Monday, August 27, 2007

Recruit new Republicans!

Secretary of State Announces "Voter Registration Week"
Work Your 'Personal Precinct'
Secretary of State Jay Dardenne has declared August 27 through August 31 as "Voter Registration Week." The purpose is to increase voter awareness of the upcoming elections and to encourage greater voter participation by all age groups.
Voters must be registered with their most current information by September 19th to be eligible to vote in the October 20th primary. Proper identification is required for registration; contact your Parish Registrar of Voters for forms and further information.
LFRW members, clubs, and supporters are urged to put forth a special effort for this initiative. Start by making sure everyone in your 'personal precinct' is ready to vote in their registration is up-to-date?; do they know the location of their polling place?; have new residents/neighbors changed their registration?; do they need to take advantage of early/absentee voting (college students, football weekends)?
We have been talking for months now about the importance of these elections for the future of our state. Part of the LFRW mission is to inform and educate. Please promote this information through club e-mails, newsletters and your personal mailing lists. Be ready with early voting and absentee information as well.
Get everyone ready....make every vote count ...let's 'make a difference.'

One more Dem, self-inflicted wound. Gaping.

The following, from State Treasurer John N. Kennedy, via Lee Fletcher, is to be released, officially, today.

Your support and friendship are very important to me. I have always tried to tell you where I stand and what I stand for. That’s why I’m writing this letter.

I have decided to join the Republican Party. I wanted you to be among the first to know, and to hear it from me. It has been an honor to serve as your State Treasurer and I will seek my third term this October as a Republican.

Becky and I did not make this decision lightly. Nor did we make it quickly. For well over a year I have searched my heart and, as a good Methodist, prayed about this decision.

The reason for my decision is my beliefs.

I believe in certain fixed, bedrock principles: that government should be responsive and accountable to the taxpayers who pay for it; that economic growth originates in the private sector; that education is the best safeguard of liberty; that ethics in government is critical to people’s faith in democracy; that the values of faith, work, family, personal responsibility and individual liberty are the building blocks of a prosperous society. I have concluded that the Republican Party is the party that best reflects my values today.

I also believe in the power of ideas. Every advancement in art, science, technology, business, cooking and medicine has occurred only after someone challenged the rules and tried another way. My career in public service demonstrates my belief in the power of looking for a better way. For the past several years, it has increasingly been the case that those public servants who have embraced my ideas and my philosophy of trying new approaches are primarily Republicans. I am grateful for their support and their willingness to try something different. I also believe for this reason it is time to join the Republican Party.

Finally, I believe that Louisiana state government needs to change. It has to change. And it must change now. Otherwise, Louisiana will become a place our children visit when they come see us at Christmas, instead of a place they can live, prosper and raise their own families. I feel I can best contribute to that change as a Republican.

Some of you will support my decision. Others will not. To still others it will make no difference; I am, after all, the same person with the same principles, the same values and the same dreams. Regardless, I hope you will respect my choice and my reasons for making it. I also hope you will support my reelection as your State Treasurer.

I will end as I began: you will never know how much your support and friendship mean to Becky and me. Thank you.

Thank you, as well, for giving so much to Louisiana.

State Treasurer

Note: Interestingly, there is a poll on Lee Fletcher’s site asking if Chris Whittington should resign. Heck no! He’s the best thing that’s ever happened to the LAGOP. Please stick around, Chris. Please.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Fish fry for Chris Hazel!

When: Thursday, August 30, 2007, from 5:30pm to 8:30pm

Where: Ball Community center, Highway 165 N, Ball, Louisiana

Tickets: $10 per person

Be there!!!

The Democrats' Last Gasp

This is a great piece from Neil S. Kavanagh at The Northside Journal:

I have a close, dear friend who is Pastor of the Dry Prong Baptist Church. Rev Whitman is as Godly a man as you would ever meet. He sits on the board of Louisiana College, is active in community affairs in Grant Parish, and is an avid golfer. Brother Whitman is a man who pursues God with a fervor that is contagious. I have never seen him frown, and never heard him utter anything but a kind word.

Needless to say, as a Christian, I admire and respect the man.When Bro. Whitman invited me to attend services in Dry Prong last spring, and bring my camera, I knew something was up. He pulled me off to the side and said... “Bobby Jindal is going to visit us next Sunday and share his profession of faith.”

Now, I have been a political junkie for as long as I can remember, following races like some people follow baseball. Never had I heard of a candidate being allowed in a Baptist Church to address the congregation concerning his faith. This must be a new campaign tactic, and Jindal must be one heck of a politician. As a converted Baptist raised in a Catholic household, I had to see this!

I should have trusted Bro. Whitman’s judgment.

What I saw that day when Bobby Jindal took the pulpit was a man who had deep seated Christian beliefs, and was not afraid to tell everyone about his love for Jesus Christ.

In the audience that day was a mix of all denominations. I saw people that I knew were Methodists, Pentecostals, and Episcopalians. Dr. Joe Aguillard, President of Louisiana College, one of the premier Baptist institutes in the country, was there. They all came to see for themselves if Bobby Jindal was for real. They all left convinced that he was.

When the news of the Louisiana Democrat’s latest attack ad reached my desk I was shocked. Even more shocked than I was when Bro. Whitman told me he was turning over his pulpit to a candidate for Governor of Louisiana.

How could a political party that has as one of it’s cornerstones the separation of church and state, attack a candidate on the basis of religion? How could the Democrats attack this candidate with unfounded lies about religious doctrine? I was amazed....

In this latest attack ad, I was witnessing the next step in the destruction of the Louisiana Democrat Party. In a desperate attempt to remain relevant, the Democrats have resorted to using any lie, any distortion, any half truth, to bring down a man of faith.

Anybody see a biblical parallel here?

The bible tells us that Satan is the ultimate deceiver and his primary weapon is the lie. Satan will use half truths, deception, and distortion in his attempt to pit brother against brother.

With this ad, the Democrats are using the same tactics of lies and deception to bring about a political war between Catholics and Protestants. They are also proving that they are a party devoid of ideas, honor and desire to serve those that elected them.

The Democrats in this state are no longer a credible political party. They have shown the voters that they will speak any lie, break any law, and embrace any action that allows them to remain in power.

Their campaign rhetoric will not sway Christians who remember John - 10:26-27.

Bobby Jindal never said, wrote or thought the things the Democrats say he did. Jindal has the utmost respect and affection for his fellow Christians. I know, I’ve heard him preach to a packed Baptist Church in Dry Prong Louisiana.

The LAGOP got it right. Absolutely. Right.

I heartily agree with Jeffrey D. Sadow, associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. However, if you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely. (Posted Aug.20,2007)

Between The Lines

LA GOP closing of primaries politically astute move

The Louisiana Republican Party made the right call in closing its federal-office primaries to improve its electoral fortunes, and in doing so have put Democrats into a quandary.The GOP’s Central Committee voted overwhelmingly to bar independent (‘no-party,” technically) registrants from being able to participate in its party primaries to make for a true closed primary system. The new state law allowing parties to do this had an option to allow for open primaries such as in Texas where any voter can participate in just one party’s primary, but that was left up to the parties.

While some argued that not allowing non-party registrants the possibility of voting in GOP primaries for federal office (and there are almost as many of them in the state as there are Republicans) was exclusionary, others noted that the most important decision a party can make is who its nominee will be and that should be a privilege only of those wishing to officially affiliate with it, and not something to be decided at least partially by non-members.

It’s also the smart thing politically. There may be some registrants who have voted regularly Republican that now could find themselves unable to do so in a primary – but they still can in the general election. Further, if they find it so important to vote for Republicans in all elections, all they have to do is change their registration. Research shows that the surest way to build party loyalty, including straight-ticket voting for its candidates, is for them to adopt the party label through registration; the effect will be weakened if made optional even if they vote often for GOP candidates. This contradicted opponents’ arguments that somehow votes would be sacrificed by closing the primaries.

Opponents also foolishly argued that somehow it would make the GOP be seen as “exclusionary” to be exploited as a campaign issue by Democrats if they did not close theirs. Needless to say, that argument from an intuitive, commonsensical standpoint holds little water, to think Democrats actually would make an issue of it with so many other more important ones out there, or that it would actually sway anybody.

Realize that the true source of the objection was that some feared social conservative elements would be too influential in party nominations. This was made overt when a motion came to change apportionment rules on the Central Committee. It would have reduced the rural representation on the Committee where presumably such voters are overweighed. The Committee makes decisions such as primary participation and any official endorsements of candidates. This also was defeated.

(Consider the sources of the objections: John Treen, the only man ever to lose an election to David Duke, and Peppi Bruneau, who couldn’t even get his son elected to his state House seat even by resigning early. These aren’t exactly the kind of guys who know how to win elections. Consider also that the Republican winner of the last Senate race, Sen. David Vitter, is identified with the socially-conservative wing of the party, but that the Republican loser of the previous Senate contest, former Elections Commissioner Suzanne Terrell, was not.)

But when the Democrats’ Central Committee meets in the near future, expect them not to close their primaries. They should realize that their activist elements, who would be represented disproportionately in a closed primary, are far too liberal to win statewide elections, or even anything outside of the present Second Congressional District. If they are smart, they will allow in more moderate independents that will produce more moderate nominees.

Yet if this comes about, the GOP catches another break. This would allow Republican-minded independents to go in and “raid” Democrat primaries – knowing they can’t vote in the GOP one but preferring any Republican candidate, these people will vote for the most unelectable Democrat in that party’s primary to increase Republican chances of wining the general election.

So in this pre-emptive way, the GOP closing of primaries also is a politically astute move, putting state Democrats in the position to risk the effects of raiding, or in order to avoid it to put the party more firmly in the hands of those who will drag it to defeat. The state Republicans often have not done smart things, but this decision surely is clever.

Consider the source: Verne Kennedy. Uh, yeah.

Another ego on parade.


Candidate studies changing parties

Advocate Capitol News Bureau
Published: Aug 23, 2007

Republican businessman John Georges of New Orleans said he is considering switching to independent or even Democrat in his campaign for the Governor’s Mansion.

The possible switch is based on the results of a poll released Wednesday that Georges’ funded. It shows him at 3 percent of the vote as a Republican but jumping to 8 percent as an independent candidate.

Frontrunner U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-Kenner, is at 54 percent, according to George’s poll, even with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin in the race.

Nagin has said he is considering running for governor.

One question in the survey asked voters to list their choices and identified Georges as a Republican. The question was: “If the election for governor were held today and you had to make a choice, which candidate would you favor?”

The choice included Jindal, Georges, Nagin, Sen. Walter Boasso, D-Arabi and Democrat Foster Campbell of Bossier Parish, a member of the Public Service Commission.

The results were Jindal, 54 percent; Boasso, 14 percent; Nagin, 6 percent; Georges, 3 percent; Campbell, 3 percent and undecided, 19 percent.

Jindal dips to 50 percent with Georges as an independent, according to the Verne Kennedy-conducted Market Research Insight poll.

“I think I’m within striking distance for second place,” Georges said Wednesday, noting his goal of a run-off with Jindal.

“It takes a while for people to come off their guy,” Georges said, referring to Jindal. “The people only knew one guy for six months.”

The poll asked voters the same question but listed Georges as an independent candidate. The results were Jindal, 50 percent; Boasso, 11 percent; Georges, 8 percent; Nagin, 7 percent; Campbell, 3 percent and undecided, 21 percent.

Georges said he will decide on his party affiliation by qualifying on Sept. 4.

Georges said his political views are not that far from former U.S. Sen. John Breaux, adding the line between Republican and Democrat is thin.

Georges said two weeks of television advertisements have skyrocketed him to 56 percent name recognition.

That compares to 97 percent for Jindal and 76 percent for Boasso, who is the Democratic frontrunner, according to the poll of 600 registered and likely voters statewide.

The poll has a 4 percent margin for error and questions were asked Aug. 13-15, Kennedy said.

Pearson Cross, a political scientist at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, said Georges has reason to be encouraged by the poll and his improving name recognition. It still may take a “great stumble or gaffe” for Jindal to be seriously challenged, Cross said.

“There’s a group of very short people desperately trying to climb up Jindal’s leg and trip him if necessary,” Cross said.

Although Nagin would hurt the other Democrats more, Cross said, Nagin could do just enough to force Jindal under 50 percent and into a runoff.

Nagin has the best chance to be in a runoff with Jindal because of the black vote Nagin may attract, Cross said.

Georges, who was a business partner with Nagin, said he was discouraging the New Orleans mayor from entering the race.

Now, Georges said he sees it as an “opportunity” to make the runoff if Georges keeps improving. Georges said he paid Verne Kennedy of Pensacola, Fla. to conduct the poll.

Kennedy said Wednesday the poll shows Georges in a strong position to make a runoff because he is making fast gains.

Also, Georges has the most support at 24 percent when voters were asked to list their second favorite candidate, he said.

Kennedy’s poll still has Boasso in second place behind Jindal though, whether Georges is a Republican or independent.

“The concern is what’s going to happen on election day (Oct. 20),” Kennedy said, “not what’s going to happen today.”

Although Jindal is seen as the “unofficial incumbent,” Kennedy said, 58 percent of those polled are undecided or favor another candidate.

Timmy Teepell, Jindal’s campaign manager, said there are plenty of polls and that Jindal actually made gains from Kennedy’s last poll.

Bobby on Hannity and Colmes

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Dems have "jumped the shark," again.

Kids, this is gettin' *old*.

From Timmy Teepell:

The Democratic Party of Louisiana has attacked Bobby Jindal for his decision to publicly profess his faith, and is lying about his writings to try and divide the Faith Community. Bobby Jindal has never been shy or vague about his belief that Jesus Christ died for all and rose again to save us for our sins. He has given his testimony before hundreds of congregations and groups, and he has put his faith in writing.

The Democrats reference one article written when Bobby was a young Christian, and then blatantly misrepresent his beliefs. The ad falsely alleges that Bobby "has referred to Protestant religions as 'scandalous', 'depraved', 'selfish' and heretical.'" It goes on to falsely state that "Bobby Jindal doubts the morals and questions the beliefs of Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Pentecostals and other Protestant religions."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who takes the time to read the article Bobby wrote as a student will see a profession of faith by a young Christian who was seeking, in his words, "to follow Jesus wherever He leads."

Bobby's article describes how the Lord led him to accept Christ, join the Catholic Church, and it expresses his wishes that the Catholic Church follow good examples of devotion set by Baptist and Pentecostals and Lutherans and Calvinists.

In fact, contrary to the Democrat attack ad, the only time in this article in which Bobby mentions another denomination specifically is when he is listing faith practices he wishes his church would adopt - like the "energy and fervor" of Baptists and Pentecostals and the "stirring preaching" of Lutherans.

The very first sentence of Bobby's article says exactly the OPPOSITE of what the Democrats accuse him: He said, "we do worship the same Trinitarian God who died for our sins."

In an article in today's Baton Rouge Advocate entitled "Jindal: Democrats' ad 'twists' religious view", the paper acknowledges that the inflammatory words were taken out of context. In fact, Bobby only uses the words "depraved" and "selfish" in his article when quoting John Calvin in the context of the doctrine of "original sin", and the word "heretical" never even appears in the article.

The conclusion to Bobby's article says exactly the OPPOSITE of what the Democrats allege - he said "I am thrilled by the recent ecumenical discussions that have resulted in Catholics and Evangelicals discovering what they have in common, in terms of both theology and morality..."

The article the Democrats attack sums up Bobby's belief: "Christ's death on the Cross truly negates the effects of sin, in both our temporal and heavenly bodies; insofar as we accept the new life He offers us, we are reborn and "washed" (Jn. 13:8) -- i.e., restored to a state of grace so that we might have eternal life."

Our state has seen plenty of low-down political tricks but attacking a born-again Christian for his public testimony is beyond the pale. In a time when the outside world wants to impose purely secular standards on the rest of us, we cannot allow a man's Christian faith to be misrepresented and misused to divide Believers in this state.

Every Louisianian of faith should let the people who made this ad know that they believe we need leaders who are not ashamed of their Faith. If you would like to join the chorus of Believers who are speaking out against this ad, please send me an email and let me know.

Timmy Teepell
Campaign Manager
Jindal '07

P.S. Copyright Laws prevent us from mass emailing the text of the entire article. If you would like a full copy of the article you can purchase one from the New Oxford Review.

Friday, August 17, 2007

David Broder on Fred Thompson

This is rather flattering. Has David Broder undergone a surprise lobotomy?

Fred Thompson's Gamble
David S. BroderThursday, August 16, 2007

When Fred Thompson makes his long-delayed entrance into the Republican presidential race, he will not tiptoe quietly. Instead, he will try to shake up the establishment candidates of both parties by depicting a nation in peril from fiscal and security threats -- and prescribing tough cures that he says others shrink from offering.

In a two-hour conversation over coffee at a restaurant near his Virginia headquarters, the former senator from Tennessee said that when he joins the battle next month, he "will take some risks that others are not willing to take, in terms of forcing a dialogue on our entitlement situation, our military situation and what it's going to cost" to ensure the nation's future.

After spending most of the past few years on TV's "Law and Order," and starting a new family, with two children under 4, the 65-year-old lawyer says he finds himself motivated for the first time to seek the White House.

"There's no reason for me to run just to be president," he said. "I don't desire the emoluments of the office. I don't want to live a lie and clever my way to the nomination or election. But if you can put your ideas out there -- different, more far-reaching ideas -- that is worth doing."

Thompson, like many of the others running, has caught a strong whiff of the public disillusionment with both parties in Washington -- and the partisanship that has infected Congress, helping to speed his own departure from the Senate.

But he says he thinks the public is looking for a different kind of leadership. "I think a president could go to the American people and say, 'Here's what we need to be doing. And I'm willing to go halfway. Now you have to make them [the opposition] go halfway.' "

The approach Thompson says he's contemplating is one that will step on many sensitive political toes. When he says "we're getting a free ride" fighting a necessary war in Iraq with an undersized military establishment, "wearing out our people and equipment," it sounds like a criticism of the president and the Pentagon.

When he says he would have opposed adding the prescription drug benefit to Medicare, "a $17 trillion add-on to a program that's going bankrupt," he is fighting the bipartisan judgment of the last Congress.

When he says the FBI is perhaps incapable of morphing itself into the smart domestic security agency the country needs, he is attacking another sacred cow.

Thompson repeatedly cites two texts as fueling his concern about the country's future. One is "Government at the Brink," a two-volume report he issued as chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee at the start of the Bush administration in 2001 and handed to the new president's budget director as a checklist of urgent management problems.

The difficulties outlined in federal procurement, personnel, finances and information technology remain, Thompson said, and increasingly "threaten national security."

His second sourcebook contains the scary reports from Comptroller General David Walker, the head of the Government Accountability Office, on the long-term fiscal crisis spawned by the aging of the American population and the runaway costs of health care. Walker labels the current patterns of federal spending "unsustainable" and warns that unless action is taken soon to improve both sides of the government's fiscal ledger -- spending and revenue -- the next generation will suffer.

"Nobody in Congress or on either side in the presidential race wants to deal with it," Thompson said. "So we just rock along and try to maintain the status quo. Republicans say keep the tax cuts; Democrats say keep the entitlements. And we become a less unified country in the process, with a tax code that has become an unholy mess, and all we do is tinker around the edges."

Thompson readily concedes that he does not know "where all those chips are going to fall" when he starts challenging members of various interest groups to look beyond their individual agendas and weigh the sacrifices that could ensure a better future for their children.

But these issues -- national security and the fiscal crisis of an aging society with runaway heath-care costs -- "are worth a portion of a man's life. If I can't get elected talking that way, I probably don't deserve to be elected."

Thompson says he feels "free to do it" his own way, and that freedom may just be enough to shake up the presidential race.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Transcript of Rush's interview with Karl Rove

RUSH: I would like to introduce you all to Karl Rove. Karl, welcome to the EIB Network. I cannot tell you how great it is finally to have you here with us.

KARL ROVE: Well, thanks, Rush. I'm honored you'd ask me and delighted to be with you.

RUSH: You haven't probably heard about this, although it won't surprise you, but I've gotta tell you something. It's a hilarious story. The editor of the Seattle Times was conducting a staff meeting when they learned of your resignation announcement, and everybody stood up and started cheering, and --

KARL ROVE: Ha-ha-ha-ha! Was my wife there?

RUSH: (Laughing.)

KARL ROVE: Was my wife in that crowd?

RUSH: (Laughing.) And the editor said -- this is what's funny. The editor said no politics in the newsroom. You've gotta keep this stuff to yourself. We've gotta remember there's a political year coming up. No politics in the newsroom! Anyway, people have to be curious. I know they are, Karl. You've been the brunt of all kinds of assaults and attacks, personally and otherwise, along with the president. How do you guys deal with it?

KARL ROVE: Rush, you ignore it. I mean, if you have to wake up in the morning to be validated by the editorial page of the New York Times, you got a pretty sorry existence. So the best thing you could do is just ignore it, plow on, stay focused. The president is very good about saying, "Look, we came here for a reason. We have an obligation on the country," and press on by it. I'll be hyperventilating about the latest attack on him by somebody, and he'll say, "Don't worry. History will get it right and we'll both be dead." So it's a good, healthy attitude about how to take it.

RUSH: That's interesting. I know you don't like talking about yourself, but I --

KARL ROVE: I hate navel gazing, Rush.

RUSH: (Laughing.)

KARL ROVE: I'm not good at it.

RUSH: But I want to ask you to do it, because the perception of you that's out there, courtesy of the Drive-By Media, is one thing.

KARL ROVE: (Laughing.)

RUSH: But people love listening to somebody who speaks passionately about anything, and you have that ability. You're passionate about a lot of things.


RUSH: Tell people about your perception. What do you want them to know about your job and how you did it?

KARL ROVE: Well, look first of all, you need to put my job in perspective. I'm an aide to the president of the United States. There are a lot of other aides to the president of the United States. So the first and foremost thing to understand is that I'm a member of a team. In fact, you know, our day at the White House starts early, many times at 6:30 or six o'clock with meetings or breakfasts, but every day we have a senior staff meeting that starts at 7:30, and for the first four years of the administration, I sat around that table -- there are about 19, 20 people in the room who are the senior aides to the president, and for the first four years -- I started my day sitting between Margaret Spellings on one hand and Condi Rice on the other. I mean, I look around the table today and I see the people that I've been honored to serve with as colleagues and aides to the president, and they are a remarkable group of Americans, many of whom have made enormous professional and personal and financial sacrifices to serve their country and this president. I've been honored to be one of them. You know, I've had a little bit of a unique relationship with the president that some of them have not had, but every one of them -- the president has done a magnificent job of making every one of them -- understand his aspirations and his vision, and as a result, they're a wonderful team. We can disagree mightily about issues big and small. We can argue passionately our views on an issue. We can find consensus on a lot of them. When we can't, we take the issue to the president, he decides, and everybody at the end of the day salutes smartly and says, "You know, that was probably the right decision even if I was on the other side of it," and it's really a remarkable place to work.

RUSH: What would you like people to know about the president that they don't know?

KARL ROVE: Well, you know, the president is a... You know, I've known him 34 years, and I thought a long time ago I would cease to be amazed by the guy because I've had such high regard for him for so long, and particularly after he became governor of Texas, I realized I was capable of being surprised a lot more, and then when he became president. Look, the thing the American people need to know about him is he is just as passionate today about doing his job of protecting America and of growing the economy and being focused on big reforms that will make America better and safer and stronger in the years ahead, as he was in the day that he came in, and he walks into that office and lights up that building with -- you know, it sounds corny, but it's inspiring to work around him. He's got a wonderful spirit. He's got a great sense of humor. He treats people with the greatest respect and dignity, and that goes from the guy swabbing out the floors on the first floor of the White House to, you know, some foreign head of state. He treats everybody with respect and dignity, and he sets such a wonderful tone and serves as a wonderful model for people who work around him. I think one of the reasons why this White House staff consists of so many wonderful people is because they're around him and realize what a great experience it is to be around him.

RUSH: Does it frustrate you...? I know you said earlier just ignore the criticism. Does it frustrate you with all the attacks on him as brain dead or a frat boy, that you're the brain and this sort of thing, or do you shelve that and just go about your day?

KARL ROVE: Well, I shelve that, but I have to admit I'm amused by it because, you know, this is one of the best-read people I've ever met. This is a Harvard MBA. This is a Yale undergraduate whose major was history and whose passion is history. Many times the people I see criticizing him are, you know, sort of elite, effete snobs who can't hold a candle to this guy. What they don't like about him is that he is common sense, that he is Middle America.

RUSH: He outsmarts 'em.

KARL ROVE: Yeah, and look, in a way, they "misunderestimate" him, and he likes that.

RUSH: (Laughs.)

KARL ROVE: In fact, I think to some degree he cultivates that because it doesn't matter to him if somebody on the Upper East Side is putting their nose in the air about him. You know, he is who he is, and he's comfortable in his own skin, and he's not going to change just to win popularity with the elites.

RUSH: You said that he's a voracious reader. Tell people. You and he have a reading contest.

KARL ROVE: We do. We do. It happened by accident. We generally gossip on Sundays, and the Sunday before New Year's of last year, 2006, we were gossiping and I could hear Laura in the background and the president said to me, "Do you have any good New Year's resolutions? I gotta figure out a good New Year's resolution," and I said, "I'm a big reader." When I moved to Washington we brought 158 cartons of books, and, you know, I love to read. It's a great way to relax and a great way to learn. I said, "Well, yeah, my object in 2006 is to read a book a week. My object is to do 52 books in a year," and he said, "Great," sort of dismissed it and went on. Well, about the 2nd or 3rd of January we're in the Oval Office waiting for the vice president and a couple of others to straggle into a meeting and he looked at me, and said, "I'm on my second. Where are you?" So we went off to the races on a book contest and we kept track of books, and I leaped to an early lead, and he began a refrain which he's used a lot which is that he was in second place because he was the leader of the Free World and had a real job to do, which sort --

RUSH: (Laughs.)

KARL ROVE: I mean, look, this is competitive, but I mean, come on, please. But no, we've had a great contest. It's been a great experience the last year and a half. We've been trading book suggestions back and forth.

RUSH: How many books have you guys read?

KARL ROVE: I beat him last year, 110 to 94, and I'm ahead this year. I won't give you the total because it would crush you, and again he keeps saying, "Look, I'm the leader of the Free World, but, you know, I won the first year." In fact, it was almost... It was very funny.

RUSH: Wait. He's not reading little pamphlets. (Laughing.)

KARL ROVE: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! In fact, we both agreed upon a Mutually Assured Destruction. When we got too competitive last year, we both started reading John D. MacDonald mysteries, which are really delicious. He's a wonderful writer, a Floridian, who writes a wonderful set of mysteries, Travis McGee mysteries, and we both decided that we loved them. We were reading them quickly, enjoying them a lot, and then we realized this was being far too competitive. So we limited the number of John D. MacDonald mysteries we were both reading, so we could get back to the serious stuff.

RUSH: We have to take a commercial break. Can I steal you for a couple more minutes?

KARL ROVE: You bet.

RUSH: Great.

KARL ROVE: You bet.

RUSH: Karl Rove will continue right after this. Don't go away.

RUSH: The Excellence in Broadcasting Network, Rush Limbaugh. We're back with Karl Rove.

KARL ROVE: Rush I gotta ask you, is that a real ad, Spatula City? Because...

RUSH: (Laughing.)

KARL ROVE: I'm in need of a good spatula. Is that located over next to Toothpick Town?

RUSH: Yeah, they're in Wal-Mart. They're a section inside Wal-Mart.

KARL ROVE: There we go.

RUSH: Something I've always wanted to ask you and I just never have. Could you tell us what it was like in the first months of the administration, following the aftermath in Florida? You had made the strategic decision to adopt a new tone. You wanted to try to build bridges back to Democrats after the divisiveness nineties. The president had done it in Texas with Democrats, and you consulted them on legislation. Do you have any regrets about that approach?

KARL ROVE: No. Look, when we were able to find willing allies who are willing to work across party lines, it was the right thing to do. The problem was there are some Democrats who have never gotten over the 2000 election, who view the president as somehow illegitimate; never accepted the outcome, and hate him -- and there are some Democrats who made a calculated decision -- led I think at the time by, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle after the Democrats took back control of the Senate -- that the way back out of the political wilderness for them was to simply obstruct everything that the president was trying to do, and their basic attitude was, you know, "Okay, we may agree with it. We may think, some of us may think, it's a reasonable and responsible thing to do, but let's not give Bush, quote, 'a political victory,' unquote," and that's not helpful for the country, but it was.... Look, should the president be saying the ugly things about the Democrats that the Democrats routinely say about him? I mean, Harry Reid who goes jumping out there calling the president a "liar" and "deliberately misleading the country" and so forth. I mean... No, he's not going to do that. That's not who he is. He'll have a respectful disagreement. He'll hit tough on issues. He'll find ways to advocate his cause. But he's not going to engage in the kind of personal name-calling that makes Washington... Look, there ought to be politics and politics. But after the elections are over, people ought to be able to put things aside and look at things with the best interests of the country at heart, and if they don't agree, they don't agree, but if they ought to agree and should agree, they ought to try and move something forward and that's happened on many things. Energy legislation, education, tax cuts, judges. Look, we couldn't have gotten Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court without having some thoughtful Democrats say, "These are people worthy of serving on the Supreme Court." We couldn't pass the tax cuts without having some Democrat say, "You know what? We really ought to give people back some of their own money." You know, I was interested this year on the budget resolution -- which is normally a straight party vote -- do you know some very thoughtful Democrats had some qualms about voting for the Democrat budget resolution, and at least one significant Blue Dog voted for the president's budget resolution.

RUSH: Yeah. Well, it's interesting. You said that the president in all of this will not respond in kind --


RUSH: -- and this has been frustrating for his supporters.

KARL ROVE: Yeah. Right. Right.

RUSH: Because, you know, people want leadership. They crave it. They love the president and have a lot of respect for him, and they just hate seeing this stuff go un-responded to. I think yesterday, when Mrs. Clinton ran this ad saying the White House doesn't see some people, they're "invisible" to the government, and the White House responded yesterday.

KARL ROVE: Well, look, what's interesting, too, about that is, it's really amazing that she would say that. You know, it's sort of disappointing. This is... After all, Senator Clinton voted against the prescription drug benefit for seniors. Senator Clinton voted against allowing people to save tax-free for their out-of-pocket medical expenses. Senator Clinton opposes giving every American a standard health deduction so that they can deduct from the cost of their income taxes, their insurance premiums. You know, when we started as a country to say, "You know what? You can deduct your mortgage interest off of your income taxes," there was an explosion of home ownership in the country, which was a good thing. When we started saying to people, "You can save tax-free for your kids' college expenses or save tax-free for your retirement expenses," we saw an explosion of 529 Plans for college education, and 401(k)s and IRAs for people's retirement. That was a good thing. Yet Senator Clinton, who deems to lecture this president on health care, opposed allowing people to do either save tax-free for their out-of-pocket medical expenses, or, she also opposed -- she also opposes -- allowing there to be a tax deduction for people to take off their income tax costs of their insurance premiums. She's against having a level playing field so that the guy who has to pay for health care for his family or her family out of their own pocket, gets the same tax break the big corporations get for providing health insurance to their employees. She's against allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines like we routinely buy auto insurance today so you can shop for the cheapest price and the best product for your family's needs.

RUSH: So she wants to --

KARL ROVE: So I'm a little surprised that she jumped out there and made such an accusation when she's got a record that's so spotty and poor on health care issues. If she really believed people ought to have more health care, she should have been -- she should be -- standing with us and making some different votes.

RUSH: Well, since we're talking about Mrs. Clinton, how about your assessment of the Democrat presidential field and where they're headed?

KARL ROVE: Well, I don't want to become a prognosticator. So I'll simply repeat what I said publicly on the record. I think she's likely to be the nominee, and I think she's fatally flawed. I think that it's going to be a tough general election. It always is at the end of an eight-year run. It's very hard, if you look back in history, for a party to win a third term for that party. It happened in 1988 when 41 succeeded Ronald Reagan. It happened in 1948, if you will, when Harry Truman who had succeeded to the job won reelection. But between 1988 you have to go back to, literally, 1908 to find a real example of somebody succeeding at the end of two terms and even then TR had inherited the office on the death of McKinley. You know, it's rare, but it can and I think will be done, but it's going to be a tough race, and it will be against her.

RUSH: What are her fatal flaws?

KARL ROVE: Well, you know, you're trying to make me into a prognosticator and I want to set a high tone here, on the high road, but look, she is who she is. There is no front-runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling. She's going into the general election with, depending on what poll you look at, in the high forties on the negative side, and just below that on the positive side, and there's nobody who has ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position.

RUSH: One of the things about your previous comments about her regarding her reaction or her ad saying that half the country is "invisible" to this administration. I'm going to play the sound bite a moment from now in the next half hour when her portrait was unveiled in the White House. The president was as gracious as anybody could be to both Bill and Hillary Clinton and all of their friends who were in the room, and yet she comes out and does something like this. Politically, what's amazing to me is he's not going to be on the ballot and they're all running against him still.

KARL ROVE: Mmm-hmm. Well, I think it shows a lack of vision. If you really don't... The fallback position in politics is if you don't know what you want to be about, and if you don't know what your vision is, go at somebody else. I think that the American people when they approach a presidential election, are always interested in the future, and particularly at the end of an eight-year presidency they want to know what the next person is going to be doing, and so to my mind... Look, it was so over-the-top that frankly, people, an ordinary cat listening to that on the street is going to say, "Well, wait a minute. That's not true." I thought it was also egregious that she, in the same ad, talked about the president of the United States treating our troops in Afghanistan as invisible. I mean, how did she vote on the surge? You know, this is a woman who has been less than supportive of the policies that those men and women who are in the frontlines of the global war on terror fighting. This is like a woman who has opposed the Patriot Act that gave us the tools to defend the homeland. This is a woman who opposes the terrorist surveillance program that allowed us to listen in on the conversations of bad people who are calling into the United States. She opposed the FISA reforms that would allow us to listen into communications and see the communications of international terrorists who are communicating with other international terrorists, even outside the country whose messages simply happened to flow through US telecom networks. You know, again, I'm a little bit surprised that somebody with a record so weak on these things would somehow deign to lecture this president, who is very popular among the military and military families because they see him as a strong commander-in-chief who supports them, loves them, and gives them everything they need and want.

RUSH: Karl, I didn't want to stop you during that. I've only got about ten seconds here to say good-bye. But thanks so much for your time here.

KARL ROVE: You bet, Rush.

RUSH: I received a bunch of e-mails from people when I said you were going to be on, who wanted me to pass on to you that they love you.

KARL ROVE: Oh, thanks Rush.

RUSH: We all do.

KARL ROVE: Thanks, buddy.

RUSH: Talk to you soon.

KARL ROVE: Thanks much.


Setting Bobby's record straight...

MYTH:"Proposed limiting Medicaid patients to five prescriptions a month"

FACT:Bobby Jindal supported eliminating the waste and abuse in the state's Medicaid system, which was projecting a $10 million cost overrun. Reforms concerning prescriptions, however, could be overridden by a doctor, and were not applied to nursing home residents or children.
In 1996, the Advocate reported: "To cut pharmacy spending by $3 million to $4 million annually, the Department of Health and Hospitals had proposed the five-prescription limit, which includes a provision letting doctors override the cap if medically necessary. The proposal exempted nursing home residents and children." ("Exempting Medicaid patients from 5-prescription limit eyed." The Advocate. 12/21/96.)

MYTH:"Voted against lowering the cost of prescription drugs" (1/12/07)

FACT:Bobby Jindal opposed this legislation because allowing the federal government to "negotiate" prescription drug prices would result in a system which gives government bureaucrats the authority to decide which drugs are available to our seniors, and the Washington Post and Congressional Budget Office have concluded it would have little to no effect on reducing costs. ("The Wrong Prescription: Government should not negotiate drug prices in Medicare." Washington Post. Saturday, January 13, 2007.)

Former Senator John Breaux weighed in against this legislation in a April 1, 2007 interview, saying, "If the government just set prices, the result would be that a lot of drug manufacturers would simply not agree to the price that was set for a particular drug, so that drug would not be offered. That would be highly detrimental to seniors. It could have a very serious rationing effect on seniors, which I don't think is acceptable, and a lot of restrictions on seniors as to where they can get their drugs, etc." ("Sen. John Breaux: advising on healthcare policy; Q&A." Healthcare Financial Management. April 1, 2007.)

MYTH:"Supported raising the Medicare eligibility age"

FACT:This is a blatant misrepresentation of reality. The Bipartisan Commission for Medicare Reform made no final recommendations on reforming the system. Former Senator John Breaux was the proponent of the Medicare change which proposed raising the eligibility age.
"It is unclear whether [President Bill] Clinton would support Breaux's idea of raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67." ("Medicare Panel Fails to Agree on Recommendations." Amy Goldstein and John F. Harris, Washington Post. 3/17/99.)

MYTH:"Failed to support our troops and veterans - by voting against fully funding TRICARE - a veterans health care program"

FACT:Jindal supported legislation agreed on by the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate which provided $106.8 billion in funding for the TRICARE Program and called on the Department of Defense to fully fund the program. The legislation said, "... Congress should provide sufficient funding to the Department of Defense to offer members of the Reserve Component continuous access to TRICARE, for a premium, regardless of their activation status."

Monday, August 13, 2007

RPRW September Picnic!

Mark your calendars!

When: Sunday, September 23, 2007

Where: Diane Lawton’s lovely home at 324 Holiday Circle, in Pineville

Why: For fun, certainly, and, hopefully, to visit with our representatives and candidates

Fare: Please touch base with Gena ( to discuss dish contributions

Friday, August 10, 2007

Stupid is as stupid does.

From Robb Hayes at WAFB 9News:

LA Democrats Say They Won't Focus on Jindal "Exorcism" Writings

The Louisiana Democratic Party says an attack ad it is preparing to air against Republican Bobby Jindal -will- focus on Jindal's religious writings from his college days, but will -not- focus on a piece Jindal wrote about observing an exorcism being performed on a female friend. WAFB 9NEWS reported Wednesday night that the exorcism paper would be part of the attack ad, but Democratic Party spokeswoman Julie Vezinot says that is incorrect. Vezinot said other anti-Jindal ads will air that focus on topics others than religion. "The ads are based on facts drawn from his voting records in Congress and his campaign contributions," Vezinot said.

Vezinot says the ad focusing on religion is just one of several the party is planning to launch against Jindal in the coming weeks. The party estimates it will spend nearly $1 million dollars on the series of anti-Jindal ads.

Jindal, a Republican currently serving in Congress, is the clear front-runner in the race for Louisiana governor. Jindal ran for governor four years ago and finished first in the primary. However, he lost the runoff election to then Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat. Blanco is not seeking re-election.

"Bobby is a proud Christian, and attacks against his faith prove just how far old-guard party bosses willl go to resist the change our state needs," said Melissa Sellers, communications director for the Bobby Jindal campaign. "People will see this as exactly what it is - the same kind of baseless mudslinging and gutter politics that has held Louisiana back for generations," Sellers said.

WAFB 9NEWS political analyst Jim Engster says the attack ads being prepared against Jindal are to be expected, considering his apparent strong lead. "He's going to be much tougher to stop this time around," Engster said. "I think the Democrats are pulling out all the stops because they realize it's late in the game. We're ten weeks away from the election and something has to be done to stop this momentum that Jindal has."

More stupidity: The other day, a dim Dem allowed, “Although Jindal may be the brightest bulb in the line, I can’t vote for him. We need an American to be governor, don’t we?” My reply, “I guess the case can be made that Baton Rouge, where Bobby was born, is the capital of a banana republic foreign country."

Thursday, August 9, 2007


Look out, Mary... I hope.

by TREASURER JOHN KENNEDY - Louisiana Political News Service


“After much consideration, Becky and I have decided that I can serve the State of Louisiana best by offering myself for another term as State Treasurer this fall.”

“I appreciate all the input I received from people about my decision. Many folks encouraged me to run for Attorney General, but just as many wanted me to remain as State Treasurer. In the end, it was a personal and family decision.”

“I plan to run an aggressive campaign this fall based on my eight year record as State Treasurer, of which I am proud.”

“I will continue to advocate as Treasurer the wise management of public money, and to speak out loudly on the need for tougher ethics reform and fiscal accountability.”

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

LAGOP bifurcation. Again.

Will we *ever* learn? Good grief...

From The Independent Weekly:

Chinks in the Armor

Less than a year ago, The Independent Weekly published a cover story detailing the disastrous state of Louisiana’s and Lafayette Parish’s Democratic Party (“Stomping Grounds,” Oct. 18). At the time, the state Republican Party appeared to be a well-oiled machine hitting on all cylinders. Despite all the setbacks the national party had suffered with Iraq, Katrina and the Jack Abramoff scandal, the GOP leadership in Louisiana was aligned and rarely off-message. Headed by newly elected U.S. Sen. David Vitter, whom polls showed to be the most popular elected official in the state, Republicans were well-funded, well-organized, and poised to take over both the governor’s mansion and a majority of the state Legislature behind a platform of ethics reform and improving Louisiana’s business climate.

The party was enjoying a level of maturity it hadn’t experienced in years. The days of inter-party sniping between different factions of social and fiscal conservatives had gone the way of ex-Gov. Mike Foster; even longtime mavericks like Buddy Roemer and Dave Treen were toting the party line and working for the common cause, and there was a growing united front behind U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal’s gubernatorial bid. In Lafayette, local Republicans were cruising toward re-election. Parish party chairwoman Denice Skinner told The Daily Advertiser, “We’ve got four out of five [parish-wide elected offices] and no challengers. We must be doing something right as a party.”

But as election season kicks into high gear, Republican Party infighting and some strange alliances are revealing chinks in the armor. Vitter’s prostitution scandal has neutered his standing as the party’s top bulldog and created an awkward situation for his longtime ally Jindal. Even before the scandal broke, Vitter and U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. of Lafayette raised eyebrows with their early endorsement of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for the Republican presidential nomination, a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate at odds with Republicans’ longstanding social conservatism. And nowhere have these unexpected developments roiled the waters more than the conservative stronghold of Lafayette Parish, where the tension among party leaders is starting to boil over.

First, state Rep. Ernie Alexander announced he would not seek a third term in the state Legislature. In a column posted on his Web site, Alexander wrote that some of the same political supporters who helped elect state Republican Sen. Mike Michot and state Rep. Joel Robideaux were now lining up behind a candidate set to oppose him. While Michot and Robideaux, an independent, insisted they had nothing to do with putting up a candidate against Alexander, the two-term state representative vented in his column: “Logic dictates it is not worth mounting a fight with current elected officials and their organization if they cannot see the great benefits which could accrue to the people we serve if only we worked together rather than in opposition to one another.”

Elsewhere in the parish, Charlie Buckels, who sits on both the parish and state Republican executive committees, is planning his own campaign against an incumbent Republican, District 31 state Rep. Don Trahan. Buckels recently took a swipe at Trahan, who is seen as a reliable conservative vote in the state Legislature, telling The Independent Weekly, “We need leadership in this district.” If they split the Republican vote, Buckels and Trahan could give an edge to the other candidate in the race, registered independent Nancy Landry.

Just last week, another parish Republican Executive Committee member, Warren Caudle, used his “RightBlog” column on The Daily Advertiser’s Web site to unload a machine-gun barrage of shots at Michot. Listing seven items, most of which describe Michot pledging alliance to multiple candidates in the same races, Caudle portrays Michot as a Cajun Machiavelli, closing out his column by writing, “Would the real Mike Michot please stand up.”

Michot was stunned to see those allegations come from Caudle, whom he had considered a friend. He says the column was rife with inaccuracies — The Advertiser has already printed one clarification regarding Caudle’s claims — and suspects it stems from some deep-seeded resentments within the parish party. Michot has angered several hard-line local Republicans in recent years, first with his support of longtime friend Joel Robideaux, a registered independent, and then by supporting city-parish president Joey Durel’s road tax proposal.

“Anybody who knows me knows that I’m not that way,” Michot says of Caudle’s column. “I’m flattered and humored at the same time that they think I’m some political powerhouse that has manipulated politics in Louisiana for the last decade. This is petty politics. ... Here we are, it’s the cannibalization of the Republican Party and the hypocrisy that rears its ugly head once again.”

Michot, currently unopposed in his bid for re-election, is striving to become one of only two third-term Republican senators in the state Legislature under what he hopes will be a Republican administration. “I’m looking forward to a leadership role with the Jindal administration,” he says, “and I would hope that the support I receive starts with the people at home. Let’s not cut each other’s throats and see who can get the credit when in the end, no one wins.”

In an interview with The Independent last week, Caudle stood by the allegations, saying he wanted to shine some light on issues that have been passed over for too long. “The state of our party is not good,” he says. He and several other local Republicans were angered over the early endorsement the state party gave to Jindal — a move that prompted another Republican, state Sen. Walter Boasso, to switch parties in his run for governor. “The party is not all behind Jindal,” Caudle says.

With the state election a little more than two months away, local Republicans have picked a bizarre time to air their dirty laundry. Add in the unexpected developments and grumbling on the state party level, and suddenly it’s getting very interesting to see how it all comes out in the wash at voting booths.

Mary is flirting with corruption? Surely not. Never.

From Chad E. Rogers, at The Dead Pelican:


August 08, 2007

Senator Mary Landrieu recently added a woman to her staff named Stephanie Leger. The choice has caught the attention of some, due to Leger's connections to former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

According to a Washington Post article from 12/5/05, Leger was identified as a member the Abramoff team. She was listed among individuals who “lobbied for tribal clients of Jack Abramoff and, along with some of their spouses, contributed money to politicians.”

Leger was also part of a team that bilked their tribe clients out of millions. According to Gannett News Service, “In January 2002, Abramoff gave Leger-Short the job of preparing a year-end lobbying report for the Coushattas. E-mails show Abramoff asked Leger-Short to make sure she added $1 million in ‘expenses they had politically’ to the Coushatta report.”

Leger was referred to the Justice Department for taking improper payments and violating company policy at her lobbying firm. According to Gannett News Service, “In November, Fred Baggett, Abramoff’s former boss at Greenberg Traurig, told the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that Leger-Short, and three other Abramoff associates took improper payments in violation of company policy and have been referred to the Justice Department.”

She later was employed by Governor Kathleen Blanco. Upon being hired, some of the details of her past employment were obscured.

According to Gannett News Service, “The Democratic governor’s announcement contained biographical information that extensively detailed Leger-Short’s career on Capitol Hill and her education. But it did not mention her time at Greenberg Traurig.”

According to Landrieu’s official web site - as of Aug. 8, 2007 (8:42 a.m. CDT) - Leger’s bio is listed as “Bio coming soon” – there is no mention of her past employment.

Jay Dardenne

Jay's last quote is a hoot!

Dardenne says he was belted in, not distracted
He says he wasn't on phone during wreck

Wednesday, August 08, 2007
By Jan Moller

BATON ROUGE -- Secretary of State Jay Dardenne was wearing a seat belt and was not talking on a cell phone or using his BlackBerry when he collided with another car Monday morning, he said in a statement released by his office Tuesday.

Dardenne, 53, is recovering at Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge after losing control of his 1998 Infiniti while driving to work on eastbound Interstate 12 near the Interstate 10 split.

Dardenne suffered fractured ribs and a slight concussion, and is expected to undergo surgery next week to address a pelvic fracture and a compressed disc in his lower back.

"I am in good spirits and I am expecting to make a full recovery, but I won't be jogging for a few months," Dardenne said.

According to a Baton Rouge police spokesman, Dardenne was driving in the highway's center lane when he drifted to his right and collided with another vehicle. He then overcorrected, and the vehicle cut left across the eastbound lanes before coming to rest in a drainage ditch in the median.

Although Dardenne said he doesn't remember the impact or the immediate aftermath, he said he was "not on my cell phone or my BlackBerry, as was speculated in some media reports, and I was wearing my seat belt."

The longtime Republican officeholder said he plans to seek re-election to a four-year term as secretary of state after winning a special election last year. He also has been mentioned as a possible challenger to U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who is up for re-election in 2008.

In a telephone interview from the hospital Dardenne said he expects to be on his feet "within a couple of days" after the surgery, and that a complete recovery could take up to six months. But he expects to be back in his office "at least on an intermittent basis" by the end of August, and said he is in daily communication with his staff about office operations.

"Fortunately I don't have any cognitive disabilities other than what some may say existed before the accident," Dardenne said.

Although the rehabilitation will mean less travel and fewer public appearances as he campaigns for a second term, Dardenne said he still plans to open a campaign office this week and that other GOP officeholders have already volunteered to make appearances on his behalf.

Thursday, August 2, 2007

A quote to remember.

From Newt Gingrich:

"[Republicans] have a political and governmental doctrine that blocks creative thought in favor of fundraisers, focus groups and high paid consultants who think only of technique and never of historic duty."

Sadly, in many cases, that is very true. We need to change that, pronto. We also need solutions and Newt has some interesting ones. Take a look.

August RPRW Meeting

When: Thursday, August 9, at 11:30 am

Where: Falcone’s Table, in Emerald Square, at the corner of Jackson Street and MacArthur Drive, Alexandria

Cost: $10 per person, for buffet lunch

Speaker (hopefully): Argiro Morgan, LFRW VP and chairman of the LFRW Dictionary Project

RSVP: by Tuesday, August 7, to Gena at 640-3811 or at - Pete Falcone plans to open his restaurant especially for us and needs to know how much fare to prepare