We told you so!
There, I said it.
Update: One week ago I called in to 99.5 fm. Listen to their podcast of that show, fast forward to about 7 minutes and 40 seconds, and listen to former legislator and Republican Garey Forster tell me that he was wrong and I was right.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Here is my response to Clancy as referenced above.
Clancy, with all due respect you are the face of the Gambit. You are co-owner and listed as the top editor in the editorial staff on the “about us” page. Are we to believe that you would allow an endorsement to be made in the name of your paper that you did not personally agree with?
“The Gambit endorsements are determined by a committee, of which I am one member, and the endorsement editorial of Jindal was written and reviewed by no less than 3 people who participated in the decision to endorse him.”
Well then all of the people who participated in the writing and review of that endorsement article failed and all of you owe your readers an apology for not only failing to embrace your journalistic responsibility to inform the public about Bobby Jindal, but failing to do enough research to see what the rest of us saw when it came to Bobby Jindal’s actual record. And the final two articles you list do not count, as they did not get published until after the election. And the searching for Bobby Jindal article? Well, all it does is ask where the Bobby Jindal of 4 years ago was. Guess what? He has been the same guy since day 1! The only difference was that he became better at playing the game of politics. He fooled you when your paper endorsed him in 2003, he fooled you when your paper endorsed him for Congress in 2006, and he fooled you again when your paper endorsed him again in 2007.
Again, as I said previously, all the information revealing the true Bobby Jindal was there to all who wanted to see it. It seems like the Gambit Weekly editorial staff was blinded by the illusion of what Jindal wanted you to believe he was. However, those who refused to be blinded (and actually chose to do a small amount of research into the candidate) saw him for the fraud he is. We knew that double standard existed. We knew that he was weak on ethics and someone who had no problems circumventing the law, bending it as much as he can to his advantage.
In short, we told you so. You just didn’t want to listen.