Liberty and Justice for All!

It is time that the Times Picayune gave credit where credit is due. In it’s recent article (Demos vow to erase state share of levee cost) the Times Picayune reported that Bobby Jindal sponsored the legislation that allowed Louisiana to collect offshore oil royalties. This is factually incorrect. Bobby Jindal did sponsor legislation to get us a share of oil revenues and that bill passed the House. However, the Domenici-Landrieu bill was passed in the Senate, emerged from the conference committee unchanged, was passed by the House (in lieu of Jindal’s legislation) and was signed by the President. It was Mary Landrieu, and not Bobby Jindal, who got us a fairer share of oil revenues.

John Neely Kennedy*.

He probably felt that he would be able to ride the Republican coat tails of Bobby Jindal by defecting to the Republican party and running against Mary Landrieu. Unfortunately for him, Jindal proved that he had no spine and that he was willing to go against both the will of the people and the promise he made during his campaign.

Yes there are other losers. Jindal lost the respect of many of his fiscal conservative supporters. Several legislators are getting recall petitions submitted against them with more likely to come. The Media is being criticised for not doing their job in the 2007 election. But Kennedy was going for statewide election against a Democrat in a state that is turning redder and redder as we speak. The support of Jindal would have helped him immeasurably. Now, the support of Jindal will likely hurt JNK more than it helps. And while i never actually thought that JNK could win, the likelihood of him winning now is much less. And that, my friends, makes me smile.

* speaking politically only.

According to Bayou Buzz, LAGOP Executive Director Matt Parker (Jindal’s homeschooled homeboy’s  brother in law) stated this about Mary Landrieu and her failure to respond to Nagin’s endorsement of Barack Obama:

Today’s endorsement raises more questions than answers.  In a press release announcing today’s endorsement, Nagin cited ‘Obama’s advocacy for the people of

Louisianaand working men and women across the county’ and specifically his work to address the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.   Does Mary Landrieu disagree with Nagin?  Why won’t Landrieu stand up and let Louisianans know why she won’t endorse Obama?”

Say what?!?!?! Mabye Landrieu doesn’t want to take sides. Maybe Landrieu would be happy voting for either of the two Democrats against John 100 years in Iraq McCain. Maybe Landrieu figures that she can be silent in a race where the presumptive Republican nominee didn’t get the most votes in the Republican primary. Maybe Mary Landrieu didn’t feel that she needed to make an anouncement over an endorsement by someone else. Or maybe, just maybe, Mary Landrieu doesn’t feel the need to answer to the head of the party who is trying to unseat her. I would at least go with the last one, though others may be valid as well.

This is just a silly question raised by Matt Parker. Now, is he the voice of Cartman? Or is that Trey Stone? See, I got the names mixed up and even those are better questions than the brainchild of Homeschool’s brother in law.

The idea that Nagin’s endorsement raises more questions than it answers is absurd. I guess the Republicans set the bar low when they chose their executive director.

Not the former President, but our party hopping state treasurer who is mocked on this website. This one should be a hoot! The Reduct box adds more.

h/t to Oyster.

According to a report by truthout, the Democrats believe they have a shot to give a Democratic President a 60 vote, filibuster proof, Senate. This will be the first time since Carter that such a Senate would exist. This would mean that the Democrats would have to get 10 new Democratic Senators. Someone in the article stated that 60 would be the target and that only 9 seats will be needed. However, on issues pertaining to the war, I believe Joe Lieberman would aid the filibuster of legislation he disagrees with. So if we want a truly filibuster proof Senate, we need 10 new Democrats. Here is a map of the seats that are up for grabs, the darkest red states have two Senate races.

Now lets look at the Obama electoral map and the Clinton electoral map.

Obama has the lead in WA/NM/CO/WI/VA/ME/NH and is very close in TX. 

Clinton has the lead in NM/WI/ME.

Assuming that the Democrats can hold on to their red state senators, a Hillary campaign may help the Democrats gain 3 seats. However, an Obama campaign may be able to gain 7 (or possibly even 8) seats. This, of course, doesn’t take into consideration the strength of the Democratic candidate in those races. It only takes into consideration the coattails that someone may be able to ride if a particular candidate is the Democratic nominee.

The bottom line is that most likely, the Democrats will probably not be able to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate. However, I do applaud people in the party for aiming high. Getting 54-57 seats would be nothing to sneeze at. However, in aiming high, we need to make sure we do not lose any seats. The Republican goal of gaining 2 seats is much more modest than our goal of getting 60. I would hate to see us shoot for the stars and in doing so cause the Senate to turn Republican for our next Democratic President.

Bush used a pocket veto on the Defense Authorization Bill …

that includes a provision by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., to make the primary mission of U.S. counter-terror operations the capture al Qaeda leaders, and to increase pay to military service members.

Seems like Mary Landrieu supports the troops and has a clear view on what the actual target of our anti-terrorism activities should be. Geaux Mary!

Polling data shows that Mary Landrieu has a small lead over turncoat John Kennedy in the 2008 Senate race.

I think these upcoming elections will be interesting. Closed primaries make it so only one Republican and one Democrat can be in the race. However, there can be many different “no party” candidates who decide to run as well. This leaves the door open for someone to win with a plurality and it does not require a simple majority. It will be interesting to see the faces on the Republicans who supported the closed primary election system if Landrieu does win but does so with less than 50%.

Of course, considering that Mary Landrieu is the actual Louisiana Congressperson to get us our fair share of oil revenue (not Bobby Jindal) and she also got us additional recovery funds, I find it hard to see how she will not get elected to another term. Oyster has more on this over at YRHT.

As if we didn’t see this coming from a mile away. Did anyone think that John Kennedy was going to do anything else after he switched parties? We all know that John Kennedy wanted to be a Senator since he ran and lost against David Vitter in 2004. With Louisiana’s new closed primary system for U.S. House and Senate seats, there would be no way that he would be able to win the closoed primary as a Democrat. So what does he do? He becomes another political opportunist party switcher, joins the Republican Party, and decides to drop his name in the hat early.

Now, John Kennedy has always been a fiscal conservative (something that is a positive for a state treasurer). However, what will be interesting are his social views (of which I currently am unaware). Will Republicans back a recent turncoat? Or will a traditional religious conservative (like Tony Perkins) enter the race and court enough of the Republican votes away from Kennedy.

Now, im not saying it would actually be Tony Perkins who would run, he only got 10% of the vote last time. And the Republican party has gotten its candidates “in line” previously (since in open primaries both Vitter and Jindal had no Republican opposition and won outright). However, because the winner of this election is not required to obtain a simple majority anymore, a weak 3rd party conservative could attract enough votes to allow Landrieu to win in the general election.

It is been 10 years since Congress has disagreed with a President so strongly they managed to override a veto. Well, today the Senate joined the House and said “SHOW ME THE MONEY!”.

This money contained funds that Louisiana needs to rebuild and to strengthen itself for the future. Does it contain spending that is probably unnecessary? Probably. But there are many more projects that are justified and needed and it is a political reallity that you sometimes have to scratch the back of a Congressman from one district in order to get your back scratched as well. Would it be nice if Congress would be able to just say “let’s vote on issues individually and decide them on their own merit”? Sure! However, since we live in the real world we have to deal with the political realities of our world.

Perhaps now the prospects of Louisiana will actually be brighter. Our congressional representation served us well today.