Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vitter’ Category

Baton Rouge attorney/lobbyist tries to strongarm lobbyists on behalf of David Vitter via email for $5000 contributions

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Senate, Vitter on October 21, 2015| 13 Comments »

U.S. Sen. David Vitter may not show up for debates and he may not submit to unscripted press conferences, but that doesn’t mean he won’t seek out the opportunity to rub shoulders with well-heeled lobbyists representing more than 1,000 businesses, organizations and other vested interests in Louisiana.

In what political historian Robert Mann calls “the most blatant, breathtaking pay-to-play message I have ever seen in politics,” Vitter, through a front man, unabashedly puts the muscle on lobbyists for the maximum $5,000 each in campaign contributions. http://bobmannblog.com/2015/10/21/sen-david-vitters-blatant-pay-to-play-scheme/

And Mann has worked for three U.S. senators and a Louisiana governor, so he knows political coercion when he sees it.

It’s understandable that Vitter doesn’t want to address uncomfortable questions, i.e. did he ever solicit prostitution for pay? It turns out the family values candidate, who was highly critical of President Bill Clinton’s tryst with Monica Lewinski (and we by no means defend that behavior) in a 1998 New Orleans Times-Picayune op-ed piece, had his own fling with a couple of hookers while serving in the U.S. Senate.

It’s understandable but not acceptable. Senator, you answer for your actions, good, bad or indifferent. You can run but you can’t hide. If you are elected, you will be under this shadow and it will haunt you throughout your entire term of office, be it four or eight years. You said Clinton could not govern effectively after what he did. How can you?

But, as is our wont, I digress.

There are no fewer than 800 registered lobbyists that prowl the halls of the Louisiana Capitol, buttonholing senator, representatives, and governors.

They represent about 1,100 clients, including payday loan companies, utility companies, oil companies, insurance companies, the National Football League, the New Orleans Saints, the New Orleans Pelicans, professional firefighters, sheriffs, municipalities, and the Association of Louisiana Bail Underwriters and countless associations, organizations, and services.

A partial list:

  • AT&T, AT&T Louisiana, AT&T Louisiana and its Subsidiaries, AT&T Telecommunications, AT&T, Inc. and its Affiliates;
  • CLECO Corp., CLECO Power, CLECO Power, LLC;
  • Entergy, Entergy Corp., Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Services, Inc.;
  • Louisiana Energy and Power Authority, Louisiana Energy Users Group;
  • Louisiana Family Forum, Louisiana Family Forum Action;
  • Louisiana Farm Bureau, Louisiana Farm Bureau Insurance Group;
  • Louisiana Federal of Teachers, Louisiana Federation of Teachers and School Employees;
  • Louisiana Housing Alliance, Louisiana Housing Council;
  • Louisiana Oil & Gas, Louisiana Oil Marketers and Convenience Store Association, Louisiana Oilfield Contractors Association;
  • Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Health System;
  • Pelican Bingo, Pelican Gaming;
  • State Farm Insurance Co., State Farm Insurance Companies, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company;

You get the picture.

So, what does all this have to do with David Vitter?

Simply this: Vitter spokesman Jimmy Burland, a Baton Rouge attorney and lobbyist, sent out an email blast to “the Louisiana Lobbyist Community” in which he announced that Vitter and wife Windy would be hosting receptions across Louisiana immediately after Saturday’s primary “and we hope you can attend and bring a check.” (Emphasis ours).

Mann was right. That’s pretty blatant and more than a little heavy-handed and it sends a clear message to lobbyists to be ready to play ball if they want special favors from a Vitter administration.

Okay, we know this kind of thing goes on all the time but at least most politicians have the good sense to be a little more subtle about blackmailing potential contributors.

The schedule for the receptions:

  • Sunday, Oct. 25: brunch at Andrea’s Restaurant in Metairie;
  • Monday, Oct. 26: luncheon at Juban’s Restaurant in Baton Rouge, followed by a reception at a Lake Charles site to be announced at 3 p.m. and a 6 p.m. reception at Café Vermilionville in Lafayette;
  • Tuesday, Oct. 27: breakfast at Brocato’s in Alexandria at 8 a.m., followed by an 11:30 a.m. luncheon at Ristorante Giuseppe in Shreveport and a 5 p.m. reception in Monroe.

And, as if that is not enough: “Additionally, we have set a lobbyist fund-raising meeting for Friday, Oct. 29 in Baton Rouge (time and place to be announced) and urge you to attend,” Burland wrote.

That must be to catch all the strays and stragglers.

Perhaps the most irony-filled statement in the entire email was when Burland wrote, “…David has spent much of his money fighting eight SuperPACs (sic) and opponents, and he has asked his most ardent donors to re-up for the runoff campaign immediately at the maximum contribution amount.” (Emphasis ours.)

Spent much of his money fighting eight Super PACs? Wow, what unmitigated hypocrisy. The Fund for Louisiana’s Future, a Super PAC set up by a Vitter colleague and into which Vitter poured in a quarter-million dollars of his own money, has launched an unmerciful distortion and lies-filled attack against his two Republican opponents. (Presumably, he will do the same against Democrat John Bel Edwards, expected by most experts to face Vitter in the November general election.)

The biggest lies are that Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne had a “European birthday bash” at the expense of Louisiana taxpayers and that Dardenne voted himself lifetime health benefits. The trips were to boost tourism in Louisiana and he was not even a member of the health benefits system when the vote was taken. Moreover, Dardenne led a delegation that convinced then-Gov. Kathleen Blanco to veto a bill that would have given legislators the benefits.

To be perfectly candid, there is no excuse for this kind of character assassination in any political campaign. Unfortunately, there always have been and will always be candidates like Vitter who know no boundaries of decency.

Florida Sen. George Smathers was said to have accused opponent Congressman Claude Pepper of “matriculating” in college, having a brother who was a “known homo sapien,” his sister “a practicing thespian,” and that he and his wife practiced “celibacy before marriage.” Earl Long once called an opponent “catfish mouth” and said another opponent once fell into a hog pen and when passersby commented that one could be judged by the company he kept, the hogs left.

Those kinds of comments are funny and in the long run, harmless.

But Vitter’s attacks are way over the top. He even propped his wife up in front of the TV cameras to tell us her husband has given his pension back to Congress. Interesting, since he hasn’t even qualified for a pension. He’s 54 and he would not qualify for his $74,000 per year pension until he reaches age 62.

We can barely wait to see what kind of sordid, tasteless, lies and distortions he will unleash should he and Edwards face one another in the runoff election.

LouisianaVoice attempted to contact Burland by telephone and email but we never heard back from him. Here is our email:

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:35 PM

To: ‘jimmy@burland.org’ <jimmy@burland.org>

Subject: LOBBYIST SOLICITATION

Mr. Burland: Below is a copy of an email to “the Louisiana Lobbyist Community” dated yesterday, Oct. 20.

My question is this: Do you consider this a proper solicitation of contributions when the implication is clear that the lobbyists better play ball or not expect any help from “Gov. Vitter”?

This has the appearance of extortion at worst or coercion at best. I would be interested in your explanation and will publish your response in full.

Tom Aswell

LouisianaVoice

There was the usual disclaimer at the end of Burland’s email:

“This email is intended to reach certain state registered Louisiana lobbyists only. If this email has been sent to you in error, either as a prohibited recipient, public servant or foreign national, please disregard this message and delete it from your mailbox immediately as it was not intended for your viewing or use.”

I’ll bet.

Well, LouisianaVoice received the email and intended or not, here is the complete text:

Read Full Post »

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Legislators, Notable Quotables, Politicians, Vitter on October 21, 2015| 4 Comments »

“One would hope… that when an officeholder commits serious offenses, the negative reaction of the citizenry would make it impossible for him to govern effectively.”

—State Rep. and Tulane and Loyola Law adjunct professor David Vitter, writing about the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinski scandal in a New Orleans Times-Picayune op-ed in 1998.

“I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me. I think fear is a very good motivating factor in a marriage.”

—Wendy Vitter, in an interview with Newhouse News Service in 2000, discussing what she would do if her husband cheated on her.

“You paid the man for two years after he pled guilty to three misdemeanor charges against women,” he said. “He stabbed her … big scar under her neck … he choked her. What do you say to that?”

—Former Plaquemines Parish Sheriff and State Rep. Ernest Wooton, one of six participants in a debate leading up to the 2010 U.S. Senate election, questioning Vitter on why his former aide, Brent Furer, remained on staff for two years after being arrested on suspicion of assaulting a female friend with a knife and threatening to kill her. 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Could knowledge of pending story about hooker’s paternity claim have prompted Vitter to close access to Tech debate?

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Politicians, TV News, Vitter on October 18, 2015| 19 Comments »

By now, anyone with anything more than a passing interest in Saturday’s gubernatorial primary election is aware of the latest bombshell about U.S. Sen. David Vitter and his cavorting with prostitutes: that Vitter allegedly fathered a child with New Orleans hooker Wendy Ellis. http://www.theamericanzombie.com/2015/10/david-vitter-interview-with-wendy-ellis.html

The story was published on Saturday (Oct. 17) by Jason Brad Berry of the American Zombie investigative blog and political junkies immediately began burning up the email lines just as the 2015 primary election for governor enters its final stretch. http://crooksandliars.com/2015/10/former-mistress-alleges-david-vitter-asked

It not our intent to discredit Berry (he was, after all, the first to reveal widespread corruption involving former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and some of his pals, all of whom were convicted of corruption). But Clancy DuBos, publisher of Gambit Magazine in New Orleans wisely spiked that publication’s initial story about Berry’s toxic (to Vitter) interview with Ellis after receiving court documents that shot gaping holes in parts of Berry’s blog post. http://www.bestofneworleans.com/blogofneworleans/archives/2015/10/18/vitter-update-inconsistencies-come-to-light

Nor should anyone interpret this as a defense of Vitter.

Far from it.

The timing of the story is terribly suspect, given the election was only a week away when Berry posted it. But even if Ellis’s claims ultimately fail the smell test, Vitter really deserves no sympathy in this sordid affair after the manner he has allowed his Super PAC, The Fund for Louisiana’s Future, to fill our living rooms with television attack ads containing half-truths and outright lies about his two Republican opponents, Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle and Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne.

And Vitter cannot divorce himself from those ads simply because a Super PAC accepted responsibility for the content of the ads. That does not absolve him. Louisiana’s senior senator did, after all, contribute a quarter-million dollars of his own money to the Super Pac, so he is married to the ads whether he likes it or not.

The entire gubernatorial campaign has been reduced to the lowest form of political discourse consisting of nothing but smear campaigns. While Vitter’s Super PAC was chewing up Angelle and Dardenne with B.S. claims and unabashed lies, the National Republican Governors’ Association was doing the same to the lone Democrat in the race, State Rep. John Bel Edwards. (It’s interesting to note that the GOP Governors’ Association first said it was staying out of the primary election but after witnessing a steady climb in the polls by Edwards, the association once headed by Bobby Jindal apparently panicked and decided to go on the attack now.)

And make no mistake, those ads are just as vile. And their relevance to burning issues that face this state make about as much sense as an acquaintance from north Louisiana who despite having for years claimed to be sophisticated enough that he would “vote for the best candidate, no matter the party,” told me this weekend that, “I just can’t vote for someone with a ‘D’ behind their name.” What utter nonsense, what unmitigated bias, and yes, what ignorance. What happened to that “best candidate” business, pal?

But we digress.

Where are the proposals for addressing the myriad of state problems? I haven’t heard them because they’re being drowned out by ads that are hell bent on dragging opponents through the mud and muck which only means when the dust finally settles, we’re likely to be faced with the same old problems with no one offering hard answers.

And folks, that begins with the candidates for governor and quickly flows downhill into both chambers of the Louisiana Legislature. With more than half the incumbents being returned to office to cut deals and to pass laws favorable to campaign contributors, we’re quite likely to see the same trend in corporate tax giveaways continue unabated.

Indeed, the entire dialog this election cycle has been reduced to quickie TV ads that spew shameless misrepresentations of the facts. And it will only be ramped up a few notches for the general election.

Has Vitter overlooked the fact that he, along with the others, is in reality, interviewing for a job? When you are seeking a job, you put your best foot forward; you don’t walk into the interview trashing those competing for the same job. That’s a fast way out the door. You give your prospective employer your curriculum vitae and you come prepared to discuss your experience, your accomplishments and your career plans should you be hired. And you better not waste his or her time with disparaging gossip about the other applicants.

Ellis previously (in 2007) passed a polygraph test which indicated that she did indeed have a sexual relationship with Vitter for at least four months although she now says the relationship lasted for nearly three years, from 1998 to sometime in 2000 when she informed him she was pregnant.

She says Vitter first denied paternity and then suggested she get an abortion. She didn’t. Instead, she put the baby up for adoption raising the immediate questions of just who was the pro-life advocate in this scenario?

The emerging saga prompted a reader of one online blog to suggest that many of the so-called “family values” types like Vitter, Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, and Josh Duggar “have more skeletons in their closets than Jeffrey Dahmer.”

Vitter, for his part, of course, is keeping mum. But then, that’s been his approach the entire duration of this repugnant campaign: stay far away from the media and voters, and for God’s sake, don’t get drawn into any open debates in which questions are not provided in advance. If you’ve been paying attention, he is letting The Fund for Louisiana’s Future do all his talking for him. (Well, there is that one pitifully wretched ad in which he props wife Wendy in front of the camera to tell Louisiana’s voters what a wonderful husband and father he is.

But when he does appear, it is always—without exception—in a controlled venue in which no one has a chance to ask any embarrassing questions.

All of which brings me to my final bit of speculation:

Is it just possible that the reason last Thursday’s debate among the four candidates at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston was closed off not only to students and the general public, but to the media as well—and the reason Vitter was the only one of the four to skip out on a post-debate meeting with media types who were relegated to an adjoining room during the debate—was that he knew Berry was developing this story for imminent release and he simply could ill-afford to have that stink bomb tossed into the middle of the debate—on statewide TV? http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/vitter_debate_problems.html

After all, Berry said on his blog that he had contact with David Vitter’s legal counsel and repeatedly requested a telephone interview with him to address the story but his lawyer stated he was too busy to talk with me.”

Really? Seriously, Dave? As determined as you are to evade addressing the burning question of whether or not you broke the law by soliciting prostitutes, this is a bit more serious.

Too busy to discuss a pending story that you may have fathered a child by a prostitute? By telephone, yet?

Sorry, Dave, but true or not, you don’t get to busy to discuss matters of this magnitude.

Unless you have a reason for not talking.

But, Dave, Berry says he has “much more information” that he will be sharing soon.

You may wish to reconsider and give him a call.

Read Full Post »

LouisianaVoice submits FOIA request for communications from Vitter on parameters of Thursday night’s TV debate

Posted in Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Media, PACs, Politicians, Public Records, State Agencies, Transparency, TV News, Vitter on October 16, 2015| 23 Comments »

Complaints and protests had no effect on the decision by Louisiana Tech David Vitter to restrict access to Thursday night’s gubernatorial debate on the Ruston campus, so LouisianaVoice has submitted a formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request under Louisiana’s Public Records Law (R.S. 44:1 et seq.) for any documentation revealing Vitter’s thumbprints on the unprecedented decision to bar access to the debate to students, the public and the media.

It is as obvious as that great big elephant in the room that Vitter is Bobby Jindal reincarnated as far as his unwillingness to take unscripted questions or questions not approved in advance. His propensity for appearing only in tightly controlled venues is doing little to blot out the ugly memory of eight years of Jindal’s avoidance of unpleasant questions.

All politicians, of course, would prefer to appear at events that evidence overwhelming support and if a politician is willing to take the risk, he will encounter hostile crowds or, at least an enterprising journalist who isn’t afraid to ask the hard questions. Vitter, however, has taken his aversion to such risks to a level at which even Jindal would be envious.

His reasons are quite obvious. He refuses to entertain, let along answer, the BIG question: “Senator, did you break the law?”

Ask Edwin Edwards that and he would likely say, “Sure, but you’re going to have find out for yourself which one it was.”

Ask Paul Newman in his lead role in The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean that, and he would simply tear that page out of the law book and say, “That’s a bad law. I just repealed it.”

Ask Jindal that and he’d probably hire Jimmy Faircloth to file suit against the law.

But you just can’t ask Vitter that. Plain and simple, he’s not going to put himself in that position, which presents a conundrum of sorts or, as the late Johnny Carson might say, “A sticky wicket.” The problem I have with that is this man is asking us to place our trust in him and to elect him Governor when he is not willing to accept questions about his moral character.

Moral character. An interesting term and one might justifiably ask what that has to do with his ability to govern. After all, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, JFK, FDR, Bill Clinton, Warren Harding, and 14 other presidents are rumored to have carried on affairs in the White House—some with male partners.

For the answer, I will only point to the fact that Vitter ran as a family values candidate and in 1998 Vitter opined that Clinton “should resign…and move beyond this (Monica Lewinski) mess.” http://cenlamar.com/2010/08/21/can-we-be-honest-about-david-vitter/

But now, after being linked to prostitutes in Washington and New Orleans, doesn’t have so much to say on the subject of infidelity. As a candidate for Louisiana’s chief executive officer, he has instituted his very on “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

And he’s making damn sure no one gets to ask that. Hence, the controlled venues, including barring the media and the public from a “public debate” in a public facility on the campus of Louisiana Tech University Thursday night.

Which must beg the question in the minds of any citizen of Louisiana who can get past the latest exploits of those wild and crazy Kardashians: what else might he refuse to share with the electorate of this state? Will he, like Jindal, shut off the governor’s office from all outside inquiries, including those about legitimate state business? Will he invoke the “deliberative process” as did Jindal for eight long years?

He was uncomfortable enough at Thursday night’s debate when the question of his attack ads against fellow Republicans Jay Dardenne and Scott Angelle arose. Of course, he denied his hand in the attacks, saying that he didn’t buy the ads; that The Fund for Louisiana’s Future did.

Well, The Fund for Louisiana’s Future just happens to be his very own Super PAC and while federal law dictates that candidates not involved themselves in the decision-making process of plotting strategy and ad buys with Super PACs, never doubt for a nano-second that it was his hand stirring the pot. After all, Vitter gave a quarter-million dollars of his own money to The Fund for Louisiana’s Future.

So, in a sufficient state of outrage over Vitter’s exclusion of the very public he is asking to elect him, I, Tom Aswell, on behalf of LouisianaVoice has submitted the following public records request of Louisiana Tech President Les Guice:

Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana (R.S. 44:1 et seq.), I respectfully request the following information:

Please allow me to review all communications, including text messages, twitter messages, emails and any other written correspondence between any representative of Louisiana Tech University (including any member of the university’s administration and/or the university public information office from U.S. Sen. David Vitter and/or any member of his Senate and/or campaign staff or representative/spokesperson for David Vitter, including aides, public relations firms, advertising agencies, Fund for Louisiana’s Future, or anyone else serving in a capacity to promote his gubernatorial campaign. Such request is limited to any and all discussions of the gubernatorial debate of Thursday, October 15, 2015 at Louisiana Tech University, including, but not limited to any and all parameters, restrictions, and/or criteria of said debate, including any advance questions submitted or to be submitted to such spokespersons and/or David Vitter, any demands, suggestions and/or stipulations as to who may or may not be allowed to attend said debate and any reasons and/or justification given to support such demands, suggestions and/or stipulations.

Just so there are no misunderstandings about what information I am entitled to, below are some major requirements of the Louisiana Public Records Act (R.S. 44:1, et seq.) and remedies that are available to us for non-compliance with the law:

LOUISIANA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, L.R.S. 44:1 ET SEQ

WHAT ARE PUBLIC RECORDS UNDER THE ACT?

To be “public,” the record must have been used, prepared, possessed, or retained for use in connection with a function performed under authority of the Louisiana Constitution, a state law, or an ordinance, regulation, mandate, or order of a public body. This definition covers virtually every kind of record kept by a state or local governmental body. La. R.S. 44:1(A)(1). In Louisiana, a “public record” includes books, records, writings, letters, memos, microfilm, and photographs, including copies and other reproductions.

WHO CAN REQUEST PUBLIC RECORDS?

In Louisiana, any person at least 18 years of age may inspect, copy, reproduce or obtain a copy of any public record. La. R.S. 44:32. The purpose for the document request is immaterial, and an agency or record custodian may not inquire as to the reason, except to justify a fee waiver.

HOW TO MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

A request to review or copy a public record is made to the custodian of the records. The custodian is the public official or head of any public body having custody or control of the public record, or a representative authorized to respond to requests to inspect public records.

You may also make an oral request in person to inspect a public record. At that time, the public record must be immediately presented to you, unless the record is not immediately available or is being actively used at the time. If the public record is not immediately available, the custodian must promptly notify you in writing of the reason why the record is not immediately available and fix a day and hour within three days (excluding Saturday, Sunday, and legal holidays) when the records will be made available.

Enforcing The Public Records Law

A custodian who determines a record is not public, must provide written reasons, including the legal basis, within three working days. If a requester is denied a public record by a custodian or if five business days have passed since the initial request and the custodian has not responded, the requester may file a civil suit to enforce his right to access. The custodian bears the burden of proving that the record is not subject to disclosure because of either privacy rights or a specific exemption. The law requires the courts to act expeditiously in such suits and to render a decision “as soon as practicable.” If the requester prevails in the suit, the court will award reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs. If the requester partially prevails, the court may, at its discretion, award reasonable attorney’s fees or an appropriate portion thereof. (The custodian and the public body may each be held liable for the payment of the requester’s attorney’s fees and other costs of litigation; however, the custodian cannot be held personally liable for these fees and costs if he acted on advice from a lawyer representing the public body.) The court may also award the requester civil penalties of up to $100 for each day the custodian arbitrarily failed to give a written explanation of the reasons for denying the request. In addition, if the court finds that the custodian arbitrarily or capriciously withheld a public record, it may award actual damages proven by the requester to have resulted from the custodian’s action. (The custodian may be held personally liable for the actual damages unless his denial of the request was based on advice from a lawyer representing the public body.)

In addition to civil remedies, the law also provides criminal penalties. Anyone with custody or control of a public record who violates the law or hinders the inspection of a public record will be fined $100 to $1,000, or imprisoned for one to six months upon first conviction. For a subsequent conviction, the penalty is a fine of $250 to $2,000 or imprisonment from two to six months, or both.

We amended this request about five minutes after we sent it after we received additional suggestions from a reader. The amended requests reads thus:

Any and all documents related to the Louisiana gubernatorial debate held on the Louisiana Tech campus on October 15, 2015.

Requesting specifically any and all e-mails, documents, audio files, digital files, and printed matters related to the debate rules, venue choice, reasons for not allowing an audience and press to be able to watch the event.

Requesting specifically any and all e-mails, documents, audio files, digital files, and printed matters from or to David Vitter, his office, his staff, including Luke Bolar, and others to any employee or volunteer at LA Tech since April 15, 2015. Requesting specifically any and all e-mails, documents, audio files, digital files, and printed matters from or to President Les Guice with the words “debate,” Vitter, “Edwards,” “Angelle,” “Dardenne,” “Senator,” “Governor,” or “Sen.”

Requesting a written rationale for not allowing students, staff, faculty, or the community to view the debate in person on campus.

Requesting a written rationale for the decision to allow certain radio and television stations to broadcast the event. and not allowing others.

Requesting a list of names, titles, and e-mail addresses for all persons involved in any way with planning, promoting, facilitating or decision-making related to the debate.

(Disclaimer: Not that it matters, but I am a 1970 graduate of Louisiana Tech.)

Read Full Post »

Vitter looking more and more like Jindal in avoiding debates, interactions with voters: ‘Doing the job I was elected to do’

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Congress, Earl Long, Elections, Governor's Office, Politicians, Senate, Vitter on October 12, 2015| 9 Comments »

Associated Press reporter Melinda Deslatte had an interesting column on the Louisiana governor’s race that appeared in a number of state dailies and even in what one of our readers derisively calls “The Hayride North,” but which is known to most of us as The Washington Times.

In her column, Deslatte notes that Republican Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle, Republican Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne and Democratic State Rep. John Bel Edwards are somewhat irritated that Republican U.S. Sen. David Vitter.

The four, for those of you who have drifted off into the semi-conscious state induced by football overdose, are the leading contenders in the Oct. 24 governor’s race and most observers have already conceded the top two spots to Vitter and Edwards.

But Vitter, who remains ensconced in Washington where he insists he is “doing my job that I was elected to do,” is apparently so cocksure of his position that he feels he doesn’t have to get out and meet voters and answer questions or, as the late President Lyndon Johnson would have said, “press the flesh.”

You see, Vitter is trying to buy this election, pure and simple. He’s got this Super PAC called Fund for Louisiana’s Future carrying the water for him. Translated to terms we can all understand, his PAC is his attack dog. He doesn’t have to put his name on those nasty half-truths and outright lies being tossed around about Angelle and Dardenne.

The way Super PACs work, there is supposed to be arms-length separation between the candidate and the Super PAC. There is supposed to be no coordination between the candidate and the Super PACs. That’s why all the attack ads have the disclaimer at the end of the ad that tells us that the message you just heard was paid for by Funds for Louisiana’s Future.

Funds for Louisiana’s Future has somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million to tear down Vitter’s two Republican opponents (notice we never said the ads are used to bring any kind of positive message about Vitter’s accomplishments—just negative messages about Angelle and Dardenne).

But isn’t it interesting that with all those rules about arms-length separation and a ban on coordination, a check of contributions to Funds for Louisiana’s Future finds that Vitter chipped in $250,000 of his own money to the Super PAC. http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib_all.php?cycle=2014&type=A&cmte=c00541037&page=1

How’s that for arms-length separation? Still think there was no consultation between candidate and PAC?

And don’t think for one minute that Edwards is exempt from attacks. The National Republican Governors Association, after having said it did not plan to do any ad buys for the first primary, has done a sudden about face.

But of course the RGA didn’t count on a surge in popularity by Edwards before the Oct. 24 primary. Everyone assumed Edwards would make the runoff, being the only Democrat in the race, but the RGA got a real shock when Edwards actually forged into the lead in not one, but two separate polls two weeks or more before the first primary.

Panic set in quickly and the ads attacking Edwards, trying to tie him to President Obama, suddenly began flashing across TV screens across the state. It evokes memories of when Buddy Roemer came from nowhere in the final weeks of the 1987 election.

But it’s not the polls or the attack ads that have Angelle, Dardenne and Edwards upset. That, after all, is in keeping with the tradition of Louisiana politics and can be expected. After all, when did the truth ever matter when it came to winning an election?

The thing that’s got the three a mad as a wet hen is Vitter’s refusal to participate in TV debates.

Deslatte says the three are accusing Vitter of:

  • Refusing to attend unscripted events;
  • Engage in real policy debates;
  • Interact directly with voters;
  • Participate in question-and-answer sessions where he is not allowed to review questions in advance “or control the forum style.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/10/12/vitters-absence-tv-debates-rankles-competitors/73767224/

Does all that sound a little too eerily familiar? Did a shiver just run up your spine? Did the room suddenly experience an unexplained chill?

The answers for us were yes, yes, and yes, so we did a little historical research and we find some uncanny similarities with someone else you may remember.

First, let’s take Vitter’s earlier claim that “I’m doing my job that I was elected to do.”

Doesn’t that sound a little too much like, “I have the job I want” repeated by Bobby Jindal so often during his first term?

How about Vitter’s:

  • Refusal to attend unscripted events? Anyone remember Jindal ever holding an unscripted event of any description? He couldn’t even participate in a hot dog eating contest without every bite being choreographed in advance.
  • Refusal to engage in real policy debates? Has anyone ever seen Bobby Jindal talk about any issue without repeating the same tired talking points repeated verbatim from one venue to another ad nauseam?
  • Refusal to interact with voters? Ever see Jindal work a crowd? I mean come down off that stage and mingle without a taxpayer-funded State Police security detail protecting him from any human contamination? Didn’t think so.
  • Refusal to participate in question-and-answer sessions when he isn’t allowed to review the questions in advance or control the forum style? Do we even have to say anything here?

The similarities are so strong and so frightening—especially with the prospect of another four or eight years of Jindal-like “leadership.”

Skeptics are saying that Angelle as governor would be “Jindal 2.0.” But Vitter as governor would be “Jindal on steroids.”

Already, it’s becoming difficult to keep from saying Jitter or Vindal.

But one thing is abundantly apparent: Vitter is not running for governor; he’s purchasing the office by attacking opponents on TV instead of confronting them face to face like a man. My grandfather had a name for that: cowardice. And if he’s elected, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We will have been purchased, in the words of the late Earl Long, “like a sack of potatoes.”

As for me, my vote is not for sale.

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »