Thursday, March 17, 2011

Random thoughts on NAACP v. Barbour and redistricting today

Random notes about the NAACP v. Barbour lawsuit:

  • Word around the Capitol is that Republicans were betting that Speaker Billy McCoy (D-Rienzi) would blink and appoint conferees. Betting on McCoy to blink on anything is always the wrong move. That certainly doesn't look any more likely now.
  • Anyone else wonder how the phrase "NAACP v. Barbour" is going to play in Des Moines? Or what about New Hampshire? What's going to be their take on an overweight, drawling, white Southern governor with that lawsuit hanging around? Barbour's congratulatory message couldn't have been more poorly timed.  (Not that there's anything wrong with being white, overweight, Southern, and having a drawl.  All of those descriptors could apply to me.)
  • Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. At the Capitol earlier today, Bryant was overheard telling TV news crews that it would be "illegal" for the House to refuse to accept conference. Failing to accept conference happens all the time and is a perfectly acceptable parliamentary move.

1 comment:

CW said...

Actually, it might not play all that bad in Iowa. In the country as a whole, though . . .

I don't care what kind of noise he's making about it, I can't believe Barbour is serious about running for president. No doubt he's serious about running a campaign for the nomination, and there are lots of reasons why he might do that, including hoping to be a VP nominee, or raising his profile for running for the Senate. It's not like he's spending his own money for this, and he's very good at raising and spending other people's money. He's a lobbyist, for gosh sakes (mentally if no other way).

Maybe I'm overrating his intellect or political savvy, but I can't believe that Barbour doesn't realize how unlikely his prospects are, or how he plays in the rest of the country.