The party has fared poorly in the past few years; since 2003, it has lost 25 of 33 statewide and Congressional contests plus its majority in the state House of Representatives despite continuing to have a plurality of state registrants to vote. It now only holds one of two Senate seats, one of seven House of Representative seats, and two of seven statewide offices.
Of course, the reason why is that the party’s issue preferences are out of touch with the majority of Louisianans and the liberal ideology it espouses is seen through as lacking and invalid by that majority. So what is the party’s response?
Well, to tackle the hardest-hitting issue to come along in the state since former Gov. Huey Long decided to share the wealth – call on Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal to sue a sports league for an overbroad use of a trademark. This comes on top of another barnburner – criticizing Republican Sen. David Vitter for not being critical enough of and accusing him of tacitly supporting half-cocked conservatives who wanted to prove to the world that Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu’s phones were in good working order.
While Louisianans are concerned about Democrat policy featuring runaway deficits, the threats of a ruinous government takeover of health care provision, and an unnecessary economy-killing environmental regime based upon falsified science, and foreign and national security policy that views the world as it wants it to be, not as it is, all the state Democrats can offer is aspersions on Vitter (who is making threats against the National Football League’s overzealous trademark protection). When Louisianans are searching for national solutions to negative job creation, slow economic growth, and the threat of higher taxes and inflation, and for state solutions to inefficient bureaucracy, misplaced fiscal priorities, and burgeoning state costs, all state Democrats can suggest is that Jindal launch a questionable and quixotic legal action?
By definition the state party’s liberalism disarms it intellectually, but veering off in these directions demonstrates it has given up completely trying to compete with Republicans on the basis of policy. Thereby becomes more pertinent as time goes on the question of just how little of a force
4 comments:
Did you learn writing from a correspondence school? If so, you might wish to go back for another round. Ask them to teach you about coherence.
You're criticizing the Democrats for pushing the "Whodat" issue, but giving Vitter a pass on sending a mass email to his constituents on the subject?
Can you tell us again how Vitter is leading the charge on important issues? To an objective observer, Vitter appears to be "lying low" (pun intended) and not leading anything.
No, Vitter was just upset when he thought they were claiming his "Ho Dat" cheer.
The first commenter should do himself - and the rest of us - a favor by leaving the voicing of opinions to those of us with IQ's above 80.
What Vitter did to protest the NFL's Who-Dat overreach was to engage in private activity; he issued a press release and e-mailed his supporters, sure, but printing and selling t-shirts and daring the league to sue him affects no one and costs the public nothing. The Democrats, on the other hand, are suggesting using scarce public resources in pursuing legal action against the NFL.
That they've chosen to do this is typical, as unserious and unintelligent Democrats insist on passing a law to criminalize or otherwise prosecute anything in life they disagree with.
As to the criticism of Vitter for not engaging in issues of substance, the commenter is grossly uninformed. It was Vitter's intransigence on "blue slips" for local Democrat judicial appointees which secured a full appointment of Jim Letten as New Orleans' U.S. Attorney, and Vitter is also fighting Obama on the energy issue by calling his bluff and reintroducing the No-Cost Stimulus Bill last week.
It helps to have some facts and perspective at one's disposal before opining publicly. One hopes the commenter will keep this in mind the next time he puts his ignorance on display.
Or, he could follow your lead, MacAoidh, and put his partisan excuse making on display as psuedo-intelligent commentary. Are you sure you aren't the good Professor using an alter-ego to provide support for his own biased rants disguised as balanced analysis?
Post a Comment