Obama is Kicking Louisiana’s A$$

President Obama announced on national television recently that he was looking for an ass to kick. Well, it seems he found one, the State of Louisiana.

During his address this week to the nation from the Oval Office, the President made clear that he will not offer real help to the struggling people of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast. In his speech, he presented no specific action plans and instead relied on lame platitudes. In contrast, he made clear his support for a destructive national energy tax and a horrible cap-and-trade energy bill, which will devastate Louisiana’s economy. Obama is using the tragedy of the oil spill to further his political agenda, all at the expense of Louisiana jobs.

To make matters worse, the President has issued a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling in deep water, which will cost Louisiana 154,000 good paying jobs, according to Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.). Incredibly, the President told Lafourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph that his plan for those losing their jobs is to “put them on unemployment.” This is not a strategy for recovery; it is a prescription for the destruction of Louisiana.

In implementing the moratorium, the President ignored the recommendations of his own science experts. Instead, he heeded the demands of radical environmentalists, who have succeeded in forcing oil companies to drill in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Shallow water and onshore prospects have become very expensive to pursue because of oppressive environmental regulations. The President’s ban will force more oil companies to abandon the state and send their rigs and the jobs to friendlier countries.

Not surprisingly, Louisiana residents view Obama’s response to the oil spill more negatively than President Bush’s actions after Hurricane Katrina. In a new survey from Public Policy Polling, only 32% of Louisianans approve of how Obama has handled the oil spill, while 62% express disapproval. Bush’s Katrina response merited the approval of 34% and the disapproval of 58% of those surveyed.

Louisiana residents see a President dithering on the Gulf crisis, while focusing on sporting events, vacations, golfing, and parties at the White House. They see a President who met with Paul McCartney, Bono and the U.S. soccer team before meeting with the corporate leaders of BP.

Instead of showing leadership and waiving the Jones Act, which prohibits the use of foreign ships in the oil spill clean-up, the President has refused to act. During Katrina, President Bush waived this act, but Obama has not followed his example. Thus, legitimate offers of help from at least 15 countries, such as European dredging companies, have been ignored because the President has not waived this act. The losers are the people of Louisiana and the other Gulf Coast states that are seeing oil spoil their beaches and destroy their wildlife.

In his speech, the President did not offer any solutions to the bureaucratic nightmare that is preventing local and state leaders from effectively battling this threat. Last week, Louisiana officials testified on Capitol Hill about the many roadblocks preventing progress in responding to the oil spill crisis. They mentioned red tape and bureaucracy and the lack of quick decision making. Decisions are not made, requests are stalled and local leaders are becoming more frustrated each day.

All of the problems are hindering progress and contributing to the disaster that is destroying our vulnerable wetlands. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser told a congressional committee that “I still don’t know who is in charge.” Is it BP or the federal government? Is it BP CEO Tony Hayward or incident commander Admiral Thad Allen? Ultimately, the person in charge is President Barack Obama, who could remove BP and assume control over this whole operation if he wanted. For some reason, Obama has been reluctant to deal with this crisis in a decisive manner. In the meantime, there is no clear chain of command in dealing with this emergency. The result is that the crisis is worsening, the marshes are dying and the people along coastal Louisiana are growing desperate.

Incredibly, local leaders who have tried to take action without approval have been threatened with arrest. Gov. Bobby Jindal has had enough and has authorized the Louisiana National Guard to construct sand barrier islands to protect the coastline from additional oil-related damage. Others leaders need to follow his example, to hell with the threats.

It is clear that in this crisis, just like Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana cannot depend on the federal government or any multi-national corporation to rescue us. We must rescue ourselves and act as independently as possible. Depending on the Obama Administration is a recipe for disaster. Nungesser said it takes five days for questions to be answered by Adm. Allen. He called the process “much too slow,” but that is typical of the federal government which never acts quickly and is much too unwieldy and bureaucratic.

While the clean-up process is stalled, the crisis is escalating. The latest estimate shows that 60,000 barrels of oil is polluting the Gulf of Mexico every day. This is 60 times the initial estimate, so it is understandable if Gulf Coast residents are leery to accept the promises of President Obama and other federal officials.

It is inexcusable for the federal government to create more problems for local and state leaders who are already under siege. Instead of creating road blocks, the Obama Administration should give local and state officials the authority to fight this menace.

And, any ass kicking should be directed toward the people who deserve it, BP and incompetent federal bureaucrats, not the struggling people of Louisiana.

That “directing” language has to do with how the electors are appointed, not how they’d vote. Of the electors chosen, those who get to cast their votes are those committed to whichever candidate received the most popular votes in the state for the slate of electors.

If you read your 2008 ballot, you voted for an elector for McCain/Obama/Whomever. None of us actually votes for the individual running for POTUS.

Typically, the electors are the elected Members of Congress, with party officials and activists of the prevailing party voting in lieu of the Congressmen/Senator(s) from the losing party.

For instance, VA has 2 Dem Senators and 11 Representatives, of whom 6 are D, 5 are R. Let’s say that balance remained in ‘12 (not likely). Each party in the state would designate 13 electors, including the elected officials, before the election. They are basically a slate.

If in ‘12 the Republican wins VA .. the 5 GOP Representatives would be voting electors. The VA GOP, as directed by the legislature, would have designated the 8 remaining electors. All of them would have been committed to the GOP presidential/VP candidates, and would cast their votes accordingly in the electoral college.

Conversely, if the Dems carried VA in ‘12, the Dem party of VA would have designated its slate of electors, with 5 non-elected among them.

Typically, the electors are the elected Members of Congress, with party officials and activists of the prevailing party voting in lieu of the Congressmen/Senator(s) from the losing party.

Somehow I doubt that . . .
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The point was that the legislature does not dictate how electors vote. The state legislatures are not authorized to “direct” its electors to vote for or against any candidate.

Given the Senators/Reps do not vote themselves as electors, they would, in effect, appoint them, recommending their party’s most active local folks to vote in their stead. Only the most partisan citizens ever get to be electors for either side. It’s all very ‘inside politics.’

But, as to WHO the electors are, with rules varying from state to state:

According to the U.S. Office of the Federal Register, “Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.”

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa120300a.htm

The point was that the legislature does not dictate how electors vote. The state legislatures are not authorized to “direct” its electors to vote for or against any candidate.

. . . which generally turns out to be a distinction without a difference.
I am saying that a given state could, at the direction of its legislature, create a ballot without any electors who are pledged to Barak Obama. Or it could direct a particular Republican to name the electors - say, the governor, if s/he is a Republican, without any popular vote at all for the office of elector.
'Course any state whose legislature was ticked off enough to do that presumably would be so solidly Republican that there wouldn't be much doubt of the outcome of a popular vote, either . . .
I just kind of like the states' rights principle of the thing.

IF I understand your idea, a state legislature could essentially keep an otherwise qualified candidate* for federal office off the ballot? Or deny a qualified candidate any electors supportive of him?

(*presumably qualified - we’ll put aside the entire eligibility issue for purposes of this discussion)

If your concept is what I am inferring, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find even one state legislator of any party or stripe in any state to support it. The repercussions would be too far reaching and no doubt unconstitutional.

I doubt it’s within the purview of a state legislature to keep a qualified candidate for federal office (or his electors) off ballots within the state. I think there’s a whole other process for determining who is eligible to be on the ballot, i.e., thru the various Secretaries of State. Some third-party candidates are on some state ballots but not others. The various states’ legislatures are to determine only how electors are chosen, now who can or can’t be on the ballot.

Now, presumably a state legislature could designate the governor to appoint all electors, and he could appoint ‘faithless’ electors for the opponent, but that would be political suicide without getting into legalities.

I don’t see it as a states rights issue at all. And that’s the beauty of it: states like LA are not, and never were, likely to elect Obama.

I doubt it’s within the purview of a state legislature to keep a qualified candidate for federal office (or his electors) off ballots within the state.

Article 1 Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. (This was modified by the 17th Amendment, but that's beside the point).

Article 2 Section 1. Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
It would have been so simple to say that the people of each state would elect the electors of that state - but that's not what the Constitution says. My point is, quite simply, that you could come closer to arguing that "appoint" is opposite in meaning to "elect" - and that there should never be presidential elections in the first place.
Certainly the Bush v. Gore decision could have been quite different, and much simpler, if SCOTUS had simply noted that there was no blatant fraud shown in the actions of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris - and that she had in good faith certified the election on the timetable specified by FL law. And that the Electors had already cast their ballots, and GWB had won. That would have been a lot cleaner for SCOTUS, by way of keeping its nose out of State of Florida business. SCOTUS was openly queasy about its decision, to critique Florida's high court. It should have simply said that the matter was settled de facto when Harris certified the electors and they cast their ballots.

But in fact the word "election" does not appear in the text - and the only conclusion is that ratifiers of the Constitution understood that the states would select the electors of the president - and could do so in the same way that they could (and, before the 17th Amendment, did) select their US senators.
I quite agree that for a state legislature to do anything other than allowing the people to elect the state's presidential electors would violate tradition - and it would therefore dramatize a legislature's opposition to the actions of this president. But then, the president himself is not above breaking tradition himself.

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.