Liberty and Justice for All!

Bill Jefferson lost tonight and I say good riddance. I am happy that the majority of the voters in this election stood up and voted against him.

Unfortunately for Louisiana’s 2nd congressional district, we now have what will most likely be a lame duck one term member of the minority party Congressman who will likely be ineffective in getting anything more accomplished for Louisiana then Bill Jefferson had done. I hope I am wrong. I hope Joseph Cao will be able to build bridges across the aisle and work with his fellow Congressmen to get needed help for this community. I hope that Joseph Cao will not be the RNC and FRC puppet and will instead be a pragmatist and work to help pass some of the items that Democrats will want as a trade off for getting us things that Southeast Louisiana needs.

I will say that I got “this is going to be a low turnout election” calls all day today. I got two from Jim Tucker, one from Harry Connick, and one from Helena Moreno (who did not go as far as to endorse Cao while the others did). So the GOP was going full swing for Cao. Which makes me worry that he will be too beholden to the party to be an independent thinker who will cross bridges and get things done. However, I hope Cao proves me wrong.

I called in to the Jeff Crouere show on AM 990 this morning and was the first to ask Joseph Cao a question about being endorsed by the Family Research Council. The FRC is an organization was founded by James Dobson and is currently run by Tony Perkins. They support banning gay marriage and restricting abortions (even to the point of restricting access to the Morning After Pill (not an abortion pill, btw)).

So this is why I balked at the idea of voting for Cao. So when I had the opportunity to ask him three questions I asked him:

A) Did you actively seek the endorsement of the FRC?

B) Do you accept the endorsement of the FRC?

C) Do you agree with the ideals of the FRC?

He answered the first answer truthfully. However, on the other two questions, he danced around the answer by saying how he does support the family and many people in this area support families. Well, that argument is like saying “I am a patriot so of course I support the Patriot Act”. And because he answered like a typical politician, and did not reject the extremist conservative ideals of the FRC I am happy that when it came to early voting that I cast my vote for Malik Rahim.

Malik is someone who had problems with the law previously. However, he picked himself up and used his previous life experiences to better himself and help others. He supports coastal restoration, access to healthcare, and moving to support policies to make America Greener. I am confident that he will be more likely than Cao to work with the majority party on issues that are vital for Louisiana while being another voice for equal rights.

Update:  On the Jeff Crouere show, Joseph Cao had stated that he is not running a negative campaign. Well, I got two mailers in the mail that said otherwise. Of course, they did not come from Joseph Cao’s campaign account. They came from the Louisiana Republican Party and the NRCC. So technically they are not “approved” by him.

The fliers go further than just a simple statement of fact. They go as far as to start name calling. That is the difference between a campaign that states facts about an opponent and a negative campaign.

And I believe one of the fliers has a serious flaw on it. The flier from the NRCC has a statement on it stating who it was paid for and that it was not endorsed by any candidate or committee. The Louisiana Republican Party flier states who it was paid for by, but lacks a statement about not being endorsed by the candidate. And according to FEC guidelines, it seems that such a statement is required.

I get random emails from Town Hall after responding to one of their fluff pieces on Jindal. This one takes the cake.

Urgent Memo to GOPUSA Readers

The National Republican Trust PAC

From: Scott Wheeler
Executive Director

The latest FEC filings show that as of November 12 for the special Georgia Senate race, liberal Democrat Jim Martin has raised $2.4 million.

Meanwhile, Republican Saxby Chambliss, who is fighting desperately to keep his Senate seat out of Barack Obama’s control, has raised $1.4 million - that’s $700,000 less than Martin!

Wow, they can add!

You may recall that I warned you that the Democrats were going to try to “snatch” this usually safe Republican seat from us.

Really? Is that what you warned? Amazing political analysis there.

They have a simple plan, the same one Obama used to beat Hillary and McCain.

First, they outspend their opponent.

Um, isn’t that what very political campaign does?

Second, they “turn out” the African-American vote and other special interests that make up the Democratic party base.

Since when is the African-American vote a “special interest”? I don’t know about you but this comments seems rather racist.

Their fundraising success shows the have activated their playbook.

Wait, that is the big Democratic plan? Raise a lot of money and turn out their base? Isn’t that the plan of every campaign? Again, amazing political analysis there.

We have already reported that Obama sent his top 100 campaign operatives into Georgia to defeat Chambliss.

One hundred campaign operatives? What will Saxby “the other folks” Chambliss do?

The Atlanta Constitution Journal reports this weekend that the ultra-left NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League), liberal environmental and union groups, and Chuck Schumer’s Senatorial Committee have poured close to $2 million more into the Georgia race.

Again, is anybody shocked?

It is urgent we fight back - help us by Going Here Now.

I’m not giving the link, sorry.

The Democrats know that if they win the Georgia Seat, Obama will have the 60 votes he needs in the Senate to push through his radical agenda: increase personal and capital gains taxes, end talk radio through a new “Fairness Doctrine” and give favored groups like Detroit automakers and their unions tens of billions in bailout money.

Here is a newsflash. If the Democrats lose and have 59 votes, they will likely have enough votes to defeat some filibusters. And if the Democrats get 60 votes, they will likely not have enough votes to break some filibusters. The magic number if 60 is not like the magic number of 51. There is no guarantee where the moderate minded Democrats or Republicans will go. But I understand Republicans cannot stop using scare tactics. They seem to be incapable of understanding that it failed in the general election.

Make no mistake about it. We are in trouble in Georgia.

And this email is one of the reasons why.

The New York Times reported this weekend that because the Georgia race is so close, Republicans “are on the brink of losing their ability to use Senate procedure to thwart Democrats or force them into negotiations.”

This is the same “Senate procedure” that Republican’s threatened to eliminate when Democrats wanted to “thwart” Republicans or force them into negotiations.

Let’s see how Town Hall is a collection of hypocrites, shall we? First here is Hugh Hewitt who said:

Finally, in April of 2005, the GOP’s 55 member majority had identified at least 50 from among its numbers to confirm a ruling from the Senate’s Chair that would have delivered on the promise of “up or down votes on the floor of the Senate for all judicial nominees,” by declaring that it was not acceptable under Senate rules to filibuster judicial nominees.

Had such a vote occurred, a crucial part of the constitutional order would have been restored. There would have been political aftershocks, but the vast majority of GOP senators and, crucially, the voters and donors who had elected the 55, were ready to fight for this key principle.

Hmmm, so the Republicans wanted to eliminate the filibuster with the “nuclear option” but now are worried that they wont be able to filibuster. Can we get anymore “do as I say, not as I do”? Hugh Hew also misleads his readers and shows his ignorance by suggesting that: 

No Republican filibuster of a judicial nominee to a circuit court has ever occurred on the floor of the Senate, and it is extremely doubtful it ever will, because most Republicans are originalists and they understand that this is not what the Framers intended 

He misleads the people because he claims that Republicans have not blocked nominees on the floor of the Senate. What he leaves out is that Republicans blocked judicial nominees in committee, requiring much less than the 41 votes to maintain a filibuster. Did the framers intend that Hugh?

He is ignorant because he believes that Republicans would not support judicial filibusters. I have wondered what Republicans would do when Obama nominates judicial nominees. I have my answer.

So now that we have exposed Town Hall as a bunch of hypocrites, let’s get back to the email.

On this point they are right. The only thing stopping Obama and the Democrats from ramming through their leftwing agenda is the Georgia Senate race.

Again, with 59 votes, the Democrats would likely get help from moderate Republican Senators.

I am not going to bother posting the rest of the email. I think  you get the point.

They voted for Proposition 2, a bill that gives chickens and pigs better living conditions.

However, the also voted for Proposition 8, a bill banning gay marriage in California.

So let me get this straight. It was the position of the California voters this year that chickens and pigs deserve more rights, but gay people deserve less rights? Am I getting that right? Isn’t there something completely wrong with this picture?

Anyone who voted for Prop 8 in California should be ashamed of themselves.