Liberty and Justice for All!

Garland Robinette(Jindal cheerleader and apologist, at least until today) had C.B. Forgotston on his show today at noon to discuss an article in the advocate about the possibility that Louisiana had the wool pulled over its eyes when ethics reform passed. *GASP*

From the article:

“I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a lot of charges that are unprovable” under the tougher new standard, said Richard Sherburne, the former prosecutor who now runs the Board of Ethics.

“Necessarily that change will let some people who have violated the law avoid responsibility,” he said.

Let’s get into a layman’s explanation on what happened. To win a civil case, the plaintiff only needs to establish a preponderance of the evidence to get a verdict against you. To win a criminal case, the state needs proof beyond reasonable doubt (a much tougher standard). Garland used the OJ criminal and civil cases as an example. So basically what the state has done is made it tougher to prove that someone is guilty! And while “clear and convincing” is not as bold as “reasonable doubt”, it is still more than “preponderance”. This means less people will be punished, even though we have more laws. Let me make that clear so everyone, including all the Jindal apologists, can understand. BOBBY JINDAL SIGNED A BILL INTO LAW THAT MAKES IT HARDER TO CONVICT PEOPLE OF ETHICAL VIOLATIONS.

Hopefully, the Legislature will change the standard so that their “new gold standard” for ethics is not fool’s gold.

Nobody should be surprised that Jindal’s gold standard is more like pyrite. Garland seemed to be very shocked. After all, he has been a shill of Bobby Jindal’s for years now. However, for him to admit that the wool “may”  have been pulled over our eyes is a big step for him. I tried to call in and give him more examples of Jindal’s ethical failings. However, an hour later the show was over and they took no calls.

Please see C.B. Forgotston’s site for the autopsy of the death of ethics in our state.

Update: The State Senator who put forward the change in wording was on Garland’s show this afternoon. And in typical Jindal Apologist style, the State Senator accused Garland of wanting to give “entertainment” and that was the only reason he was continuing to discuss this issue. I am used to those kinds of tactics first hand. See, Jindal Apologists will tend to make wild accusations if  you do not support their beloved politician. If you did not believe that Jindal would bring meaningful ethics reform to Louisiana, you were attacked as being someone who must be against ethics.

Another disturbing problem was that Garland claimed he was being told by his higher ups that he had this all wrong and that the State Senator was correct. Well, Clancy Dubos came on and showed the State Senator to be completely wrong. I wonder why Garland’s higher ups would tell Garland that he had it wrong? Perhaps it is because they feel that they might lose access to Governor Jindal? This happened to Steve Sabludowski for a while over at Bayou Buzz. And according to the author of the article in the Gambit, many people in the media are afraid to write items that are critical of the Jindal for fear of having their access to the governor eliminated. He says that the  those who surround Jindal tend to be “angry” and vindictive (and this is not the first I have heard this). They (probably “homeschool” and Sellers.. and perhaps others) will cut off access to those members of the press who dare challenge the almighty Jindal. Clancy Dubos basically told any journalist who would cower to the thugs in the Jindal administration to grow a spine and do their jobs. (He didn’t call them thugs, but by using fear tactics that is what they are).

Clancy also stated that he has written an editorial on this very issue. As soon as he posts it on his website, I will provide a link.

I was on the radio this morning on KVOL 1330. I wanted to go ahead and direct any listeners who might check out the blog to several of the points that we discussed on the air. First and foremost would be the David Vitter scandal and his hypocrisy. Here is a link showing that Vitter called for Clintons resignation for his affair.

There is also this quote of Vitter’s from the time that clearly show his hypocrisy:

 Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don’t care — because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong — moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust

So how is Vitter not morally unfit to be a Senator (by his own logic)? And of course, here is the link to the lj4a store where you can purchase some WWVD bumper stickers and t-shirts.

We also discussed some of Bobby Jindal’s hypocrisy as well. From Jindal’s kid attending the LSU lab school, to Timmy Teepell’s brother in law becoming executive director of the Louisiana Republican Party, to ticketgate (and the link to the WAFB story),  Jindal’s inflating of the budget he claims was already inflated and finally Jindal’s paying back his campaign contributors with government grants.

It was a really fun experience and I definitely look forward to doing it again.

WWL reported that Juan Lafonta is complaining that Bobby Jindal is refusing to meet with the Legislative Black Caucus even though they have sent 3 letters to him requesting a meeting.

If Bobby Jindal was really different, as he tried to claim, he would meet with everyone regardless of party. Of course, as I have said from day one, Bobby Jindal is far from “different”.

More on this story as it comes out.

Update 1: LaFonta is apparently having the same problems with certain legislators as I am having. He criticized Karen Carter Peterson, Cedric Richmond, and J.P. Morrell for backing Republican Jim Tucker instead of Don Cazayoux for the House Speakership. He claims that they are trying to gain control of the caucus in order to back Jindal. I have previously criticized Peterson and the other Democrats for being selfish and putting their own power above the needs of Democrats statewide. The issue of LaFonta not getting access has not gotten much coverage.

Jindal cast his first veto against a bill that would allow a person accused of an ethics violation to see who made the complaint (or who provided information to the board). The bill passed unanimously in both houses.

So let me get this straight, the bill passed with a “veto proof” majority and Jindal still used his veto power?

And what doesn’t Jindal like about this bill? He states:

 ”…I am concerned that portions of the bill would have the unintended consequence of potentially impeding legitimate complaints,”

Of course it does not state WHY he has those concerns. I am unable to find any statement on the Governor’s webpage either. The ability to confront your accusers is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system and an important right. Why would Jindal oppose legislation that would allow a person accused of ethics violations to confront their accusers. It seems rather unamerican to me.

Update: Here is the text of the bill with the veto explanation:

Under current law, the Board of Ethics is required to provide an individual accused of misconduct with a “certified copy of the vote [to investigate] and an explanation of the matter or a copy of the sworn complaint if one has been submitted to the board.” (R.S. 42:1141B). House Bill No. 90 by Representative Dixon would require the Board to disclose additional information to an individual accused of misconduct once the Board has decided to pursue formal charges. The Bill would also mandate that the Board further disclose the “name of any complainant and the name of any other person providing information that the board has considered” prior to the required “private investigation” and the Board’s vote on whether to pursue formal charges. While I understand and support the right of an accused public servant to defend him/herself from formal charges, I am concerned that portions of the Bill would have the unintended consequence of potentially impeding legitimate complaints.

For this reason, I have vetoed House Bill No. 90 and am returning it to the House of Representatives.

I mean didn’t Bobby Jindal buy a house and make his home in Kenner when he ran for election in LA01? Oh yeah, that’s right… he intended to deliver his last child in Baton Rouge. It was also reported on 99.5 FM that he put his house up for sale (by owner). And now the paragon of ethics and virtue Bobby Jindal has “established” his home back in Baton Rouge. His child is now attending the LSU Lab School. Mr. “what you know and not who you know” Jindal seems to have violated that idea yet again in using his position to get his daughter admission into this highly sought after school where only 1/3 of all applicants make it in.

Just to show the differences in the story that are listed in the article.

The school’s director, Wade Smith, said the school did not recruit Jindal’s 6-year-old daughter, Selia….However, Jindal said Monday that the lab school was one of several schools that contacted him after he won the October governor’s election.

So what is it? Did they contact him or didn’t they? More important is this statement:

In the past, the school operated on a lottery system. But LSU officials acknowledged at the time of the lottery system that a governor’s children would get special consideration because of state government’s influence on the schools’ funding.

Not who you know but what you know indeed. Seems that Louisiana politics is alive and well in Baton Rouge and that Bobby Jindal is an active participant. Oh yeah, Timmy Teepel’s kids go there as well.

And anyone thought that Jindal intended on living in Kenner after he was done with his Congressional seat was a fool.

Sound familiar? It should!

Update 1: And here is the fluff peice from the T-P. Oyster should love this quote from Jindal:

“We have literally passed the nation’s gold standard.”

Update 2: More media fluff. The New York Times, The Daily Advertiser, Sify, and again, the T-P are drinking the kool aid and praising Jindal for passing comprehensive ethics reform, something he did not do. Let’s look at T-P:

Gov. Bobby Jindal and the Legislature dealt the infamous Louisiana Way a substantial blow with the historic reforms coming out of the special session on ethics.

Really? So lets say a lobbyist wanted to spend $200 to wine and dine a legislator. This just means he has to go to 4 luches with him/her and not just 1. Is that a huge stride? I don’t think so. These are mostly “feel good” but “do nothing” laws that have no bite since we are not seeing how they will be enforced. And when your governor balks at increased transparency on his administration because he feels that investors should be able to meet with the governor in private (ahem.. back room deals… ahem), I fail to see how Louisiana is not operating under business as usual.

Today Bobby Jindal said of his ethics session:

“This was a grand slam. This was a home run. This was complete victory,” 

However at the beginning of the ethics session he stated that he wanted to “bat a thousand”.  As we all know, when it came to several of the ethics proposals suggested in the special session, he struck out.

Jindal balked at true ethics reform, looking to only solve the “perception of ethical problems” when he could have went after actually fixing ethical problems. Legislators agree. More from the article:

The session “had nothing to do with Louisiana and our people. It was to satisfy people from the outside,” said Rep. Patrick Williams, D-Shreveport.

“Hopefully, I think we finally put this perception of corruption in Louisiana to rest,” said Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-New Orleans. “This is all about perception and rankings. That’s what this session was about. You can’t legislate honesty or morality.”

And while you cannot legislate honesty or morality, you can make tougher penalties for those who act in a dishonest or immoral way. However, I see no extra funding for the ethics board, only a weakening of it. Instead of the ethics board deciding who is wrong, it is an appointee of the Governor.

Jindal tried to throw us curve balls, by demanding more transparency on just the legislature and then crying foul when the legislature asked for more transparency from him.

And it seems the rain delay for some change will last until 2012.

Paraphrasing a caller to 99.5 this afternoon, when Jindal’s ethics session is placed in the record books, there will be a large asterisk beside it.

Edited to add: Bobby Jindal says that this is “complete victory”. Does that mean Jindal feels no more ethics legislation is needed?

Lost in the whole “free ticket” discussion is the ability of legislators to purchase tickets to certain games (like the Sugar Bowl). Every year we hear complaints from people about the legislators being able to purchase sugar bowl tickets at face value without waiting on line or going to ticket brokers.

I believe that if the bill banning free tickets is passed as written, that the ability to purchase hard to get tickets will be retained by the legislators. Perhaps if we got rid of all the special perks, we could clear out all the people who are just there to serve themselves. Just sayin…

Jindal’s victory speech he stated:

Who you know will no longer be more important than what you know

Really now? Does that explain why Matt Parker, Timmy Teepell’s brother in law, is now the executive director of the Republican Party, replacing James Quinn (who took a job in Jindal’s administration)? Yes, I am sure that James Quinn’s appointment had nothing to do with who he knew. I am sure that Matt Parker got his position in the Republican Party had nothing to do with his being Timmy’s brother in law.

You know, sometimes you have to feel sorry for those poor legislators trying to make the hard decision. Her name escapes me at the moment, but one legislator up in Baton Rouge feels that the $50 provision is far too restrictive and that she will be limited to eating *gasp* FAST FOOD when people are trying to convince her to vote in a certain way. The horror of it all!

How about this. We should just enact the “no coffee” law that Florida has. That way, people can do the business of the people in their offices (imagine that). And IF they want to discuss things over lunch, perhaps (and call me crazy for this one) but just perhaps the legislator could pay for their own meals. I don’t think it is too much to ask, and any legislator who thinks otherwise needs to be thrown out of office (I don’t care what party you belong to). The only way progressives will be able to get any sort of PROGRESS is to get out all those people who serve themselves instead of serving the people who elected them.

When I remember the name, I will update the blog later. But how much fast food does this woman eat? I mean seriously, I am a larger man, but even I find it hard to top $10 at most fast food joints.

Update: Charmaine Marchand (D-New Orleans) is the person who uttered this nonsense:

“At $50, we’re going to be eating at Taco Bell,”

Do  you know how much food you can get at Taco Bell for $50? She is just being absurd. Again, the limit should be $0. No coffee, no crackers, no cookies, not even a crumb. The ONLY time I think that anyone should be able to provide a meal to a legislator is if that legislator is a speaker at some function where a meal is served. These types of events would not be to lobby the legislator, but for the legislator to be speaking on some specific subject matter. The wording of the legislation would have to be strict enough to not count dinner for two as a speaking engagement. Other than that, legislators need to get over themselves and their feelings of entitlement.

I suggest that it may be a good idea for people to contact her and inform her that many of us progressive people find her to be absolutely ridiculous.