Liberty and Justice for All!

Earlier I was critical of Karen Carter and her actions in the Louisiana Legislature when she sold out her own party and supported a Republican for Speaker of the House. How did the Democratic voters in her district pay her back for her selfishness? They rewarded her with the most votes in her OPDEC election in District B.

This is why the Democratic Party is losing ground in this state. Selfish Democrats who are only concerned with their own personal power are rewarded with more seats. The state party does not even follow its own rules. Because of her actions, she should have been censured. The party should have stood up and said “We not tolerate people who allow the Republicans to gain more and more power for their own benefit”. She should be embarassed for her actions and the voters should have tossed her out.

We are supposed to be “progressives”, but we won’t make any progress by supporting people who support Republicans. Until we learn that, we will continue to fail in this state.

I don’t understand why so called “political experts” are shocked at the success that Barack Obama is having in southern states. He won South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. It also looks like he will also win Louisiana. In a T-P article (announcing that he will be at Tulane on Thursday) they state:

Obama has shown unexpected strength in the South.

Let’s look at the numbers, shall we?

According to CNN exit polls in Georgia, a majority of the Democratic voters yesterday were black (52%), and a super-majority of those black voters (87.4%) voted for Barack Obama. (Only 2% of the voters in the Republican primary were black)

Compare that to the 2004 Georgia exit polls in the general election where only 25% of the overall vote in Georgia was from black voters.

Barack Obama winning Georgia in the 2008 general election? That would absolutely be unexpected. The southern strategy of Nixon and Reagan is alive and well. They know that there are a lot of racists in the south who do not like that the Democratic Party is actually… *gasp*… willing to treat black people as equals (the horror!). They target the old school “southern democrats” who split from the Democratic party after the Democrats pushed for civil rights.

However, Barack Obama getting success among current southern Democrats is hardly shocking at all. A large percentage of those voters are black voters who are likely to identify with Obama and who are excited at the potential to get the first black president. To suggest that Barack Obama’s success among current southern Democrats is “unexpected” shows a complete ignorance of the political landscape of the south.

Before the SOTU, Tim Russert was discussing the approval rating of the President (less than 40%). He then mentioned that the Congress has an approval rating of less than 20%. Of course, he ignores the reason why Congress has an approval rating that is so low. This reason is because the Democrats won the 2006 elections with a mandate to end the war and turn this country around. Republicans are obstructing that mandate. This is why the approval rating is so low.

Bush wants us to make the tax cuts permanent. Of course he does! He has no more control after this year and he feels that his cuts are actually a good idea. He is wrong. Does that mean that all tax cuts are wrong? No. Do I think that just because someone is rich that they never should get a tax break? No. I do believe that tax cuts must be responsible and that we should not be increasing spending while cutting taxes. And for those who would bring up the laffer curve, well, you have to prove you are on the correct side of the curve before you know that decreasing taxes will increase revenue. The argument that many blind followers of the party bring up is that decreasing taxes ALWAYS decreases revenue. This is obviously flawed.

Bush stated that he will issue an executive order prohibiting federal agencies from spending money that was not issued to them by a vote of Congress. Does this mean that he will stop spending money on faith based initiatives that come from his executive budget that circumvent the budget process as well? I don’t think so.

Bush discussed the idea of free trade, and that we can help domestic workers by opening up to foreign markets. That sounds nice and good but in reality it doesn’t work. When you sign free trade agreements with countries whose labor laws are less restrictive than ours, it places our workers at a competitive disadvantage. If corporations in other countries can develop cheaper goods and sell them here, our workers suffer. If corporations in our country can find cheaper labor overseas, our workers suffer. The blind faith that conservatives have in free trade is flawed and dangerous. They do so at their own peril.

Bush wants to empower judges who say that the Constitution means what it says. He then states that the judges deserve an “up or down vote”. I challenge the President, or any other conservative who likes to use the phrase ”up or down vote” to show me where the Constitution requires an up or down vote on judicial nominees.

Towards the end, Bush continued to say all that terrorists are doing around the world. I would comment on that as well. However, why should we believe anything this President has to say on terrorism after 7 years of lies and deceit?

Yes I support the troops, that’s why I want them home. Yes I support going after terrorists, kill them before they kill us. But like the little boy who called wolf, Bush can no longer be trusted.

Update #1: As I watch this on my DVR (after much pausing) I heard Bush talking about honoring those who serve our country. How can he say this with a straight face after saying that a pay raise for them is unnecessary?

And for Bush to talk about Liberty? That is just laughable.

Jennifer Sneed proposed the ordinance that bans hotels from charging hourly rates. Now, I would be less shocked if John Young had proposed the ordinance since he is running for Congress and that sort of “feel good” conservative legislation is just what the conservative voters would want to see out of their next Congressman.

But is this really going to do anybody any good? As someone pointed out in the comments on nola.com, all a hooker will most likely have to do is raise her rates so the room is purchased for the day. And there is also the issue of truck drivers who may want to take a shower but don’t need a room for the entire night.

Unfortunately, this sort of “feel good but do nothing” legislation is all to common in politics. I guess it is just too hard to focus on silly little things like murders, rapes, and burglaries when prostitution is going on. Give me a break.

In a Scott Galindez article for truthout.org, he used the term that the Republicans used during the Clinton presidency to show the amount of disdain they had for Hillary being a strong First Lady: “Billary”.

He doesn’t stop there. He points out that Bill Clinton is not running for President and wonders why people seem to be supporting him and not her. However, he then goes on to attack his record? If people are supporting Hillary because of Bill, and he is critical of this, then why is he perpetuating the discussion of Hillary’s campaign in the terms of what Bill did by attacking them? It makes no sense.

He also attacks Bill Clinton for policies passed during his tenure as if Bill Clinton had carte blanche to pass whatever he wanted. After 1994, he had to deal with a Republican controlled Congress. Was Clinton the perfect President or the perfect Democrat? Of course not, but who is? And as Galindez says, he is much better than Reagan or Bush.

To get back to the main point though, I find it deplorable that liberals are using Republican terms to describe Hillary. All it does is just perpetuate the ideas of Conservative punditry (and no Democrat should be perpetuating Conservative punditry). And then there is the way it demeans one of our front runners. To imply that Obama is facing “Billary” implies that Hillary is not strong enough to be a candidate on her own. This is just bad thinking. If Hillary gets the nomination, do we really want Republicans pointing to us saying “look, even the Democrats don’t think she is strong enough to be President”. Are any of us really going to vote for a Republican if our 1^st choice doesn’t make it? I didn’t think so. So why would we act in a way that hurts our chances of having a Democratic President? Again, it makes no sense. One thing we need to do is think more in the long term, and sometimes our passion interferes with long term goals. In the days of the internet, anything we say can come back to haunt us. And while I absolutely support being critical of policies that a candidate may have that we may disagree with, I think we can do so without resorting to the tactics that the other side uses against us.

When Hillary Clinton was asked “Are you looking to end this war or win it?” she responded “I’m looking to bring our troops home”.

Progressives, liberals, Democrats and any of the other labels you want to place on those who want and end to this war will stand up and applaud those comments. However, we need to not just pander to our base. We need to have our candidates anticipate the Republican attacks on the statements that are made and cut them off at the pass.

By saying what she said, anybody can see the Republican attack on it now. “When Hillary Clinton was asked if she wants to win the war, she did not say yes”. The flag will be flying in the background, with a shot of our troops, and maybe some 9-11 imagery.

Assuming the view that we have not won the war yet is correct, Hillary Clinton should have said is this:

“The only way to win the war is with diplomacy and an expectation of Iraq to take its duty to defend itself seriously. By bringing our troops home and uplifting a Democratically elected Iraq, we win this war by winning the peace.”

Now, I am of the opinion that the war was won years ago when Saddam was toppled and the reason Bush is still in Iraq is to use it as a terrorist magnet (and thus perpetuating the terrorist problem with our own actions and justifying, in his mind, our continued presence). So if I was on the stage, I would have stated:

“This war was won when we toppled Saddam’s regime. Now we have to win the peace and we cannot do so without the Iraqi people embracing their duty to take care of themselves. The best way to do this is a structured withdrawal from Iraq that includes the training and equipping of the Iraqi military. Such provisions where included in HR 1591. However, the Republican obstructionists who are blindly following the failed “stay the course” policies of our President blocked that legislation from coming forward”.

By saying something like this, Hillary would have been able to both get the applause from the progressives while also presenting a preemptive attack against the Republican statements that we all know will come.

Well, today is the first day of a long four years. Bobby Jindal will be inaugurated in what will most likely be a celebration of pipe dreams and hopes based on false praise of Jindal’s past “successes”.

In yesterday’s T-P, they continued their inability to find facts when it comes to their beloved Bobby Jindal. They cannot seem to help themselves. The first sentence starts off the spin:

Bobby Jindal, the immigrants’ son whose exemplary public service made him the wunderkind of Louisiana politics

Exemplary? I was unaware that not doing your job and collecting a paycheck is exemplary. See Bobby Jindal has missed many votes in Congress, going over a month between votes at times. Yet, he collected a paycheck. I was also unaware that cutting healthcare to the needy is also “exemplary”. The reason Bobby Jindal is the wunderkind of Louisiana politics is because hack newspaper editors, instead of grasping their duty to inform, decide to sell the garbage that Jindal and his campaign has distributed to them. If the T-P had a nose, it would be brown.

He will be Louisiana’s first non-white chief executive since post-Civil War Reconstruction and the first Indian-American to govern a U.S. state. 

Again, more failures of fact checking. Kris Kolluri served as Governor for a very short time. Jindal is the first elected Governor.

A former head of the Department of Health and Hospitals, Gov.-elect Jindal also can appreciate the importance of rebuilding a medical school in New Orleans to anchor a biomedical research park.

Why should Jindal appreciate anything about healthcare? He did not appreciate the fact that by closing clinics and removing access to medical services to those who need them that the state’s health ranking would drop. But hey, I have long since given up on the T-P and their ability to give something called the truth.

The state’s future will be shortchanged, however, if we fail to reverse our corrupt reputation. Gov.-elect Jindal plans to deliver on a campaign promise by strengthening the state’s weak ethics laws during a special session expected next month.

Of course he hasn’t shared the legislation he will push. He also has never mentioned that he will bring campaign finance reform and eliminate corporate contributions. Without closing that loophole, you won’t have true ethics reform. Of course, considering Bobby Jindal benefits from the loophole, I will not hold my breath.

Im sure there will be many cheers by the die hard supporters as Bobby “the wunderkind” Jindal and his wife “Suburban Supermom” Supriya stand there smiling for the cameras. But for some reason I keep expecting to hear Dark Helmet  exclaiming “fooled you“.

Cross posted at jindalisbad.com

Update 1: The January 17th T-P continues the lies about Bobby Jindal. Either that or they are doing some really good drugs.

Then-Rep. Jindal was instrumental in securing a share of federal offshore oil and gas revenues.

Wrong. Bobby Jindal fought for his bill to pass until he won the 2006 election. In doing so he fought against the Domenici-Landrieu bill (the actual bill that got signed by the President). Mary Landrieu, not Bobby Jindal, was instrumental in securing a share of federal offshore oil and gas revenues. Bobby Jindal only changed his mind once his 2006 race was over and there could be no risk of an opponent using his flawed bill against him.

I am running for the Orleans Parish Democratic Executive Committee (OPDEC) in District C and for the Democratic Party State Central Committee (DSCC) in House District 86.

I am fed up with the actions of some in my party. We need a change at the local and statewide level if we are going to stop the bleeding and stop losing seats to Republicans. We need to remove the traitors, like Karen Carter, from their leadership positions and work to set up an infrastructure so all Democrats have the support they need when they run for office in Louisiana.

The website still has many updates that need to be added. However, if you live in either of those districts or if you just want to help a Democrat make a positive change in the party, please help me and others like me out. We need a change and it needs to happen now. And it wont happen if we elect people who are currently entrenched in the political process.

As one of my last acts of 2nd vice chair of the JPDEC (I have since moved to Orleans Parish) I wrote this on behalf of the committee.

The Jefferson Parish Democratic Executive Committee would like to voice its displeasure with those Democrats who have decided to abandon their party in the selection process for the next Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives. Representative Karen Carter and the other Democrats who have expressed their support for Representative Jim Tucker are doing their party a disservice.

With the upcoming census, it is likely that Louisiana will be forced to redistrict after losing a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is vital that Democrats have control over this process so we can protect ourselves from the tactics that were used by former U.S. Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) and other Republicans in Texas during their most recent redistricting. If those Democrats who are crossing party lines on this issue believe that such events will not take place in Louisiana, they are fooling themselves. With the founding of the LCRM, similar to Tom Delay’s TRMPAC and ARMPAC, we can clearly see what the Republicans are intent on doing. If the Republicans had won control of the LA House, are we to believe that they would act in a fair and bipartisan manner?

We would urge all elected Democrats to stand firm and support a Democrat for the position of Speaker of the House. Any Democrats who support Tucker for the top leadership position in the House will be remembered for their betrayal of their party. The JPDEC urges the State Democratic Party and all other Democratic Parish Executive Committees to censure Democrats who vote for Tucker, to remove those Democrats from any party leadership positions, and to actively recruit candidates to replace those traitors in the next election. With the losses sustained by the Democratic Party in the last election, we cannot afford to have Democrats who will sell out their party in order to gain powerful committee assignments.