Senator Landrieu (D-LA) Un-Sponsors Obama Fundraiser
August 12th, 2008 at 02:09am Mark Noonan
He might be the Obamessiah to his kook left supporters, but he’s political kryptonite in Louisiana, it would seem - from Political Punch:
The Baton Rouge Advocate reports that Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., the only Senate Democrat in a competitive race this year, was listed as a co-host for a $100-per-person DC fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, until suddenly, she wasn’t.
The event, “Girls Night Out: Lipstick, Laughter and Libations,” (you can see the cached version which includes Landrieu’s name HERE) is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, August 18.
Landrieu campaign spokesman Scott Schneider told the Advocate that she was never supposed to be listed as a co-host.
“I believe it was a clerical mistake where some finance assistant confused who was going to the event with who was hosting the event,” Schneider said.
Yeah, right - whatever.
This is a sign of Obama’s weakness - his inability to really expand beyond African-American and upper-class white voters. It seems that Obama is so unpopular in Louisiana with everyone other than hard core Democrats that Landrieu made the calculation that “Obama who?” is the best way to save her political hide.
Thing for the GOP to do? Tie her as tightly as possible to Obama and his Democrats.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Congress, Democrats
23 Comments
1. What? | August 12th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Noonan, you are not being honest.
The article goes on to state:
“Louisiana is where former Klansman David Duke won a majority of the white vote in his 1990 race for the Senate and his 1991 gubernatorial campaign.”
So it is not so much that Obama has failed to reach middle class whites but that he has failed to reach whites in the deep south who voted for a Klansman. Big surprise, a black man does play well amongst whites in the Deep South.
Also Noonan, your numbers don’t work out. If Obama only appealed to the niche audience you claim he does his poll numbers would not be what they are. This election would be a landslide victory for McCain. It is not.
Face it, he has a broader appeal than you give him credit for. Perhaps instead of denying this fact, you should ask yourself why your fellow Americans don’t agree with your assessment that Obama will drag this country into ruin.
2. New Conservative | August 12th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Once again the liberal misses the point, and calls everyone who disagrees with him racist. As it occured to you What?. That his numbers aren’t what they are. I feel sure alot of people are saying they’ll vote for Obama that aren’t planning on. Some of this is racism, but most of it is people not wanting to be called racist. Also they don’t want to be asked, “Your not voting against him just because he’s black are you?” Which is pretty much the same thing.
http://www.thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
3. Danish Artist | August 12th, 2008 at 7:14 am
What?
did David Duke win the governorship? no. A majority of white people voted for the now imprisoned Edwin Edwards.
David Duke won his STATE senatorial seat from a small district in southeast Louisiana against a know-nothing candidate. Granted there are SOME who voted for the KLANSMAN. Uh, who is the oldest senator in the Senate, that had white sheets in his closet and recruited many klan members?
The majority of black people are voting for Obama SIMPLY because he is black. That is the only reason! We are talking about >90% of the voting black population. White people are voting for Obama more-so than black people voting for McCain.
Now who is lying?
4. Upstart | August 12th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Good politics if you ask me. She is in a close race. It doesn’t make sense to me since the good people of Louisiana witnessed the competence of a Republican lead FEMA first hand during Katrina. Anyway as they say all politics are local. Just as I doubt it if we get another picture of McCain or any other Republican running for office hug Bush during the Repug election. And I would not be surprised if some of the Bible belt Congressman keeps their distance from McCain.
5. Greg-O | August 12th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Actually we Louisianians witnessed the incompetency of Democrat Governor Kathleen Blanco and that’s why she isn’t Governor anymore. FEMA did their job for both hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I know because I live here and didn’t have to depend on Anderson Cooper’s version of the story.
Mary Landrieu is running an ad now that attempts to tie her opponent, John Kennedy, to John Kerry. Must be pretty bad when a Democrat throws John Kerry around the neck of her opponent. Yes, we remember her incompetency, too.
6. Upstart | August 12th, 2008 at 8:05 am
5. Greg-O | August 12th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Only Limbaugh and Hannity ditto-heads live in your fantasy dream. Katrina was too big for any state or local government to handle.
Just as 911 was too big for New York to handle, Giuliani relied heavily on FEMA, At that point FEMA was not yet politicized by the likes of horse showman Brownie. Contrary to what you hear on con radio, truth is Giuliani did not single handily pull all known survivors from the ruble.
7. Greg-O | August 12th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Upstart, I actually live here in Louisiana. I was born here, and have lived most of my life here. I was here when both hurricanes hit in 2005. Hurricanes are part of life in any Gulf Coast state and what we have with New Orleans is a dependency problem. Mississippi and Alabama are practically fully recovered, but New Orleans just sits there waiting for more handouts. Katrina skirted by New Orleans (I can still remember Mayor Ray Nagin sighing relief that they had “dodged a bullet” because Katrina’s eye had went East). . Biloxi and Mobile handled it. This wasn’t a fantasy. Neither was it a fantasy when Kathleen Blanco was shown the exit door in favor of Governor Bobby Jindal.
I just love “Katrina experts” who weren’t even here.
8. Danish Artist | August 12th, 2008 at 10:02 am
As an ex-Louisianian because of Katrina, FEMA is/was/always has been a JOKE!!! Blanco and Nagin were the real incompetence! NONE followed the plans on the books. BOTH were worried about losing their authority and politics before the safety of their citizens.
FEMA is a huge bureaucracy that caused more problems than it solved. It was not Brownie that caused the problems (wrongly attributed by UPfart as politicizing) it the knuckleheads who operate it!
Administrations come and go but lower level managers and operators stay - those people were/are the problem.
So Upfart, your version of history concerning Katrina is a result of leftist talking points and have no basis of reality. We who lived it are the ones to know better.
9. Upstart | August 12th, 2008 at 10:08 am
7. Greg-O | August 12th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Well done good Bushie
10. neocon | August 12th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Upstart; post #9,
The final retort of the liberal without a talking point.
well done
neocon
11. Danish Artist | August 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
upfart,
why do you even try?
It makes you look more and more foolish.
Back on topic:
It’s simple. She compares her opponent to Kerry. If she cohosts a fund raiser for Obama, she will look more liberal than Kerry and her opponent.
Why are liberals afraid to run as liberals? Obama has criticized his opponents for calling him liberal. WHY? Legislation that he has voted for, federal and state and his platform are extremely liberal.
Why are leftists afraid of “Liberal”?
Classic liberals are those that uphold the Constitution, individual freedoms, etc. etc. The liberals of today are extreme leftists and have given “liberal” a bad name.
Why are liberals afraid of liberal?
Why are they so eager to portray their opponents as being more liberal?
12. What? | August 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Good job guys,
Try to dodge my point and fail miserably.
New Conservative,
You are guilty of the same willfull ignorance Mark is guilty of. You would have me and the rest of the country believe that every poll taken is wrong because whites are afraid of being labeled racists. C’mon you are just being paranoid.
Also I like this little argument:
“Once again the liberal misses the point, and calls everyone who disagrees with him racist.”
Pathetic.
So we should just ignore the fact that 60% of whites in LA voted for a man who ran openly on a white supremacy platform? I think any accusation that racism still exists in the Deep South is pretty well supported.
You, like Mark and Danish Artist, can choose to ignore or deny the disparities and tensions between the races in this country. The rest of us will face them like adults.
Danish Artist writes:
“Now who is lying?”
Um, you are. Duke ran for U.S. Senate in 1991 and won 60% of the white vote. You are trying to change the focus by looking at his state senate campaign. Shame on you for not addressing the point.
Also, Byrd has since renounced his views. Duke ran on them. Please, you are better than this recycled conservative talk radio argument.
Finally, if you cannot see the difference between a black voter voting for a black candidate because he is black and a white voter voting for a white candadite based on race you are simply not facing reality of being a minority in the United States.
The two scenarios are separate and distinct from one another.
13. FmrMarine | August 12th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
what TF????
>>>if you cannot see the difference between a black voter voting for a black candidate because he is black and a white voter voting for a white candadite based on race>>>
YOU are clearly a delusional moron!
14. Danish Artist | August 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
What?, so it’s ok for blacks to be racists?
Wow, thanks for clearing that up.
Blacks voting for blacks solely based on race is wrong, no matter how you spin it. I gues you are in favor of gerrymandering districts.
BTW, Duke renounced his klan ties. At the time of both his senate runs, he was a born again Christian. But of course, a Republican can never renounce his racist history, but a Democrat can. Besides, the position of Robert Byrd gave him the power to recruit people like David Duke. Byrd fed peoples’ hatred in order to fill the ranks of the KKK.
Keep drinking the kool-aid and being intellectually (as if you could be) dishonest.
15. FmrMarine | August 12th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Danish;
The resident trolls & disruptor’s very conveniently IGNORE this……..
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13681
16. What? | August 12th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Sigh,
Danish and Former Marine, I can’t help you.
I know you understand the argument as to why a black person voting for a black candidate is not the same as a a white person doing the same. I also know that you simply will not admit to this difference. I can’t fix stubborness.
Danish,
During Duke’s 1991 run, he ran on a white supremist/anti-semetic platform. Also, you may want to check out his web site. He is not exactly pro-Isreal, if you know what I mean.
Also, he seems to still have some strong feelings towards black people:
http://www.davidduke.com/general/black-population-welfare-bomb-ticks_23.html
Danish, if you make things up I am going to call you on it. Unlike some posters, I am not going to let you make baseless statements.
Being a Christian does not make a person a great guy. Christian or not, Duke is still peddling the same garbage he was peddling in his campaigns. I might add that his nonsense resembles some of the comments made on here.
17. What? | August 12th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Former Marine,
What is your problem?
Seriously, you have broughtup numerous times the state of the Democratic prior to the 1960s. Everyone realizes that the Democratic Party was the party that supported slavery in the 19th century and segregation in the first half of the 20th century.
You seem to be the only one who does not know recent history. Southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms defected to the Republican Party after the Democrats started supporting the civil rights movement.
Furthermore, Nixon won the south as a result of the Southern Strategy.
Please, you have tried to make your point and have failed.
The more interesting facts is that the highest elected black Republican ever was the lieutenant governor of Maryland. Meanwhile, the Democrats just nominated the first African American for the presidency.
18. Greg-O | August 13th, 2008 at 7:55 am
What?, what is your problem? Out of the Southern Democrat Senators who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, only Strom Thurmond changed parties. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr., remained Democrats the rest of their lives. One of them is still in office: Robert Byrd. Jesse Helms was not in the Senate until 1973, well after the “Southern Strategy.” Speaking of which, please tell me how Nixon won the South as that is the stated reason for the “Southern Strategy.” This Electoral Map from 1968 shows that Democrat running as Independent George Wallace won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi that year. Democrat Hubert Humphrey won Texas. Not much of the South remained for Nixon that year, barely winning with well under 50% of the vote in those States due to Wallace and Humphrey splitting the Democrat vote.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1968
19. Danish Artist | August 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
What?
“During Duke’s 1991 run, he ran on a white supremist/anti-semetic platform. Also, you may want to check out his web site. He is not exactly pro-Isreal, if you know what I mean.”
Yeah, so are many leftists who post on this site. What’s your point?
David Duke speaking out against GENERATIONAL welfare that existed heavily in New Orleans. Women were becoming grandmothers in their early thirties and without welfare what do these people have? That is all they know. But criticizing blacks for anything still gives a person the brand of racist. Look at this campaign.
It’s not stubborness - it’s common sense. If one group does it, it racists, while the other group does the same thing, it’s not?!?
You have a sick way of looking at things and that attitude perpetuates the problem and offers no solutions.
I grow bored dealing with ignorance.
20. What? | August 13th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Hmm, Danish
I guess you missed the subtly. Duke is essentially a Neo-Nazi. If not supporting Isreal 100% makes a person a Neo-Nazi, this country is filled with Nazis! Good use of hyperbole.
His way of speaking out against generational welfare is to talk about lowering black birth rates and white oppression. This is racist.
I see what the problem is here. You agree with Duke. No one ever likes to be called a racist. The solution is to narrow the term so that it only includes the worst offenders such as lynch mobs. Duke does this on a post on his site.
The only problem with this solution is that only people like you and Duke buy into it. The rest of us see your true colors.
Conservatives on this site always invoke common sense when they can’t think up any other arguement. Gay marriage, abortion etc. Common sense seems to be the answer to all these things.
I will use common sense to make my argument.
It is common sense that a member of a minority will vote for a fellow member of his minoritiy group because that person has a better understanding of the struggles facing that group.
A white person voting for another white person on the basis of race does not face the same unique challenges of a concntrated minority population. A white person’s interests are well represented since whites are the majority and hold a great deal of governing power in this country.
See Danish? It is a question of motive. When a minority votes for a person in the minority, he is seeking to have a voice in government that reflects that minority. He is seeking participation, not domination.
When a white person votes based on race it is more likely he is acting to silence the minority voice or at least preserve its dominant voice.
Now, you won’t get this because you are defending David Duke. You sound like you believe in the white oppression he talks about. Is this a fair assessment of your views? I base this opinion on this comment:
“But criticizing blacks for anything still gives a person the brand of racist.”
It is racist to criticize an entire race. You are making broad negative generalizations and assuming it is the fault of a person’s skin color as oppose to other circumstances that affect that minority.
Also, where are your solutions? Perhaps you would like to lower the black birth rate?
My idea is to invest in education, particularly pre-kindergarten education. It is also imperative to create a fair system for funding schools so that schools in lower income areas are not shafted.
Instead of lowering birth rates I would like all people to have children when they are ready to have them. I would not focus on the black community.
21. Danish Artist | August 14th, 2008 at 6:22 am
What?
Are you dizzy from all that spinning?
let’s see you are saying…
It’s okay to be racists if you are in a minority.
If you criticize a member of a minority, you are a racist. Meanwhile, the minority can criticize all they want and not be a racist.
Asking a race to be responsible in procreation is racist.
Wow. Unbelievable. You call that crap common sense.
Now for some real common sense:
I have two children. The reason why I have two is because I cannot afford three. Common sense. Meanwhile, the government essentially finances uncontrolled birthrates of the poor and minorities. Yes, there are white people in that group too. That is what I have a problem with.
Duke, (you are wrong, I do not agree with him) has brought forth a problem that keeps festering in New Orleans. IF the problem was with any non-black population,white included, he would still bring up the same argument. It is a very serious problem, that compounds on itself. An entire population becomes dependent on government and cannot do anything for themselves. We saw that with hurricane Katrina.
Again, your way of thinking does not solve the problems of race, it only fosters more hatred. Now, stick to the topic.
22. Molliere | August 14th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Paris Hilton For Prez
Seriously we gotta get this girl on the ticket in close race states. Organize write in campaigns via Youtube etc.
Young, naive disaffected voters who lean away from O the more they know but can’t vote for an old geezer should be encouraged to vote Paris or even Nader. Even a few thousand numbskulls could swing a state.
23. Websites tagged "senate" &hellip | October 5th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
[...] - Senator Landrieu (D-LA) Un-Sponsors Obama Fundraiser saved by mitts2008-10-02 - U.S. Senate leader says significant progress made on bailout talks -… [...]