Search This Blog


Dilettantes Fayard, Sangisetty try to fool LA voters

As Democrat candidate for lieutenant governor Caroline Fayard has tried so hard to craft an image of being an ordinary Jane concerned enough to take on the political establishment, revelations about her spotty voting history has become perhaps the biggest chink of the several in that armor, joining Third Congressional District Democrat candidate Ravi Sangisetty damaged for the same reason.

Days ago it was revealed that Sangisetty had never voted in his life for federal office. This weekend, the presumed “establishment” candidate opposing Fayard, Republican Sec. of State Jay Dardenne, asked her in a debate why she had missed votes at least half the time (Dardenne, as one might imagine having been state senator and in his present position, appears to have voted in every election for over a decade.)

Even though Sangisetty never has voted in a federal election, he gave the maximum $4,600 to U.S. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign in 2008 – which makes very questionable his credibility of his excuse why he didn’t vote, that his voice “didn’t matter.” So he doesn’t think voting matters, but giving money does? What does this tell us about him relative a job he wants where the most consequential thing you do is vote – and one where the receiving of money sometimes corrupts?

Fayard’s excuse is that it doesn’t matter and that she claims getting to the polls half of the time is better than the typical citizen’s record. But striking deeply at her credibility is how is it three years ago she didn’t even care enough to vote for the office she claims now she so passionately wants to perform, lieutenant governor? And, like Sangisetty, she seems to place more emphasis in giving money – tens of thousands of dollars to mostly liberal Democrat candidates over the years – than in voting, all the while thinking a lackadaisical approach to voting with the lack of interest that shows in the community is adequate for an elected leader.

It simply isn’t. In this year where past elected office is suspect, the kind of candidate that best contrasts in the minds of voters upset at the direction our political leaders in Washington is a newcomer to politics but who has been politically aware and active and increasingly disgusted at the wrong path the country has taken, to the point that they step up as candidates.

This portrait describes neither Fayard nor Sangisetty. No one who votes occasionally to never while throwing big money at candidates whose issue preferences seem at odds with what they say they believe as candidates seriously can claim they are frustrated members of the community with a long-time commitment to working for solutions. Instead, they come off as insiders and immature opportunists that, because of their wealth and fellow insider national Democrats’ encouragement, thought it might be fun to run for offices about which they cared little by trying to ride the “outsider” tide.

Voters want a demonstrated commitment to service on their behalf from people whose idea of political activism is not cozying up to the politicians and their allies who have created the problems they claim to want to solve. By contrast, both Fayard and Sangisetty fit the profile of dilettantes who think popular discontent is a tool by which to fool people into voting for them, not as a genuine resource to fix longstanding problems.


Pete Acosta said...

Wow I wasn't aware they had a spotty voting record and were simply trying to manipulate people into thinking they are average joes. Sounds like you had a great interview with them and did your homework by looking through their past to see who they donated to.
But I know you haven't interviewed them nor really did any work into prepping this article. You're regurgitating articles and hit pieces published by the other camp. Stop editorializing an issue so you sound like you know these people, and only write something critiquing their person after you meet them. Sad your a professor at LSU in political science when you argument is as shallow as this. Also disappointing that you're attacking those who actually want to talk about helping the LSU system and other schools facing massive budget cuts. If you have a problem with their voting record, that's an issue but DO NOT try to make it sound like they go home at night and twist their mustache thinking of new ways to manipulate the poor state of things.

Anonymous said...

It's called google. It takes less than ten seconds.
"Fayard did not dispute Dardenne's data..."

Now who didn't do their "homework", and who's just editorializing?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 1:03, it's called reading comprehension, you should try it some time.

If you had read and understood the first post you would see the issue raised was not the validity of the voting record, but rather the good Professors's apparent belief that he can read minds and assertain motivations. It's a regular theme on this blog, he can tell that actions by Democrats are driven by ignorance or malice, but actions by Republicans are driven by the purest and highest of intelligence and motivation. It's an amazing gift, how else could he continually blame Charlie Melancon for pointing out that David Vitters is hypocritical and untrustworthy and we don't need moral defectives in office.