Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Why would FBI conduct Dentistry Board audit? We can think of several reasons as legislature considers board move repeal

May 16, 2017 by tomaswell

It’s been nearly a year since we’ve written anything about the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry and while there appears to be little going on with the board, there is quite a bit of activity going on beneath that veneer of tranquility, including, apparently, an ongoing FBI audit of the board.

Despite the efforts of State Sen. Daniel Martiny (R-Metairie) who, in 2014 passed legislation to move the board’s headquarters from New Orleans to Baton Rouge, the board has continued to resist the move from its posh high-rent offices on Canal Street.

Our last story about the LSBD was last July. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/07/18/case-of-slidell-dentist-illustrates-unbridled-power-of-dentistry-board-to-destroy-careers-for-sake-of-money/

Apparently the FBI has taken an interest in the LSBD.

The AGENDA for a special March 10 meeting (a Friday, no less) of the board caught the eye of one of our regular readers, a dentist who was put through the board’s mill and ground into so much fodder a few years ago.

Buried on page three of the agenda, under the heading “New Business and any other business which may properly come before the board,” was item IX which said, “Discussion of FBI audit results (p. 50).”

We had no prior knowledge of any FBI audit, although we have been aware that the board’s former attorney is awaiting a disciplinary hearing before the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/11/16/dentistry-board-facing-difficult-future-because-of-policies-contracts-with-attorney-private-investigator-are-cancelled/

At the very bottom of page 3 was a call for an executive session “for the purpose of discussing investigations, adjudications, litigation and professional competency of individuals and staff; because discussion of these topics would have a detrimental effect on the bargaining and litigation position of the Louisiana State of Dentistry.”

It was unclear if the proposed closed-door session was related to the FBI audit or not.

LouisianaVoice will be making a public records request for that FBI audit report and we will publish our findings.

Meanwhile in his farewell address in the winter 2014 LSBD BULLETIN, outgoing President Dr. Wilton Guillory said, “Legislation was recently passed to move the Board’s domicile to Baton Rouge. If that legislation is not changed in the upcoming legislature as I hope, then the Board, who self generates its funds, will have to raise the license fees to fund the move. We have been able to prevent this in years past but will have no choice. We are working with the LDA (Louisiana Dentists Association) and legislators to try to prevent this unnecessary move.”

That self-generation of funds has been a bone of contention between the board and the dentists its disciplines. Because the board sets itself up as accuser, prosecutor and judge, dentists who appear on the board’s radar have little chance of prevailing in disputes.

That is, if they choose to dispute the board—and that’s a big “if” that carries high risks, as in high dollar risks. Often a token fine, if disputed, quickly becomes a five- or even a six-figure fine and more than one dentist has been run out of business by the sheer cost of defending himself from the board’s kangaroo court.

That’s why Martiny, when his own dentist fell into disfavor for a minor offense, took it upon himself to rein in the board by moving it from its Taj Mahal to more modest headquarters in Baton Rouge.

Thanks to State Reps. Robert Johnson (D-Marksville) and Frank Hoffman (R-West Monroe), Martiny’s efforts may be overturned before the move can even be implemented.

House Bill 521 by Johnson and Hoffman has been reported out of committee and is scheduled to be taken up for debate before the full House tomorrow (Wednesday, May 17). Simply put, the bill would amend Act 866 by Martiny, effectively negating that action, and allow the board to remain in either New Orleans or Jefferson Parish.

Hoffman has received $3000 from the Louisiana Dental Political Action Committee since 2011, $500 from Appel Dental, LLC in 2007, and an additional $500 from two individual dentists in 2007 and 2011.

Johnson, meanwhile, has received $6,250 from the Louisiana Dental PAC since 2011, and $500 from the Kid’s Dental Zone of Alexandria, LLC in 2015. He also received $500 each from the same two individual dentists as Hoffman.

We have documented several cases of the board’s heavy-handedness in dealing with dentists, its unscrupulous investigative methods, its dictatorial dealings with dentists and its exorbitant system of fines imposed in order to pay the rent on its office space and to pay its contract private investigator and attorney. We have also written about the legal troubles of that investigator.

Perhaps legislators might like to refresh their memories about the board before they vote on Wednesday. Here are links to just a few of our stories:

https://louisianavoice.com/2016/03/18/like-dental-board-louisiana-board-of-medical-examiners-survives-on-fines-and-incentive-to-punish/

https://louisianavoice.com/2015/04/16/13976/

https://louisianavoice.com/2016/07/07/dentistry-board-member-was-witness-in-earlier-case-now-he-also-decides-insurance-claims-benefits-paid-to-other-dentists/

https://louisianavoice.com/2015/04/15/remarks-by-former-head-of-state-dentistry-board-on-suit-dismissal-reopens-louisianavoice-investigation-of-tactics/

https://louisianavoice.com/2014/03/23/appeal-court-slams-lsdb-tactics-in-reversing-kangaroo-court-license-revocation-board-attorney-rules-on-his-own-objection/

Posted in Audit Reports, Campaign Contributions, Commissions, Corruption, Ethics, House, Senate, Lawsuits, Legislature, Legislators, PACs, Politicians | 5 Comments »

‘Troopergate Fatigue’ notwithstanding, new revelations keep on coming: private eyes, and no good deed goes unpunished

May 14, 2017 by tomaswell

At the risk of an onset of “Troopergate Fatigue,” details keep emerging involving expensive TRIPS to conferences by members of former State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson’s inner circle on the taxpayers’ dime.

But while The Baton Rouge Advocate’s Jim Mustian was busy documenting yet another of those trips, this one to Orlando back in 2014, LouisianaVoice has learned that members of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) now recognize that they were apparently asleep at the wheel when they approved the creation of a Chief Accounting Officer (CAO) position last August at the behest of Edmonson.

Of course it didn’t hurt that Edmonson, described by virtually anyone who knows him as a slick snake oil salesman, was able to schmooze the somnolent commission into approving his request.

But the thing that is really tragic about the whole affair is that it led directly to the forced resignation of LSPC Executive Director Cathy Derbonne when she pointed out irregularities in the procedures employed to elevate Maj. Jason Starnes into the position.

Once she was onto the scam, she simply had to go.

Events were set in motion when Edmonson, getting the cart ahead of the proverbial horse, listed Starnes as “undersecretary” on the State Police Web page. Derbonne pointed out to the Edmonson that the designation of undersecretary was incorrect because Starnes did not occupy the position. In fact, the designation of undersecretary was not Edmonson’s to convey; that responsibility belongs exclusively to the governor.

Edmonson conceded that her assertion was correct but said that he had given Starnes “oversight” over the Office of Finance and that he “has assumed those duties in his current position.” From that moment on, Derbonne’s fate was sealed.

“What I’d like to do in this position is create an unclassified position just like we have with all the lieutenant colonels. We still hold and maintain a classified position of Major so that, if I brought (in) a lieutenant colonel and said, ‘We’re making a change,’ they can go back to that classified position.”

In his August appearance before the board to pitch the new position, Edmonson explained that he was asking to “create this temporary assignment. I am not increasing my T.O. (Table of Organization, i.e. actual permanent positions) I am not creating any additional funding issues…He’ll do that position within that rank. My desire is to create…a CAO because of how much work we do within our office.”

Edmonson then offered to address any questions commission members had. One of those, from Jared Caruso-Riecke, was about any additions funding necessary for the position. Edmonson assured Riecke there would be “no new funds. It was not my intention to even ask for that,” he said.

This is where things got dicey.

Commission member Eulis Simien seconded the motion for approval of the position “with the understanding that we are accepting the motion to create a position not relative to any particular person. Whatever appointment would be based on being after the position is created.”

Yet, only moments before, Edmonson had specifically committed the position to Starnes in a statement that apparently every single member of the commission managed to miss. Asked by Riecke about the duties of the position and whether they were “created somewhat by the board that you have now, Edmonson responded, “Correct. Jason Starnes will come in this position and assume the duties and oversight.”

To hear that commitment, go HERE and scroll to the 2:27 mark in his testimony.

Then, no sooner had Starnes been officially named to the new position than he was rewarded with a $25,000 increase that prompted former member Lloyd Grafton (he ultimately resigned from the commission after questioning its overall integrity) to challenge the pay increase because of the promise by Edmonson that no additional funds would be incurred—another tidbit missed by everyone but Grafton.

When a formal complaint was lodged over the transfer of a classified member of the State Police Service being transferred to an unclassified position outside the State Police Service (as with the Starnes assignment), a violation of Rule 14.3g, contract attorney Taylor Townsend (initially hired to investigate campaign contributions by members of the Louisiana State Troopers Association but whose duties were apparently expanded to that of general counsel) said that Starnes was not officially appointed to the undersecretary position. Townsend confirmed that only the governor, and not Edmonson, had the authority to fill the position of deputy superintendent.

When Townsend further explained that the commission’s August approval of the CAO position had rendered the investigation of the complaint moot, Riecke moved to go into executive session.

LouisianaVoice protested that an executive session on that matter was illegal because it was not to discuss pending litigation or an employee’s character but Townsend said the closed door session was to discuss personnel matters.

Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law (R.S. 42:16-17) provides that a public body may go into executive session if two-thirds of the members present vote to go into executive session. In executive session, public officials may only discuss a) the character, professional competence or physical or mental health of a person (unless the person is being considered for an appointment), b) strategy or negotiations regarding collective bargaining or future or current litigation, c) security personnel, plans or devices, d) investigative proceedings regarding alleged misconduct or e) an extraordinary emergency.

Because the discussion was not about the character, professional competence or physical or mental health of Starnes, nor was it about hiring him specifically, but instead was about whether or not the creation of the position itself was legal, LouisianaVoice maintained at the time and continues to hold that the executive session was illegal, Townsend’s professional legal opinion notwithstanding.

Predictably, upon emerging from the 25-minute closed-door confab, Riecke made the motion that no further action be taken on the investigation of the complaint.

Townsend, of course, the same attorney who recommended no action be taken on the LSTA campaign contributions matter. He also never submitted any report to the commission to support his recommendation.

Finally reacting to the constant prodding of retired State Trooper Leon “Bucky” Millet of Lake Arthur, the commission last Thursday decided to request that all of Townsend’s papers generated by his “investigation” be forwarded to the commission since his contract stipulates that all his findings would become the property of the commission.

But that was not the only voice of concern emerging from Thursday’s otherwise tranquil meeting.

It now seems that Simien is also now concerned over Edmonson’s apparent misleading statements to the commission last August regarding the Starnes appointment. Go HERE and scroll to the 2:07 mark to hear his comments.

All this because Derbonne had the temerity to do her job land point out to Edmonson that he had incorrectly and improperly designated Starnes as a lieutenant colonel on the State Police Web page.

We can somewhat understand why, given the political nature of LSP and the players involved, why Derbonne became the sacrificial lamb. She was the easiest to set up, the most vulnerable, and best of all, expendable, both in terms of the ease of getting rid of her and replacing her.

What we fail to understand is why two members of the commission then, with their own money, retained the services of a private investigator to follow her. This was apparently done, LouisianaVoice has learned, in an effort to determine who within LSP might be leaking information to her.

Posted in Corruption, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, Public Records, State Police | 19 Comments »

Post-Edmonson State Police Commission meeting devoid of confrontations, acrimonious atmosphere of past meetings

May 12, 2017 by tomaswell

By Robert Burns (Special to LouisianaVoice)

Audience members attending the regular monthly meeting of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) on Thursday could be forgiven for believing they were attending the wrong meeting. During brief recesses, many attendees were observed commenting about the lack of tension and anxiety that have been so prevalent in past meetings.

With the exception of one hostile exchange between board member Calvin Braxton and Chairman T. J. Doss, the meeting was devoid of the hostility which has dominated so many of its meetings over the last several years. That hostile exchange arose from item five of the meeting’s agenda, which called for retaining the promotional test scores for 2016, with them remaining valid for another year. At its previous meeting, the educational authorities explained that, because of significant changes in the content of the examination, everyone should be required to retest to qualify for a promotion.

Braxton’s frustration stemmed from his contention that he had the full and enthusiastic support of Chairman Doss right up to the point of the meeting, at which time Braxton claimed Doss “had a totally different story” and opposed his measure, thus “making me look stupid.” Doss countered in saying, “I’m one vote,” and then stated that Braxton’s memory of their conversations was “quite selective.” Braxton, clearly irked by that remark, said, “Well, I tell you what,” and then decided not to complete his sentence and concluded, “I’m done with it.” He then apologized to the audience and to the troopers.

Leon “Bucky” Millet, retired trooper, has long voiced his complaints entailing the Commission, and, at the request of board member Eulis Simien, Jr., Millet, a watchdog over the Commission who has intensified his oversight over the last two years, submitted all his complaints in writing. One of those complaints entailed Millet’s contention that a “conflict” exists regarding Chairman Doss, as an active trooper, simultaneously serving as Chairman of the Commission. Perhaps subscribing to the theory that the best defense is an aggressive offense, Chairman Doss stunned Millet, other board members, and the audience by voluntarily agreeing to forego any promotional testing (and thus any promotions) during the duration of his 3 ½ year term as Chairman. Millet acknowledged that would allay any concerns he had regarding any conflict.

Next, Commission Executive Director Jason Hannaman addressed Millet’s complaint regarding “prohibited political activity” entailing the law firm of Taylor, Porter by indicating that the complaint “appears without merit” because the law firm is not a member of the Commission and therefore not subject to the same restrictions as members are subjected. The Commission voted unanimously to accept Hannaman’s report on the matter.

Next, Hannaman addressed the Jason Starnes appointment. He tiptoed around the prospect that former LSP Colonel Mike Edmonson may have initially improperly appointed Starnes to a position, but he indicated that the action was corrected via Starnes’ appointment to another newly-created position (Chief Administrative Officer). Upon Hannaman concluding his report, member Eulis Simien, Jr. voiced displeasure with “the manner in which the approval for that position came about.” He specifically referenced him, along with other members, being under a clearly-false perception that the position would entail no increase in pay.

In reality, Starnes received a substantial increase in pay from the creation of the position. Millet then stated that Simien previously asked Edmondson if the position was being created for Jason Starnes, and that Edmonson “emphatically denied” that the position was being created for Starnes. Simien stated that his recollection of his question was “directed at a position and not for any particular person.” Millet acknowledged that may well be the case, but that, “in my wildest imagination, the position wouldn’t be created for anyone but Jason Starnes.” The Commission voted to accept Hannaman’s report with the caveat that “misleading information had been provided.” Members Monica Manzella and Harold Pierite, Sr. abstained based upon them not having been board members at the time the position was approved.

Next, Hannaman addressed nominations to fill Commission vacancies. Hannaman indicated proper procedures for notifying colleges of vacancies and requesting names of those colleges to fill those vacancies were followed until around 2008. Thereafter, Hammaman indicated the colleges “were not notified by the Executive Director of the LSPC” and that, therefore, “in turn, the colleges failed to send nominations to the governor to fill vacancies that occurred.” Hannaman indicated corrective action was taken on or around October 13, 2016 to require the executive director to notify colleges and universities going forward and further indicated that governor(s) had acted properly in that the Louisiana Constitution “provides that they shall make appointments if the colleges fail to make nominations.”

Millet stated past actions by governors were tantamount to “speeding but there was no speed limit sign.” Commissioners Jared Caruso-Riecke, echoing sentiments first espoused by Simien, said he, Simien, and Manzella were “appointed under the procedure being complained about” but emphasized that all of their appointments “were legal.” Riecke also added that no “legal burden” existed for the Commission to notify the colleges but it just did so as a practice but, going forward, since the Commission had implemented a rule to notify colleges, notices would go out going forward. Simien echoed those sentiments. Millet indicated he was satisfied with the Commission’s corrective actions.

Next, the issue of WAEs (when actually employed) employees was addressed. Ginger Krieg, Human Resources Manager for Louisiana Public Safety, emphasized that, in order to qualify for these positions, one must have graduated from the LSP Academy; however, Millet countered that he could supply names of WAE employees who aren’t such graduates and referenced one “making $80,000 a year for coming in a day or two a week.” The Commission committed to having a full list of WAE employees for the next meeting, after which time the Commission will decide which positions for which it will seek job descriptions and duties for those employees.

The Commission also discussed records retention and the potential requirement for a written investigative report by former Commission legal counsel Taylor Townsend. The Commission committed to send Townsend a written request that all Commission files be returned, and it also instructed legal counsel Lenore Feeney to research whether Townsend was in fact required to issue a written report of his findings (she indicated she felt a written report was indeed required).

Also discussed was Millet’s complaints entailing malfeasance in office and payroll fraud. Chairman Doss indicated that matters such as that must be investigated by the appropriate law enforcement authorities and not by the Commission. Millet was accepting of that statement.

Audience members openly discussed why the Commission’s meeting today differed so markedly from those of the recent past in terms of transparency and tranquility. One frequent attendee indicated she felt the Commission had little choice because it had been “pressured” into changing by blog and newspaper exposure. Another regular attendee referenced the prospect that the absence of the overbearing shadow of former Col. Mike Edmonson resulted in Commission members, employees, and others feeling far more relaxed. Perhaps the best question to ask regarding the stunning improvement in meeting atmosphere is “does it really matter what brought it about?”

Posted in Public Records, State Police, Transparency | 5 Comments »

Teddy Roosevelt’s spinning, Simon Cameron’s grinning and special interests just keep winning in Louisiana Legislature

May 10, 2017 by tomaswell

More than a century ago, in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, after a break with his friend and successor to the presidency, sought a then-unprecedented third term after a four-year absence from the political arena. In the process, he challenged Republican William Howard Taft’s re-election. Both men would ultimately lose to Woodrow Wilson.

But it was something that Roosevelt said in seeking to wrest the Republican nomination from Taft before breaking away to form the short-lived Bull Moose Party that resonates as clearly today as it did 105 years ago.

Doris Kearns Goodwin’s 750-page book The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Gold Age of Journalism is a great read and was a Pulitzer Prize-winning book that chronicles the close friendship between the two men, the exposés of several top magazine writers of the day, and the eventual split between Roosevelt and Taft.

Roosevelt who earned the title of trustbuster during his seven years in office (he succeeded William McKinley, who was assassinated in his first year in office), took on the meat packing industry, big oil, the railroads, and Wall Street banks in an effort to stem what he considered an alarming trend toward consolidation, mergers and monopolistic practices. He railed against the grossly unsanitary meat packing plants as exposed in Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, and he championed the economic plight of the working poor.

He also opposed child labor and fought for an eight-hour work day for women, for women’s right to vote, for worker protection, and for worker retirement benefits—ideas considered radical in his day but accepted today as the norm.

In 1912, he continued his onslaught, Kearns-Goodwin wrote, again taking on the special interests when while acknowledging that “every special interest is entitled to justice,” he said “not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office.”

He advocated driving the “special interests out of politics” by enacting laws to forbid corporations from directly funding political objectives.

Does any of this sound vaguely familiar? Does it sound as though he might have opposed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision?

Fast forward to 2017 and the State Capitol in Baton Rouge.

Baton Rouge Advocate reporter Tyler Bridges did a masterful job in a Wednesday STORY that illustrated just how the tail wags the dog when it comes down to attempts to come up with a revenue plan that makes sense when the interests of big business and industry are pitted against those of the citizens of this state.

In his story, Bridges reported how the Republican-dominated legislature was so overtly beholden to the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI) that even one of its own, Republican State Rep. Kenny Havard of St. Francisville, was appalled and embarrassed—and said so.

Please understand that I am in no way defending or condemning the tax plan put forth by Gov. John Bel Edwards but suffice it to say the business-oriented mindset of lawmakers were going to see to it that nothing that cost business a red nickel was going to pass even if it meant Louisiana households were going to be saddled with higher taxes—and because of the actions of the House Ways and Means Committee, they now will be.

Bridges did one of the best jobs ever in revealing how legislators simply lack the courage, principles, integrity, honesty and, yes, the stones, to turn their backs on campaign contributions and other perks in order to do the right thing.

Too weak-willed to resist the temptation when the think no one is looking, they would rather accept campaign contributions and expensive dinners than to say, “No thanks, I would rather look out for the interests of my constituents.”

Those campaign contributions come from various corporate entities and from corporate officers of countless corporations from both within and outside the state and they are poured into the campaigns of lawmakers for one reason: to buy votes. To claim otherwise would be to be disingenuous, deceptive, and hypocritical.

And just to make sure they get the message, hordes of lobbyists descend on the Capitol like so many swarms of locusts every spring. They are there to remind representatives and senators, lest they have momentary memory lapses, how to vote on any number of bills where there might be a conflict between responsible legislation and the status quo of political favoritism. That’s why on any given night during the legislative session, you can find lawmakers dining at Baton Rouge’s finest restaurants, courtesy of the hundreds of lobbyists who, in turn, feast on the carcasses of bloated legislators. If not restaurant fare, there are always the crawfish boils in the parking lot of the Pentagon Barracks across the street from the Capitol.

The committee not only rejected Edwards’ tax plan but also that of a special blue-ribbon that examined the state’s tax code last year and made recommendations based on its findings.

Bridges quoted Havard, who said, ““If we don’t have the courage to do it now, for God’s sakes… let’s just keep what we’ve been doing for the past 20 years. Isn’t that the definition of insanity—keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? We’re not going to get different results. The only mistake I made was thinking you could make change … The whole system is set up against change.”

So now, Louisiana businesses and industries will continue to enjoy the same tax breaks, exemptions and credits perpetuated for years and ramped up by Bobby Jindal. Meanwhile, the burden, as always, will fall onto the backs of middle class Louisianans.

And the legislature will continue its annual struggle with the budget and the state will keep right on lurching down the road trying to contend with midyear cutbacks as revenue shortfalls continue and roads and bridges and physical facilities at colleges and universities fall farther and farther behind on desperately needed maintenance and as governmental services to the developmentally disadvantaged and the mentally ill continue to be cut—all so business and industry may never be called upon to help shoulder its share of the burden—and so the legislative perks may continue unabated.

Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of War Simon Cameron would love Louisiana politics. It was Cameron who said, “An honest politician is one who, when bought, stays bought.”

Well, you can rest easy tonight in the knowledge that, by that measure, we have one of the most honest legislatures in the nation. They stayed bought and they will continue to reap campaign contributions and they will continue to shove expensive food and liquor down their gullets, courtesy of the special interests, namely LABI and its members.

Voting in favor of the bill by Rep. Rob Shadoin, R-Ruston, were Reps. Chris Broadwater, R-Hammond; Joseph Bouie, D-New Orleans; Jimmy Harris, D-New Orleans; Robert Johnson, D-Marksville; Marcus Hunter, D-Monroe; Ted James, D-Baton Rouge; and Major Thibaut, D-New Roads.

And, oh, in the interest of full disclosure, here are the names of those who killed Shadoin’s bill in order to keep corporate taxes down and your taxes high (and to allow themselves to continue receiving corporate campaign funds and to keep eating at Ruth’s Chris and Sullivan’s Restaurants, compliments of the lobbyist at the end of the table) were:

  • Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport (seabaugha@legis.la.gov);
  • Barry Ivey, R-Central (iveyb@legis.la.gov);
  • John “Jay” Morris, R-Monroe (morrisjc@legis.la.gov);
  • Jim Morris, R-Oil City (larep001@legis.la.gov);
  • Dodie Horton, R-Haughton (hortond@legis.la.gov);
  • Paula Davis, R-Baton Rouge davisp@legis.la.gov);
  • Clay Schexnayder, R-Gonzalez (schexnayderc@legis.la.gov);
  • Phillip DeVillier, R-Eunice (devillierp@legis.la.gov);
  • Stephen Dwight, R-Lake Charles (dwights@legis.la.gov);
  • Mike Huval, R-Breaux Bridge (huvalm@legis.la.gov);
  • Julie Stokes, R-Kenner, candidate for State Treasurer (stokesj@legis.la.gov).

Posted in Business, Campaign Contributions, Corruption, Elections, Exemptions, Incentives, Finances, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Media, Politicians | 12 Comments »

U.S. Sen. John Kennedy’s performance during Sally Yates’ testimony Monday fully qualifies him for governor’s office

May 8, 2017 by tomaswell

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.

 

Posted in Politics | 47 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »