintaining or expanding defense spending. For example, Obama seeks to expand (inflation-adjusted) defense spending beyond cold-war Reagen and even GWB levels:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2143525

He is a crafty one, helping in the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress while chairman of the Republican Party. But, he has a major blight in his past going against him, he is a former lobbyist. He, along with his partners, helm one of the most powerful lobbying firms in the nation. His clients include big tobacco, but America might be lighting up a bit to tobacco as no one cares that our most recent president is a smoker. Take it, being a lobbyist for a tobacco company is likely much worse in the eyes of the public than being a smoker (not sure if Barbour smokes or not).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haley_barbour#RNC_chairman

Barbour has been described as "one of Washington's all-time mega-lobbyists."[7] He "was a wealthy K Street lobbyist for giant corporations such as RJ Reynolds, Philip Morris, Amgen, Microsoft, United Health, Southern Company, and many others."
...
In 1998, Fortune magazine named Barbour Griffith & Rogers the second-most-powerful lobbying firm in America. In 2001, after the inauguration of George W. Bush, Fortune named it the most powerful.

Looks like he has even lobbied for immigration reform on-behalf of the Mexican government:

BGR also "lobbied on behalf of the Embassy of Mexico in 2001 to promote a bill related to Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This provision would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the United States, through family connections or job skills, without a requirement that they return to their home country for the requisite 3-10 years. This is what's often referred to as 'amnesty.'"

Seems that he might be in favor of granting amnesty to illegals:
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011...igration_reform_past_catches_up_with_him.html

Back in September he said in an interview with the Hoover Institution that Latino immigrants to the Gulf Coast post-Katrina were instrumental to recovery work. He began by saying that his first priority regarding immigration reform would be to “secure” the country’s borders. Then he said something quite striking, not just for a Republican but for a member of either party these days:

A lot of it is just common sense. And common sense tell us we’re not going to take 10 or 12 or 14 million people and put them in jail or deport them. We’re not going to do it, and we need to quit—some people need to quit acting like we are and let’s talk about real solutions.

Personally, while he has been vital (behind the scenes at the federal level) to the Republican Party, I do not think his chances of winning a Republican primary are very good, even if he did does not push a pro-illegal or anti-military funding agenda. People just do not know of him. Not to mention, competitors will be quick to point out his tobacco / Mexican government lobbying history.

 

[jonks]

Barbour is the best. With his revisionist memory we never even had segregation. Imagine what he can do with provisionist memory!

 

[nageov3t]

not gonna lie, I'd probably really strongly consider just about any viable candidate who ran on a campaign of pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan and cutting Defense spending to pre-war levels.

 

[Fern]

And common sense tell us we’re not going to take 10 or 12 or 14 million people and put them in jail or deport them. We’re not going to do it, and we need to quit—some people need to quit acting like we are and let’s talk about real solutions.

Sounds like code for amnesty. If so, I think he'll never win the primary.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I love Barbour, and if he prefaces the amnesty with absolutely closing the border to illegal immigration and includes paying ALL back taxes together with probation and throwing out those who cannot pass a background check or who have felony arrests I'd support it. I have no illusions that we're going to throw out probably twenty million people (ten or twelve million would just be the Mexicans), and if we can shut down the flood of illegals, most of those here will assimilate. However I don't think this is Barbour's year. If a southerner like Barbour were to run against the Messiah, the mainstream media would go absolutely batshit crazy. Cain or Romney or a northerner seem to me to have much better chances.

 

[jonks]

I love Barbour, and if he prefaces the amnesty with absolutely closing the border to illegal immigration and includes paying ALL back taxes together with probation and throwing out those who cannot pass a background check or who have felony arrests I'd support it. I have no illusions that we're going to throw out probably twenty million people (ten or twelve million would just be the Mexicans), and if we can shut down the flood of illegals, most of those here will assimilate. However I don't think this is Barbour's year. If a southerner like Barbour were to run against the Messiah, the mainstream media would go absolutely batshit crazy. Cain or Romney or a northerner seem to me to have much better chances.

who's cain?

 

[werepossum]

who's cain?

Herman Cain.

 

[Lanyap]

Barbour/Palin 2012

Somebody had to say it.

 

[lothar]

Wasn't he the governor that introduced a tax on OTC medications in his state?
If so, then he's pretty foolish.

 

[werepossum]

Barbour/Palin 2012

Somebody had to say it.

I generally like Palin and think Bill Maher is monkey ball sweat, but Baby Jesus quoted Maher as saying approximately:

"Palin just discovered the devastation in Japan. Now she's demanding that President Obama invade Tsunami."

That's funny as hell.

 

[piasabird]

Let's pull out of Libya???

 

[Jaskalas]

not gonna lie, I'd probably really strongly consider just about any viable candidate who ran on a campaign of pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan and cutting Defense spending to pre-war levels.

An open border policy would ruin all of that. I agree the policy you stated though.

 

[jonks]

Herman Cain.

How do you feel about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXCwd65R5o&feature=player_embedded#at=25

 

[Red Dawn]

I generally like Palin

Why? She an opportunistic attention whore whose only interest in politics is to enrich herself

 

[werepossum]

How do you feel about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXCwd65R5o&feature=player_embedded#at=25

Mixed. I agree with virtually everything he said, but being a Muslim does not necessarily mean being part of the creeping attempt to install Sharia law in the USA. I would not support appointing any Muslim in any way associated with advancing Sharia or "Muslim causes" in America, but a blanket statement that he would not appoint any Muslims is troubling. While I don't support appointing Muslims to show how diverse and tolerant we are/he is, it's possible that by banning ALL Muslims from appointment, he will stop himself for considering someone who might be the best choice for a particular post.

It's troubling in two other ways as well. With respect to judges, one's religion is not necessarily apparent. Cabinet level appoints should go through an intense investigation, but with judges one might have to specifically investigate to determine religion. If a judge candidate's Islamic is potential for problems, it will likely show up as a specific problem, whether of statement or of association. A blanket statement that he will not appoint Muslims as Cabinet members OR as judges pretty much requires a religious investigation on a pass/fail basis, which arguably violates, in spirit if not in letter, our separation of church and state. While there is no requirement that all religions be considered equal in appointments - few people for instance would seriously argue that a Satan worshiper should be considered as a federal judge - banning Muslims is a step toward requiring a Judeo-Christian religion to be a federal judge, which clearly would be a violation of our Constitution.

The third point is that such a statement lowers our leverage in dealing with Islamic nations. A President can hardly demand that Islamic nations not discriminate against Jews or Christians if he openly discriminates against Muslims. So while I understand his concerns, I do not think adopting this blanket position is wise, and openly stating it is downright foolish - even though it will likely help him in the primaries. I still like him though. (There are NO politicians with whom I don't have at least a couple major policy disagreements, being as I am a creature of both fringes.)

 

[werepossum]

Why? She an opportunistic attention whore whose only interest in politics is to enrich herself

I disagree, she also wants to advance an agenda of promoting traditional, conservative America. And I think she did good things during her (brief) stint as governor. Being tapped for veep is literally the worst thing that could have happened to her, although it's making her wealthy.

I disagree with a lot of her platform and I would not vote for her (at least not in the primary), but I still like her. I do not have to agree with everything (or even most everything) a person believes to like them.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Having lived in Mississippi while Barbour was governor, I can say that state that was "led" to be last in education, last in health care, first in obesity, first in teen pregnancy and a state that relies on federal tax money to operate.

For the last three decades or so, MS has had an almost 2:1 ratio when looking at federal outlays vs. amount of tax dollars paid by its citizens. In fact, they have never ranked lower than 4th in this category since 1981 and have been ranked the worst state in the nation for the last three decades in generating tax revenue.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html

 

[CallMeJoe]

...it's possible that by banning ALL Muslims from appointment, he will stop himself for considering someone who might be the best choice for a particular post...

While it is possible he might miss a qualified candidate, it is dead certain that he shall violate both the spirit and the letter of the United States Constitution:

but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

(Article VI, paragraph 3)


edit: too quick to post; on finishing your post, I see you noted this in your second paragraph.

 

[werepossum]

While it is possible he might miss a qualified candidate, it is dead certain that he shall violate both the spirit and the letter of the United States Constitution:
(Article VI, paragraph 3)


edit: too quick to post; on finishing your post, I see you noted this in your second paragraph.

Agreed. This was originally to prevent the Catholic versus Protestant, Deist versus Theist power struggles from developing, but it says what it says: NO religious test. Unless one can show troubling associations or behaviors in an individual, that has to protect Muslims as well.

 

[Red Dawn]

I disagree, she also wants to advance an agenda of promoting traditional, conservative America.

A real modern day Anita Bryant.:whiste:

 

[werepossum]

A real modern day Anita Bryant.:whiste:

A bit more tolerant, but not a bad analogy.

 

[zsdersw]

Well, with America growing fatter and fatter, Barbour's gonna look just fine as POTUS.

 

[werepossum]

Well, with America growing fatter and fatter, Barbour's gonna look just fine as POTUS.

LOL With Obama looking like an example of why we should be fighting AIDS or heroin addition, America might be tempted by a fat guy.

 

[zsdersw]

America might be tempted by a fat guy.

Anyone to make themselves look thinner.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Looks like Barbour's building of a civil rights museum is causing more racially controversy...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/us-mississippi-museum-idUSTRE7344UY20110405

"This is just an attention-grabber to launch his presidential race," Mississippi NAACP President Derrick Johnson said. "It was not a priority for the administration before the series of race-related controversies."

But a governor's spokeswoman said Barbour brought the project up in January -- before the media firestorm over some of comments about race.

Seems it comes with a price tag...

Barbour said he wanted the state to fully fund construction of the museums

I thought that his history of being a tobacco lobbyist would be of more concern than concerns over possible racism, guess I was wrong.