Louisiana Election Turnout Thread- Here come the results

C-SPAN ^ | Dec. 6, 2002 | Brian Lamme

[Redleg Duke]

What you have stated is a thoughful and accurate indictment of the typical "single-issue" Republican voter. If the candidate doesn't exactly match their single issue, they abandon the party in righteous indignation.

Flame if you want, but the single issue Republican voter is the only thing keeping the Democrat Party alive. They are what Lenin referred to as "useful idiots".

[jla]

I think Mrs. Terrell is attractive & she has an equally attractive family.
And I know Johnny is a jackass.

[catfish1957]

The results just confirms of much a cesspool Orleans parish really is. Freepers....join me in boycotting New Orleans as your tourist destination ....forever!!!!!!!!

[puroresu]

Don't worry, I won't flame you!

As far as abortion is concerned, Mary Landrieu lied about her position. She also lied about the sugar deal. That's all par for the course, since she's a fraud.

If the Republicans have done anything wrong on the abortion issue, it's that they've allowed the liberals to frame the issue as one of "choice" and not abortion. Remember, the Democrats target stupid, sheeplike voters, not smart ones. They especially target people who are dominated by emotion, not logic.

That's why Norm Coleman's response in his debate with Walter Mondale was the perfect way for a pro-lifer to handle the abortion issue, as others here have mentioned. It was logical, but also touched an emotional chord with those voters who have been brainwashed into thinking "choice" is all that matters (as opposed to what the "choice" is).

[alnick]

I believe that we have to accept our losses with dignity and not whine about them. 'Rats whine about lost elections; we're better than that. In the overall scheme of things, winning this one would have been icing on the cake. We already have control of the senate and that hasn't changed.

What we need to do now is to watch Landrieu and keep track of when she breaks her promises, and use that information when she runs next time.

[Theyknow]

"African-Americans (why aren't they American Africans - are they Afrians first and foremost?) Anyway - mark this - they will always be a writeoff group for Repulicans. They have no idea what republicanism is. Chasing them is wasted effort. Look for smarter groups to expand the tent"


Your comments betray your outrageous bigotry. Why would any group vote for a party who considers them stupid? The term African-American was adopted to acknowledge heritage, in the same way that the term Italian-Americans is used. American is included for the obvious reason that they are Americans. To capture the African-American vote the first step will be to understand them, not to expect them to come to us. It is the pinnacle of arrogance to expect any group to accept Republicanism before we accept them and their unique issues.

[San Jacinto]

It is the pinnacle of arrogance to expect any group to accept Republicanism before we accept them and their unique issues.

Now that is somewhat interesting. I would think a party that stands for individual liberty, less governmental control, lower taxes, fostering free enterprise, and that sort of thing could surely stand on its principles and offer an open tent to all who share those principles.

You imply that (in order not to be arrogant) Republicans must first accept "the unique issues" of "African-Americans". I don't know what those "unique issues" are. We all live under the same government and breathe the same air, don't we? As felow citizens of America, are we not affected by the issues that traditionally embody Republicanism-- greater individual freedom and responsibility?

If you contend that Republicans must acept affirmative action programs, increased welfare, a committment to reparations, and other Jesse Jacksonisms, then why bother to have a Republican Party to begin with. Are these the "unique issues" you speak of?

If Republicans really wish to address issues which impact the Black community disproportionately, then let's argue for less government support of illegitimate births; let's crack down on crime; let's establish tough educational standards and restore discipline to the schools; let's make it clear that certain standards are expected of every American and race is no excuse for living like a slackard.

Republicans believe that every one who is able should be helping to pull the wagon. Democrats promise free rides for some while others are made to pull harder.

So, RIGHT NOW, Republicans OWN the issues which really are "unique" (to use your very imprecise descriptor) to Black Americans and the solutions which would most help, and Blacks vote 94% Democrat.

You are way off base to say Republicans are arrogant. We must stick to our principles and let the Blacks who want to be Americans join the cause. Those who continue to refer to themselves as "Africans in America" will never get on board, nor should we invite them-- they simply don't have the same destination in mind that we do.

[wardaddy]

A 2000+ reply for my little ol sister state Louisiana.....I would have never thought it.

I still like the state and the people even if most of them don't vote "right".

[Bogey78O]

Here's what Bush and the GOP can do. It'll cost Louisiana some Republican votes but there's 2 things that Landrieu and Foster have been promising the state.

1)Transportation money foior a new Interstate corridor.

2)Federal money to preserve the coastline.

Don't let us see a dime. And make it well known that LA elected the wrong senator.

[kcar]

I think the outragious bigotry is their own. As an Irish-American I sometimes where green, but mostly never remember the fact that I'm of Irish descent because after 150 years it's pretty irrelevant to me now. Negroes congeal as a political and social group, asking for reparations, welfarism entitlements, affirmative action. 150 years after slavery they chime on about racism-racism-racism. An intelligent black individual who discovers republicanism is put in the Oreo box.
I don't want to understand their unique culture because I think it's wasted effort chasing this group, that it's a writeoff for Republicans. Better to chase votes from Hispanics, Asians, others. It's a pragmatic judgment. If a group continously acts like they're in the pocket of the other party, accept the fact and ignore them. Cut the entitlements, the affirmative action, and the 3rd generation welfarism.

[Bogey78O]

Make that Appropriations.

[truth defector]

According to Lieberman on the leftie talk shows this morning they (the dims) won because they had the "right package." ie the voters put their ballots in the ballot box and "the package," or the stuffed ballot box is the one that actually gets counted. Now we know.

[unspun]

Socar, yes, women and girls may become pregnant within very difficult circumstances. Something I didn't find in this posting is to make sure, especially in the DNA age, that the males who sire children and would walk away, have their paychecks garnished if necessary, to support the child (and the mother).

To make abortion rare maybe we should donate funds to support preganant poor woman and give them the means to keep and raise their babies instead of standing around abortion clinics protesting with posters of aborted fetuses.

This is a commonly used polemic fallacy that pro-choicers raise. If you look into the checkbooks of those with pictures of the ultimate victims here (images which as in Nazi Germany would otherwise be swept into a huge pile under the rug) you would find many checks written to Pregnancy Care Centers (also called Crisis Pregnancy Centers). These provide help to women both before and after labor. These are run by people hated within the ranks of Planned Parenhood as surely as the infants are despised.

Maybe we should realize that not everyone in this country shares our religious beliefs, but that does not mean they are not good decent people.

The facts of abortion are scientifically true. Life is life; human is human; therefore human life is human life. However I agree that America is founded upon principles that come from Christianity and therefore tell us that human life (as well as a human's free will) is to be valued, not like nations which disregard the value of our lives, being "free" from morality and morality's God.

Maybe we should set our sites on providing stable homes for the thousands of hard to place difficult needs children in care of the states.

Our sites are there already (not that more couldn't become involved). The problem however, is one of supply and demand. There aren't enough babies to adopt. They've been killed. (For the very difficult, special needs children, yes, the government can help for families - and charitable institutions including those of faith - to care for them. There are some "parents" who abuse this system, however (see foster children programs) for the government paycheck, so it gets complicated. I don't think that killing babies helps us to care for babies, though.

Perhaps we should not look at this issue in stark terms of black and white, right and wrong.

How does it help, not to see right for what it is, and wrong for what it is? Simiar sentiments were raised during our centuries of slavery.

Maybe we should try to support preganat women more and help them keep and support their children.

Yes. How about donating through www.carenet.org?

Perhaps we can join forces with groups like Planned Parenthood when it comes to issues such as preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Perhaps we can do what is shown to work, instead - abstinence education, not telling children in public schools that they are simply highly developed animals, not lying to them by saying that sex outside of marriage is the norm and even unavoidable. BTW, do you know the facts of how so many STD's (including HIV) are transmitted even when condoms are used - even when they remain intact?

Maybe we can be more helpful and understanding when it comes to the trauma in the life of a young girl alone and pregnant.

Just like that Sinatra song "love and marriage...." when it comes to being compassionate to pregnange girls and compassionate to their babies, "you can't have one, without the other."

Maybe someone who believes all abortion is murder can explain the rape and incest clause almost all pro-life politicians include. If you believe that abortion at any stage is murder of an innocent life then why is there an exception in these cases?

The quick explanation is - ideas of political expediency, also that as Raoul Wallenberg, the Ten Booms, Schindler, Hugenots, etc. believed in WWII, saving as many as possible, is better than not saving whom you can.

I feel that the more compassion and help we provide for women with unwanted pregnancies, the less abortions we will have. Compassion, help, and understanding can make abortions rare, not strident preaching or laws that are no where near having the support they need to pass.

There are so many women whose lives are deeply, deeply disrupted by "first trimester" abortions, though they tend to be in denial. Compassion for them calls us to tell them what they mustn't do. If you have a mountain highway with a hairpin turn, does compassion dictate you to simply go hold the hands of those who drive off the cliff as they suffer and die, or does compassion compel you to "impose" speed limits, put up the sign and a guard rail, and visit the place with a radar gun?

We need enough compassion to caringly tell the truth and commit ourselves to real prevention and care.

For instance, it is the truth that when a man and a woman engage in sex, it is then that they give up their bodies.

[unspun]

America evenutally decided that preventing human lives from being regarded as chattel was worth a Constitutional Amendment (after about 600,000 lives, plus the lives and deaths of all the slaves, were spent on the matter).

America should also decide that preventing human lives from being prematurely ended is worth a Constitutional Amendment (after XX-million lives are spent on the matter).

Of course, the national document even more critical and foundational to our nation than the Constitution, declares our right to life, but that is being ignored.

The Constitution was developed by Us, the People. The People of the United States of America are the final earthly authority on the matter of our governance. The Constitution is our tool for arranging this; so it was designed and authored by Us.

Our principles of popular sovereignty might even require us some day to change the whole thing around, though that would be a shame. (But that's what Amendment II alludes to.) Amendment X is to be interpreted within the structure and perspective of all of the above.

[unspun]

Our principles of popular sovereignty might even require us some day to change the whole thing around, though that would be a shame. (But that's what Amendment II alludes to.) Amendment X is to be interpreted within the structure and perspective of all of the above.

The Declaration explicates this principle at length, too, BTW.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Saint Bernard Parish chose Terrell. That is very good news to me personally.

[calebcar]

America should also decide that preventing human lives from being prematurely ended is worth a Constitutional Amendment (after XX-million lives are spent on the matter).

America has not decided that. America remains deeply divided partly because the nature of the problem serves no middle ground-it's a life or not-but also because the question was taken out of the people's hands. A constitutional amendment banning abortion is implausible, which makes the question a election gimmick, but if it happen it would bybass the role of the 13 states that didn't vote for it and disenfranchise anyone who wanted to change it in the future.

legally Prohibitting behavior is hard enough. If it were to occur in a way that bypassed the will of the people it would create disaster.

[unspun]

Clearly those thirteen states would still have their say, in this. And clearly, if such an amendment were passed, it would be the act of the People.

Agree with how the other side uses this.

As SoCar said, BTW, always ask a Democrat candidate their position on slavery reparations.

[unspun]

...well ask about slavery reparations, unless the Democrat is one of the few remaining social conservatives.

(And before one would they exist, see the Glenn Poshard vs. George Ryan campaign, Governor, Illinois, 1998. Unfortunately, the Republican won.)

[plain talk]

My comment wasn't directed at how well she did. She did great by looking at the numbers. I just think as a candidate she was hardly Senate material. Republicans can do far better than Terrell.