That's the problem with your definition of racism: by defining Chokwe Lumumba as "a" racist, you're attempting to discredit his reasonable opposition to proposals that have an obvious racist effect (such as the conditional disenfranchisement of Jackson's black voters, in this case). Meanwhile, by defining Phil Bryant as <i>not</i> being "a" racist, you can whitewash his proposals–even when they have an obvious racist effect. And this very white definition of racism gets repeated unchallenged every day, like some idiotic liturgical chant, on SuperTalk.<br><br>But it's dishonest, wrongheaded, and carries no weight with me. You should try it on the local right-wing blogosphere if you want a suburban amen chorus; I'm sure they'd be happy to give you one. Personally, I can't be bothered.

Congratulations to all of you. Very well deserved!

I think the biggest policy issue distinguishing Lee and Lumumba, in terms of how they would perform as mayor, is their willingness to protect Jackson's autonomy in the face of suburban legislative pressure. The racist state-run sales tax proposal is a good bellwether for that—Lee's willing to accept it, Lumumba isn't, and I think that pretty accurately defines how they would govern differently as mayor. If you want to concede some of Jackson's governing structure over to folks who don't actually live in Jackson, and trust them to use that power to help us rather than exploit us, Jonathan Lee is your man. If you think that's a devil's bargain, Chokwe Lumumba is your man.<br><br>Personally, being a historian and having seen how the Mississippi State Legislature works, I think Lumumba wins that argument pretty decisively. Handing our city government over to Phil Bryant and his cronies would be irrational, dangerous, and just plain weird.

thabian, I've known Jeff for north of ten years now. He apologized—convincingly—at a crucial time during Melton's first term when the public needed to condemn the mayor's excesses. I haven't forgotten that, and I respect him for it.<br><br>That said, he's a committed Lee guy and has made no secret of the fact. Politics is personal and loyalty-driven for him; you're not going to get much thick-text policy analysis from his posts, and he's not worried about details, but he's a good man and I'll still respect him when all of this is over.<br><br>And Slick, I hope to God you're right about Chokwe's chances of making it into the runoff with a lead—that would be a beautiful thing. But I don't think the anti-Johnson sentiment is ever as strong as it sounds; remember we were hearing the same thing in 2009 (I was, anyway), and he had very little difficulty beating Crisler. A Johnson-Lumumba or Quinn-Lumumba runoff would be, to me, a best-case scenario; a runoff with Lee in it would disappoint me (though Lee-Lumumba could be a <i>damn</i> interesting race, for many reasons).

I completely agree with Mr. Caldwell's assessment of Chokwe Lumumba, which is why he will get my vote on Tuesday—but I think the fact that he received 40% of the editorial board support, and missed the endorsement by only one vote, speaks to the fact that the JFP did take this decision, and his candidacy, very seriously.

(The biblical antecedent is the correct one in this case, Darryl.)

Whatever, Darryl. It's the radical in the Governor's Mansion who scares me—not the radical running for mayor, who is a very sharp, courageous guy and has long since earned my respect.

Darryl, his name isn't Edwin Taliaferro; it's Chokwe Lumumba. We can disagree about a lot of civil rights issues, but the basic right to legally change one's name should not be in dispute.

I can understand why the terminology may be a little daunting, but the ideas aren't, at least as much as I understand them (and I think I understand them pretty well). Here's the gist of it:<br><br>In the Bible, Kush was one of the sons of Ham, the child of Noah associated with the North African cultures with which Israel associated (Ethiopia, primarily). In Exodus 10, Moses marries a Kushite woman, which scandalizes Aaron. So it's a pretty clear Hebrew Bible indicator for "black," by the standards of the region. The contemporary MXGM is using the word "Kush" to refer to the predominantly-black, predominantly-progressive area—centered in the Mississippi Delta—where it's focusing some of its efforts, identified in the interview as building people's assemblies (grassroots networks), drawing progressive candidates, and building progressive policies. Basically, it's a regional sanctuary-city approach that I think most of us would support, comparable to the political organizing that's going on in the "research triangle" in North Carolina. As you can see, it's mostly the same territory as U.S. House District 2.<br><br>What Kush is <i>not</i> is a proposed secession from the state. Chokwe did, I think, support secession at one point in the 1970s—which is understandable, frankly—but has now made it clear that by Kush he refers to the region itself, and not to a new proposed government.<br><br>These are radical ideas, but they're not secessionist or separatist ideas. You're right to investigate them, and I think it's incumbent on those of us who support his candidacy to explain ourselves when this kind of terminology comes up, but all this really represents is a regional organizing model based on majority demographics rather than state boundaries, which makes sense given the MXGM's low probability of success in organizing majority-white areas of the tri-state region.

Jonathan Lee supporters: the votes haven't been counted, but I think Harvey Johnson should write you a thank-you note for guaranteeing him another term.<br><br>Lee's basic platform is that he's the "unity" candidate. I would like his supporters to look at the anonymous comments above—which are typical of what I've heard from the Lee camp—and ask me if that's the kind of "unity" we would see out of his administration. Putting aside the referendum on Johnson (because this isn't a two-way race yet), the only argument I've heard in favor of voting for Lee over Lumumba or Quinn is that all of the "important"—i.e., white and/or wealthy—anti-Johnson people are doing it. That's not an unmitigated asset; it can also be a liability.<br><br>The fact that I'm a white male should not obligate me to vote for the guy who has received the bulk of the Republican donations, but this has been the primary message I've been hearing for 16 years—in 1997 with Reeves, in 2005 with Melton, in 2009 with Crisler, and now with Lee. The JFP has <i>never</i> endorsed the Republicans' candidate of choice in any of these races, and that's good—it would have been foolish to do so.<br><br>If you want to beat Harvey Johnson in an 80% black, 85% Democratic city, you're going to have to stop running Chamber of Commerce candidates who attract suburban Republican money under a vague "unity" ticket, who are then tainted by the influence that comes with that money, and instead support more specific and "divisive" <i>left-wing</i> candidates who offer a more specific set of policy alternatives to those of the Johnson administration.<br><br>Chokwe Lumumba could beat Harvey Johnson in a runoff. So, possibly, could Regina Quinn. I believe Jonathan Lee can't—but Republican donations have given him the opportunity to monopolize the anti-Johnson movement to such a degree that he will probably end up in a runoff against Johnson and, just as probably, lose. Anti-Johnson progressives can't sell a winning candidate, and anti-Johnson conservatives can't buy one. And until you realize that, you will never beat Harvey Johnson.