Posted on 05/22/2009 6:37:51 AM PDT by james.richardson
Barbour was one of the best Republican Party Chairmen in recent memory.
Haley Barbour is not the future!
Didn’t Barbour recently veto a law to limit emminent domain takings by the government so the government could retain the option of taking private property to support a private endeavour (like a shopping mall, McDonalds, or housing develoopment)?
Just what we need. Another RINO. ;(
Mississippi ping
Barbour vetoed legislation that would have stopped the government from taking private land for public use when the goal was just to make more money.
He said he couldn’t get several car companies to agree to move to Louisiana unless he could get the land for them. So a republican Governor thinks it’s OK to use Eminent domain to take private property as long as it creates jobs and increase the tax base…
Sounds like a Dem to me…
He will never get my vote, property rights are the very basis for all our freedoms. Without property rights, our other rights have little if any value.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/133410.html
Sold Down the River
How Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour sabotaged eminent domain reform
Since the Supreme Court’s notorious 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed that municipality to seize private property on behalf of the Pfizer Corporation, 43 states have passed laws protecting property rights against Kelo-style eminent domain abuse. Mississippi is not one of those states.
But that nearly changed in March 2009 when the Mississippi legislature voted overwhelmingly in support of a proposed law which would have guaranteed that “the right of eminent domain shall not be exercised for the purpose of taking or damaging privately owned real property for private development or for a private purpose; or for enhancement of tax revenue; or for transfer to a person, nongovernmental entity, public-private partnership, corporation or other business entity.”
In addition to enjoying strong bipartisan support in the statehouse, this piece of long-overdue reform was backed by groups as politically diverse as Americans for Tax Reform, the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and the Mississippi Forestry Association.
But none of that mattered to Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, who promptly vetoed the bill, claiming it would cripple his ability to lure large corporations into the state. As Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, admitted in his veto statement, had he not promised Toyota that he would use eminent domain to secure a piece of contested land for its Blue Springs facility, “Toyota would have broken off negotiations with us and chosen one of the other states competing with us for the project.”
That sob story may be true, but it still does nothing to justify the state’s forcible seizure of private property for the benefit a rich and powerful corporation. Toyota won’t be building bridges or roads or waterways or any other legitimate public project that might permit the use (or threat) of eminent domain. It wants to build a plant to manufacture cars and then sell them for a profit. That’s not a legitimate public use. If Toyota—or any other corporation—wants a particular piece of land, it should either pony up the market price or find somewhere else to settle. By the same token, if Barbour wants to attract business to his state, he might try pushing for lower corporate taxes or for any number of other pro-business enticements that don’t involve stripping citizens of their fundamental rights.
Last Thursday, the situation went from bad to worse, as Barbour introduced an eminent domain bill of his own during a special legislative session. It’s a tricky piece of work, one designed to appease lawmakers and voters by borrowing some of the best language from the vetoed bill, yet with certain disastrous additions to the text. Here’s how Barbour’s eminent domain “reform” bill reads (emphasis added):
The right of eminent domain shall not be exercised for the purpose of taking or damaging privately owned real property for private development, for a private purpose, for enhancement of tax revenue, or for transfer to a person, nongovernmental entity, public-private partnership or other business entity, unless the taking of private property is authorized for a project under the Mississippi Major Economic Impact Act.
The Mississippi Major Economic Impact Act, of course, is one of the biggest reasons why the state needs eminent domain reform. Indeed, that act facilitates the very sort of sweetheart deals between politicians, developers, corporations, and the Mississippi Development Authority that H.B. 803 was specifically designed to prevent. So in the alleged name of protecting property rights, Barbour champions legislation that would undermine those rights even further.
What happens next? Christina Walsh, the director of activism and coalitions at the Institute for Justice, the libertarian legal firm that represented Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court and has since spearheaded many state-level eminent domain reforms (including this one), urges Mississippi lawmakers to reject Barbour’s bill and “to stand behind the constitutional principles they voted for earlier this year and behind the constituents that voted them into office.”
In March 1792, James Madison took to the pages of the National Gazette to explain why property rights were essential to the preservation of a free society. “Where an excess of power prevails,” Madison observed, “property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” Here’s hoping those lawmakers do the right thing and stand up one more time for Mississippi’s victimized property owners.
The Mississippi legislature voted overwhelmingly in support of a proposed law which would have guaranteed that the right of eminent domain shall not be exercised for the purpose of taking or damaging privately owned real property for private development or for a private purpose; or for enhancement of tax revenue; or for transfer to a person, nongovernmental entity, public-private partnership, corporation or other business entity.
I like Haley a lot. But he’s just too “southern” to be the next GOP candidate for POTUS.
On the other hand, nobody would be better to replace Michael Steele as chairman of the RNC. Go Haley!
I get so tired of these folks that think liberalizing the Republican party is the way to win. That’s wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to begin.
One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the “moderates” are not really moderate at all. They do not follow politics and political issues as closely as we do. They haven’t really paid attention to the Constitution and American history as we have. They view these things as outside their immediate lives. The don’t really understand the real concepts behind the titles “liberal” and “conservative”.
They are clueless.
And they decide elections.
We don’t need to adopt liberal ideas to get these people to vote for us. We only need to do an end run around the MSM to get our real message out to them.
ping
Republicans may be headed for a repeat of 08 — a bunch of conservative contenders vying and splintering the right-of-center vote to allow a big-business-country-club contender, with the help of the cross-overs, to come out on top.
In 12, the cross-overs could be even more detrimental. If Obama is semi-successful and heading for an almost certain second term, the cross-overs could give the GOP another McCain-type as Obama’s competition.
[Has Steele done anything about open primaries?]
liberalizing the republican party is about obtaining corporate campaign contributions the politicians need for job security. The corporations want government contracts. (see GE and cap and trade) so the Republicans bend over and smile.
Vote splitting works.
This is why McCain pal thompson was in the race.
This is why that fool Huckabee stayed in the race.
You don’t even need to pay them, (ala ron paul), just feed their delusional egos.
LOL. Didn't we just try that with McCain?
By which rationale we should welcome as many RINOs as possible into the race. Surround Palin (or whomever) with a thundering herd of them—and let them all charge over the cliff together!
Barbour subscribes to ... inclusive, big tent policies. A distinction that will serve him well with independent swing voters, were he ever to make it to the general election.
I live in Mississippi & really like Haley Barbour. I got to meet him once & he’s a very likeable guy. He’s straight forward & to the point. I don’t know if he would have wide enough appeal for Pres. But i think he would make a good VP candidate.
Instead of just scrolling past them all, please take a moment to click the applicable state(s) on the Topics screen when posting news of particular interest to people in that state.
"Louisiana"? (I mean, given that he's the governor of Mississippi, ...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.