After long and careful research, I’ve come to the undeniable conclusion that Jeff Sadow and U.S. Sen. John Kennedy are one and the same.
One, Sadow, is an associate professor of political Science at LSU-Shreveport who writes a weekly column for the Baton Rouge Advocate while masquerading alternately as a psychologist, a theologian, or an economist.
To paraphrase Bon Jovi, he gives conservatism a bad name.
Kennedy, on the other hand, is a political opportunist who masquerades alternately as State Treasurer, U.S. Senator, and Governor and gives Trumpism a bad name.
Sadow, in his latest column on Sunday, implied that one of the advantages of capital punishment was that it served as an impetus for forgiveness and redemption for the condemned who, faced with imminent mortality, often repents and turns to Jesus in his final hours in order to punch his ticket to an eternity of strumming a harp while walking the streets paved of gold.
Sadow obviously didn’t take into account those poor people on death row who might be of the Jewish faith. Or even Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist.
But Sadow doesn’t hold franchise rights to banalities. Nor does he hold any exclusive rights to distorting facts.
Unless he is, in fact, John Neely Kennedy incognito.
Let’s roll back the calendar to 1999, the year then-State Secretary of Revenue John Kennedy was elected State Treasurer. During his campaign there was that infamous TV ad in which Kennedy boasted that during his stint as revenue secretary, “I decreased paper work for small businesses by 150 percent.”
That sounds pretty impressive until you put the pencil to it. You can increase costs by 150 percent; you can increase the crime rate by 150 percent, you can theoretically increase enrollment in a college or university by 150 percent, and if you go from 30 mph to 75 mph on the interstate, you have increased your speed 150 percent.
But you cannot, under any circumstances reduce anything, except the temperature, 150 percent (if, say, you go from 10 degrees above zero to five degrees below zero, that might be considered a 150 percent decrease). Otherwise, once you reduce anything, eggs, turnips, tires, by 100 percent, you’re at zero.
And remember: Kennedy was running for State Treasurer. He was asking us to entrust him with the state’s finances.
Oh, the irony.
Makes about as much sense as sending men to death row so they can more readily be converted to Christianity.
So he gets the treasurer’s job and manages to hold onto it for 17 years until he sets his sights on the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by David Vitter in 2016.
To win that seat, he falls back on two incredibly, yea, I say unto you, unbelievably, lame phrases in his TV ad blitz. The first was when he channeled Donald Trump when he said of his prospects of supporting Obamacare, “I’d rather drink weedkiller.”
The other was when he said, as the TV ad simultaneously displayed his wedding photo, “I believe that love is the answer, but you oughta carry a handgun just in case.”
What the hell does that even mean?
Believe it or not, that silly crap swept him into office where he promptly set his sights on the 2019 governor’s election.
Ordinarily, I’d say keep him in Washington, out of sight, out of mind.
Except he just won’t allow that to happen. He keeps reminding us that he’s hanging around, waiting and criticizing anything with John Bel Edwards’s fingerprints on it. Edwards could introduce a bill that would guarantee full employment and the best-educated children and the best-paid teachers in America and Kennedy would find fault with it.
On one recent occasion in that historic fraternity called the U.S. Senate, he reached back into his old treasurer chest and repeated that gawd-awful love and handgun quote in a committee hearing, prefacing his homespun philosophy by saying (incorrectly) that it was “an old saying we have back home.”
It is no such thing. I never heard that asinine expression until his Vitter-financed TV ads invaded my living room about this time last year.
Then, on Monday (May 8) he pulled a couple more embarrassingly stupid remarks out of the lower part of his anatomy. (It had to be that area doing the talking; surely his head knows better.)
Already having sold his heart and soul to Trump (“I was for Trump before he was nominated and I’m for him now” was another of his campaign proclamations), he made a complete fool of himself during Monday’s testimony of former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And the saddest part is he didn’t even know it, didn’t have a clue.
In an institution sometimes compared to clowns, he was Emmett Kelly, Red Skelton, Bozo, Krusty and Clarabell rolled into one. He (and Louisiana) would have been better off had he chosen Marcel Marceau to impersonate.
Yates, who was fired by Trump for refusing to enforce his first immigration order (which was quickly thrown out by the courts), was testifying about conversations between former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the U.S. She said she feared the conversations (conversations about which Trump was told nearly three weeks before he was forced to fire Flynn—only after the Washington Post broke the story) compromised U.S. security.
The fact that he was about as uninformed about the issue as was Trump (until told by Steve Bannon, apparently) that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican or in his belief that Andrew Jackson could have prevented the Civil War, didn’t deter Kennedy from sounding like some country boy come to town for the very first time.
Author and editor Adam Weinstein felt compelled to tweet on Monday: “I didn’t know a single thing about Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) before this hearing, but thanks to this hearing I know he’s embarrassingly dumb.”
Josh Marshall, editor and publisher of Talking Points Memo, tweeted this comment: “From Kennedy to Yates: ‘I mean this with all due respect Ms Yates but I’m going to say something really stupid now.'”
Uh, yeah…No doubt.
Finally, this tweet from John Harwood, chief Washington correspondent for CNBC, of a Kennedy-Yates exchange during Monday’s committee hearing: “GOP Sen Kennedy upbraiding Yates on travel ban: ‘who appointed you to Supreme Court?’ Yates: ‘I took my responsibilities seriously as acting AG.'”
Seriously, John? That’s the best you’ve got? “Who appointed you to the Supreme Court?”
You’re not concerned about the substance of her testimony which revealed that national security could have been compromised by Flynn?
The fact that your boy Trump kept Flynn on for 18 days after learning he had lied about his conversation with the Russian didn’t raise a red flag for you?
You only wanted to know who appointed Yates to the Supreme Court?
Good God.
You’re fully qualified to be our next governor.
And the same people who lapped up your weedkiller and handgun lines will, in all probability, fall over themselves to vote for you.
Bless his heart!! Kennedy really embarrassed LA this afternoon!!
Did he ever *stop* embarrassing the state?
Bless his/her/its Heart is what we say in the South when someone has a really ugly baby of someone does or says something really stupid.
I thought the best part was when Clapper told Kennedy if it’s not classified it’s not a leak. This brought the house down and everyone was laughing except Kennedy who sat there dumbfounded as he tried to figure out the punchline. Kennedy looked like a chihuahua surrounded by pit bulls.
A chihuahua surrounded by pit bulls! Lord, I wish I’d thought of that!😂
The whole room laughed at him!
I was totally embarrassed for my state by his questions today as I was when he was in another hearing a week or so ago. He tries to sound so important and appears to put so much thought in his dumb questions, although one can clearly see that these questions were given to him to ask. It was truly humiliating for knowledgeable and educated people in Louisiana. It is embarrassing that he is a representative of our state. His questions were not relative to what the hearing was about. Who cares how or who leaked the info. That isn’t the point at all but thank goodness it WAS leaked or Flynn would still be serving in Mr. Donnie’s white house.
There is a blogger, The Rude Pundit who has a political blog. As the name implies, Mr. Pundit is indeed Rude…well most of the time. He used to live in Louisiana but now teaches at C.U.N.Y. Staten island.
Mr. Pundit shared his thoughts today on Kennedy. Warning: Lots of adult language there.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2017/05/sally-yates-hearing-sen-john-kennedy-is.html
Rude Pundit: rude indeed but funnier than a Tim Conway-Harvey Korman skit or Don Rickles act combined.
Rude, but oh so true!
Tom, honestly, I’m always so skittish about linking or suggesting people read his blog. It’s why I always try to warn people ahead of time.
Ya’ll need to get a grip. Kennedy did the ultimate throw down on Yates, and you can read and watch it on the all new Hayride: http://thehayride.com/2017/05/video-kennedy-sally-yates-appointed-u-s-supreme-court/
That was ultimate throw down? Wow. You’re set the throw-down bar really low.
Is this a joke? If you reached that conclusion then it’s no wonder we are doomed.
You’re joking, right? Or, do you really believe your readers are dumb enough to buy your commentary? Anybody who watched the hearing knows Yates did an excellent job. I do agree with one of your points – she should have resigned before allowing her position to become public.
Does it sound like I’m joking? Yates never addressed his question: “What makes an executive order constitutional?” If she felt it was unconstitutional, she should have done like Jeff Landry did on the LGBT executive order and file suit. Otherwise, as my main man Scott says “they are presumed constitutional.” She can’t pick and choose what she will and won’t enforce. She should have resigned, and Trump did right to fire her. Like I said, you people need to get a grip!!
Obviously, there is some serious difference of opinion here and what all these comments do is remind me that we still live in a great country where we can post our most heartfelt comments and where we can disagree on any point and not worry about a knock on our doors at night and someone coming to take us away because we do choose to disagree.
There are those here that disagree with me and that’s good. I don’t want a blog where everyone says “amen” to everything I post. Instead, I want to provoke thoughts and discussion—pro and con. You are not going to offend me by disagreeing with me and I hope I don’t offend you. It is my fervent hope that we can continue to discuss our ideas and ideals freely in this forum.
That’s what a free society does.
Actually, my comments were directly mostly at the comments of your main man, Scott, and I already conceded that she should have resigned rather than direct her staff to ignore the executive order while staying in the job.
That sounds fair on expressing opinions. Ya’ll see where President Trump has fired Comey? This guy don’t fool around!!
If, by not fooling around you mean firing the person responsible for investigating Russia’s involvement in his election and administration, no he isn’t. Doesn’t that give you pause?
You have got to be kidding?
Dayum! That’s drinking more than kool-aid bud.
I’m disappointed in the blatantly hyper- partisan tone of this article. You always acknowledged Kennedy as fair-minded until it no longer served your purposes to do so. Kennedy is the least partisan politician in this state. Period.
If you want to talk about embarrassing the state, then look no further than JBE testifying in front of Congress last month. Our state deserves better than someone that can’t even tell the truth about Larry Bankston, a convicted felon, screwing the state over once again. He got reamed for good reason. THAT was embarrassing.
And the Christian part? I know you attend a Christian church. If you believe yourself to be a Christian then read John 14:6. It’s kind of a big deal. You either are or you aren’t. It doesn’t allow for multiple paths to heaven. Unfortunately Christianity comes with strict guidelines. It should be a burden for all of us to act to fulfill the Great Commission.
You need to watch Kennedy’s performance before proclaiming him the most non-partisan politician in Louisiana. He had his marching orders and couldn’t pull it off. They should have just put Trump up there to ask those off topic asinine questions. The result would have been the same. And the laughter was bi-partisan; everyone was laughing at Kennedy for good reason. I too cringed at the fact he represents Louisiana and unfortunately me too. Yes that home grown career politico is in over his head. I felt bad for our citizens but then it hit me that this is what they voted for so I guess it’s like taking one of Kennedy’s love pistols and shooting yourself in the foot. Feel sorry for him I don’t; feel sorry that we’re stuck with him I do.
I honestly don’t know how you can make your opening statements. John Kennedy was fair-minded until he decided the path to success was sheer partisanship, including hitching his wagon to our President’s star. As the late Bo Ackal used to say, “You know it and I know it.”
Kennedy’s greatest mistake in his present role is his failure to accept that he is in the big leagues now where his act does not play so well as it seems to “back home” where he can spout his platitudes and get plenty of “Amens.”
If you think Kennedy enhances our negative reputation, imagine the damage a Senator Sadow could do – He gives ridiculousness a whole new meaning with his weekly propaganda disguised as serious commentary.
Speaking of Bankston, will micacles never cease? The Auctioneer Licensing Board gave him his walking papers yesterday!!: http://www.soundoffla.com/?p=740.
JBE embarrassing? I guess so, after a partisan-led attack. Which included our own congressman. What’s embarrassing is how our republican-led congressional delegation allowed their state’s sitting governor to be subjected to that attack. It should not have mattered that he is a democrat. I bet you they would not have allowed that attack on Jindal.
Well said.
I had the sound turned off. When Kennedy came on, leaned back in his chair (I thought he might put his feet up on the desk) and started moving his lips all around….I knew that Louisiana was going to be embarrassed. I never turned the sound back on, walked out of the room and I was right! He so obviously lusts after power, that he is just plain scary. The fact that he gets elected from Louisiana is even scarier.
Great stuff. Check out National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation and Randy Quaid, I remember the La. Legislature cohorts laughing and calling him Randy Quaid. There is a physical resemblance and intellect in the Character, not Randy Quaid. Fairness 2014, be careful quoting the Bible, unless it is love thy neighbor as thyself (most of us love ourselves more than anything) love always ron thompson
Tom, I am writing a letter to Sen. Kennedy, to suggest he might devote a little time reading about the checks and balances of federal power. I’m hung up on how I should address the letter. Does “Dear Senator Gasbag” sound too personal?
Tom, in clicking on the link you provided to rudepunit (boy, is he a pottymouth), I was referred to an Esquire article which gives us a bit of the play by play with the U.S. Senators from our neighbor state (Texas), and Ms. Yates. Here’s a link:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a54961/sally-yates-testifies-senate/
George, I came across it just a few minutes ago. One thing the writer did point out, was that the four senators, being lawyers, asked questions of which they already knew the answers.
George, I try to give fair warning when I link to Mr. Pundit.
I just watched that video on my main man Scott’s all new Hayride site. I mean Kennedy just knocked that ball right out of the park, and his commentary could have been been applied to any subject matter in any executive order. That’s why he indicated the issue could surface again.
Bottom line: Kennedy over Yates by first round knock out!! That likely explains the 455 shares on that redesigned Hayride site. They’ve made it much easier to get this sort of throw downs on out to a wide audience in lightening fast speed.
I don’t suppose there’s a chance you actually are your main man, Scott, is there? If so, that would explain your posts. You are not going to attract a lot of traffic for The Hayride touting it here, however.
The dude is heading to Austin this week to set up the Texas side of the new site, and it already gets a ton of traffic from Texas. Right now, my main man Scott is attaining rock star status. I don’t see him needing to troll this site or any other for more traffic, but all here are welcome to get some quality content over there. God only knows what ads on that site cost!
You are so delusional to think for a nano-second that Kennedy “knocked the ball out of the park.” Anyone who watches that with any objectivity can clearly see that Kennedy made an incredible fool of himself. He’s a buffoon of the first order. (Sigh) I suppose people see and hear what they want to see and hear but you should realize you’re in a clear minority.
Well, if I’m in the minority, Kennedy will be crushed in the next statewide election he enters, no?
No, probably not. But you misunderstood what I was saying. I’m saying you are in the minority in believing Kennedy put Sally Yates in her place or that he won their encounter by a first round knockout.
Rock star status for Scott? Wow. I bet you fantasize about Ann Coulter, too.
It’s great to have civil discussions on differences concerning politics, but it’s interesting how some of us always belittle, demean, and attack the person in question. Yates, Comey, Clapper, etc. were public servants that turned into political hacks. The people are represented by our elected public servants and they get to question these bureaucrats on our behalf. I would like to know who appointed Yates to the Supreme Court also, but I know the answer already. The Obama administration empowered all their minions to interpret the Constitution to meet their agenda. I would love to see integrity, honesty, and character infiltrate DC. But alas, I may never see it. In the mean time I’m happy to see Sen Kennedy not vote for the budget extension and question political hacks in the manner he did.
“The Obama administration empowered all their minions to interpret the Constitution to meet their agenda.” First of all, how can a president empower anyone to interpret the Constitution? As for Yates, I think it was Stephen Winham who said that Ms. Yates should have just resigned. I agree with him on that. But, to call Yates a political hack after she advised the White House as to the potential problems with Flynn. As to our elected officials questioning bureaucrats, I agree with you. However, this hearing had nothing to do with her actions in choosing not to enforce the executive order. In addition, she is no longer a bureaucrat. A consequence of her defiance.
An articulate, yet troubling, comment. After pointing out some people cannot express opinions without belittling, demeaning, and attacking, you proceed to do so at some length. Therefore, I find it hard to see your line of distinction.
“Political hack” bothers you?
“Sadow obviously didn’t take into account those poor people on death row.” I wonder if their victims would consider them poor people.”
If you read that in the context it was written, you would, in all probability recognize that line as parody. I was calling them “poor” not because they committed heinous crimes that put them on death row, but because they might be of the Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Islamic faith. Sadow was making their redemption conditional to their converting to Christianity.
(And just so you know, I am opposed to the death penalty because I’ve had the opportunity to interview four men who were on death row but were exonerated because unscrupulous prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence—that’s evidence in favor of the defendant—at trial that would have proven their innocence. All too often, prosecutors value obtaining the death penalty over making certain they have the right person on trial. Had just one of those men been executed, the prosecutors would have been no less guilty than the actual perpetrator.)
Thank you for taking the time to clarify that statement for me I apologize for not reading it in that manner and I agree with you except when DNA evidence proves the crime without a doubt.