Jan 31
H/t to Ryan at The Daily Kingfish for posting this.
Gilda Reed, phD, is running for Bobby Jindal’s old seat. The interview appears at the 11:45 mark.
The video also contains a great clip of Edwards in New Orleans.
Last night, at the conclusion of President Bush’s State of the Union address, I received an unsolicited phone call from John Edwards’s campaign, and no, they weren’t asking for money. They were calling Louisianans and asking them to attend today’s event in New Orleans. Although the campaign insisted that Edwards was still in the race, it was difficult to ignore the symbolism. Edwards first announced his candidacy in the Lower Ninth Ward.
No other candidate for President has focused on New Orleans as much as John Edwards. New Orleans was a touchstone for Edwards; for him, New Orleans represents the urgency of addressing poverty in America and the failures of government to adequately and judiciously respond to the crisis. Edwards was the first candidate with a plan for New Orleans recovery. Today, Edwards noted:
And I want to say to everyone here, on the way here today, we passed under a bridge that carried the interstate where 100 to 200 homeless Americans sleep every night. And we stopped, we got out, we went in and spoke to them.
There was a minister there who comes every morning and feeds the homeless out of her own pocket. She said she has no money left in her bank account, she struggles to be able to do it, but she knows it’s the moral, just and right thing to do. And I spoke to some of the people who were there and as I was leaving, one woman said to me, “You won’t forget us, will you? Promise me you won’t forget us.” Well, I say to her and I say to all of those who are struggling in this country, we will never forget you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you.
The stories of the disenfranchised, the dispossessed, and the poor are usually drowned out. Most of us recognize the “Tent City” cited by Edwards; it is a stark reminder of how much work remains to be done on the issue of poverty in America (and in Louisiana). A few weeks ago, I pointed out the Tent City to a friend of mine who was visiting from Baltimore. “We have the same problem in Baltimore,” he said. “It’s not just New Orleans.”
John Edwards understood that as well. And these conditions don’t simply exist in large cities; they exist on the back roads and the Main Streets of towns across the country.
Many of us in Louisiana are thankful that John Edwards championed the City of New Orleans, and hopefully, his message will remain important throughout this campaign season.
Oyster has a great post about John Edwards. Check it out.
Update: Timshel posts this video in response to Bill O’Reilly’s stupid denial:
Jan 30
Kudos to Murray of DearMurray.com for providing a thorough analysis of the ridiculous smear campaign being leveled against Barack Obama by a man named “Larry Sinclair.” In a post entitled “Why are Ron Paul supporters working so hard to defame Obama,” Murray supplies a bulk of evidence that suggests this video is primarily being disseminated and discussed on pro-Ron Paul websites. He also contends that the blog that originated this “story” was operated by a Ron Paul supporter. Murray writes:
The first blog to report this “story”, and subsequently, a statement from “Larry Sinclair” was the blog anndavis.blogspot.com. Ron Paul Supporter.
Subsequently, “Larry Sinclair” appeared on the Jeff Rense show. rense.com. A conspiracy theory radio show that lends credence to such stories as “Monica Lewinski was an Israeli Operative, sent to bring down the Clinton White House.” Jeff Rense is a Ron Paul supporter.
The viral nature of the spread of this video, and the subsequent conspiracy theories about mainstream media suppression are trademarks of the Paul supporters, and their “Truther” cause.
Note the other blogs in the blogosphere that are lending credibility to these claims:
We Saw That is a Ron Paul supporter.
DailyPaul.com needs no explanation.
The Pirate Bay is a torrent site that appears to have every word Ron Paul has ever said available for download.
RumorMillNews is a Ron Paul supporter.
Know the Lies is a Ron Paul supporter.
Freedom4um is a Ron Paul supporter which links directly to Ron Paul’s Official Site.
St0ckman.blogspot.com is a Ron Paul supporter.
Mrsircy.blogspot.com is a Ron Paul supporter.
Bloh.balder.org which is in Finnish or trekkie or something is a Ron Paul supporter.
Libertypost.org is a Ron Paul supporter.
TheLastDaysBulletin is a Ron Paul supporter.
ThePowerHourNews is a Ron Paul supporter AND fundraiser.
Incidentally, Murray also claims that the website Gay08.com, which is built around Mr. Sinclair’s video, is registered to a Ron Paul supporter.
And Murray, you actually missed one: The story was also reported on RonPaulForums.com.
But even more importantly, do a Google search for “Larry Sinclair Hillary Clinton.” You’ll find that the most popular links are to the same exact Ron Paul supporters. In other words, the video didn’t originate from and wasn’t disseminated on any legitimate pro-Hillary websites, which is what Paul supporters are attempting to suggest; the allegations against Clinton also originated from and were disseminated on pro-Paul websites.
Jan 28
Even though the story was thoroughly discredited over a year ago, the mainstream media has continued to suggest (and to allow others to make the suggestion) that Senator Barack Obama is actually, secretly a Muslim. Gasp!
I bring this up for a reason: Despite the thorough debunking of this story and despite Barack Obama’s own unequivocal statements, the media continues to give the story room at the table of public discourse.
The good folks at The Town Talk have published numerous letters framed around this debunked story. Today, they published another one. Although The Town Talk serves Central Louisiana and is the official paper of record for the City of Alexandria, they published a letter from a “reader” named Harold Blackburn in Alabama. Incidentally, this letter was also printed today in an Alabama newspaper. No doubt, he was going for broke and sent the letter to every newspaper he could. And today, his words reached an audience in Central Louisiana. He writes:
During the present presidential campaign, criticism has been leveled against certain candidates concerning their faith. A case in point is Mike Huckabee, a Baptist. There is fear that his religious connections will unduly hinder him from making proper decisions. Another case is Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Some believe his denomination is not main-line Christian and that Salt Lake City would exert undue pressure on his decisions. This brings to mind Barack Obama, brought up in a Muslim home and presently a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ, a church which permits only black members. Facts concerning Obama’s beliefs are revealed in the church’s Web page www.tucc.org/about.htm. During his appearance on Oprah’s program, Obama indicated his membership in the aforementioned church, which according to the Web site has “a non-negotiable commitment to Africa.” It is difficult to realize that the above facts have not been dealt with during this presidential campaign. In my initial statement it is evident that I have no qualms concerning a black candidate, but a Muslim dedicated to Black Africa is quite troubling indeed.
I’m not sure what value this letter possesses for the people of Central Louisiana. It relies on blatant lies in an attempt to incite religious and racial divisiveness. It plays to ignorant fear– and ignorance in general.
And the church claim: Completely false.
Jan 27
Even though most people fully expected Barack Obama to win South Carolina yesterday, no one (almost) seemed to anticipate his margin of victory. The day before, only Public Policy Polling accurately predicted that Obama was ahead by twenty points. And even they were off. Obama won by 28 points over Clinton. He carried a surprising majority, 55% of the vote.
But that’s not the only story here.
The other story is voter turnout. And if you’re a Republican, you can’t be comfortable knowing that Democratic voter turnout has been shattering records and out-pacing Republican votes by a significant margin.
In Iowa, more than 227,000 people showed up for the Democratic caucuses; compare that with only 120,000 Republican caucus-goers. To be fair, Iowa has more registered Democrats than registered Republicans… one percent more.
In New Hampshire, voter turnout, once again, shattered records, and interestingly, Barack Obama, the second-place finisher in the Democratic primary with 104,000 votes, still received more votes than both John McCain (88,000 votes) and Mitt Romney (75,000 votes).
Nevada wasn’t hotly-contested by Republicans, but the trend continued (and even Republicans set records):
About 116,000 Democrats, 28 percent of all Nevada’s registered Democrats, showed up at 520 precincts around the state. The previous record for a Democratic caucus was nearly 9,000 who turned out for the 2004 presidential race.
More than 44,000 Republicans, 11 percent of registered GOP voters, were on hand at 113 precincts. The most the Nevada GOP had drawn to a presidential caucus before was 2,000 to 3,000 voters, according to party officials.
“It’s off the charts,” said Jill Derby, the state Democratic Party chairwoman. “There were some bumps in the road. We ran out of forms, the lines were too long and the rooms were too small. But, hey, that’s good news.”
But this doesn’t compare to the turnout in South Carolina yesterday. 530,000 people showed up to vote in the Democratic primary, 84,000 more than had showed up to vote in the Republican primary. (And South Carolina is supposed to be a red state). More significantly (from DailyKos.com):
I don’t expect Louisiana Republicans to appreciate the significance of this yet; they’re likely to focus on racial politics (imposing demographic data as a way of attempting to predict the Democratic candidate…. something that still baffles me, considering Obama’s win in a place like Iowa) and fear-mongering, because this is what they know best. (Oh wait, they already are).
But it won’t work this time. People are waking up, particularly young people.
By the way, the youth vote in South Carolina was three times as much as it was in 2004.
Jan 26
H/t to Oyster. By the way, it’s unbelievable that Jindal’s spokesperson would claim that “politics” was the only reason this story came to light. I suppose she believes the media shouldn’t have reported that their new governor was fined for an ethics law violation.
JINDAL’S ETHICS REFORM MUST START AT THE TOP
Staff Must Adhere to “Non-Partisan” Ethics Laws
BATON ROUGE – Bobby Jindal should ask Timmy Teepell to resign. Jindal’s “war on corruption and incompetence in government” should start with his own staff who failed to comply with state ethics laws long after the violation came to light, according to Louisiana Democratic Party Chairman Chris Whittington.
In September, Timmy Teepell and his campaign staff were made aware of the violation and subsequent fine yet failed to resolve the matter and blamed the state Republican Party for failing to alert him of the in-kind donation. Forgetting to pay the fine in September and continuing to campaign on strict ethics reform is inexcusable and would not be tolerated by Jindal if he adheres to his own pledge of comprehensive transparency among all elected and government officials, said Whittington.
The fact that Jindal’s spokesperson referred to the ethics violation being made public as “a partisan political stunt” is a slap in the face to Republicans and Democrats alike who have no problem adhering to Louisiana campaign finance laws.
“This is not a partisan issue. Ethics laws apply to everyone. This is about Jindal and his staff not following the rules that everyone must abide by, regardless of party,” said Whittington. “The state Republican Party legally documented the expenditure on their finance reports, yet Teepell and his staff continually failed to take any responsibility.”
“This is an opportunity for Jindal to show the people of Louisiana and the country he’s serious about ethics reform by holding his own staff accountable. We fully support ethics reform, but feel reform led by an administration that claimed to be unaware of current state laws is questionable,” said Whittington.
“We have seen the same double standard in both David Vitter and Jim Tucker who themselves have skirted ethics laws and avoided reprimand. We hope Jindal isn’t using his campaign platform of ethics reform as a tactic for his own political gain.”
PointeCoupeeDemocrat covered Mr. Teepell numerous times for CenLamar during the campaign:
LA-GOV: Republican Activists Tied To US Congress Distort Jindal’s Record Online.
LA-GOV: Jindal’s Disinformation Campaign; Boasso’s Rapid Response.
LA-GOV: Refuting Jindal’s Rapid Response Part 1: Iraq, Social Security, and Ethics.
LA-GOV: Refuting Jindal’s Rapid Response Part 2: “Accomplishments.“
LA-GOV: Refuting Jindal’s Rapid Response Part 2(b): Ranking and Missed Votes.
Last night, the Baton Rouge Advocate reported that Governor Bobby Jindal, who ran on a platform of ethics reform and “ending corruption,” agreed to pay a $2,500 fine after being found with more than $118,265 in “misreported” donations from the Louisiana Republican Party. And today, the New Orleans Times-Picayune followed up with this story (an excerpt):
Sellers said Jindal’s campaign has already amended the disclosure report in question to reflect $118,265 that the Republican Party of Louisiana spent on direct mail from June 4 to 28 to promote Jindal’s candidacy.
The expenses were reported on a July 2007 campaign report filed by the party, but should also have been listed by Jindal’s campaign as an “in-kind” contribution, according to the original complaint.
Sellers said Jindal’s campaign was advised by its legal staff that the expenses might not have to be reported, but that the campaign decided to do so anyway out of an abundance of caution.
At first glance, this may seem innocuous, but it doesn’t bode well that Jindal would be willing to disguise a $118,265 direct mail campaign, purchased for him by the Louisiana Republican Party, as an expense– and not what it actually was: a contribution. It’s just not honest. And obviously, it doesn’t take a lawyer to figure that out. Indeed, the person who first recognized the discrepancy was a New Orleans public schoolteacher, Chris Stow-Serge (kudos).
By the way, everyone in Jindal’s camp seems to be admitting culpability, except for Roger Villere, chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party. He still doesn’t get it:
“We (the party) reported it. I don’t know why he had to report it,” Villere said. “To me, it is a misinterpretation of an accounting rule. I don’t know why he has agreed to pay the fine. I guess he just wants to move on.
Let’s put this into context: Just before Bobby Jindal, a man who ran on ethics reform, holds a special session to address ethics, he was fined for an ethics violation. In other words, he and his campaign violated ethics law, and they admitted it.
See also: Mike Stagg’s “Jindal Campaign Admits Campaign Finance Law Violation.”
Jan 25
Authorities arrested a 16-year-old boy accused of attempting to hijack a plane.
From the New York Times (h/t Ben Norris):
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Authorities believe a teen accused of plotting to hijack a plane was suicidal, and a judge was scheduled to decide Friday whether to keep him in custody.
The 16-year-old, who has not been identified by authorities, was removed from a Southwest Airlines flight Tuesday night at Nashville International Airport. He was being held at a juvenile detention facility.
FBI spokesman George Bolds told The Associated Press the teen had handcuffs, rope and duct tape in his bag, and was believed to be traveling alone.
The teen was calm during the flight from Los Angeles and made no apparent attempt to commandeer the plane, Bolds said. He could not comment further on the teen’s mental condition because he is a minor.
Apparently, according to initial reports, the teen had planned on crashing the plane in Lafayette, Louisiana:
Federal prosecutors were still reviewing the case and had not filed any charges as of Friday morning, said David Boling, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Middle Tennessee.
The FBI dismissed broadcast reports Thursday night that the teen was planning to crash the plane into a ”Hannah Montana’‘ concert in Lafayette, La.
What???
Jan 25
Because that’s the word.
Here in Louisiana, both WeSawThat and CentralLaPolitics posted a YouTube video of a man who calls himself “Larry Sinclair.” Mr. “Sinclair,” who both sounds and appears to be reading from cue cards, alleges that he met Barack Obama somewhere in a span of five days back in November 1999 and convinced Obama to leave an upscale Chicago nightclub unattended and join him in his “limousine” for drugs and sex. Notwithstanding the obvious theatrical elements of Mr. Sinclair’s performance, I can’t believe that anyone would take this man seriously and lend credibility to (what are obviously) spurious and scripted charges.
Yes, this toothless, limousine-rider would like all of us to believe that when Barack Obama was an up-and-coming, politically-connected Illinois State Senator with a four-month-old baby at home, he had no problem with carousing with some random, drug-addled weirdo he met at an unnamed, “upscale” bar. Give me a break.
But that’s not the entire story, because someone is definitely responsible for this egregious smear.
And word has it that supporters of Ron Paul are disseminating this information to like-minded bloggers and journalists on their mailing lists in an attempt at eroding Obama’s independent support. Don’t blame me. That’s what national websites are implying. And there appears to be strong evidence to support that claim.
Beware of what you read and what you watch. If Mr. Sinclair’s allegations were true, then he wouldn’t have to resort to reading from a script in a generic Chicago hotel room for a YouTube video.
C’mon.
Jan 23
A few days ago, a friend of mine encouraged me to write about my thoughts on the Nationalist Movement’s decision to put on an elaborate publicity stunt on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in Jena, Louisiana. I told him I wasn’t interested in giving any attention to (literally) a group of twelve narrow-minded racists who exploited both the Town of Jena and the legacy of Dr. King to give attention to their bigoted agenda (weakly guised as a battle for free speech). But the story has been given a fair amount of attention in the local media and the local blogosphere… and now that it’s over, now that the 12 white Nationalists put on their elaborately staged and ultimately futile exercise of inspiring divisiveness about race (a stage that was, by the way, upstaged by the nearly 200 counter-protesters), perhaps it is time for a little reflection:
I think some people, particularly people who only focus on the most reactionary elements of this story, believe that the notion of “freeing” the Jena Six meant, literally, dropping all charges against all six young men and allowing them to never account for the accusations against them. But that’s not what it meant. It meant correcting a prosecutor’s decision to target six young men as attempted murderers when, in fact, they were only guilty of participating in and/or witnessing a violent high school fight that knocked one young man unconscious. One of the six young men may have been the instigator, but according to published eyewitness reports, the fight wasn’t exactly six versus one. Indeed, an eyewitness recalls seeing a white student push and shove an African-American student to the ground during the fight. And most recall quick and sudden pandemonium. The fight didn’t last long at all.
I understand there will be Jena Six-sympathizers who may disagree with those implications, but the protests and the attention toward the cause of the Jena Six did lead to tangible successes: Enough pressure was exerted to dramatically reduce the charges against these six young men, and the attention attracted competent representation for all six, further increasing their chances of receiving a fair trial.
It was never about freeing people of their responsibilities for their own actions. It was about freeing people from charges and from a mentality that seemed unfairly stacked against them. It was about recognizing the collective need of leveling the playing field. I doubt one can explain this to someone whose life is so thoroughly imbued by the rhetoric of racism, but ultimately, in this cause, it was about recognizing and correcting institutionalized racism, in several of its forms.
There is a good reason that nearly 20,000 people marched in support of the Jena Six back in September and only a dozen marched against the Jena Six two days ago. 20,000 people from all corners of the nation represented an incredible sign of solidarity on this issue; 12 people in an elaborate publicity stunt represents nothing but a small group of white racists using their own network as well as the unwitting media to attract attention to the cause of bigotry.
I believe in the First Amendment, but I also believe that the media and blogosphere have given undue attention to the dozen white Nationalists who came to Jena in order to desecrate the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and promote white supremacy. And to be sure, many will say, “But what about the New Black Panther Party?” There are reactionary people on both sides of this issue, and the Nationalists (and groups like them) stage these events fully anticipating a counter-protest. Don’t be misled into believing that either side represents mainstream thought on this issue.
This is why the Nationalists went to Jena (and this is also why the Nationalists had to “sue” to “win” the right to protest). The Town of Jena required a $10,000 security bond (you can get those back) for public assembly events, and the Nationalists couldn’t afford it. They claim to have made $1,906, yet they’re still somehow down $1,289 last year. They’re in the red. (One wonders how much they had to spend on legal fees).
A bankrupt organization (of 12 people) that promotes racism couldn’t afford a security deposit to stage a protest, sued to have the deposit waived, won the case, attracted a ton of media attention, and then, ultimately, cost taxpayers tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. That’s what happened. It’s hardly an inspiring victory for free speech.
From their website (yuck):
Jena has set the stage for Nationalists to exemplify how they are patriots, because the Negroes have come off so vividly as subversives. Jena Justice Day will show who is on the side of the honest, hard-working American, as opposed to the minorities and aliens, who line up behind the loafers and criminals. So, while our opponents delight in attacking the innocent and applauding the lawless, we delight in restoring order and securing justice. The Jena-town-attorney has mocked us, calling us “indigent,” because we refused to pay $10,000.00 to hold our parade and rally. Even if we had the money, we would not pay it, because our forefathers have already won us our freedom.
They sued. And they got a lot of media attention. And they won. 12 of them. And when they came to Jena, the media came too, and so did the counter-protesters. And now they’re suing again because these guys, pictured below armed with guns at the protest, claimed they weren’t able to arm themselves with guns at the protest (from the Town Talk):
The caption reads, “David Dupre (with beard) of Tioga and his son, David Dupre Jr., show the weapons they brought to the “Jena Justice Day” rally in Jena today. They said they were armed for their personal protection.”
Here’s their lawsuit. And conveniently, they’re threatening another dismally attended protest.
Jan 21
H/t to Ryan at the Daily Kingfish.
State Representative Don Cazayoux, Jr., who recently announced his candidacy for United States Congress, launched a campaign website last week. It’s a good-looking site, and I look forward to Cazayoux building it up. So far, he hasn’t uploaded any 31-point policy plans, but he does answer the most critical question: Why are you running?
I am running for Congress because the people of Louisiana want change in Washington. Louisiana deserves a congressman who will fight for their needs, stand up for their values, and get things done.
I am running for Congress because I share the values of the people in this district. I’m tired of the partisan politicking in Washington, I am unhappy with the direction of the country and think we need to work together as a nation to solve the important challenges we face.
I am running for Congress because when I look at my kids, I want a better future for them. I want someone in Washington who is focused on investing in education, creating better jobs, and making sure working families can afford health insurance.
I am running for Congress because I think we need a new direction in Iraq. It’s important that we bring our troops home responsibly and with honor.
I look forward to the campaign and to serving you in Congress. I believe together we can change Washington and pass commonsense policies that work for our families.
Although I have never been a fan of Ron Paul, it was hard not to feel bad for him as he trucked through one of the most phoned-in interviews in the 2008 presidential race. And I mean no harm to KALB, but it’s not every day that they get to interview a candidate for President of the United States. Perhaps it would have been appropriate to think about the questions before the actual interview.
“What will you walk away from this race if it’s not the Presidency?” Huh?
“Are Republican and Libertarian ideals one in the same? Or how are they different?” Does anyone actually believe they’re not different? Libertarians are “different” than Republican on a wide range of issues.
“What do you think of the constant invoking of Ronald Reagan as the ideal Republican?” Okay, that was a good question, but it was immediately followed by this:
“Lastly, who will you vote for in this race?”
I guess KALB was hoping that Paul would use their platform to announce his decision to drop out of the race and endorse another candidate. I don’t get it.
Jan 17
During the first week of December 2007, Louisiana Congressman Jim McCrery (R-Leesville) announced that he will not be seeking re-election in 2008. When he was first elected in 1988, McCrery was only the sixth Republican to represent Louisiana since Reconstruction. District 4 encompasses all of Northwest Louisiana, including, most notably, Shreveport, Natchitoches, and Bossier City, and although the district has remained under Republican representation throughout the past twenty years, there is ample evidence to suggest that it can be highly competitive.
As PointeCoupeeDemocrat points out, District Four is not exactly a Republican stronghold. Indeed, Senator Mary Landrieu carried the district in her successful re-election bid in 2002, and Bobby Jindal failed to garner majorities in seven of its thirteen parishes (54%) in the 2007 jungle. PCD notes, “Jindal did fail to garner pluralities in Red River and Bienville parishes. And while he did garner pluralities in the other parishes, they were not majorities, which is why they are colored blue in the map.” Thank you to PCD for creating these maps:
In other words, this is not a seat worth ignoring or writing off. In addition to Landrieu’s successes, Democrats have been elected to many powerful positions in the district; most significantly was the election of Cedric Glover as the first African-American mayor of the City of Shreveport. 
And speaking of the mayor of Shreveport, many are suggesting that former Mayor Keith Hightower would be an ideal candidate for Congress. Hightower first entered political life after defeating an incumbent Republican, Bo Williams, by double digits, and in 2002, he was re-elected in a landslide, earning 75% of the vote. As mayor of Shreveport, Hightower was committed to increasing opportunities for economic development, improving Shreveport’s riverfront and downtown, and rehabilitating blighted neighborhoods. And he was, by and large, successful. Shreveport has transitioned from a city reliant on the oil and gas industry to (after the fields dried up and business moved off-shore) a tourist and convention destination for North Louisiana and East Texas. (And yes, that’s Mayor Hightower on the right with his wife and two daughters).
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself. From today’s paper:
A Pollock woman and a Cordova, Tenn., man were robbed late Sunday night while guests at the Alexandria Inn, 1212 MacArthur Drive, according to Alexandria police.
No arrests have been reported.
A 49-year-old Pollock woman told police that earlier Sunday she was invited to a room by a female friend. Around 11 p.m. Sunday, she drove to a store and returned to find another woman she only knows as “Hot Pants” in the room, who stated the victim owed her money, according to police.
An argument ensued in which “Hot Pants” hit the victim in the back of the head with the room’s telephone, the report states.The victim picked up an alarm clock and held it up to keep “Hot Pants” off her, and the suspect then picked up the victim’s purse off the dresser and left, the report states.
The victim then sought refuge in another room with a male acquaintance, and about 12:25 a.m. two men she knows as “Peanut” and “Fisher” came to the door with her purse and forced their way into the room, the report states.
“Peanut” grabbed the 51-year-old Cordova, Tenn., man’s wallet off the night stand, and both suspects ran to a getaway car driven by “Hot Pants,” the report states.
The Tennessee victim gave chase , and while running across the parking lot one of the thieves turned around and punched him in the nose, police reported.
Jan 15
Last weekend, former Louisiana gubernatorial candidate (and a noted champion of Lafayette’s nationally-acclaimed municipal fiber optics project) Mike Stagg hosted a conference in Lafayette about the future of the Louisiana Democratic Party. Although I could not attend, fortunately, Daniel T. Smith was able to make it, along with a number of fellow bloggers, activists, and elected officials.
In lieu of attending, I offer a few observations.
Obviously, despite the fact that the Democratic Party retained majorities in the State Senate and House, it still has a lot of explaining to do:
Mike Stagg illustrates the problem in the graphic below. PEC is Party Executive Committee:
Stagg writes:
This is not a political party. This is a club!
This fact alone should justify the dismissal of Chris Whittington as chairperson of the party and Danny Ford as executive director. They have squandered the resources given the state party by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) under chairman Howard Dean’s “50-State Strategy” program.
I hear Danny Ford has already decided to leave. Chris Whittington is said to be seeking re-election to the post.
In the real world, when a person is in charge of an operation that is an abject failure, that person usually pays for that failure with their job — unless, of course, that person is an official in the Bush administration, in which case the failure is re-spun as a success or the problems are completely denied.
Mr. Whittington should do the honorable thing and stand down from the chairmanship of the party….
What is needed now is a chairperson who will take a longer view with a focus on party building and an executive director with the energy and commitment to make that vision a reality.
