Posted on 11/10/2002 12:45:54 AM PST by elenchus
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:58:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I can't go along with this entirely, because there was many a time I voted for a Republican candidate when Republicans were the minority in Congress. But I did so on the basis of principle. I don't think that applies in this case. Landrieu has been a political chameleon. Consequently, a vote for her is (a) unprincipled, (b) contrary to the political philosophy held by the majority of Louisianians, and (c) not bloody likely to get many favors from the Bush White House on behalf of Louisiana.
So if you want to be amoral, irrational, and downright stupid, vote Landrieu.
Governor Foster endorsed Cooksey and both of them have behaved like children since the election. Foster said Thursday on his call-in radio show that he didn't like it when the RNSC did not consult with him before selecting a candidate and he didn't think they should have given all the money to one candidate. He said he thought they should have "spread" it around. (Ahem) He said he didn't like the negative ads they ran against Landrieu.... They ran ads about Landrieu's record and they compared her voting record with Hillarys (hee hee). The calls to him that hour were blistering, roughly 90% disagreed and chastised him severly. Governor Foster was a democrat until he decided to run for governor 8 years ago.
If either of these two cry babies cared about doing what is best for the state and the country they would be doing everything they could to defeat Landrieu. Why in God's name would they want to return a tax and spend democrat to Washington and to a Republican majority senate ?
Direct contributions to a campaign are "hard money" and not "soft money." You can always make a direct contribution to a candidate, and until campaign finance reform is overturned, we need to focus on finding good conservatives who need support and contributing directly to their campaigns.
WFTR
Bill
I really don't believe that Mrs. Terrell represented the moderates in this race. She was touted as representing moderates because she is a woman and is from New Orleans, but her positions on the issues were no less conservative than those of Dr. Cooksey and not really any less conservative than those of Mr. Perkins. For instance, Dr. Cooksey was a big proponent of federal spending on health care. While I realize that we have to support some of this stuff to bribe seniors, it grates on me to see Republicans become such fervent cheerleaders for it. While Mrs. Terrell followed the party line on the issue, she didn't emphasize it the way that Dr. Cooksey did. On her NPAT survey at Project Vote-Smart, she endorsed a "no exceptions" abortion ban. Dr. Cooksey didn't answer the questions this year, and his last survey showed him to favor a ban with exceptions. I actually prefer the exceptions, but the survey suggests that Dr. Cooksey was the most moderate candidate on this issue.
WFTR
Bill
Something I said about a week ago and will repeat again is that too many Republicans have staked their entire support of Mrs. Terrell on claiming that she is most likely to win. The average swing voter doesn't care whether someone is the Republican "most likely to win." Telling the average swing voter or even conservative grass roots voter that Mrs. Terrell is "most likely to win" only makes us sound like the kind of idiots who are too enthralled with the horse race aspects of politics and don't care about what a particular candidate will do in office. Stirring this pot again and again will only remind the Perkins and Cooksey supporters of their resentment against the outsiders who chose to give the Terrell campaign a massive infusion of cash.
Mrs. Terrell is running a solidly conservative campaign. She has a good record in public office and is a likeable person. The best answers to anyone's negativity about her candidacy is to stick to the many good things that she has to offer.
WFTR
Bill
Mrs Terrell's qualifications seem to be well known on this forum, so I'd be preaching to the choir to repeat them I was appalled at the Governor's remarks on the radio and what I belived to be a feeble defense of his position. Furthermore, I was extremely disappointed in Dr Cooksey when he seemed to feel it necessary to pile on. It was not conduct I like to see from my elected officials. I voted for Governor Foster twice but I sure lost a lot of respect for him this week.
Individuals can contribute up to $2000 per candidate per election now. What individual FReepers send is HARD money.
With all due respect, I'll give the points that made me come to my conclusions and see where that leads us.
Foster said Thursday on his call-in radio show that he didn't like it when the RNSC did not consult with him before selecting a candidate and he didn't think they should have given all the money to one candidate. He said he thought they should have "spread" it around. (Ahem)
I inferred from your "(Ahem)" that you were suggesting that Governor Foster was hoping to profit personally from the NRSC contributions. I think it's clear from his comments that he believed that the NRSC shouldn't have been playing favorites among Republicans. Personally, I don't think he should have been playing favorites by endorsing any of the candidates, but I wouldn't suggest that he hoped to make a personal profit. Whether you intended it as "name calling" or just criticizing his behavior, I think the way you posted that comment left the impression that you believed Governor Foster hoped for personal gain. If I misunderstood your comment, I apologize. If I understood it correctly, then I'd like you to explain how suggesting that he was wanting personal gain isn't insulting.
He has no business in public life, he has neither the temperament nor the ability. This little, post election, hissy fit is but one more example of how very petulant and unsuitable he is.
Maybe you think that by some hair-splitting you can make a statement like this about someone and not call it "name calling." Technically, you haven't called Dr. Cooksey a "name," but your comments are certainly insulting. They are insulting to the candidate, and I think they would be insulting to anyone who worked hard to support that candidate. "Unsuitable" and lacking "the temperament" and "the ability" are hardly what I would compliments to someone who has been in public service.
If the truth be known, apart from simply being a loser, that is no doubt at the heart of his pout.
Calling someone a "loser" is not "name calling?"
If either of these two cry babies cared about doing what is best for the state and the country they would be doing everything they could to defeat Landrieu.
Calling people "cry babies" is not "name calling?"
You said that you don't believe that you engaged in name calling. Do you still think that you didn't engage in name calling?
The point of my original post was that criticizing these two men is not likely to win you any points with their supporters. Criticizing them with terms like "loser" and "crybaby" is certainly not going to win their support. Their people worked very hard, and I can understand their frustration with the feeling that those outside the state chose the Republican to represent us in the runoff. While I understand their feelings, I disagree with their hesitation in supporting the only conservative remaining in the race. However, I hope I can express that disagreement without suggesting that either of these men is basically unsuitable for public life.
The race against Dr. Cooksey (and by proxy, Governor Foster) is over. I believe that the best way to handle their comments and retain their supporters is not to answer what they say and certainly not to answer it by suggesting that either is a "loser." If you still believe that saying these things about these men will win their supporters to your side and gain more enthusiastic support for our candidate, then by all means you should continue. I'll be the first to admit that my advice isn't always right.
Suzanne Haik Terrell for U.S. Senate Campaign
P.O. Box 44267
Baton Rouge, LA 70806
Volunteers can contact campaign headquarters in Baton Rouge at
6554 Florida Blvd., Rm 242
(225)218-8683
Our check is in the mail. Louisiana wins with Suzi Terrell. You go girl.
2000.... Landrieu was elected in 1996. LA has also added a picture ID requirement to vote now so that may help somewhat in reducing the proported fraud.
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.