—Larmour Allows Bogus NRA Endorsement Ad to Run in Commercial Dispatch
Jack Larmour, who is proudly proclaiming he is the “real Republican” in the District 39 Representative race against incumbent Jeff Smith, is surely not acting like one. The race for the seat was not thought to be all that close, but Larmour is not helping matters as he seemingly is trying to self destruct.
Many have heard how Larmour allowed the Commercial Dispatch to run a tampered or counterfeit NRA article, fraudulently “endorsing Jack Larmour for the Legislative Seat of District 39 here in Lowndes County”, and rating him an ‘A+’ in the article. Rather than correct the ad, which any honorable candidate for office would usually do when it was sent to him to proof by the Dispatch, he allowed it to run, knowing full well that it was bogus or erroneous. No word was said by Larmour after the Sunday Dispatch had the huge ‘mistake’ in the front section of the 3rd of July issue.
Not until the NRA caught the ‘error’ and contacted the Dispatch and Larmour was anything done about it. The Dispatch ran a short correction (in the Tuesday edition), but we heard not a word from Larmour on the mistake. His family later told the NRA that they were too busy to notice the mistake, though state law makes the candidate responsible for the content and conduct issued by his campaign.
Ironically, the only candidate in the race that is actually endorsed by the NRA is the incumbent, Jeff Smith (I meant to mention his endorsement last week but accidentally left it out. RW) And along with the NRA endorsement is the ‘A+’ rating issued by the organization. The NRA has re-affirmed Smith’s endorsement throughout this fiasco.
Could it be that the huge bogus endorsement from the (most desirable) NRA to Larmour caused him to sit quiet and enjoy the ‘mistake’ to his benefit? Thus I say is his campaign self destructing because of…..well, let the people figure out what is lacking there.
I do know that the entire ‘mess’ does not pass the smell test, from how the Dispatch handled the matter to Larmour seeming intent to enjoy the huge mistake as it enhanced, even if briefly, his struggling and fledgling campaign.
In the Wednesday edition of the Dispatch, yet another attempt was made to correct the mistake. The Dispatch ran this disclaimer:
“Due to a transcription error by a graphic artist and failure to see the mistake in the proofing process, an ad in Sunday’s Dispatch mistakenly stated that the National rifle Association (NRA) endorsed the candidacy of Jack Larmour. That is not the case. The organization gave Mr. Larmour an A rating and a positive response. The Dispatch regrets and apologizes for the error.”
The problem that I have with that disclaimer is this: The original Sunday Commercial Dispatch ad, which can be found in the 1st section, Page 6A, states ‘On behalf of NRA’s Political Victory Fund and our members in Mississippi House District 39, I am pleased to announce your A+ rating and endorsement for the 2011 Primary Election’ with ‘A+ rating and endorsement’ in bold black letters.
The corrected ad (found on Page 6A of Wednesday’s Dispatch) states, ‘I am pleased to announce your A rating for the 2011 Primary Election’. So, we, the informed, educated public, are supposed to believe that a ‘graphic artist’ working for the Dispatch is actually going to add a ‘+sign” and the words ‘and endorsement’ as a mistake in transcribing? Would this be an appropriate time to say, “I was born at night, but I wasn’t born last night?”
Truth, honesty and integrity are the most important things when it comes to the person I want holding political office to represent my interest. I don’t care what party affiliation you are…that would be the least of my ‘wants’ when it comes to your qualifications.
Speaking of the race between Smith and Larmour, Republican Executive Committee Chairwoman Nan Lott contacted me Tuesday to ‘set the record straight’. She said that Beth Stuart had nothing to do with comments she made to and about Smith at the monthly committee meeting Monday night, June 27th. She said that she spoke with many people before that meeting (though I believe she was confusing my article with that of Sarah Fowler who also wrote an article where Sarah said that Stuart was seen speaking with Lott right before the meeting. I had simply been told by other attendees that Stuart likely had something to do with Lott’s comments. Lott says, though, that she did not.RW). “I don’t appreciate ya’ll conjuring up people in these stories” Lott told me during our conversation. (Again…not sure who we “conjured up”. Stuart was seen speaking with Lott, though it’s true that we don’t know for sure that she was helping plan an attack on Smith, I guess. RW) “What I said to Jeff Smith were my words and mine alone” said Lott.
I have to say…I’ve always liked Mrs. Lott and have always gotten along with her. Even when she sternly told me those things during our conversation, she was polite about it. I feel the same way about Beth Stuart. Though Stuart always seems ‘angry’ whenever the media ask her about specific things like her involvement with particular candidates and the possibility that she’ll be able to ‘endorse’ her candidates through CLOPAC. And, even if Mrs. Stuart recuses herself from voting to endorse one of her candidates, does anyone really believe that District 2 Supervisor incumbent Frank Ferguson has a prayer of being ‘endorsed’ by CLOPAC?
Ron Williams can be reached by email at Ronsings2you@aol.com0