Posted on 10/13/2002 9:24:18 PM PDT by WFTR
Mary Landrieu is running in Louisiana as a "conservative Democrat." Considering that this state voted for President Bush and has a strong conservative base, her strategy makes political sense. However, it is also dishonest. She is no more a conservative than I am a male model. I've written this commentary in hopes of countering her claims somewhat. I hope that it will be of value in showing Louisiana voters that she is not one of us.
Methinks the GOP oughta detail at least two of our lawyers to shadow these 'Rat sheisters around; actually, three would be better if we wanted to be safe.
We are after all talking about lawyers, here; who, just happen to be 'Rats, also.
...an exceptionally powerful evil double-whamy.
The RATS are in disarray...eradicate the rodents !!
Fire Democrats, Hire Republicans !!
GWB Is The Man !!
Snuff Saddam, NOW !!
Death To all Tyrant's !!
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
Senator Landrieu is a Catholic. She was educated in the finest Catholic schools in New Orleans. Yet she is pro-abortion. She turned her backside to her church.
Senator Landrieu voted in lock step with her colleagues in the democratic party in the senate when she voted Bill Clinton not guilty when she knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was. She turned her backside to integrity.
She is performing a charade and trying to appear to be a "conservative democrat" now that she is seeking re-election. There is no such thing as a conservative democrat. NO ONE CAN BE A CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT AND SUBSCRIBE TO THE POSITIONS ADVOCATED BY THE DEMOCRATS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Finally, how can a person that lives in a $1.2 million mansion in Washington identify with the problems of a single mom with two or three kids trying to make ends meeet on $30,000 or less back in Louisiana. SHE CAN'T.
Thanks for asking. In Louisiana, all candidates run together on election day. The ballot may label a candidate by party, but there is no differentiation by party. Every voter sees every candidate that filed to run. If one candidate receives 50% + 1 vote, that candidate wins the election. If no candidate receives this majority, the top two candidates are in a runoff. The party affiliations of these candidates are irrelevant, and there have been many cases where they were both Democrats and some cases where they were both Republicans.
I don't know whether the system was devised so much to ensure a Democrat victory as much as it was devised because no one besides a Democrat ever won. When the state was so solidly Democrat that no Republican ever had a chance, they probably didn't want to bother with a primary when so many elections came down to two or three Democrats and one of them was capable of winning a majority on one ballot.
A kind of advantage to this system is that no one can win without eventually winning a majority of the votes. When there are few candidates, the system discourages "spoiler" candidates. A "Perot" can't come along here and drag one of two strong candidates just below his opponent. The lack of a majority for either candidate would force a runoff, and the one hurt by the spoiler would have the chance to run against the other without the spoilers in the race.
The disadvantage of the system is that kooks and crooks in a crowded field can sometimes make the runoff as long as they mobilize a faithful base. I wasn't here at the time, but people tell me that the Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke race resulted from that situation. Neither of them could have won the nomination of either party in a regular primary system. However, in this system, they could each reach the runoff with a small but motivated following.
WFTR
Bill
I had collected the links to the votes and was considering including this point in my commentary. In the end, I decided that true swing voters probably wouldn't care anymore about the impeachment trial. I was also running long on the word count and decided that a shorter commentary might have more impact. I would vote against her on this issue even if she were strong on almost every other issue.
WFTR
Bill
It will be interesting to see how things go. While the three Republican candidates are very different in style, I think they are very similar in substance. I hope that other Republicans see them this way and that we can mobilize all supporters for all three candidates in the runoff. I saw a public television news report about the race recently. In it, Landrieu or maybe someone with her campaign commented that while the Republicans had three different candidates to appeal to different parts of the electorate, the Democrats don't believe that any of the three can hold the supporters of the other two. Admittedly, this statement was mostly campaign rhetoric, but maintaining all Republican votes will be a concern for the party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.