
What a difference a week makes. Our last post, entered one week a ago, was a roundup of editorial voices from across Mississippi. A choir of near universal appreciation for the ex-governor on the eve of his departure from office, as it were. Seven days later, nearly a foot of fallen rain and one inauguration later, all anyone is still talking about is Haley Barbour. The mass pardoning has caused not only an uproar at home, it has been grist for the mill nationwide. And, once again, not the kind of attention Mississippi wants or needs.
For round two, here is input from…
- Sid Salter, syndicated columnist and author: This isn’t a public reaction born out of numbers. It’s a reaction born out of anger and, for many, a sense of betrayal. Newspapers which two days earlier had written glowing farewell editorials about Barbour were questioning his reasoning and his competence in the execution of the pardons. Angry families of the victims were questioning his sanity, his compassion, and his sense of decency.
- Jack Ryan, editor of the McComb Enterprise-Journal: No matter what you think of the former governor’s politics, it is difficult to argue that he’s a fool. But if the talk among people in McComb is accurate, the question everyone would like to ask him is, “What were you thinking?”
- Lloyd Gray, editor of the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal: Phil Bryant was inaugurated as Barbour’s successor Tuesday, but the overshadowing story of the week was the outgoing governor’s pardon barrage. It was truly one of the most perplexing political developments in Mississippi in years, and it almost immediately turned into a national story.
- David Hampton, Clarion-Ledger editorial director: How Barbour went about his pardoning was a huge mistake that caused public outrage. Families of victims are naturally upset, but even longtime Barbour supporters felt angry and betrayed. It made national news. Political opponents had a field day.Although Barbour says 189 of the 200-plus were already out of jail and had gone through a careful review process, it is simply hard to understand and/or justify some
- One from Yours Truly on the overlooked public notice aspect: This isn’t about whether any one of the individuals Barbour pardoned was worthy or not. That’s another debate and one that’s usually rendered moot by the chief executive’s right to release convicts and restore their civil rights. Rather, this is about transparency and the public’s right to know.
- The Commercial Dispatch in an editorial as the pardon scandal was first breaking: Trials can be painful, and jurors struggle internally to make the right decision. All for naught. These lame-duck pardons have become a part of the fabric of Mississippi. It’s a piece we’d like to see torn out.
- Kevin Cooper, publisher of The Natchez Democrat: Of the 215 criminals involved, approximately 189 were already released from prison; meaning Barbour’s paperwork was mostly meaningless to the average citizen. Fears that hundreds of murderers were being freed were overblown. Logically, however, Mississippians feel wronged by the realization that even one murderer is being set free “just because he served as a servant in the governor’s mansion.”
- A Daily Leader editorial: Political ramifications aside, the especially troubling aspect of this pardon episode is the fact that laws requiring public notices were blatantly not followed. The Mississippi Constitution – the document that gives governors the right to grant pardons – also states that no pardon can be granted unless notice of the impending reprieve is made public for 30 days prior to the issuance of the pardon. The notice must be published in a newspaper located in the county where the conviction occurred.
— Editorial cartoon by Marshall Ramsey, The Clarion-Ledger, 01-12-12