Thursday, 12 December 2013 17:25

Does Pinocchio know if Landrieu or NRSC nose the truth?

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

pinocchio1Democratic Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu released a television commercial of her own  on Monday portraying that she has kept her promise about American insureds’s keeping their health insurance.

Immediately, the Republican National Senatorial Committee blasted it calling it the most The Most Disingenuous Ad of the Year.

Not sure if the ad is the most disingenuous of the year or even if it was disingenuous at all.  Unquestionably, it was confusing.

Why confusing?

Landrieu is in a tough spot.   She has backed the legislation most detested by much of red state Louisiana.  She has supported President Obama who is in a tough match with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for the most unpopular elected official.  

Her ad reveals that she is playing defense by trying to play offense.

She is attacking the Obama administration for the broken healthcare pledge.  In doing so, she is admitting that she supported defective legislation of a major kind.

Six years ago, back when the Louisiana Democratic Party had state elected officials with some clout, she won in a squeaker.

This time around, there are few heavy-hitters that can stand on a platform with her when she engages in her stump politics.   There are too few familiar and powerful faces that can brand her commercials with endorsements.

Why confusing?

The end of her commercial shows Senator Landrieu with a big cross hanging from around her neck.  Not that there is anything wrong or improper with her wearing a cross presumably displaying her deep devotion and love for her religion, her God and for her beliefs.

Nonetheless, it is confusing, at least to me, because it is the first time that I personally have seen her wear the cross publically.  It raises the question whether she also is engaging in the much-practiced world of pull-the-heart-strings, pander politics.

We all know that many Christians believe she will boil in hell because she has supported “choice” in some cases rather than “life”.  You don’t have to listen to talk radio to know that she has three major negatives—Obamacare, Obama and the “holier than thou” bunch who disqualify her automatically, only and forever because of her views towards "abortion" or women's choice. They will not forgive her for her own personal beliefs and they will always treat her as if she were the wife of Satan. 

Assuming the cross around the neck was done for political as well as religious purposes, she absolutely will not be the first Louisiana statewide elected official who has linked “saving” their political careers with the savior.

Let us not forget, Louisiana Senator David Vitter reminded us of his close communications with his own maker when he admitted to that infamous sin without in any way ever publically confessing just what that sin might be.

For those reasons, her commercial is undoubtedly confusing and for many reasons should answer the ultimate Howard Baker questions--what did she know and when did she know it.

Making her re-election even more confusing, however, are recent developments out of New Orleans that might give Landrieu supporters many reasons to do some heavy-praying.

Her famous sibling, Mayor Mitch Landrieu, appears to be getting some serious competition with a well-known black and now former Judge, Michael Bagneris, who is taking off the robe and entering into the mayoral competition arena.

This means, the New Orleans election, which already appears to be a fertile battleground for the so-called and unfortunate emotional debate of “chocolate” or “vanilla” city dominations, could be split once again into warring camps. Political White versus black is not a pretty sight, anywhere.  It wasn’t when Ray Nagin launched into his “chocolate city” tirade or when others revolted against him for it.

Back then, Mitch Landrieu made a run again Nagin in the post-Katrina election and the issue of “race” played a significant role in that contest.

Not that Judge Bagneris is a Nagin nor there any evidence he would light the racial powerkeg, but his very existence in the election would be even more troubling given the already existing backdrop of which race will control the city's city council and other elective offices.

Any split in the Landrieu camp based upon race is not good for Mitch and surely not good for his sis, who must depend upon the entire urban Landrieu base to get out and push the button for her only months after what now romises to  be races about race.

Whether the New Orleans elections, only a half-year before the senatorial match, undermines the solid coalition of traditional Landrieu family supporters remains to be seen.  Regardless, it is another problem neither would like to be facing at this time.

So, given her recent commercial and the upcoming New Orleans elections, Mary Landrieu, (who will be facing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, from outside money and Super Pac’s (who want to control Louisiana’s own elective choice) is in a nasty but pivotal battle for her future political life.

But let me do my own pivot to that “The Most Disingenuous Ad of the Year” gang.

If, the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s own press release slamming Landrieu’s commercial is not my own “most disingenuous of the year”, it surely is competing for one of the most laughable.

The headline of the press release states:  "The Most Disingenuous Ad of the Year: Landrieu Can't Stop Lying About ObamaCare

Credibility Crisis Threatens Landrieu" 

The questionable word here is “lying”

Let’s read on.  The NRSC release continues in pertinent parts:

“It's the most disingenuous ad of the year. In a desperate and panicked effort to stop her polls from plummeting and distract from her broken promises to Louisianians, Mary Landrieu has launched an ad that would make Pinocchio blush. 

      For years, Mary Landrieu repeatedly promised Louisianians that under ObamaCare: "If you like the insurance that you have, you’ll be able to          keep it.” Landrieu made this promise despite knowing it was blatantly untrue: 

       Three years ago, Mary Landrieu supported the very ObamaCare rule that's responsible for the health insurance cancellations that have caused so much consternation over the last month (Democrats unanimously supported it). Nearly 93,000 Louisianians' health insurance policies are in jeopardy and Mary Landrieu is directly to blame for that reality. 

      When asked whether President Obama mislead Democrats, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) disclosed: "He should have just been more specific...No, we all knew." 

Top Democratic leaders in Washington admitted that they actually knew middle class Americans would lose their coverage because of ObamaCare: "House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer conceded to reporters today that Democrats knew people would not be able to keep their current health care plans under Obamacare and expressed qualified contrition for President Obama’s repeated vows to the contrary. 'We knew that there would be some policies that would not qualify and therefore people would be required to get more extensive coverage.'"

  • Mary Landrieu's latest act of desperation is a stark reminder that one of the following two facts must be true:  
  • Mary Landrieu was knowingly dishonest about people keeping their care yet repeatedly promised otherwise? or,
  • Mary Landrieu didn't understand the legislation that she repeatedly championed (and made the centerpiece of her campaign).

"Mary Landrieu's latest ad is the most disingenuous television ad of the year," said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen. "Mary Landrieu repeatedly promised that everyone could keep their health care plans and doctors if they liked them despite knowing that it was blatantly untrue.  

How can Louisianians trust anything Mary Landrieu says after she's repeatedly deceived them about ObamaCare for the last four years and continues to do so today? This ad is an insult to the intelligence of every voter in Louisiana."

Perhaps so and it is always nice when outside politicos, demos' and gops alike know what is an insult to every Louisiana voter.  Well, those are just words.  Ah, but that's the point.

The GOP's own press release accuses the Senator of lying without providing any real supporting evidence is enough for Pinocchio to exclaim  Jiminy Cricket!!

The NRSC does cite Democratic leaders who admit to their own knowledge about this issue and who have also made  ambiguous yet unproven allegations about the scienter of other members of their party. 

If this is what Hougesen claims is proof of Landrieu’s knowledge, of her "lying" then maybe he should take a course in law and evidence.

None of the democrats mentioned name Landrieu, specifically.  Nor do Steny Hoyer or Kirsten Gillibrand state who “we” are in detail or at all.    

Even more curious is the national GOP’s above assertion that either Landrieu was "either knowingly dishonest" or that "she didn't understand the legislation she repeatedly championed". 

Yes, she probably should have known just as President Obama probably should have known what was in the law.  But, that does not in any way--under the court of law or the court of public opinion prove that she actually did know and worse, that she knew dishonestly. 

If it is evidence of anything, it is that the NSRC might consider getting off its own high-horse  of throwing out unfounded and unproven claims of “lies”. Otherwise, that horse of credibility might throw off its rider and trample it with screams of hypocrisy and inconsistency.  

I know this is the political arena and politicians and their paid-hacks say what they think the public wants them to say for the game’s advantages.

Yet, here the GOP is shouting to the world with the banner of claims that Landrieu is lying, that she deceived and that she "knowingly dishonest"--all which goes unproven, raises serious questions as to whether those speaking the words can be trusted. 

In so many ways, the public has a right to possess little confidence in their elected officials for actions they take while in office.

The public also has a duty to demand that political parties are accountable when they feed us misinformation either they know or should know is not true or not correct or simply laughable. 


Stephen Sabludowsky | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1