Liberty and Justice for All!

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.

In Jindal’s speech he gave to open the special session on ethics, he stated:

Today, we embark on the single most important endeavor for the future of Louisiana - bringing comprehensive ethics reform and transparency to our state.

Oh really? Well, today HB27 was sponsored by Wayne Waddell and it “Limits the public records exemption for the office of the governor to the executive office of the governor”. See, currently all of the agencies under the governor are exempted by the public records law. This law would open up the agencies under the governor to public review. The law would also allow a person to examine (or get a copy of) records relating to any financial transaction that comes through the office of the governor.

Do I need to say who does not support this legislation? Well, according to 99.5 fm newsat 6pm, Governor Jindal is opposed it. Campaign finance law avoider and executive council Jimmy Faircloth stated that:

… the governor’s office opposed the bill because it would create problems for the governor to freely receive ideas, policy recommendations and communications from legislators and others. He also said it would create problems with investors who want to privately negotiate with the state.

That has to absolutely be the lamest excuse I have ever heard. How on earth would it create problems for the governor to receive ideas and policy recommendations from legislators and others? IT EXEMPTS THE GOVERNORS OFFICE! (As a side note, it should not exempt the Governors office either. The legislation SHOULD include the entire administration to the public records law and Bobby Jindal, if he really was the ethics champion his supporters claim he is, would wholeheartedly endorse it.)

And guess what… investors should not be able to privately negotiate with the state! Having an open, honest and TRANSPARENT government requires that every transaction be done above board. So if investors want to privately negotiate with the state, I say TOO BAD! Havn’t we had enough problems with secret back room deals with our state? Won’t this statement by Jindal’s executive council continue to spread the message that our Governor wants to continue the back room deals that have tarnished the reputation of Louisiana? So much for eliminating the perception of ethical problems! Apparently the time of backroom deals in Louisiana politics is far from over, and Jindal wants his ability to conduct them protected.

It also seems that the only thing that is transparent about Jindal is that he is who I said he was. So when do I get to say “I told you so”?

Update 1: After further review of Jindal’s comments before the special session, he stated: 

Private enterprises deserve a level playing field when doing business with the government.

How on earth can we give businesses a level playing field when Bobby Jindal’s administration stresses that private investors need to be able to have private meetings that can avoid the public records law. Jindal says: 

We must also shine the light of day on those special interests who lobby our government.

How will we shine the light of day on special interests if they are allowed to do business with the government in the dark? Jindal says: 

We must change the way business is done in

Baton Rouge by passing legislation that will put an end to the lavish meals and free tickets.

Yet Jindal chief of staff Timmy Teepell just got free tickets to Hannah Montanah. Will Timmy be fired for this? Will he be let go for using his position of power to get free tickets to a very popular concert? No, because he states: 

Gov. Bobby Jindal:  Jim, again, bottom line. We’re gonna follow the law like everybody else

So instead of setting high standards for people in his administration, instead of having people in his administration act in the way that he state government SHOULD work, the people in his office are free to violate those stated principles as long as the actions are still legal. That should do wonders in helping us fix our ethical perception problems. Jindal says: 

The bright light of transparency and public access should extend to every corner of the state budget…so that we can regain the trust of the public.

Every corner of the state budget… except for what Jindal is in charge of. And the Jindal apologists STILL refuse to see the hypocrisy.

On my lunch break I called into the Spud show on WWL. Clancy Dubos was on discussing the LA01 race and I decided to call in and add my $0.02. This is when I came up for my new term for the socially conservative springboard from which the three Republican candidates for this election are coming from. From Steve Scalise and his push to ban gay marriages (and gay civil unions) in our state, to Tim Burns plastering his name all over the radio as having a 100% pro-life record, to Ben Morris and his website where he also discusses how he loves “family values” and wants to defend our Judeo-Christian heritage (as if Ben Morris really respected Jews when he supported the lone picture of Jesus in the Slidell courthouse), all of these candidates are basically trying to stand up and proclaim who loves embryos and hates homosexuals more.

So I call in and ask when the LA01 voters are going to stop voting against their best interests. Sure, the three Republican candidates are showing that they are gay hating embryo lovers. However, the family values track has not shown a very good record in LA01. First you have Bob Livingston (who is backing Steve Scalise), whose family values included having an affair. Then you have David “Vitty-Cent” Vitter, whose family values included sins with prostitutes while married. Then you have PBJ, who ran for governor on an ethics package and is now has an ethics investigation no less than 1 month into his term. Finally, all three Republican candidates for Congress won their respective 2007 elections and will not be able to perform their jobs to their best ability because they will be focused on their new campaigns. So again, you have three candidates who are worried about their own gains and ignore the needs of their constituents. It also seems to me that collecting a paycheck for a job you are not doing is not very ethical or fiscally conservative. I guess that point is lost on the voters who happen to be GHEL as well.

Of course, Clancy’s response was pretty much a comment on how Democrats also do the same thing so I should be careful what I wish for. Well, I wish that all politicians (Democrat and Republican) follow the same set of rules and that includes committing to complete the term you are elected to and if you cannot, resign immediately. I hold Democrats to the same standards that I do Republicans.

There is also the issue that Louisiana tends to “zig” when the rest of the country “zags” politically. I brought up the idea that perhaps with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President that it might benefit Louisiana to have more Democratic representatives. Again, Clancy said that I should be careful what I wish for because when the country went to the right and elected Bush and a Republican Congress, we elected Blanco and Landrieu. And if Clancy was trying to point out Louisiana’s folly in those choices at the time, well, perhaps it is time to learn from past folly and now that America is “zigging”, perhaps we should continue to “zig”  as well! That would require us to reelect Mary Landrieu later this year and to perhaps replace the obstructionist Republicans with Democrats who can get the job done for Louisiana.

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.

Even though Bobby Jindal vowed to stay out of the legislative leader selection, an article in the advocate states that State Sen. Joel Chaisson II is Bobby Jindal’s choice. Jindal claims that his holding a press conference to announce this is not an example of him backing out of that vow. However, methinks Jindal doth protest too much. I guess he thinks we are all to stupid to think that he would not lie.

I, for one, am not surprised that Bobby Jindal would say one thing and do another.

I also find  this picture interesting. Jindal’s face seems to say “thats right, you are my choice, do my bidding…. and you better say the right thing or else”.

(Cross-posted at jindalisbad.com)

David Vitter (or as Oyster calls him, Vitty-Cent) is in the news (well, if you can call T-P news) again for his hypocricy on “family values”. It just makes me ask again, WWVD (Who Would Vitter Do?).

Republican Hypocrite, State Rep. Richard Curtis, is alleged to have worn womens clothing while seeking sexual favors in an adult bookstore before going to a hotel for another romp with another man. And even though the police report claims otherwise, Curtis claims that he did not have homosexual sex and that he is not gay. Curtis had previously voted against gay rights.

I’d add my two cents but Oyster, over at Your Right Hand Thief, pretty much sums it up as well as anyone could ask for.

Of course, you can help expose Republican hypocricy by buying David Vitter “WWVD” merchandise.