For many, making the decision regarding whom to vote for Governor is not easy.There is no black and white, good and bad.There are thousands of shades of gray.
I believe that all of the candidates running for Governor are honorable people who for one reason or another want to win.They want to lead Louisiana from the doldrums and are making sacrifices in their lives to be our next leader although the job presents the opportunity for great perks for the winner.
Still, each candidate has their own set of positives and negatives.
Each candidate has great academic backgrounds, governmental experiences, some with business experiences and three with legislative experiences.
There are no absolutes.Jindal is widely respected in Republican circles and among some independents and democrats.He has some Congressional experience and state administrative leadership.John Georges has been a successful business person and has governmental experience as a member of the Board of Regents.Probably the person with the most governmental experience is Foster Campbell who has an easy plan to understand but who scares the willies out of some businesses fearful that the oil and offshore industries will skedaddle to Texas.Walter Boasso is strong-willed who is also a very successful business person and who stewarded important levee board consolidation legislation post-Katrina.
While each candidate has made campaign mistakes, they are all good individuals.As I said yesterday, none of the candidates are perfect.
But, one will be Governor.
Without doubt, based upon all polling, the issue over the next two weeks is whether Jindal will win straight up or whether he will be forced to compete in the second round.While there are polls in the field that are helpful, the most reliable will be the tracking polls that are daily in some cases and very time sensitive.
Bobby Jindal is in a unique position.He could easily win the elections next Saturday or he could face a candidate in a runoff.Thus, his first order of business is to win, but, in doing so, because of his position as the clear front runner, he should make certain that he has wins with honor and dignity.
Perhaps, one of the biggest problema with his campaign is whether Bobby Jindal in his desire to win will overstate his message and aggravate those who either oppose him or who favor another candidate.For example, currently, he has an Internet ad running that says “Bobby Jindal”Underneath the ad says “Help him fight against nasty attacks from the corrupt crowd”.This ad assumes the worse in his opposition.It raises the question that to his campaign, all concerned criticisms or questions about his candidacy is automatically deemed to be a “nasty attack” and from a “corrupt crowd”.Another interpretation is that he is opposed to only those attacks that are nasty and are from corrupt crowds.Either way, once again, he is not telling us who is corrupt?His stroke in offsetting criticisms and even attacks against him is too broad.
Also, his ad really confuses me.Is he saying that simply because a person prefers another candidate, he or she is corrupt?Is he saying, simply because people might question his credentials or his philosophy or his leadership or his campaign, they are corrupt?Is he saying that all criticisms are nasty?
By the way, the Internet ad in question is paid for by the Bobby Jindal For Governor Campaign.
I believe that ironically, those who might favor another candidate or who just might be against Jindal just might not be engaging in “nasty attacks” and might not be “corrupt”.I believe they are good people, just as I believe he is—a good person.
Jindal has a good chance of winning the election in two weeks and if not, next month.He would be much better off building bridges with those who question him rather than calling their criticisms as “nasty” or them as “corrupt”.
One day, he might just be governing Louisiana.As Walter Boasso said in a recent debate, if Jindal knows that certain people are corrupt, he should prove it or drop it.Calling names is unbecoming to Bobby Jindal and to the people in the state and even to his campaign.
The person who ultimately wins this election will govern all the people.Four years ago Bobby Jindal made a mistake by not defending himself during the last week of the election.I believe that Jindal is getting very bad advice for he is much better than the person he is projecting to be by this ad.By making a preemptive strike of such an incendiary nature, he is over-reaching.While a good fight will be engaged this next week and possibly next month, automatically claiming the criticisms will be nasty or the opposition “are corrupt” will not help him govern should he be elected.
Stephen and Nat, dears, take a look at the fact that the minority shareholder must get the necessary financing and that the payment must be in cash. This alone shows the potential for an extended delay before the purchase can take effect and the deadline was past the election. Now did Georges respond to the issue. Yes at least we got some sort of response. We are sure that at the next forum he will be grilled like a pig over a hot pit. Now the grilling should also be turned, Nat, dear, on Pi, Bobby, Mr. Jindal, whatever you may chose to call him, also because he has not been answering all of the questions that inquiring minds want answered. Frankly, dears, we believe that an extended forum with the candidates battling each other in a true debate, rather than fielding questions from certain chosen individuals, would be more inducive in seeing what they can do. Nat, dear, does your candidate have the guts in the belly enough to do this. At this point we see that he has no guts in the belly, no fire, but just a history of political ambition and frankly political obsequious behavior. My all of that early voting before all of the facts are out in the open is interesting. Written by RhettsWife
on 10/12/2007
Nat, I reread your second post and I did misread your statement. I am sorry for misreading you. On another issue, you know more than me about that industry, obviously, and that experience should be considered in the equation. I need more information for my own personal opinion to change. Your comment that followed, is definitely provocative, wow! It is worth a column. Again, I am sorry for misreading you. Written by Stephen Sabludowsky, Publisher of Bayoubuzz.com
on 10/11/2007
Oh by the way, If you look on page 11 of the so called "FBI transcripts" the judge stated in his ruling that "there is no indication or evidence that Alario had any knowledge of nor participation in the activities of Robin". It looks like Robin was slick and made a bunch of money off the deal. If you read the whole "transcript" it appears that Robin was hiding his deal from Alario. He even told the "victim" to never speak to Alario about the deal. Hey Villere, you aren't getting another dime from me and my family. You are destroying the party. I won't be surprised if you screw it up for Jindal. Written by about 2 switch parties
on 10/11/2007
Written by
on 10/11/2007
I am getting sick and tired of what my Republican Party is doing with these nasty campaign tactics. If the Demos what to do it, let them. It just makes them look desperate. We really look desperate putting that site up about John Alario. We can't win that race so I guess we will keep dumping money into for the sake of implying corrupt acts by Alario. I read the so called "FBI transcipts" posted on the site. It's not transcripts. It is a Court of Appeals filing for a civil lawsuit that includes Ward's self recorded tapes. I have a friend who is an FBI Agent. He says that there is no way that the FBI would provide copies of their own recordings for a civil trial. Especially when no charges were brought against Robin or Alario. We should be spending party money on the Governor's race and other races that we can actually win. Alario is going to win and we are going to need his help. I won't blame him when he tells us to F@%k off because we attacked him personally. Ask Buddy Roemer and Mike Foster if we want to stay on Alario's good side. Written by about 2 switch parties
on 10/11/2007
correction .last line below...."I might think you were being partial" Sorry! Written by nat
on 10/11/2007
I will repeat, again, what I said below:
"If I didn't think and already state Stephen S. was impartially doing his editor's job, I might think his rush to defend might reek of impartiality". that is what I said and that is what I meant. "if" and "might" are there to make a point, not to accuse. I know you to be honorable. Perhaps, if anything, I find you, at worse, naive,considering Georges is playing the same game of politics as everyone else. We all know the game, don't always say what you mean. Don't always mean what you say. Stay one thing here and another thing there. Cover your bases. Claim misspeak. It's all in the game, and they all do it, including my candidate jindal. I have done considerable business, as part of my overall business,in the gaming industry for 15 years. I am telling you, and knowing what a bigtime player Georges has been since 1992, there is no way he misspoke. He knows the incredibly stringent rules and facts as well as anyone. He knows he is not even close to be able to say he sold his interest in gaming. I'll just say, we can agree to disagree. But, read my words as written and not as you care to inerpret them. Unlike Georges, I actually say what I mean. You do a terrifc job as an editor of your venture. I repeat, if I did not already state and know that, I might think you were not being impartial. Written by NAT
on 10/11/2007
Nat,
This is the last I personally will address the issue since I have other matters I must attend, but, I am not able to go into his head and say he lied as you are. I, again, believe he made a mistakes with his responses which go to his credibility. If you want to think that I am defending him, I am not. I just question the word "lie". As far as Clinton, that was an absolute lie in my books and in most people's books. Then, some people think that George H. Bush lied when he said no new taxes. I think he changed his mind. I would not call it a lie. So, while we agree that he made a mistake which I believe will hurt him, I do not think I have enough evidence to call it a lie. Also, telling untruths is not lying. You can make a statement that is untrue and it can hurt politically. But, unless you have evidence to know that the person is saying to himself at the time in making the statement that "I know what I am saying is false and I am going to say it anyway", the statement might be a major mistake, but it is hard to prove it is a lie. That is my only point. none the less, it does hurt him and should be considered in the entire crucible of factors in casting a vote. As far as "rush to defend", Nat, I am surprised at you. I looked at the Buzzbacks which I try to do when I have time and I saw your post underneath challenging me. So, I gave my honest opinion of the situation. So, let me repeat for emphasis: 1. John Georges gave at least two statements which were not true and inconsistent. 2. Both statements will hurt him politically. 3. None of us to my knowledge know why John Georges made those statements 4. The gambling industry diverstiture process is complicated and filled with government regulation. 5. John Georges should have used other statements such as "I am in the process of selling my interest" and "I bought the business from Nims" 6. Making a statement that is not true does not rise to a lie unless one can prove that the person making the statement knew at the time that what was being said was totally untrue and had total disregard for the truth of the statement. Am I defending John Georges for the statement he made during the debate? Absolutely not. It goes to credibility of our believing the words being spoken are true or not true. Does it mean I will not vote for him or anyone else for this type of statement or error? No. Again, all factors should be considered in judging who we should vote for including this one and including others made by other candidates. But, I think you are absolutely wrong for imputing that I am defending him or anyone else when I am only raising an issue which I think deserves intelligent discussion when I am being asked to respond and at the moment, I had time to do so. So, thanks for your comments with which I disagree in this case. The statements do raise suspicion. I just can't say they were a lie. Written by Stephen Sabludowsky, Publisher of Bayoubuzz.com
on 10/11/2007
I have already voted for Tony G. and will always be proud of that vote.If you keep voting for the rich people,do not expect the working man to ever get any help. Written by Diaperman
on 10/11/2007
Bill Clinton did not have "sex" with Lewinsky. Oliver Thomas "accepted an inappropriate gift" and not bribe. And the man, Georges, who wants to be governor
"overstated". Wow, if I didn't think and already state Stephen S. was impartially doing his editor's job, I might think his rush to defend might reek of partiality. "Circumstantial evidence,direct evidence"? How about honesty ? How about now wondering if the man actually has the intelligence to lead our state, if he somehow, conveniently, can't even get these two simple answer correct, or together enough to not "overstate"(your words)? I do know the regulations of the gaming industry. I know exactly what Georges knew when he stated his untruth( is that better?). He knew the gaming commission, and the state police have to do their extensive investigation before allowing an actual sale to go through. He knows this race is long over before that happens. He knows once he loses, he cancels the pending sale and it remains staus quo. But, for now, he gets to say he has relinquished his interest. Stephen, you know exactly what his intentions were. As for the Sims situation, he was attempting to play to a north Louisiana crowd by associating himself as having been a "partner" of the man whose trust gave a fabulous building to north Louisiana. He knew exactly what he was saying. ANd using your own example of awaiting an act of sale on a home, after the sale is complete, do you say you had been a partner of the person buying your home? Of course not. Georges plain knowingly lied. He knew by buying SIms' business he was never a partner of Sims. One can legalize it all they want. It's nothing but plain ole politics. Written by NAT
on 10/11/2007
I know much about the Georges situation. I think his statements definitely hurt him which is what I said yesterday. I believe they are inconsistent with the facts. I think there is more to that situation then you, or I or even the TP know. But, I think it is not right to call it a lie. I called it overstating. That does not excuse the statements but to call someone a liar is to know what he was thinking at the time he stated the words and takes substantial circustantial evidence and direct evidence. In my view, he would have been better off saying I am in the process of selling. I also think he should have said i bought Nims business. I do not know what points he got out of the Nims issue to start with. The video poker issue is a very complicated transaction. Without sounding as if I am taking up for him which I am not on this issue, he had a short window of opportunity in my view to decide to run after Breaux and Landrieu decided not to run and to sell the business. Many people say I sold my house when they really mean I am going to an act of sale. Regardless, the statement hurt him. I just don't think he was lying. Written by Stephen Sabludowsky, Publisher of Bayoubuzz.com
on 10/11/2007
Sometimes it is so sad, but sometimes Christains who think they are good can be some scarry people. Wasn't it Shakespsear who said, "thou doest protest too much" o rmaybe not, but someone said it. Keep up the questions. Will the real Bobby Jindal stand up? Written by Bobby
on 10/11/2007
The only hope for a true rebirth of Louisiana is me Tony G. I'm an everyday person with good common sense. The others are all involved with big business and special interest groups who are driving them. We can talk all day long about the "Major Candidates". Fact is none of them really offer any change. Some of the Georges Plan comes off of my website which has been on the web long over a year prior to John making the commitment to run. Him and I are the same age, perhaps we see things the same. We need the common sense approach to State Government. None of these men offer it. You never hear these men talk about working with State Governemnt, it's all about what they want to do. Yes, you need a vision a goal, but never lose sight of the fact there are many other people that have vision and goals for the state. A good leader leads and does not force or push people into submission. A good leader knows when an issue calls for consensus or when he must be firm. Pushing people only leads to one thing, push back, resistence. I have the leadership skills to effectively negotiate the obstacles of State Government. We don't need a fresh start we need to build on the successes we have. State Governemnt must be energized to move forward effectively. Not tied by a rope and hooked up to a back of a bumper and drug wherever someone desires. These mens's egos are to big to asscociate the word team and leader. Everyone knows who the coach (Governor) is it's how he/she leads the team that makes the difference. Written by Tony G
on 10/11/2007
Here's a couple of facts for review by the editor, the jindal oppostion and the Georges supporters I would like to read responses. Fact: Georges said in the debate in Shreveport he sold his interest in the gambling industry Fact: That is a lie. He still owns an interest in the gambling industry and knows full well logistically, this will not change before the election. Fact: he said in the debate he was a partner of Robert Sims(from whose family trust, I believe,a 10 million dollar center was created for the benefit of north Louisianians. Fact: Another lie. Georges was never a partner of Sims. Fact: Georges has been all over the airways cliaiming ICF has donated money to Jindal. Fact: Everyone keeps asking him for proof or documentation and he continues to only responsd by saying they should do their homework and find out the answers, refusing to answer. Anyone, including this website, interested in responding? Written by nat
on 10/11/2007
Hermann, Thank you for your comments. I think there is a difference between criticizing ads on fact and attack ads. However, please send me whatever ads you think are unfair to Bobby Jindal and I will review and if I think it is over the line, I will express my feelings and if it means my raising questioons about those ads and even criticizing them, I have no problem doing that. Again, my email is steve@bayoubuzz.com, so please send me those ads you think are objectionable. Written by Stephen Sabludowsky, Publisher of Bayoubuzz.com
on 10/11/2007
Steve- Are you blind? Do you look at the nasty content of the ads attacking Jindal? That's Jindal"s point. Boasso's and the Democrat Part ads are scurrilois, even by Louisiana's low standards. You constantly amaze me by your single-minded questions/attacks on Jindal. Written by hermann
on 10/11/2007
Well Steve you almost made it halfway through your column before your "anybody but Bobby" bias had to come to the surface. I truly believe that it not the fact that Jindal prefers not to submit to the 4 against 1 debates that you repeatedly demand, but that he doesn't respond to your individual criticism that has you so upset. Could it be that he doesn't read your column, or even worst has recognized it's bias, and has chosen to ignore it. You've become a one trick pony, criticizing the local rags for publishing endorsements while you focus on anti-endorsing a single candidate. Is it possible that there's nothing negative about the others that bear repeating daily, as you've done with Jindal? Written by Rich
on 10/11/2007
If Jindal is so honest, then, why would he not answer questions about his own campaign finances? You consider Karl Rove, David Vitter, Crain, the Hammer, Gingrich, Halliburton, George Bush as being honest? Jindal has been tied to that culture. Isn't it funny that the GOP was knocked out office due to ethics lapses and inefficiencies yet you want to pin the tail on the donkey? JIndal should stop calling people corrrupt. The more he does so, the less he can prove any of it, the more it is looking like he is lying. Now, how about those Congressional-Governor races campaign finance records? I can see why he refuses to debate. Written by PracticeWhatYouPreach
on 10/11/2007
Chaubert, dear, you state: that certain candiates are "dependent for support on voters who are themselves part of the culture of corruption, and who continue to elect incompetent and dishonest politicians." The voters are not part of the corruption and the overwhelming majority do not wish to have the continuation of corruption. However, the voter should have the opportunity to understand the full character of the candidates and that can be accomplished only by honesty and frankness from the candidates, themselves. All we see from Jindal are platitudes and allegations and no response to questions, no frankness, and as a result a question of his complete honesty. Some voters may be ignorant but not all voters are stupid and refuse to given in to platitudes, etc. Written by RhettsWife
on 10/11/2007
Jindal should make a distinction between those who are personally corrupt, and those who depend on supporters who are corrupt. I believe Boasso and Georges are personally honest. Maybe Campbell is too. But Boasso and Campbell are both dependent for support on voters who are themselves part of the culture of corruption, and who continue to elect incompetent and dishonest politicians. That means to me that Boasso and Campbell would not be very effective at ethics reform and cleaning up government because their party supporters in the legislature are such integral parts of the same-old, same-old line back to Edwin Edwards.
Jindal is not tied to the past supporters of Edwards. He will be much more effective in bringing about the reform that Louisiana so badly needs. Written by Chaubert
on 10/11/2007
For many, making the decision regarding whom to vote for Governor is not easy.
