Saturday, December 7. Mary Landrieu (D) vs. Suzanne Haik Terrell ®. Who will win? My money's on Terrell. Word is Mary has gone quite batty in the final stages of this campaign. I think Republicans are more energized than Dems.

Landrieu is toast.

Tough call. Landrieu always looks so smug when she's talking and Terrell's overdyed black hair and dark makeup makes her look like a witch. So on appearances, it's a toss up. I hope Landrieu wins and takes this as a wakeup call not to just assume she can coast along like she has been. Harry Potter is already in theaters, no more witches please.

I hope the GOPer gal takes it, but I wish Landrieu was facing someone who'd come up thru the ranks more and been installed by the WH less. Terrell's anti-choice and gratuitous anti-gay poses are too much; if this lady loses, it will be because she "doth protest too strongly." See excellent coverage in today's WSJ.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

TERELL is a rubber stamped mannequin for George Bush, with little, to no experience in politics. In all debates she's conducted so far, all she can do is resort to hitting below the belt & dodge the issues. The one thing she & george bush seems to have in common, public speaking is not thier best venue. When he visited here a few days ago, he confirmed my thoughts. He couldn't say anything substancial about How effective Terrel is. Just that, I need her.....

& we're like Duuhhh.... an you give us something to go on that makes her qualified? Give me a break.

I useualy stand in the middle, & make my decision when I vote. The adds from both sides are pathetic. Gov. Foster, along with other lead Republicans here, just reluctantly gave his support the later part of last week cuz he was backing another Republican candiadate the first time out. & said he found her adds too neggative & far too extreme.

I will vote for Mary beacause it's apparant Suzzanne needs 15 high profile Republicans to boost her once lackluster trail in the polls.

Regardless of her political affiliation, she [Terrell is not the best candidate. She was the remainder of 4 Republicnas who split the vote the 1st time out. The only way she wins is low voter turn out.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Looks like Landrieu has pulled it out. Pity....

ABC News: Landrieu wins

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Louisiana is kind of quirky politically, but I will take comfort that Landrieu won, despite the efforts of Ralph Reed, Cheney, Bushes (all of them), and Rudy Giuliani. It's nice to know that the GOP hit squad failed this time.

Yeah, regardless of what political affiliation is in power, Louisiana has always stood out & went against the climate of Washington & did their own thing. [see Bill Clinton in 2000]. I persoanly think it's great when you stand out as saying,I hear ya' , I feel your message, but I'm making up my own mind. & I'm not cracking under pressure of well financed political machines

I don't think the Landrieu win is a big surprise. She was the incumbent and nearly won the original election with three opponents for people to choose against her. It was actually a little closer than expected. The whole reason the Republicans ran three candidates in the first place is because they did not feel they could beat her straight up. So, they chose to split the vote and hope that an extra month would pay off. It almost did.

I think she moved further to the right to win because that is what worked this fall. However, the Democrats do need to move back to their roots and campaign the way they did in 1992-1998. They did very well in most of those elections and easily held the White House. As many political experts have pointed out, the Democrats (as a party) refused to campaign on real issues that people would have taken to for fear of being railed on by the White House for putting national security at risk. That broken record won't work again in two years, so the Democrats need to start getting the real issues back on the table.

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
No one would ever believe me if I told you that all along, I honestly thought Landrieu would pull it out. Anyway...

---

Ti credo, Ump! In my heart of hearts, so did I.

Interesting take on this on today's "Meet The Press" - yes, I'm one of THOSE people! - when Bill Safire noted, in specific reference to Black and Jewish voters, that it's disastrous for any one group to lose their clout because they are seen as totally reliable supporters of one party. The same logic applies, of course, to gays. Listening, HRC???

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
No one would ever believe me if I told you that all along, I honestly thought Landrieu would pull it out. Anyway...

---

I love it when right wingers come in here all a flutter with predictions AFTER THE FACT!!!!

So much for Bush's "icing on the cake"! I would suggest pretzels, they're so yummy!

I love the fact that Bush/Cheney and everyone else they could dig up when to LA to campaign and they still lost.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

I would say the Democratic party is ok, and not on life support as the Repuglicans would argue.

I don't know any GOPers who are claiming the Demos are almost dead, and the retrospectroscope has yet to be perfected, but here's an excerpt from one of today's LCR chats on this topic. The author is a gay lawyer in LA.

"Actually, I'm somewhat relieved.

Terrell won the 2nd runoff spot as the most moderate of the three Republican candidates. Then she stupidly ignored the lesson of her own win and ran so hard to the right she even opposed
contraception, let alone abortion. She deserved to lose - only Bush's popularity allowed her to make it close.

A lesson which CRA [Cal. Rep. Ass'y - our radical right group] and TVC [you guys know this one - or should!] should contemplate but will no doubt reject. They would rather take the party to its political grave and wear their "principles" as shrouds."

One thing's for sure: LCR isn't on a death trip!

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Agreed, Umpster, on both counts. That's exactly how Dick Riordan lost the primary, and thus, the Republicans the CA governorship.

[Memo to personal file: this is starting to sound like LCR Chat. Exercise greater self-control. "Sink the Bismarck" and go to bed!]

Here's how Landrieu won:

Principles Schminciples

"She [Landrieu] is in Washington, the day before her campaign swing, collapsed in the conference room of an office near the Capitol. A few hours earlier, she voted in favor of the homeland security measure, but says she might not have voted that way if her runoff hadn't been looming."

Here's another thing that probably sank Terrell: As I understand it, Saturday (Election Day in the LA runoff) was the first day of hunting season. Thus lots of Second Amendment voters probably didn't show up at the polls.

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

For those who say Terrell ran a negative campaign, get real. Mary Landrieu practically threatened the poor woman's life ("This is your last campaign!") I would have lost too if I thought there were going to be a bunch of Cajun goons coming after me at my victory party.

But whatever. A relatively non-controversial Democrat incumbent is forced into a run-off and wins by pledging her allegiance to President Bush and avoiding any and all association with the Party's national figures - Clinton, Clinton, Gore. Not a huge victory for the party.

Ooops

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
For those who say Terrell ran a negative campaign, get real. Mary Landrieu practically threatened the poor woman's life ("This is your last campaign!") I would have lost too if I thought there were going to be a bunch of Cajun goons coming after me at my victory party.

But whatever. A relatively non-controversial Democrat incumbent is forced into a run-off and wins by pledging her allegiance to President Bush and avoiding any and all association with the Party's national figures - Clinton, Clinton, Gore. Not a huge victory for the party.

---

William, I dont know what you do in real life but I hope it involves lots of SPINNNNNNN because you are good at it.

I generally would have agreed with you that this was not a "huge victory" for the party but team Rove/Shrub threw everything they had at this race and came up short. Also, the fact that a Democrat beat a republican in a very conservative republican district is not to be overlooked.

So much for the Democrats being on "life support" and "cant win in the South."

On one level, this is a loss for the GOP. On another, an incumbent Democratic Senator, from a family with a long history in Louisiana politics, from a state that had not elected a Republican Senator since Reconstruction, had to make a mad dash to the right to align herself with the White House on issues of national security, Iraq and tax cuts. Based on that, I'd hesitate to call this an outright win for the Democratics, either.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


William, I dont know what you do in real life but I hope it involves lots of SPINNNNNNN because you are good at it.

I generally would have agreed with you that this was not a "huge victory" for the party but team Rove/Shrub threw everything they had at this race and came up short. Also, the fact that a Democrat beat a republican in a very conservative republican district is not to be overlooked.

So much for the Democrats being on "life support" and "cant win in the South."

---

This is your last post, Raze.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:



This is your last post, Raze.

---

"Is that a threat?? He threatened me!!"
Waaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaa

[quote]Originally posted by Munson Man:
On one level, this is a loss for the GOP. On another, an incumbent Democratic Senator, from a family with a long history in Louisiana politics, from a state that had not elected a Republican Senator since Reconstruction, had to make a mad dash to the right to align herself with the White House on issues of national security, Iraq and tax cuts. Based on that, I'd hesitate to call this an outright win for the Democratics, either.

---

Correction: on TWO levels this is a loss for the GOP. Nice try on the spin but Rove/Shrub pulled out the stops on this one and still lost.

You forget to spin how a Democrat beat a favored republican in a heavly republican conservative district.

It would have almost been mean to win these two races. The Dems would have looked like complete adn total losers. Now they just look like complete losers. This is sort of like letting the least popular people be the prom king and queen in high school so they will experience some fleeting (albeit contrived) moment of popularity before sinking back into their pit of depression and isolation from mainstream society. The Democrats' Louisiana victories are compassionate conservatism at work.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
It would have almost been mean to win these two races. The Dems would have looked like complete adn total losers. Now they just look like complete losers. This is sort of like letting the least popular people be the prom king and queen in high school so they will experience some fleeting (albeit contrived) moment of popularity before sinking back into their pit of depression and isolation from mainstream society. The Democrats' Louisiana victories are compassionate conservatism at work.

---

FINALLY I know what compassionate conservatism is!!



[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

This contest was really Landrieu's from the start. Fielding several candidates back in November, the GOP was able to deny her the majority and forestall the inevitable. In the end they were left with a fairly weak candidate in Terrell. Trooping the whole national GOP celebrity parade through Louisiana during the last few weeks seemed to play right into Landrieu's hands. Spread those appearances out over a several-months-long campaign and it can be effective. Marching everyone through the state over the course of a few weeks and it just looks overbearing. [Frankly, I'm not sure how many votes Dick Cheney is capable of delivering in any event. He's great at a fund raiser playing to GOP loyalists. Did a great job when he came up here last summer. Outside the auditorium, however, he's just too "corporate executive" to appeal to large numbers of swing voters.] Landrieu was able to capitalize on the "Louisiana First" theme - little Mary standing up to the Washington goliaths.

Looking back, with the national election a month behind us it's interesting to re-examine the election results. I have never in my lifetime known the impact of an election outcome to measure up to the tidal wave of post-election politician/media-promoted hyperbole. This despite living through several so-called electoral "revolutions." Our system just doesn't promote dramatic change. In fact, it's built to prevent it. On November 6th the GOP had "triumphed" and the Dem's were "dead." In reality, these tables could easily turn in two years. GOP margins are rather soft. This is borne out by the numerical divisions in Congress and Bush's narrow (dare I say it) election victory. Granted, the heyday of traditional "liberalism" is well over, but it's taken the GOP fifty years to pull the center of American politics to the right and recover from the legacy of FDR (the last of our Presidents to receive a true electoral mandate for radical change -IMO).

Looking forward, I worry that Bush will yet end up living out the curse of his father. I know all the professional tell-you-what-to-think folks keep saying he's aware of the curse and determined not to repeat it. The economy gets worse and worse. This Iraq thing isn't playing well and he keeps harping on it to the point of sounding shrill. 9/11 is more and more distant and I don't know whether a refresher-disaster would re-elevate the hero or make people wonder if he can really protect us. It's the economy, stupid! Always has been, always will be - Iraq and 9/11 notwithstanding.

What really sank Terrel was when Mary turned a switch hit on them as many pundnants noted. She advertised working along side of bush, then in the last week, attacked Terrell with adds showing how bush was secretly conducting deals with Mexican farmers for sugar which would slight Louisiana sugar farmres greatly. She received praise from both sides for having the balls to attack bush @ the height of his surge in gov. It was obvious from interviews & adds, Terrell said it in so many words, she was a Yes Girl for bush. Which is mainly why she didn't get my vote. Mary could be the biggest crook in DC, but she @least can hold her own, instead of Terrel's constant,Whatever the President wants I'm for........ Give me a break, Where are your balls [ovaries]....

[quote]Originally posted by SELECTIVE_SOLDIER4U:
Give me a break, Where are your balls [ovaries]....

---

OOOOUUUUCH!!!!

[quote]Originally posted by SELECTIVE_SOLDIER4U:
Give me a break, Where are your balls [ovaries]....

---

I don't think those are exactly the same thing. I've never heard anybody say, "Wow, that really took ovaries" or "That was a really ovaries-ey thing to do." I mean, give me a break!

You know there's somethin' fishy goin' on when a bunch of gay guys are arguing over ovaries.

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

[quote]Originally posted by SELECTIVE_SOLDIER4U:
What really sank Terrel was when Mary turned a switch hit on them as many pundnants noted. She advertised working along side of bush, then in the last week, attacked Terrell with adds showing how bush was secretly conducting deals with Mexican farmers for sugar which would slight Louisiana sugar farmres greatly. She received praise from both sides for having the balls to attack bush @ the height of his surge in gov. It was obvious from interviews & adds, Terrell said it in so many words, she was a Yes Girl for bush. Which is mainly why she didn't get my vote. Mary could be the biggest crook in DC, but she @least can hold her own, instead of Terrel's constant,Whatever the President wants I'm for........ Give me a break, Where are your balls [ovaries]....

---

You've got it right, Selective Soldier. Landrieu has always been a moderate-conservative Democrat. She tried that I'm a carbon-copy-of-the-Republicans, and many Black voters stayed away from the polls. Cleo Fields even urged Blacks not to vote for her, while the Republicans, as Paul Krugman points out today, tried various ways to suppress the Black vote.

Yet when she found herself in the runoff against a mediocre shill for W., she got some religion, met with union officials and workers, took pro-Louisiana positions that would benefit many working-class white voters, tacked closer to Louisiana's senior Senator, John Breaux, and reached out to Black voters. Voilà: SHE WON! (According to some stats I've seen, she did well with Catholic voters, as well as in upstate and downstate Louisiana, though the New Orleans suburbs were a wash for her).

Louisiana is a very interesting Southern state, as more than one person has noted. Democrats have shown over the last five years more than once that they can win statewide in ANY of the southern states, with the sole exception of Texas, yet the formula is not the same for all of them, which is what the Democratic Party needs to keep in mind. It's too bad the party can't find someone magnetic to oust Lott, who is even to the right of his fellow, barely-ever-mentioned but always-easily-elected conservative Mississippian, Thad Cochran.

One thing I'm really glad about is that Washington Senator Patty Murray, a very nice woman but somewhat weak in terms of articulating public positions, will no longer be in charge of helping Democrats to get elected to the Senate. New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine, who is extremely progressive and extremely rich (and a great person, by the way), will be assuming this job. He's more combative, he's more issue-oriented, and he's politically savvy. Now Democrats should shed themselves of Terry McAuliffe and they'll be on their way.

Kerry-Edwards in 2004!!!

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
while the Republicans, as Paul Krugman points out today, tried various ways to suppress the Black vote.

---

Perhaps the "Krugman" label supposed to automatically guarantee accuracy, but do you have any actual examples of this? Just asking . . .

William1865 Cajun Goons ????

Ya know, like mafia goons or he meant only those cajuns that are involved in goonery..... maybe william 1865 stepped in it. He knows how to back peddle. Watch!

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: budge ]

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I've never heard anybody say, "Wow, that really took ovaries".

---

Gurleen needed to be around my old SF flag football team. Another choice line after a killer completion was "NICE SNATCH!!"

I don't care what anyone says one way or the other about ideology, Senator Mary is just so much cuter. (sigh)

And GMG, that logic would have gotten you my vote in the recent election. Even though I'm a lifelong Dem, you're way cuter than you-know-who.

This moment of deep, philosophical political analysis has been brought to you by,

GatorJamie
Resident Lezbo

[quote]Originally posted by SELECTIVE_SOLDIER4U:
William1865 Cajun Goons ????

---

Yeah, you know, like, goons that are Cajun?

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Perhaps the "Krugman" label supposed to automatically guarantee accuracy, but do you have any actual examples of this? Just asking . . .

---

Sure, try these two for starters, in addition to Krugman's examples:

Lean Left, quoted from The New Republic
UTU Page

A lot more sophisticated than the days when the likes of William Rehnquist harassed Black voters as they went to the polls (1958-1962). And if you don't believe me and need proof, start here.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

So quoting a Democrat elected official is racist? Trying to prevent voter fraud is racist? I guess blacks are too stoo-ped or unethical to be trusted to vote properly and legally. Moreover, in the first article I see one reference to Louisiana - a citation of the 1986 elections. You know, I heard that used to in Louisiana blacks couldn't vote at all - which makes Republicans today racist! See how it works? Neither do I . . .

[quote]Originally posted by GatorJamie:
And GMG, that logic would have gotten you my vote in the recent election. Even though I'm a lifelong Dem, you're way cuter than you-know-who.

---

Thanks, GJ! That's because I haven't had all those facelifts. At state wages, I can't afford 'em! Next time you're out here (BALIF Dinner???) gimme a call and we'll talk tuba!

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
Next time you're out here gimme a call and ...

---

... we'll meet at Martuni's and create a new, NEVER BEFORE SEEN performance art that will reveal to ALL OF THE WORLD the passionate, tender love that is Raze and William...

GatorJ

I may be able to swing a visit near Pride.

GJ, Deal, as long as I get to be Raze!

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
GJ, Deal, as long as I get to be Raze!

---

Good choice!

Raze, I always go with the underdog!

This whole SFO as Raze in love with Wm1865 (aka me) scenario has a sort of "Being John Malkovich" ring to it.

C'mon, Wm., give me a more traditional reference, not something trendy trotted out of Hollywood. A well-chosen Greek myth might even suffice! I rarely go to the movies being made today - and haven't seen this one - so I'm at a current cultural loss.

With gmg as Raze, that makes me William, but instead of "John Malkovich," I'm thinking something more along the lines of the Carol Burnett-Harvey Korman send-up of "Gone With the Wind."

Gawd, this could get weirder than I first imagined!