A response to a story reported over the weekend looks like a classic example of changing the conversation when you are losing the argument.
Republican Attorney General Candidate Mike Hurst was identified as a lobbyist for the company Argenbright, an airport security company whose lax coverage allowed terrorists to bring weapons aboard planes on September 11, 2001. After the terrorist attacks, Hurst went to work lobbying Capitol Hill trying to save his company's skin after Hurst's company received numerous lawsuits on behalf of victims' families. Hurst's response seems to be "I was a lobbyist, but I can't recall what I did or when I did them so that settles that." This does not sound like the tone of someone who is claiming to clean up corruption, particularly when the company for whom he worked pled guilty to concealing criminal behavior by some of its employees - employees that were supposed to be keeping a watchful eye on 9/11. What was Hurst's job? He can't - or does not want to - remember.
Governor Phil Bryant and the Republican establishment are rallying around Hurst as a good candidate for Attorney General, despite Hurst's background in sweeping things under the rug. What will be interesting to see whether other supporters and donors want to go on record as supporting Mike Hurst, a lobbyist for the company that was asleep on the job on 9/11. Is this the type of person Mississippi can trust as its Attorney General?