Thursday, 29 October 2015 19:31

Edwards not pro-life, Vitter supporters not pro-prostitution

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

takeLouisiana Governor's election is moving into its first full week of the runoff and the candidates and proxies are strategizing and some say they are directly coordinating with Super PACS.  The nnational media is beginning to take note and social media is a hot bed of anger between the two sides.

Here is just some of the items floating across the web:


The anti-Vitter PAC, the guys who has brought us ABV, has paid a Democratic polling firm to take the voters' temperatures.  As expected, Jon Bel Edwards leads by 12 and that, to date, he is splitting the Dardenne-Angelle vote with Vitter.   

But, let's not bad-mouth the pollsters. Yesterday, I reported that the pollster that was eviscerated the most this election season gets the last laugh.  You remember all the nasty things the Vitter campaign and its supporters were saying about Verne Kennedy.


I don't get it.  Weeks ago, David Vitter distinguished his Pro-choice record from that belonging to Edwards.  The Democrat, responded in the WDSU debate whenn the charge was made--how can you do better than perfect?  Personally, I hear all of the time the same claim and see posts on social media, parroting Vitter, Edwards is pro-choice because he voted for Barack Obama, the "most pro-abortion president in US history".

Maybe so.  But, would that make him pro-abortion?  I mean, aren't there other considerations that people support candidates, meaning a host of reasons to support one candidate over another?  Vitter, by far, is the more conservative candidate and for that reason, conservatives and Tea Party types are flocking to his campaign.  But, does that mean, because they support Vitter, they are pro-prostitution?

Unquestionably, Vitter has that "serious sin", whatever that might have been.  That is a strong reason that some are not backing Vitter.   It is also a part of his history he and his supporters prefer to either forget or gloss over.  Trying to pin a single issue or a single vote and assosciating it with a much larger issue, is simply unfair and inaccurate, regardless as to who is doing it.


The David Vitter Super PAC has issued its attack ad against Jon Bel Edwards, called “Take”.

The focus is to claim that Edwards, a Democrat, promoted himself with pay raise and other perks.

The New Orleans NAACP President Morris Reed, has called upon the Vitter campaign to take down the commercial


The association with blacks or liberals or individuals with questionable background has hit the air circuits.

Here is a post off Cleo Fields pushing for Jon Bel


The Louisiana Republican Party, which has been quiet over the past few months, due to three GOP candidates all vying for the top gubernatorial spot, is “free-at-last”

They will be holding a rally for David Vitter

Not included, to date, are Jay Dardenne and Scott Angelle, who ran against Vitter during the primary.  

The Advocate is reporting, however, that a stronng delegation of Acadian legislators are supporting Vitter--Congressman Charles Boustany, Mayor/President Joey Duel, Sen. Jonathan Perry, Rep. Nancy Landry, Rep. Taylor Barras, Rep. Bob Hensgens, Rep. Stuart Bishop and Rep. Blake Miguez.


Bob Mann, former Democrat, who writes a blog and column for NOLA has penned an article for Salon,

The Title?

"David Vitter is a cheap political prostitute: Even Louisiana racists smell the desperation in his foul new campaign ad"

Mann claims, “Vitter is fishing for votes in the same putrid pond where Louisiana’s racists of old reeled in many voters. And he’s using the same racist bait – fear of the violent black man.”  


Stephen Waguespack, former Jindal chief of staff and now in a starinng role with the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry is leaning Vitter, it seems, but says, he doesn't want to get ahead of his membership.  

Wag points to Edwards's voting record, which he says is "F".

According to the Monroe News Star, Bel Edwards responded by a recent LaBI-anti-Edwards-warning by stating"

"It’s no surprise that Stephen Waguespack, Jindal’s former chief of staff, would be working to facilitate a Bobby Jindal third term by supporting David Vitter," Edwards said in an email as a response to LABI. "Waguespack was the architect of some of Jindal’s worst ideas including the destruction of our public hospitals, dismantling of higher education and the demonization of teachers across Louisiana. "David Vitter has already said he shares all Bobby Jindal's political values. Having Bobby Jindal's closest friends attack me is no surprise."

Waguespack fired back, "It's not a surprise Rep. Edwards is resorting to mud-slinging and name calling," he said. "If I were him, I wouldn't want to run on that voting record either."


Demos held back?

Did the Louisiana Democrats hold back its push this Saturday to save its limited resources for the runoff?  Our friend Greg Hilburn of Gannett has an interesting quote: 

According to Michael Henderson, research director of the LSU Public Policy Research Lab

Henderson is skeptical fatigue is a factor — "Most voters aren't thinking about politics most of the time," he said — but he does believe the Democratic Party held back on its turnout efforts in the primary, evidenced by particularly low turnout in urban centers.

"The strategy makes sense because for months it looked like Edwards had a primary spot locked up and they wanted to save resources for mobilization for the runoff," Henderson said.


Stephen Sabludowsky | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1