As this 2008 political season comes to an end, Louisiana remained a republican red state, but Louisiana also reelected democrat Mary Landrieu as our Democratic US Senator. How is it possible for Louisiana to vote overwhelmingly against President Elect Barrack Obama and at the same time reelect democrat Mary Landrieu? Simple -- Louisiana seldom votes out any incumbent US Senator. It is unheard of and has not happened in a very long time. After close calls in her previous elections, Landrieu smoked John Kennedy. I doubt anyone was very surprised by Landrieu’s victory – I predicted this outcome in a column for Bayou Buzz in 2007.
Kennedy’s very poor showing as a liberal democrat in the 2004 senate race was always going to be his Achilles heel – his conversion to the republican party would not make that big of a difference. Everyone one but David Vitter and the state republican party thought John Kennedy could beat Mary Landrieu. I knew Kennedy would lose and said it repeatedly – Secretary of State Jay Dardenne was the only republican who even had a shot at beating Mary Landrieu. In retrospect, I doubt anyone could have beaten Mary Landrieu. Landrieu got a big lift from the Barrack Obama’s inspired huge black turnout. The big victory rolled up in Louisiana by John McCain was expected as poll after poll showed Barrack Obama getting only about 17% of all white voters. The Obama campaign claimed they were going to run a 50 state campaign – after I released several surveys by Southern Media showing Candidate Obama getting only 17% of the white vote- I was quoted as advising the Obama campaign to save their jet fuel as Louisiana was going McCain. McCain was going to beat Obama badly as whites were energized to vote against and even match the expected big turnout of the black voters for Barrack Obama. This race was never in doubt from day one. What was up with a poll released by some TV stations showing Obama and McCain in a virtual dead heat / it was only off by about 15 percentage points.
By the way – in Louisiana it made no difference, if the democratic candidate had been a white Ted Kennedy – he would have been beaten just as bad if not worse than Barrack Obama. Speaking of Senator David Vitter, his reelection will become the big buzz as the disastrous revelation of marriage infidelity with someone ( I am being kind ) makes his lock cinch to be reelected not so certain. It does not take a genius to figure out democrats will make Vitter the poster child of why republicans should not be returned to power. Republicans are in serious trouble and unless President Barrack Obama screws up royally, it will take years for them to regain the dominance they recently enjoyed in the US Congress. Corruption, sexual revelations and bad candidates have decimated their ranks and I see no end in sight for the next four years.Republicans, being the so called party of family values, unfortunately has David Vitter first up for reelection.How do you begin the rebuilding of the Republican Party with Vitter and his problems being displayed on the national stage in 2010?
Popular Governor Bobby Jindal is all over the landscape discussing what needs to be done to revitalize the republican party and he is also taking the opportunity to court the family valuesgroups as he begins his unofficial campaign for president in 2012. Yet back here in Louisiana, Jindal is supporting Vitter’s reelection as he lends a hand to help David Vitter raise money for the reelection effort. Can the republicans risk supporting a damaged David Vitter as the demos will have tons of money to spend trying to defeat Vitter. Can Governor Bobby Jindal continue to discuss the future of the Republican Party and what need to be done for a return to power and campaign for David Vitter? Is family values an issue Senator Vitter will even mention in his reelection bid in 2010? Can the democrats find a viable candidate to challenge David Vitter? Can you even imagine the commercials that the democrats will air attacking Vitter and his highly publicized sexual indiscretions?You can bet the farm on this – David Vitter’s reelection will be the hot political topic for the next two years!
"forgetting all about my troubles (loneliness, horniness {not the same thing}, "...LOL! oh, KP---You funny guy- We shoot you last..("I Love Lucy" Show)... G'morning- came online just to see "you," and tell you that I'm refraining from blogging for a while.... going out of town.. have a few things scheduled.. But, I'll make my husband bring me to R&B before Christmas to meet you and the Mrs.. AND-- to "feel the fun" you speak of... Give 'em hell, KP! Written by KjunLady
on 12/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Normally we go to the Zydeco night at the R&B, not this Thursday as my Bride is down with the flu and I'll be offshore. Maybe I'll be back and she'll be recovered for the weekend bash at Tips. Me-Cher-I-dunno. I do know this.... the people who dance Zydeco in south Louisiana - at the R&B, Tips ("Cajun" but close enough) and in the 60-80 mile area surrounding Lafayette, are some of the happiest people I've ever met. When I first divorced, and realized that "to meet women I need to dance"....I "found" the Zydeco scene. I can recal being at the Rock & Bowl - forgetting all about my troubles (loneliness, horniness {not the same thing}, financial woes & the divorce proceeding {exactly the same thing}) and just looking at these 40 to 70 something year olds dancing and thinking "this is nothing other than people loving other people." R&B on a Thursday night is simply the best place to be anywhere on the planet, IMHO. It's too bad that no one on these boards took up my offer to come to our reception at the R&B on Oct 25th. Black & white, young & old, free food, free drinks, bowling if that's your thing, a live Zydeco band (Leon Chavis, he did a great job that night). It was a very special time at a wonderful place. Ah well, I need to get to work (but first finish checking da rest of da Buzzy Boards). Written by kpf
on 12/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Wow- KP... now that's a diverse group of happy people-- I recognized John right away- he doesn't seem to age at all... Your wife is a wild child!..LOL..no wonder you married her... and you, ma Dawlin, put Tom Cruise to shame! (wish I could correspond in the same way-- but not through "this" medium.. vous comprendes,eh?.. but, I will meet you and your Bride some day soon-- you watch:)......... "KJ" Written by KjunLady
on 12/6/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
KP says, "I'm no Tom Cruise,"... LOL!! - and I'm no Pamela Anderson!!-- but, you can bet ya sweet bippy, if I post a photo- it'll be deceptive...(perhaps a red-head... I dunno)... Now, off to see your website....(you're cracking me up already... and nobody but you and I are reading this thread this long anyway..<g>) Written by KjunLady
on 12/6/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I'm no Tom Cruise, and should not have made the statement on the previous post (I am a bit ashamed of it actually...just "a bit" mind you). I do have pics of my mug on the web, on various Cajun and Zydeco dance sites. If you're really bored check out Cajun Dancer's web site ____http://www.cjndncr.com/____ click on 2007 collages, then R&B March 8th... I'm the fat bald headed dude in the black tee on the top right. In the 2004 collages (R&B Feb 26th) is my wife ("wife" of 6 weeks today) before I ever met her. She's in the white shirt & light blue jeans in the left side 2nd row (she has bad eyesight, lucky me!!!!!). Written by kpf
on 12/6/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
" didja ever notice... that many women who scream the loudest about the "right to have an abortion"...... would only be made pregnant by a very, very drunk man? "....LOLOL!, KP......<smack!).... (and where do we post our photographs on this thing?)
Written by KjunLady
on 12/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"....or becomes (egads! say-it-isn't-so!) a Democrat"... BraHahahahahahaha!!!! Written by KjunLady
on 12/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well Smitty, we obviously will have to "agree to disagree" on abortion. But perhaps we may agree on this... didja ever notice... that many women who scream the loudest about the "right to have an abortion"...... would only be made pregnant by a very, very drunk man? Written by kpf
on 12/4/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Whoops, Typo....... 1 - 2 was supposed to read 1 - 4.... In other words, all of your problems solved, and everyone elses figured out and taken care of too!!!!! Politics isn't that hard, doesn't require a genius at all..... And then all that is necessary is to ignore the pissy screaming hellbent baby hating women out there that just want to stand around all day long and complain about something that either doesn't concern them, or that they are too weak willed or minded to take matters into their own hands... Written by
on 12/4/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well, I agree with you there KPF when you say in part of your dialog; -- "there are many the left labels "conservative" who simply desire 1) our government follow the Constitution (you know, the oath they take when sworn in, that Constitution) 2) be fiscally responsible (spend no more than they take in, spend no more than is absolutely necessary, "stuff" like that), 3) not allow this country to become entangled in foreign affairs (unnecessary wars, assassinating foreign leaders, those kind of things) and 4) do not harm the economy by taking too much money from the private sector and prevent economic expansion - and understand that these "limited government" proponents do not favor MORE government CONTROL over your life (or body) but LESS.-----" And to satisfy 1 - 2 of your observations or statments of philosphical approach and application... Women CAN have abortions... No problem.... All they have to do is apply for a passport, and catch a Greyhound bus to Mexico.... It costs the taxpayer ZERO, And the woman is still allowed to commit murder, but it is out of sight and out of mind of decent citizens in the United States...... And while she is at it, she can get her tubes tied so that she doesn't have to endure another long bus ride down to south of the border.... This is the best solution for all, she can have her bus to herself, and she doesn't force us to ride along in it at the same time..... Written by
on 12/4/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
KjunLady.... you misread me totally. I SUPPORT a woman's "right to choose" - in fact, I support the tax payers paying for a welfare mother's "choice" to have an abortion as this is cheaper than paying to raise her child (since she cannot afford to do so) - to take it further and FORCE her to have an abortion is what China does.... I'd rather reserve my opinion on that option. I will say that the tax payer is better serve when a child is not brought in to the world where they are 1) unwanted, 2) possibly will become a criminal (housed at $30K per year in our prisons) or 3) become (egads! say-it-isn't-so!) a Democrat (I am just joking here). So... this secular conservative has no problem with tax payer funded abortions. I do stand by my assertion that just as men should have no say-so concerning the "right" to accessing an abortion procedure, non-property owning voters should have no say-so over property taxes. For exactly the same reason - those who do not have to "bear the burden" (of a pregnancy or a tax increase) should have no say-so in FORCING others to endure a cost they will not share. Unfortunately our society is not set up that way. Here's an interesting article criticizing the "Great Society", how it actually makes poverty more prevalent rather than less. It also illustrates how the government has become our master instead of our servant. Keep in mind this was written in 1967, realize that there are many the left labels "conservative" who simply desire 1) our government follow the Constitution (you know, the oath they take when sworn in, that Constitution) 2) be fiscally responsible (spend no more than they take in, spend no more than is absolutely necessary, "stuff" like that), 3) not allow this country to become entangled in foreign affairs (unnecessary wars, assassinating foreign leaders, those kind of things) and 4) do not harm the economy by taking too much money from the private sector and prevent economic expansion - and understand that these "limited government" proponents do not favor MORE government CONTROL over your life (or body) but LESS. In fact we call this belief "freedom" - freedom from any and all unnecessary government tyranny – including religious-inspired government tyranny.
http://mises.org/story/3232 Written by kpf
on 12/4/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
But Jesus loves you, at least that's what I heard he said... And me? Well, if I saw someone accosting you on a dirty New Orleans Street trying to take your life, I would step in and stop your assailant.... Even if I knew you personally... Love,,, what an odd concept.... Sacrifice, well, it is fairly understandable, but I would suppose sacrifice and the reason for it is the ultimate significance of such an act in the first place.... Written by
on 12/3/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oh, I think you would understand why I wouldn't want to attend a town hall meeting where someone like you would be hosting..... Stone cold murder and people that condone or advocate such actions simply have a way of making me ill at the stomach..... Written by
on 12/3/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
* * * * Where's the Republican taxpayer then? It's somebody else's problem?.. * * * ? Yes Kajunlady, as you say; " It is sad, very sad... But- no matter what you believe (and many are so passionate on both sides)- whether it's immoral, illegal, un-Christian--"......... and it becomes even sadder....... when you try to vindicate your errarnt moralities by saying: "it's OUR RIGHT"...... Actually it isn't a right at all.... It is simply an opportunity that was afforded you when your mother didn't abort you....... And being as I don't know your mother, I don't think I owe your mother so please don't ask for my taxes to be used to kill her grandchildren....... Even if you do hate them and what they represent... Written by
on 12/3/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Morning, KP.. you say, "I disagree (surprise!surprise!). " KP, if there was no government assistance-- and just legalized abortion, would it be an issue with you? If you only care about the taxpayers- then, shouldn't you be more concerned with the millions of crack babies born, the unwanted children who are delivered into a non-caring society- and forgotten? Where's the Republican taxpayer then? It's somebody else's problem?.. It is sad, very sad... But- no matter what you believe (and many are so passionate on both sides)- whether it's immoral, illegal, un-Christian-- it's OUR RIGHT... not yours. We must never never reverse Roe vs. Wade- for many more reasons than this one. We're all pro-life- Stay out of a woman's right to choose. Written by KjunLady
on 12/3/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well... I disagree (surprise!surprise!). Men voting to prevent women from having access to abortions is very similar to non-property owning voters voting to have property owners have their taxes increased. In each case those who are directly affected (tax-paying property owners and pregnant women) are at the mercy of those who are not affected by their votes. Same-same in dat way, Cher. Just as it's easy to say "stay pregnant and put the baby up for adoption" if you'll never be pregnant it is also easy to say "the property owners can afford to pay more taxes" if you are not a property owner. I do not see this as "apples and oranges" or hypocritical. Both instances are examples of people FORCING (threw "da law", Cher) their fellow citizens to "bear a burden" they they themselves will not have to endure. Written by kpf
on 12/3/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
What about the baby's rights you poor - poor - pitiful and confused woman???? If you can read this, thank your mother that she didn't abort you... Written by
on 12/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Do Men have a say-so in a Woman's Right to Choose? kpf says "those who do not own property should have no say-so on proposed property tax raises. Fair is fair, after all. "... Nah, kp-- that's comparing apples to oranges. And, yes, kp- Men should have no say-so in "Womens' Right" to choose...(such hypocracy). By the way, if Republicans oppose Pro-Choice, and Democrats support it- then, why did LA's Cazayoux(D), Melancon(D), and Jim Harlan(D) recently run against Women's Rights? Written by KjunLady
on 12/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I'll say it again. David Vitter's name was not the only one in the D.C. Madam's book. Let's see the book and see how many holier than thou democrats are in there.
If he was the only one this lady was not doing too well.
I do not condone what David did but I certainly don't think he is the only one. Lets see the book.
Written by UpperUS
on 12/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Ehhh,,, the facts of the matters are; Women who have abortions ARE BABY KILLERS... There is no other definition for the proceedure.... Oh, but it is 'convenient' or 'expedient' for some busy women to think otherwise... What a bunch of mindless morons.... Written by
on 12/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
KJ, by "if you have a pair of those 'jingle balls'- you have no say-so on this issue" do you mean that men should have no say-so on a woman's choice to have an abortion? Well...... I agree! Of course.... to be consistant..... those who do not own property should have no say-so on proposed property tax raises. Fair is fair, after all. Written by kpf
on 12/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Facts are what the facts are KajunLady..... And Obama already made his postion clear.... And that is one of no position at all except to allow this macabre practice be condoned no matter who or what the consequences of the actions are.... Clear up to the moment that the little bambino is virtually blinking at you as it makes its grand entrance into this rather grotesque world we are shaping... Written by
on 12/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Sid says, "A lot of white Catholics voted against Obama not because of his color but because of his very liberal pro death stance. " What the HELL are you talking about, Sid?..... Is that your "warped angle" at approaching abortion? Nobody endorses "killing babies"-- you know that. You sound like Archie Bunker. (oh, and, if you have a pair of those "jingle balls"- you have no say-so on this issue) Written by KjunLady
on 12/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It all sounds wonderful KPF, and you started off correctly when you came to defining 'racist' for what it really is - - - A POLITICAL TOOL..... and to take that observation a step farther, it is a format that can be used with surgical precision to cut to the quick of the matter and quash argumentative speculation that is often used against a minority faction in order to hamper the progression of a perceived hierarchical agenda... Ahhhh,,, the race card, and its application by the few over the many…… In other words, it is the DNC that approved, bolstered, and supported Jefferson, offering him on the palate of candidates available for the common voter to consider as a presiding force that factors greatly over their day to day affairs…… The DNC didn’t HAVE to approve his candidacy….. But Jefferson does appear to serve a purpose…. When it comes on down to only a handful of people ruling what 2 or 3 hundred million people will or will not do, I would suppose that every vote counts…….. Written by
on 12/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Racism simply perceives an individual as a "member of a group" instead of the unique individual they are. It includes attributing certain group characteristics to them due to their being a member of a “different group” from that of the person whose mind perceives others as “different.” While this may also include "treating someone unfairly because of feelings about race and racial inferiority" racist beliefs can be held by those not in a position of power. As but one example, when Adolph Hitler was in prison, he was not in a position to "treat anyone unfairly", but he was racist and anti-Semitic, no? "So black voters should vote for a white candidate to represent them because that white candidate will necessarily represent them better than a black candidate just because of his white-ness and if black voters cannot grasp that then they're the racists?" - no, no, no, the ideal is for a voter to vote for the best candidate regardless of race. Ignore this evident fact if you will but there are a much higher percentage of whites that vote for a black candidate then the reverse. While there may be reasons for this (past treatment by whites of course) - black voters keeping crooks in office - simply because they are black - that's what's laughable, were it not so seriously sad for the community. "...suppress black voting" - I keep hearing about this, but NEVER a single specific instance (kind of like "Flying Saucers, the "Boogie Man" and other such myths)."...xenophobic stance about immigration" - well, allowing poor Mexicans into our country will certainly provide the Democratic Party with more recipients of government largess, and more Democratic voters as well..... but it will also move this country towards bankruptcy as we have fewer and fewer taxpayers and more and more people being supported by taxpayers. You want universal healthcare? All the other things liberals feel that every citizen "deserves"? The worse our economy gets, the more the welfare rolls increase, the more illegal immigration occurs, the more our government goes into debt and refuses to cut needless spending, the less likely it is that we can afford any of these things on any sustainable basis. Written by kpf
on 12/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Black "anti-white" racism among inner city voters? C'mon. That's really rich there. Racism implies treating someone unfairly because of feelings about race and racial inferiority. So blacks are somehow treating whites worse than they should? So black voters should vote for a white candidate to represent them because that white candidate will necessarily represent them better than a black candidate just because of his white-ness and if black voters cannot grasp that then they're the racists? That's so laughable an idea as compared to the long well-established history of Republicans trying in every way to suppress black voting I can hardly think of where to start. And this is the party who hardly helped itself at the polls recently with the fast-growing group of Hispanic voters with its xenophobic stance about immigration. Moreover, what multiplies the sheer silliness of this notion is how white conservatives voted the black mayor Nagin back into office rather than elect the white Mitch Landrieu because of their perception of Landrieu being friendlier with the black community than they would like. Written by Facing Reality
on 12/1/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Is this the same Bernie Pinsonat who predicted in 2003 that Bobby Jindal could not be elected to anything in La.? Is this the same Bernie Pinsonat who predicted Mitch Landrieu would easily beat Ray Nagin for Mayor? Is this the same Bernie Pinsonat who said Chris John would beat David Vitter? Is this the same Bernie Pinsonat who cannot get a polling job with any serious statewide candidate but who has to bottom feed off rookie legislators who don't know any better? Only in Louisiana. You go, Bernie. Keep getting them wrong. You are perfect for Bayou Buzz. Written by Laughing
on 12/1/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
A lot of white Catholics voted against Obama not because of his color but because of his very liberal pro death stance. Yes race did have some impact but it was black racism as well as white racism. But a great deal of conservative whites stated that Obama was too liberal. Several people that I talked with had supported Alan Keyes back a few years ago when he was in the Republican primaries and he is black. Written by Sid
on 12/1/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
While I agree with your statement on white racism in this state I would go further - in the interest of equal treatment for all - and say that racist attitudes by many black voters in New Orleans is one thing holding this city back and it needs to change as well. Written by kpf
on 12/1/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I have to disagree with you Bernie. Race was the reason Barack Obama did so poorly among white voters. Obama even ran behind John Kerry's performance in 2004. Many white Democrats in this state voted for Landrieu and McCain. A white Democrat like Hillary Clinton may still have lost to McCain in Louisiana but she would have run better than Obama did. It's a downright shame that Louisiana remains tied with Mississippi and Alabama in racist attitudes. That's one thing holding this state back and it needs to change. Written by David Quidd
on 12/1/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
As this 2008 political season comes to an end, 
