Louisiana Voice

“Most of the folks in the military are there voluntarily, they’re career, they’re not just there for during the term of one president. They have a good sense that they’ve dedicated themselves to a certain life and the president seems to be suggesting that, outside anything else, they’ve been fooled. It can’t help but shake the military’s judgement about his judgment” —National security expert Gary Schmitt, on Trump’s retweeting the QAnon conspiracy theory that bin Laden’s death was faked.

“This is exactly the rhetoric that has put me, my family, and other government officials’ lives in danger while we try to save the lives of our fellow Americans. It needs to stop.” —Tweet by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, on Trump’s rally cry of “Lock her up,” reminiscent of the same chant about Hillary Clinton four years ago.

“Every single time the President does this at a rally, the violent rhetoric towards (Gov. Whitmer) escalates on social media. It has to stop. It just has to.” —Tweet by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s Deputy Digital Director Tori Saylor.

“The most powerful man in the world came after our family. But what happened to us can happen to anyone.” —Rachel Vindman, wife of Iraq war veteran Col. Alexander Vindman, in new Lincoln Project ad.

“Suburban women, will you please like me? Please. Please.” —Donald Trump, begging for the women’s vote to come back to him in 2020. [It’s a little late for that, chump.]

“I thought, ‘Oh, what’s the worst that could happen?’ I do feel guilty.” —Ohio suburban real estate agent Kate Rabinovitch, on her decision to vote for Donald Trump in 2016.

NOT A TRUMP QUOTE, but it should be (with apologies to Cavin & Hobbes):

“Of course, most everybody cheats some time or other. People always bend the rules if they think they can get away with it. Then again, that doesn’t justify my cheating. It just seems wrong to cheat on an ethics test.”

“Big, beautiful, Straight Orange Male with history of adultery seeks white housewives for Big Macs and friendship with political benefits. Enjoys QAnon pedophile conspiracies and armed intimidation of civil rights demonstrators. Turnoffs: science, fitness, manners. Prefers that women sign NDAs and answer to ‘pig,’ ‘dog,’ ‘monster’ and ‘nasty.’” —Tongue-in-cheek (I think) online dating profile for Donald J. Trump, by Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank.

“Brace yourself while I paint a picture of a nightmarish future. It’s one in which every American gets to vote without impediment or inconvenience. Where the presidential candidate who gets the most votes actually moves into the Oval Office. Where bills in Congress are debated and then voted on, the side with more votes prevails, then those laws take effect and the public can judge the results. This is the terrifying political hellscape the Republican Party is determined to prevent. For a party with a dwindling base and a broadly unpopular agenda, there is no more profound threat than democracy.” —Columnist Paul Waldman, writing in the Washington Post.

“The metadata in the PDF files published by the Post, which supposedly contain (Hunter) Biden’s emails, show that the files were created in September and October of 2019 — months after MacIsaac said the laptops were dropped off and a full year before the Post story dropped. Disinformation experts warned that the timing of emails’ release, the way they became public, and the lack of forensic evidence are all signs that the material could be the result of forgery, a hack, or a combination of the two. The Russian GRU unit responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee in 2016 hacked Burisma, The New York Times reported earlier this year, prompting fears that material from the hack would be leaked near the election in an effort to hurt Biden’s campaign.” —Writers Jesselyn Cook, Jessica Schulberg and Nick Robins-Early, pointing out major flaws in Hunter Biden laptop story. [Twitter has banned New York Post articles about Hunter Biden because of the obvious inconsistencies.]

“Nice job on that one. How could NY Post miss that? A profound embarrassment to a paper founded by Alexander Hamilton.” —Tweet by L. Steven Goldblatt.

“Er, pdfs of emails? That would be deliberate conversion of the original data, wouldn’t it? —Tweet by Stephen A. Loeb.

“We certainly have seen very active, very active efforts by the Russians to influence our election in 2020 through what I would call more the maligned foreign influence side of things ― social media, use of proxies, state media, online journals, etc. ― in an effort to both sow divisiveness and discord and … primarily to denigrate Vice President Biden and what the Russians see as kind of an anti-Russian establishment.” —FBI Director Christopher Wray, testifying before the House Homeland Security Committee on Thursday. [Another FBI Director bites the dust.]

“Watching Joe Biden for a few minutes while I’ve been watching this Trump town Hall is like taking a cool drink of water after standing in front of a fan blowing a blast furnace in my face. The only good thing about these two competing town hall events is that they show how much Biden is held to a different standard as an actual rational human being while Trump just has to get through an hour without lighting a bucket of mice on fire.” —Tweet by Tom Nichols, on the contrast between the town hall meetings of Biden and Trump on Thursday.

“Flipping back and forth, you see a decent, compassionate, knowledgeable public servant and a psychopath. —Tweet by Richard Stengel.

“Watching Biden inspires calm and lowers blood pressure. Watching psycho Trump inspires asking how did this mental patient abscond the asylum?” —Tweet by Genuine Ersatz.

NOT A TRUMP QUOTE, but it should be (with apologies to Cavin & Hobbes)

Trump: I just read this great science-fiction story. It’s about how machines take control of humans and turn them into zombie slaves.”
McConnell: So instead of us controlling machines, they control us? Pretty scary idea.”
Trump: I’ll say…HEY, what time is it? Fox and Friends is on.”

“I have long said that I may release Financial Statements. It is a very IMPRESSIVE Statement.”—Trump tweet, Sept. 28, 2020. [Now, if we just knew what he meant…]

“I know nothing about QAnon. I know very little. “You told me but what you tell me doesn’t necessarily make it fact. I just don’t know about QAnon.”—Donald Trump, when asked by Thursday’s Town Hall hostess Savannah Guthrie to disavow QAnon.

“You do know.”—Guthrie.

“I don’t know.”—Trump. [That went well for Trump, who has welcomed endorsements from QAnon.]

“You go to places like The Villages [retirement community] and mostly they’re going to vote for Biden. That additional 10 to 20% may be enough for Biden to win the I-4 corridor (Interstate 4, the highway that cuts across Florida from Tampa Bay to Daytona Beach, could just as easily be called “The Road to the White House”). You win the I-4 corridor, you win Florida. You win Florida, effectively Biden has won the election.”—Charles Zelden, professor of history and politics at Nova Southeastern University.

“They’re turned off by him (Trump). They’re concerned for their Medicare, their social security, of course. But they can’t stand the hate, the vitriol. They’re considering Biden because of the way Trump behaves.”—Chris Stanley, president of the Democratic Club of the Villages.

“If you’re not hiring me because I’m a conservative, shame on you. If there’s a civil war, then don’t forget who has all the guns.”—Actor Scott Baio, a Trump supporter.

“If that’s the case, I’m very disappointed. I think it’s a terrible thing, and I will say it to [Barr’s] face.”—Trump, to Rush Limbaugh, in criticizing his Department of Justice investigation which found…um, no evidence to support no criminal charges against Hillary, Barack Obama or Joe Biden. [Hmm. The “no collusion” shoe is on the other foot, right Donnie?]

“I don’t know what’s going on out there, but I can tell you there’s a lot of money being raised in this campaign. I’d like to know where the hell some of it is coming from,”—Lindsey Graham, whining about opponent Jaime Harrison’s fundraising success. [A better question: why are so many supporting your opponent, Trump Toady Boy?]

NOT A TRUMP QUOTE, but it should be (with apologies to Cavin & Hobbes):

Trump: What do you think is the secret to happiness? Is it money, power or fame?”
Mitch McConnell: “I’d choose money. If you have enough money, you can buy fame and power. That way you have it all and be really happy. Happiness is being famous for your financial ability to indulge in every kind of excess.”
William Barr: I suppose that’s one way to define it.”
Trump: The part I think I’d like best is crushing people who get in my way.”

Little over a week ago, I wrote about a campaign flyer I’d received in the mail attacking the bona fides of judicial candidate Colt Fore by hinting that he was a closet Democrat by virtue of his 2016 contribution to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

I more or less defended Fore – not because of his political affiliations, but because of the attacks on those affiliations by his opponent for the 21^st Judicial District judgeship, William Dykes.

The 21^st JDC encompasses the parishes of Livingston, St. Helena and Tangipahoa.

But today, I received a flyer from Fore in the mail.

First, a little background which I alluded to in my POST of Oct. 7:

Fore is an attorney for a Denham Springs law firm. Several years ago, one of his partners was the legal counsel for the City of Denham Springs. When a controversy involving the police department arose, a Baton Rouge television station showed up to shoot video of the proceedings.

The attorney promptly informed the TV crew that video cameras were not allowed in the meeting – contrary to the Louisiana Open Meetings statute.

Even though I have no skin in the game when it comes to TV news, I chimed with my two cents by pointing out the law which says photography of proceedings which occur in open meeting certainly do permit TV cameras.

With a smirk that I can still see in my mind’s eye, the all-knowing attorney said, “The law doesn’t specifically say TV cameras,” as if that mattered. The law doesn’t cite salad forks as the weapon of choice in order that a murder be classified as a murder, either, but it’s still murder.

Bottom line: I detest lawyers who parse words and twist the meaning of laws for their own purposes or to advance an agenda.

So, today I received a mailer from Mr. Fore that proclaims him to be “the true conservative for district court judge.”

Among the attributes he lists on his flyer:

• Registered Republican at 18 years old.
• Supports President Trump’s initiatives to strengthen and safeguard our country.
• Upholds conservative values (Christian faith, 2^nd Amendment gun rights, fight for innocent victims, opposes liberal agendas.).

On the flip side of the flyer, paid for by “Committee to Elect Colt Fore Judge,” is the obligatory attack on his opponent, to wit:

“Opponent William Dykes is a (gasp!) Democrat in disguise!”

It goes on inform us:

• He is from St. Helena Parish (whatever significance that is supposed to hold).
• He is a registered Democrat who has remained in the Democratic Party for more than 20 years!
• Don’t be fooled by a LIBERAL POLITICIAN. (all emphasis Fore’s)
• He even continued to align with the national Democratic Parity during Barack Obama’s presidency – the most liberal administration ever!

Just as a reminder here, we’re talking about a judge’s race, so why all the superfluous crap about Republican-Democrat, conservative-liberal, 2^nd Amendment, liberal, and Trump?

I don’t know either man, never met either one, but both have managed to offend me deeply so I probably will just skip over this part of the ballot.

Judges are supposed to transcend political agendas, liberal or conservative rhetoric, party labels and political alliances. These two have fallen short on each point.

The single overriding fact in a judicial race is I don’t give a damn about your personal philosophy because it’s got nothing to do – or at least, it should have nothing to do – with applying the law as it is written in the Louisiana Revised Statutes. It should never be about some judge’s hackneyed feelings on a given issue.

I don’t want to stand before a judge who I know to be diametrically opposed to everything I represent; how can I hope to get a fair shake out of him if he a professed Trumper and I’m a recovering Republican i.e., a Democrat?

How can I expect justice, no matter how firmly the law comes down on my side if I’m of a liberal bent and the judge is such a proud conservative as to advertise such in his mailers?

If I am a proponent of some form of sensible gun control (such as limiting access to assault weapons) how can I realistically expect justice to prevail if the judge boasts of his unconditional support of the 2^nd Amendment?

What if I’m assaulted by some hairbrained militia Trump poll watcher when I go to vote on Nov. 3? Can I expect a sympathetic hearing if the judge is still pissed at Trump’s losing the election?

All these are hypotheticals, of course, but try placing yourself in front of a judge who is a vocal advocate in his campaign literature of everything you oppose. Put my personal preferences aside and substitute your own and imagine such a hostile judge. Can you have any reasonable expectation of justice? Or should you anticipate a decision based on the judge’s personal political tenets?

So, please, judicial candidates: Cease your damned grandstanding and tell us your passion is administering fair and equal justice to all – blacks, browns, whites, gays, straights, male, female, young, old, rich or poor. That’s what we want to know about a judge – not some self-serving, brand of personal philosophy that’s not worth (in the immortal words of former Vice President John Nance Garner) a warm bucket of spit.

In other words, put impartial jurisprudence ahead of politics.