Colorful. Vindictive. Unorthodox. Illegal. Underhanded. Flamboyant. Egotistical. Unethical. Dishonest. Freewheeling. No holds barred. Down and dirty. Deceitful. Unprincipled. Crooked. Bombastic. Pompous. Arrogant. Self-serving. Zealous.
These are just a few adjectives (believe me, there are many, many more) used by various news reporters down through the ages to describe Louisiana politics and its practitioners.
It may not compare to the quote about U.S. Rep. Claude Pepper by George Smathers, his opponent for the U.S. Senate in Florida way back in 1951:
“Are you aware,” Smathers told a rural, largely unsophisticated gathering, “that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy and that he and his wife matriculated together before they were married.”
But there are other ways to undercut a political opponent without ever resorting to smear tactics, half-truths, or innuendo and U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany, a Republican, may have just found a way to damage the aspirations of two of his Democratic opponents for the U.S Senate seat being vacated by David Vitter.
Besides the descriptions applied to Louisiana politics in the opening paragraph, astute politicians—particularly conservative Republicans—have allowed two other words to creep into the political lexicon: Evangelicalism and Privatization—as homage to two blocs that have gained considerable stroke in recent years: the religious right and disciples of Milton Friedman’s free market economy.
Boustany, however, also is effectively employing Subterfuge and Misdirection in the tried and true fashion of a slight of hand stage magician and no one has noticed.
Until now.
So, in light of his somewhat low-key TV ads, how is he attempting to obtain an edge through furtive means?
Two words: Joshua Pellerin.
Since 2012, Pellerin, manager of Pellerin Real Estate Holdings and of Pellerin Energy Corp., has contributed at least $8,800 to Boustany’s campaigns for the U.S. House and, since 2015, another $6,800 to his campaign for the Senate.
PELLERIN’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOUSTANY’S HOUSE CAMPAIGNS:
boustany-1 boustany-2 boustany-3 boustany-4 boustany-5 boustany-6
PELLERIN’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOUSTANY’S SENATE CAMPAIGN:
| PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | SEE MEMO ITEM/ VERIFIED NON-CORPORATE/CONTRIBUTION FROM PARTNERSHIP. PARTNERS EXCEEDING REPORTING THRESHOLD ITEMIZED AS MEMOS. | LAFAYETTE | LA | 70503 | 08/06/2015 | $1,000 |
| PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | SEE MEMO ITEM/ VERIFIED NON-CORPORATE | LAFAYETTE | LA | 70503 | 10/20/2015 | $500 | X | ||
| PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | SEE MEMO ITEM/ VERIFIED NON-CORPORATE | LAFAYETTE | LA | 70503 | 08/06/2015 | $1,000 | X |
| PELLERIN, JOSHUA | PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | OWNER | SEE MEMO ITEM/ VERIFIED NON-CORPORATE/PARTNERSHIP ITEMIZATION MEMO | BROUSSARD | LA | 70518 | 08/06/2015 | $900 | X |
| PELLERIN, JOSHUA | PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | OWNER | SEE MEMO ITEM/ VERIFIED NON-CORPORATE/PARTNERSHIP ITEMIZATION MEMO | BROUSSARD | LA | 70518 | 08/06/2015 | $100 | X |
| PELLERIN, JOSHUA | PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | OWNER | [MEMO ITEM] PARTNERSHIP: PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | BROUSSARD | LA | 70518 | 10/20/2015 | $500 | X |
| PELLERIN, JOSHUA | PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | OWNER | [MEMO ITEM] PARTNERSHIP: PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | BROUSSARD | LA | 70518 | 08/06/2015 | $900 | X |
| PELLERIN, JOSHUA | PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | OWNER | [MEMO ITEM] PARTNERSHIP: PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | BROUSSARD | LA | 70518 | 08/06/2015 | $100 | X |
| PELLERIN, JOSHUA | PELLERIN ENERGY GROUP, LLC | OWNER | BROUSSARD | LA | 70518 | 02/09/2015 | $2,600 |
Pellerin also is the former manager of Preventive Vascular Screenings, LLC, and Pellerin Imaging Group, LLC.
Boustany is a cardiovascular surgeon, which makes the connection between the two men logical and explains why Pellerin would give financial support to Boustany’s campaigns for the U.S. House and now the U.S. Senate.
Wait. The U.S. Senate?
If you scroll down the list of the 24 candidates vying for the U.S. Senate, you will see that number 21 on that list (they’re in alphabetical order) is none other than Democrat Joshua Pellerin.
So we have a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate contributing $5,600 to the campaign of one of his leading opponents for the position—a Republican, no less.
That doesn’t make any since.
Unless….
Unless Pellerin is a “dummy” candidate inserted into the race in an effort to draw votes away from fellow Democrats—Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell and Caroline Fayard.
So who is the “dummy” candidate on the Republican side to draw votes from Boustany’s biggest challenger, fellow physician and Republican U.S. Rep. John Fleming? Why, that would be none other than the ultimate dummy, David Duke. Fleming and Duke are battling for much of the same constituency—the Trumpers—and while Duke is destined to finish near the bottom, Fleming’s biggest hope is to pull enough votes from the former high potentate, imperial wizard, exalted grand sovereign (or whatever they call themselves these days) to sneak into the runoff.
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time such a dummy candidate has been propped up to split an opponent’s vote. There were rumors, denied by Edwin Edwards, that he had his supporters contribute to the campaign of Tea Party Republican Lenar Whitney two years ago in an attempt to boost her into the runoff which would have greased the skids for him to waltz into Congress. If true, it didn’t work as Garrett Graves ran a strong second to Edwards in the crowded primary and then easily defeated the former governor in the runoff.
The biggest problem facing Boustany is getting Pellerin’s name out there before a sufficient number of Democrat voters. For his part, Pellerin, who has amassed a war chest of only about $300,000 (as opposed to more than $4.3 million in contributions to Boustany), has been making the rounds of Democratic forums in South Louisiana.
With only three weeks before the Nov. 8 election and with such a meager bank account (much of which was contributed by several physicians in the Lafayette area), Pellerin’s best hope to gain name recognition will be those public forums. And with so few Louisiana voters inclined to vote for Democrats these days, it won’t take much chipping at the Campbell-Fayard base to deal crippling blows to their campaigns.
And typical for Louisiana, all it may take is a dummy.
Right now, I put the odds at 65% that no Democrat makes the runoff. If one does, it will be Fayard, and whomever the Republican is will take it 62-38 in a heads-up match against her.
This is depressing.
I disagree. Foster Campbell is way ahead of Fayard & has a shot at making the runoff. However, either Democrat winning the election would be a miracle. You must be pulling for one of the Republicans.
LA Educator. I agree. I have had good experiences with Foster Campbell’s office and I think he understands the problems we face. So many voters in rural parishes are not really connected and no one seems to be reaching out to them. I hope we don’t suffer from low voter turn out again.
I hate to disagree with myself this morning, but after watching the debate last night, I have to say that I was very disappointed in Foster Campbell’s performance. Although he, at least, acknowledges climate change & the need for equal pay for women, he appeared fanatical about his “pro-life” & pro-gun stance, much like the 3 Republicans on the stage. Fayard did a much better job than I expected & she didn’t say a single thing in 90 minutes that made me cringe. She also got in the best dig on an opponent (Kennedy) & made a good case for her youth as a means to getting seniority back for Louisiana, & that she is willing to compromise & could work well with our next president. Guess we will have to watch the polls to see who, among these two Democrats, has the best chance to replace David Vitter. With women & millennials fired up, it could happen depending on voter turnout.
All of the Republicans are salivating at the prospect of facing Campbell. Plenty of money for commercials to depict him driving on I-49 before it was open to the public, crashing his car, then having the unmitigated gall to sue the state over the incident.
I saw an internal Fleming poll (in which I have ZERO confidence) that showed Foster in first place with 23.8% support. Naturally, that poll showed Fleming second. Whatever the case, Foster makes a dream opponent. Fayard, on the other hand, would definitely be more challenging in a runoff, and I think that, as you point out, her debate peformance (which I would rate an 8.5 on a scale of 1-10) readily reflects that fact.
Kennedy should be in the mix, and I will vote for him. Over many years he seems truthful, suggests good policies which are ignored, and understands fincances. He seens to me a common sense and intelligent conservative who is not a knee-jerkright winger. I also believe he will win respect in the Senate more quickly than most and thus have more infouence for Louisiana.
Kennedy would NEVER be my choice. He has proven himself to be an unethical fool as Tom has documented. A prime example of his lack of ethics was what he and Jindal did with the state’s borrowing. He was foolish to make a big deal during the governor’s race about HIS many recommended improvements to state government that turned out to be 20 years of recommendations from others that were obsolete, implemented or discredited.
Caroline Fayard will get my vote.
30 YEARS AGO i would have agreed with that characterization. Unfortunately, he has joined a party that exceeds all others – the Hypocrite Party where integrity is traded on the open market for votes. It’s hard to come up with the name of a contemporary politician who is not a member of that party.
Yes. Kennedy had a great reputation until he first, switched parties ( I hate that!) & then, & worse, he endorsed David Vitter for the Governor’s race. No credibility now. His commercials aren’t helping him either. He looks & sounds like a bumpkin.
Mr. OneStateWorker, sadly you have got it all wrong. Where were you the last eight years when Kennedy was the only politician in Baton Rouge, the only one, that stood up against Bobby Jindal. [You might learn that Jindal’s borrowings were approved by the Bond Commission, not Kennedy. He was one vote on the Commission, and the rest were controlled primarily by the Governor]. Jindal punished him for it too, and he still did not back down.
And, Mr. Winham, we know that you are a Democrat, but you do not have to demonize all Republicans, such as me, to prove your bona fides. I guess you would hold HRC up as a model of Democratic “integrity.” One who has a private position, and a public position, on most important matters. Now that’s “integrity.”
With all due respect, a careful reading of my post will reveal I did not restrict my remarks to any political party – except the one I made up.
P.S. Here is a post I made on Bob Mann’s site on this same subject:
“Surely, you have to agree both candidates are full-fledged members f the one true party, the Hypocrite Party – where integrity is traded on the open market. It’s hard to come up with the name of any contemporary politician who is not a member of that party and we are all reduced to voting against candidates – the reverse of the way it should be. And, just as you find it incredible anybody with good sense could vote for Clinton, I find it incredible you could vote for Trump”
Kennedy was hardly the only politician in BR who opposed Jindal. How about John Bel Edwards, Dan Claitor, Sam Jones, Katrina Jackson, just to name a few?
Yes, and it’s ironic that JBE would out-Jindal Jindal (re-appointment and pay boost to Edmonson, Townsend fiasco, Melancon debacle, retaining Butch Browning, etc.) all in only 9 months. Here’s an partial itemization: http://www.JBEfraud.com.
On your question above, yes, I’m supporting Kennedy, and my ideal runoff is Kennedy and Fleming.
Thanks PHOBR for filling in the bond commission details. I’m Independent and interpret Kennedy’s switch to give him more leverage as several others did. I happen to like Edwards, as I feel we need to dig out of the morass Jindal left us. No politician ever disappointed me as much as Bobby when he caught the presidential fever and tried to out-Tea Party the TP. Also recognize the legislature’s complicity in all this. No one person can do anything by himself in government. (I know there are exceptions, but rare.)
Recently 4 Rs and 2 Ds participated in a forum in St. Tammany. Not sure Pellerin was invited. No Rs, including wuss Kennedy, said anything new except to parrot the same trite and dishonest R talking points about how bad schools, health care and Obama are. Or haven’t you noticed the verbatim bobble heads on FOX? Campbell and Fayard were the only candidates without speeches scripted by the noise machine.
Just reelected, Kennedy is term limited. If he really cared he might have had the honesty Not to run. He’s been posturing a long time to run for GOV or Senate. Standing up to Third-world Jindal bought him plenty of cheap publicity and an illusion that he’s a steward. He is not. I saw him in action when the Bond Commission countered citizen groups and the Mayors in Mandeville and Covington in the Nor du Lac hearing.
BTW, Kennedy changed parties after FIRST qualifying as a Dem., waiting for qualifying to close with no Dem who’d oppose him, then was the only R to qualify, assuring him the election. He fixed the race with Republicans beforehand. If I weren’t a lady I’d call him the _____ he is.
So happy to see he’s doing poorly in the polls, but never fear, LA has him for 3+ more years after which he should disappear.
Kennedy looks too much like Randy Quaid and tries to insult all of us with repugblican horse hockey, Ms. Fayard is wonderful, but I love Foster Campbell mainly because his favorite book is also my favorite book, “Lonesome Dove”. Well, Woodrow, whores (Republicans) need loving too, says Augustus. love always ron thompson
I find it fascinating that half the people on this blog have supported Kennedy at one time or another…including Tom. Somehow he became the devil when he opposed JBE. Kennedy is one of the good guys that tells it like it is. And as it turns out, JBE is as big a fraud as Jindal.
People change. I would like to believe John Kennedy is the same person I knew 30 years ago, but he is not presenting himself publicly the way I remember him. Simple as that and has zero to do with JBE in my case.
FAIRNESS, You are making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions here with nothing to base them on. I have never turned on John Kennedy while I have been harshly critical of John Bel Edwards for re-appointed Mike Edmonson and for the manner in which the investigation into the State Troopers Association’s political contributions investigation was killed. John Kennedy was–and is–a friend whom I admire and respect–as is John Bel. That said, Kennedy’s TV ads are less than effective in that they are too “preachy” and homey. The ONLY thing I have written about Kennedy is to point out the ESAFund ads attacking Boustany and Fleming (neither of whom I support) are the indirect work of the Kennedy campaign since when he dissolved his own super PAC, he contributed his left over money to ESAFund—and ESAFund has endorsed Kennedy.
So, before you make loosely-based allegations, please check your facts.
Have to agree. Tom has been critical of JBE, especially when it concerns Edmonson! BTW, Tom, I sure HOPE you plan to draft a post about Edmonson recently receiving a VERY prestigious award (see 7th subheading at the following link):
http://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/politics/elections/article_e5462810-956e-11e6-8064-b3d6ebb68e1a.html.
As C. B. was fond of saying, “You can’t make this stuff up!”
Well said, Fairness. Poop-pah, Mr. Windam.
I hope you took satisfaction from your extraneous post.