By now, more Louisiana voters have heard about the Democratic Party's ads criticizing Congressman Bobby Jindal's writings on religion that have actually seen the commercials in their limited release in Shreveport, Monroe and Alexandria.
That's not good for the Democrats, since nearly all of the reaction, from disdain to disgust, is directed back at the party. Indeed, many of the voices defending Jindal are those of pastors of faiths that the Republican frontrunner is supposed to have insulted. That's because they know him as one who has shared witness of his Christian awakening with their congregations.
It's one thing, almost expected, for a negative ad to contort words and facts to cast the worst light on an opponent's positions on public policy. The Democrats went well beyond and below that in attacking Jindal's character by making him out to be intolerant of other faiths. The ad might as well have called the congressman "depraved," "scandalous" and "selfish" than to ascribe those words to his views of Protestants.
Besides not getting its facts right, the ad fails to, as effective attack spots should, expose the opponent's weakness. Jindal's ecumenical approach to religion is his personal and political strength.
Raised a Hindu, converted to a Catholic and born again a Christian, Jindal has spanned the spectrum of faith moreso than any politician since or before Edwin Edwards, who lived his public life as both a Catholic and a Nazarene.
On the heels of the outrage came calls for the head of Chris Whittington, state chairman of the Democratic Party. Much of that originated not from embarrassed Democrats but Republicans, who instead should be praying for Mr. Whittington's extended tenure through more election cycles.
The reaction of the Democratic party faithful might go more along the lines of is-this-all-there-is? With their top candidate 40 to 50 points behind Jindal in one poll or another, this long incomplete pass exudes an air of desperation from a team with nothing more in its playbook.
Though it is the most spectacular misfire, the religion spot is not the first negative ad to miss its mark so far in this low-impact campaign.
Voters were last shaking their heads over the ad in which Sen. Walter Boasso, D-Chalmette, plays off against the cardboard figures of Jindal and President Bush and calls for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.
The common reaction was to ask what Boasso's venture into foreign policy has to do with governing Louisiana. Although polling showed that many Democrats and independents are unhappy with and tired of Bush, many still respect him, or at least the presidency, and don't care to see either mocked by a candidate for governor.
The first ad from the Democratic Party, in which a king pulls a crown back from the head of the Jindal character, pokes fun at the coronation aura around the Republican. Yet the spot's revelations of the candidate's healthcare record are less than damning. That Jindal, as the former state healthcare secretary, proposed limiting Medicaid patients to five prescriptions per month might not impress many of the uninsured working poor who get zero free prescriptions per month.
Jindal's one walk on the dark side, an ad portraying opponents Boasso and Foster Campbell as clowns, seemed more a pro forma gesture to supporters to demonstrate his resolve, lacking in the 2003 race, to strike back when hit. Still, to cast Campbell as a clown is indefensible. You can call the unabashed populist a lot of things, but funny is not one of them.
The missed attempts by the candidates and their parties (we have not heard from the Republican Party yet but we will) to engage the electorate through negative ads is a reflection of the lack of debate, or even exchange of sound bites, on the campaign trail.
Most responsible for that is Jindal, who is avoiding candidate forums while he tours the state on his campaign bus. Having committed so far to only one televised forum in September, he is only doing what any frontrunner in his place would. That's no excuse. If this is such an important election, the voters deserve more. But until his opponents do a better job of bringing the fight to Jindal, he has little reason to go to them.
I live near Toledo Bend Lake and the big thing around here is the race for State Representative. There is one Rebublician and three Democrats in this race. The Republican is Frankie Howard, former sheriff of Vernon parish. The Democratic party is going wild with mail-outs, phone calls, and radio ads bashing him about a trustee who escaped while he was in office. They say "he made a trustee out of a convicted criminal". Now I am no super smart person, but how else could this guy have been a trustee unless he was a convicted criminal? They are also making a big deal over the fact that the trustee was HIV positive. It seems to me that the Democrats are cutting their own throats with this one. I know Democrats who said they will vote for Mr. Howard just because of how their party is treating him.
Written by Bert Mitchell
on 10/9/2007
LA Speaks Draft Master Plan will not work because a river environmental disaster will occur with the plan as proposed
A shipping terminal has fallen in the river in the past (1974-75? near Plaquemine, La.) from high velocity water but I am sure the terminal was designed to meet government regulations with respect to piling depth...etc. After this event several diversions were added to the river and this has added piling undercutting capability to the river due to added velocity. Adding more diversions in the future may be the straw that breaks the back and, I believe, more shipping terminals will fall into the river. There should not be any added diversions that increases river velocities except for diversions close to the mouth of the river. Diversions close to the mouth of the river essentially do not increase river velocities and do not decrease the resistance of the river. But any diversions above the mouth of the river decrease the resistance of the river by creating a parallel run with the river. This parallel run starts at the point of the river diversion and continues downstream to the Gulf. These added diversions will decrease the downstream resistance and river velocity north of the diversion will be higher than before the diversions are added.
"A combination for shipping terminals to fall into the river"
I believe there is nothing that can be done to stop the added erosion power of the river from undermining shipping pilings. Also I believe, grading, armoring the river bank with stone, and installing concrete matt on the river bank will not stop the erosive power of the river, from higher velocities, undermining the levee at peak meander points. And this undermining of the levee will send a destructive tidal wave into Southeast Louisiana.
The Mississippi River Master Plan diversions will only work if:
· All future diversions are close to the mouth of the Mississippi River.
· Or the total flow of the bird foot delta area is decreased by the added upstream diversion flows.
A magnitude example of possible diversions
The Third Delta Conveyance Channel may well destroy Southeast Louisiana because the levee above Donaldsonville, Louisiana will be undermined. Higher river velocities above Donaldsonville will be generated by the Conveyance Channel flow because the flow will decrease the river resistance below Donaldsonville. These higher velocities will undermine peak meander points of the river above Donaldsonville and in turn the levee will be undermined and collapse sending a tidal wave south.
Please see below article that shows stream channelization increase flow velocity.
I believe one can safely conclude:
• Stream channelization reduces the resistance of a stream and this is why the stream has faster velocities.
• For the Mississippi River, approximate 1/3 of the river diverted by the Third Delta Conveyance channel will reduce the resistance of the river and as a result the velocity and the erosive power of the river upstream of the diversion will increase.
***********************************
…Because overall stream behavior is maintained in dynamic equilibrium, changes in one of several variables such as flow, velocity, or streambed substrate will result in compensating changes in the other variables. Channelization and armoring (rip-rapping) of a stream section will cause permanent changes, removing the dynamic nature of not only the altered section, but also affecting the adjoining stream sections further downstream than might initially be anticipated. Stream channelization often increases stream velocity, thereby increasing the erosive power of the stream. Durable protection or armoring is then required to ensure the stability of the engineered modification through all flow events….
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/KalamazooNRDA/documents/IChap_8.pdf
Page 5
********************************
http://www.freewebs.com/wetlandsmiss/index.htm
Written by Wertlandsrst
on 9/16/2007
Exactly what the author mean by "converted to a Catholic and born again a Christian"? Does he assume that Catholics ar enon-Christian?
Written by EXNOLA
on 9/13/2007
Wetlands restoration will produce an unstable Mississippi River?
http://www.freewebs.com/wetlandsmiss/index.htm
Written by Wetlandsrst
on 8/31/2007
Ole Jarhead,I really hope you get to feeling better soon.
Written by Diaperman
on 8/30/2007
Ok I see that could be taken out of context,not dying dying just really sick.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 8/30/2007
Too tired to comment thanks Dan. dying suckks
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 8/30/2007
Prof: Just because you dont like the arguments I provide as to why Jindal is not the right person for the job doesnt mean that you have proven your point that Jindal is the right person for the job. There is absolutely NO evidence that Louisiana will do any better with Republicans in charge. In fact, when you look at Barbour and his family proffiting from Katrina, you will see that corruption is not something that one party has a monopoly on. Both parties have their corrupt people and those corrupt people should be tossed out on their rearends. Jindal has defended corrupt people, he has accepted money from corrupt people, so why should i believe that he will now work against corrupt people. Will he point out corrupt Democrats? Sure! Will he point out corrupt Republicans? History tells me no, and the future of our state cannot afford a governor that will selectively fight corruption. And ok, yes, the Jindal campaign did roll out Protestants who are against the ad. However, that doesn't prove that Jindal's words where not insulting to many protestants.
Written by Dan
on 8/30/2007
Proffessor, there has been enough evidence posted here exhibiting exactly why Jindal should not be Governor. However we are all entitled to opinions. I can disagree with your opinion but it does not make you wrong in the sense it's right for you. It's your opinion. We can argue until the cows come home. We're all right. Tomorrow morning on WGSO I'll tell the world another story of Jindal's antics. Sometimes I wonder why these things keep falling on my lap! Destiny maybe?
In any case no reply from the Jindal Camp on the debate. I still say if I can get on those televised debates he either wont show or be so intimadated he'll think that that stupid Barney Frank standing right behind him.
Written by Tony G
on 8/29/2007
Professor you need to wake up,because I have said I will vote for Bobby Jindal.Learn to read Professor, and you will see I was answering Jason post where he mentioned the Iraq war.So you prove my point on the republican hypocrisy and holier-than-thou way of life.You took part of what I said and made it look like I just picked on poor old vitter who made his own mess and the Iraq war.Now I am sure you think republican Idaho Sen. Larry Craig who got busted playing in the men's room at the airport,did not know, when he plead guilty,to a charge stemming from an undercover police operation in an airport men's room,that meant he really was guilty.First Vitter with a hooker and now Larry Craig playing in the men's room,and the republican party is still the moral party.No to gay marriages,but hookers and playing in the men's bathroom is just fine for the leaders of the republican party.Ole Jarhead always makes good remarks and comes back with things that make me think.I might not like Ole Jarheads answers but I respect him for them.Professor , it will be people like you,that bring the republican party right back out of power in Louisiana,just like the republican party lost power in Washington.
Written by Diaperman
on 8/29/2007
I think that you have managed to make my point (that Jindal is the only REAL choice for the Governor's mansion) better than I could have. Is Vitter running? Nope. Is Bush or Rove running? Nope. Is the Republican party running? Nope. Jindal is running. Can anyone hold a sustained arguement as to why he's not the right person for the job? Nope. You've got to bring in Vitter, the Iraq war, Bush/Rove and the Republican party. Jindal will win, Republicans will take the House and Louisiana will begin its long climb out of last place. Oh, and Dan - your exact words in your first post were, "the Bobby Jindal campaign was able to roll out some protestants to come out in support of Jindal."
Written by Professor
on 8/29/2007
Prof, did I make Vitter hire a hooker and break the law.No, so blame Vitter for every chance I get to show him being a hippocrate.His own words were Clinton cheated own his wife,so he is morally unfit for office.I could care less what you are the party say about Clinton,because I hold Vitter to his own words and stone throwing.The only difference is Vitter broke the law by hiring a hooker,but it is OK because he is such a high moral standing repulican.
Written by Diaperman
on 8/29/2007
Ole Jarhead,bush signed and a bill and put aside billions of dollars for the building of a wall years ago.So far he has had only about two to three miles of that wall built.Now that is not congress fault ,but it is Bush fault it has not been built.Now on the war, what and how can we win anything in a country that does not want us,except the rights to their oil.Notice the only thing really working in Iraq is the oil fields.Now President Bush has wired tapped people,they can search us at the airport,But the troops can not stop gang members from crossing the border.Do not lay all the blame on the democrats,when Bush is letting the world know,we have an open border policy.President Bush allowed two border agents to go to jail,for catching a dope dealer.Now maybe someone else prosecuted him,But President Bush never stepped up to set them free.Last I heard the president could grant pardons and not just amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants who have broke the law by being here.No when we leave our borders open,you know we are not even trying to protect america.I bet when we were attacked on 9-11 all of the bad guys were here legally, and never even thought of crossing the border are breaking our immigration laws.
Written by Diaperman
on 8/29/2007
Prof: Errrr where did I say that the JIndal campaign rolled anyone out?
Written by Dan
on 8/29/2007
Fact is that C.Ray "let em Drown" Nagin had more to do with those folks dying than jesse or Al want to admit!
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 8/29/2007
Allright - here's my laundry list. JOHN - good article. As always, you seem to have a firm grasp on the situation and it's implications for the future. DAN - the "Jindal campaign" did not roll anyone out. If you noticed, one of the heaviest hitters against the ad was Senator Ben Nevers. I don't think that he's a lapdog to any Republican campaign. DIAPERMAN - do you trot out Vitter in every arguement? We condemned Clinton because he lied directly to the face of America, not because he cheated on his wife (otherwise Jefferson, Hamilton, Kennedy and LBJ would have been crucified). And, in case you haven't figured it out, it's not exactly earth shattering news that, when a person switches to your team it's considered "good" and when someone leaves your team it's considered "bad".
Written by Professor
on 8/29/2007
Diaperman we build the wall thats what we do we allocated teh money but the dems in congress won't release it except VERY SLOWLY trying to insure that never happens. No one is dying for oil that is an old tired slogan that has been disproved as many times as it has been raised. Finally the troops cannot come home and stand on the border, that would require each state to request federal assistance in that manner which makes them lose more than the state would gain. There is also an issue of states rights too.
Written by Ole Jarhead
on 8/29/2007
Jason,please tell me how we can get the job done.I supported the war at first,but by now it is clear we are leaving our borders wide open for anyone to cross over,and yet we are supposed to be protecting America by fighting in iraq.Now if the Bush wants to just let ms-13 and other bad people keep crossing the border,do not tell me,the war is for our safty.Please tell me how we can win or what do we win,in a country that will never support america.No my friend, it is time to bring our troops home,Let them protect our borders if needed,but do not let them die for oil,in a country that does not even want them.But maybe it is more republican hypocrisy to say we are fighting in Iraq to make Americans safer,while we leave the borders open for the gangs to cross over and hurt American people. Do you think MS-13 is here, to rebuild New Orleans and then they are going back home?
Written by Diaperman
on 8/29/2007
So it's in Louisiana's interests for Jindal to back a McGovernite, peace at any price policy by ripping troops out of Iraq before the job is done? I'd say most Louisianas would not agree with you. I think that's a policy the Iranians would love, as their president recently hinted his country would fill the vaccuum after we leave.
Written by Jason
on 8/29/2007
Now just a year ago,Jindal and the republican party were happy with Walter Boasso and yet when he swaps parties they turn and attack him.Now I must ask are the clowns really Jindal and party for supporting Walter Boasso when he was a repulican.Then maybe this is just more of the republican hypocrisy of someone swapping from republican to democrat as being evil and bad,yet when Kennedy swaps to republican,for personal gain like everyone else,he is the best person ever.Funny I remember when the republican party was proud, Walter Boasso swapped to them also.This also falls under the hypocrisy of Vitter, who called on Clinton to resign because he cheated on his wife,While Vitter not only cheated,he had to hire a hooker, which is against the law in Louisiana,but that was alright, because he is a repulican.Jindal needs to bring people together, and not be just another hypocrite.
Written by Diaperman
on 8/29/2007
Several flaws in this article. The point that many people missed with the Boasso ad about Jindal backing Bush on Iraq is that Bobby Jindal has put being a follower behind Bush above being a leader in Congress for Louisiana. Jindal has done more to help Bush and his failed Iraq policy than he has done for Louisiana and that is not the kind of person we need leading our state. There is also the fact that Jindal, the hypocrite, released his own attack ad after he had stated one week earlier that he doesn't believe in using them. Should the religion ad have been used? No. Should the ad have worded things better? Yes. Does the fact that the Bobby Jindal campaign was able to roll out some protestants to come out in support of Jindal prove that the ad is not insulting to protestants? No. In fact, I wonder if those people who are defending Jindal actually read what Jindal actually wrote. Because when someone tells me that my interpretation of the bible is wrong because as a human I am "utterly depraved" and thus incapable of understanding the words written in it, I would not run to embrace that person.
By now, more 