Boustany defeats Landry for La. congressional seat

I pay no mind to what politicians tell me, Phil. I pay attention to what politicians do when in office.

I agree that Congressman Landry is exactly the kind of person that we need in the Senate. But do you know who also were the kinds of person we needed in the Senate? Woody Jenkins and Suzie Terrell (not so sure that John N. Kennedy would have been that great). Jeff Landry’s political career consists of a defeat in a 2007 state representative race, a victory in the 2010 LA-03 race, and a defeat in the run-off against a fellow incumbent Republican after getting screwed in redistricting in 2012. We need someone with the profile and political skills to defeat Landrieu, who always seems to slip away despite being eminently beatable. She wins by cleaning up in Cajun Country when we run a Protestant, or by doing better than expected in the Protestant north when we run a Catholic. And we have yet tried running someone with several congressional terms under his belt (well, Cook faced her in 2002, but after his stupid “diaper-on-the-head” comment his campaign imploded and he didn’t make the run-off). I think that a Protestant from Cajun Country with 10 years of experience in Congress would finally slay the dragon, and while I’m by no means happy that Boustany outmanouvered Landry by getting LA Republican legislators to keep the Lake Charles area in his district, I’d rather make sure we beat Landrieu than exact revenge. And having Landry return to Congress isn’t exactly a bad result for him—he’s still a young man and affter a few terms could run statewide if that’s his true aspiration.

But if Gov. Jindal wants the Senate seat, I’d defer to him, since he’d win for sure and would make a better senator than either Boustany or Landry.

Roemer attempted a comeback to the governor’s mansion in 1995, after four more years of enduring Edwin “The Crook” Edwards over David “The Klansman Crook” Duke. Voters remorse over throwing him out in the open primary ought to have given him an edge. Indeed, he led in the polls for much of the campaign. Then, State Senator Mike Foster switched from Democrat to Republican and took a big chunk of Roemer votes, and Roemer ended up finishing fourth behind Foster, Cleo Fields, and Mary Landrieu. If Roemer couldn’t win in that kind of environment, he’s not gonna now.

The idea of Landry as my senator would be great, but I’m afraid it would be tougher going for him to beat Landrieu. Her skill has been in finding whatever cracks there are in the opposition and using them to cobble together a winning coalition. While I imagine Landry would clean up in Cajun country, I’m afraid his (very) thick Cajun accent won’t go over well in metro Baton Rouge and metro New Orleans. He might come off as too much of a country bumpkin, and we need suburban votes to overcome New Orleans’ mega-margins for Landrieu. What helped Vitter win outright in 2004 was blowing away his Dem opponents in suburban N.O. and B.R.

Rep. Bill Cassidy of the Baton Rouge-area district might be the better bet. He actually beat a Democratic incumbent to win the seat in 2008, and has been elected to the LA legislature prior, so he’s not a greenhorn. Being known in metro B.R., it gives him a solid base to challenge Landrieu. Redistricting also extended his district toward the Gulf Coast, so he’s been able to expand his name-rec a little. I can’t speak to how he would do in the Cajun south or the Protestant north, but SW LA has mightily turned against Obama and if Landrieu wants to tout her deciding vote for Obamacare (as she has said she’d do), Cassidy could easily turn that to his advantage and nationalize the race.

Of course if Jindal was to run, I think he’d be an even better bet to beat Landrieu. I don’t think the door is closed on that possibility just yet.

When Boustany was first elected I thought, as probably we all did, “great candidate to take out Mary L in 2008”.

And that race was winnable that year too.

If he’s the choice I’ll support him of course but if not Landry there is a state full of Republicans now that I’d rather promote than Chuck. Surely someone else would have high electability.

Given how badly he wanted his House seat made as safe as possibly indicates to me that he intends to set a spell.

Jindal of course is the 1000 pound gorilla. He doesn’t need that last year as Governor, there is still much work to do but may as well punt it to the next guy. Find out what his favorite chocolates are, Jerry Moran.

Your story about Roemer in PR is HILARIOUS.

Remember the Cali Recall? An unknown named George Schwartzman came in 9th right behind Gary Coleman and ahead of porn star Mary Carey. (jeez what a circus)

Had to be because he had Schwartz in his name, similar to and right next to Ahnold on the ballot.

In the 2000 FL recount, both sides agreed that overvotes (where more than one candidate was selected) would not be counted as valid votes. (In the media recounts, the only way they could get Gore to win was to count “redundant overvotes,” where idiots punched out Gore and then punched out “write-in” and wrote in “Gore” or “Lieberman.”) The most common overvote was voting for both Bush and Gore (yes, some people are that stupid), and another common one was Gore and Buchanan (in the butterfly ballot where Gore’s name was across from Buchanan’s).

Well, another common overvote was Gore and Libertarian candidate Harry Browne, and no one could figure out why (since Gore’s and Browne’s names were nowhere near each other). Then it hit someone: the political parties were listed in uppercase under each candidate’s name, and when some voters read LIBERTARIAN they thought that by voting there and for Gire they’d be voting for Gore *and Lieberman*. Cosas veredes, Sancho.

In the 2000 FL recount, both sides agreed that overvotes (where more than one candidate was selected) would not be counted as valid votes. (In the media recounts, the only way they could get Gore to win was to count “redundant overvotes,” where idiots punched out Gore and then punched out “write-in” and wrote in “Gore” or “Lieberman.”) The most common overvote was voting for both Bush and Gore (yes, some people are that stupid), and another common one was Gore and Buchanan (in the butterfly ballot where Gore’s name was across from Buchanan’s).

Well, another common overvote was Gore and Libertarian candidate Harry Browne, and no one could figure out why (since Gore’s and Browne’s names were nowhere near each other). Then it hit someone: the political parties were listed in uppercase under each candidate’s name, and when some voters read LIBERTARIAN they thought that by voting there and for Gire they’d be voting for Gore *and Lieberman*. Cosas veredes, Sancho.

Cosas veredes, Sancho.

Am I correct in ascertaining the basic meaning of that as "whaddya gonna do?"

In this instance the ballot itself serves as a minimal intelligence test preventing the dimmest bulbs from having their vote count by virtue of them being unable to figure out how to cast it validly as could the average child. But it's not enough in my opinion, those people's votes for any other office where they only picked 1 democratic candidate would count.

There should be a some kind of test though I suppose that violates the constitution.

“Cosas veredes” is Spanish for “true things”: “cosa” is spelled the same as in Italian (which is why the Mafia is known as the “Cosa Nostra”—”our thing”), while “veredes” is an old-fashioned term that comes from the Latin “veritas,” which means “truth” (the mottos of Harvard and Yale are “Veritas” and “Lux et Veritas” (”Light and Truth”), respectively). “Cosas veredes, Sancho” is probably the most oft-quoted line spoken by Don Quixote in the Cervantes classic: I would say that it’s basic meaning is “ain’t that the sad truth,” which certainly implies a bit of “whatcha gonna do.”

As for testing voters, I have long supported a law whereby only people who have passed a civics test (asking about our government structure, etc.) may register to vote, and such test should be retaken every 10 years to remain on the voter rolls. Just as we don’t let any 16-year-old drive a car, and require that they pass a driving test, we shouldn’t let any 18-year-old vote. Please note that the civics test would be required of everyone, irrespective of race, sex or age, and thus would be perfectly consistent with the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments, and would be administered free of cost to the voter, so it would not run afoul of the 24th Amendment.