Search This Blog


Landrieu must explain vote enabling sex offenders

While this week she’s out cutting a bunch of ribbons, Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu last week was casting some very interesting votes in the Senate. Most concerned allowing discussion and voting on certain amendments to the Reconciliation Act of 2010, the contorted legal exercise to ram through the ruinous health care legislation supported by Democrats only that will increase the premiums and cost of health care while lowering its quality.

The list of her choices is illuminating, to say the least. All in all, she voted against:

Note that these actions prevented even any discussion or votes on these matters. If Landrieu doesn’t support free and democratic debate on these points, one must wonder whether she supports any of this. She had a perfect opportunity to reveal her views, yet she chose to hide along with almost every other Democrat.

So Landrieu must explain to her constituents, does she not want to help the disadvantaged to receive and pay for health care, or to protect taxpayers from waste, abuse, and fraud, or to save money in health care provision, or to prevent stealth tax hikes, or to increase access to life-saving medical procedures, or to safeguard states’ rights and the Constitution, or to have the law apply equally to all, or to prohibit federal funds going to satisfy the cravings of sex offenders and to pay for abortions? These are not hypotheticals – her own behavior leads reasonable observers to pose these legitimate questions.

Silence on these questions, raised by her own voting behavior, creates a dangerous impression that by her willingness to countenance these things therefore at the very least she must not care about them. Until she indicates otherwise, that’s a reasonable assumption.


Anonymous said...

You call yourself a professor? Instead of providing an objective and examined, Socratic point of view, you regurgitate misinformation and political talking points. You have sacrificed your academic integrity to become another talking head; repeating talking points written and prepared by a politician.

Matt said...

The very State which tried to apply the death penalty to child rapists now has a Senator who supports giving viagra to those very child rapists.

Certainly not in tune with her voters.

Lurker said...


If the Democrats were so proud of their health care bill, why'd they attack Rep. Paul Ryan when he brought it to the health care summit?

At least the Republicans have talking points regarding the bill. It's certainly better than "we have to pass it so you can know what's in it".

It's good to know you can make an argument based entirely in rhetoric instead of logic, reason, empirical data.

(It seems all the libs have the same name on comment boards)

Anonymous said...

Hey Prof, would you have been in favor of the Democratic proposal to expand that ban on Viagra to those who have admitted to associating with prostitutes?

Probably not since that would have hit at your boy Vitter who you constantly shill for in this blog.

As the first comment suggested, LSUS should seriously question if you spout this garbage in your classes. If you really believe those were serious amendments and believe it so much you decided to use it as a base for launching partisan attacks at Landrieu perhaps they might be better served to find a non-partisan instructor. You are clearly entitled to be a political hack carrying the water for a single party, just not when being paid by all the citizens of a state. That should require some objectivity.

Aline said...

Aline to Anonymous,
Why are you afraid to use your name. I guess if I had your values I would use Anonymous as my nake also.