Donald Trump unites Louisiana GOP leaders and David Duke

By Robert Mann

It was a nightmare scenario. In 1991, Democrat Edwin Edwards and Republican David Duke faced each other in a runoff for Louisiana governor. At first, state GOP leaders couldn’t imagine supporting Edwards for a fourth term, regarding him a corrupt libertine.

And, yet, these Republicans knew the detestable Democrat was better than the repugnant Republican. So, they rescued their party – and the state – from the Neo-Nazi and former Ku Klux Klan leader. They held their noses and supported Edwards.

You might remember the bumper stickers from that campaign: “Vote for the crook, it’s important.” That captured the prevailing view among those horrified by Duke: No matter what one thought about Edwards, electing Duke would have been cataclysmic.

Thank God sensible heads prevailed. In retrospect, it wasn’t a daunting challenge for Republican leaders who knew they must save their party and the state by choosing the crook over the klucker.

So, why is it that so many current Louisiana GOP leaders cannot see the obvious peril that Donald Trump poses to their party? Is their hatred of Hillary Clinton so intense that they will surrender their party – not to mention the country – to a reckless, misogynistic bigot?

It wasn’t that long ago that then-Gov. Bobby Jindal warned voters about how Trump threatens the Republic. “Donald Trump is a shallow, unserious, substance-free, narcissistic egomaniac,” he wrote on in September 2015.

Until about 10 days ago, Jindal was still assailing Trump. But when the last of Trump’s GOP opposition dissolved after the May 3 Indiana primary, Jindal changed his tune. “I think anyone who says they cannot support Donald Trump needs to understand that one of the consequences is that will make it easier for Hillary Clinton to win and I don’t think we can accept that as a country,” he said the following day.

By May 8, Jindal’s pathetic transformation from Trump enemy to Trump supporter was complete. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he acquiesced to the man he once derided as “a madman.”

“I do not pretend Donald Trump is the Reaganesque leader we so desperately need, but he is certainly the better of two bad choices,” he wrote.

Jindal, you may recall, warned Republicans in 2013 to “stop being the stupid party.” So, as one keen observer wrote on Twitter, “Jindal went from ‘We can’t be the stupid party’ to ‘I’m with Stupid’ in four years.”

Continue reading on at this link.

This entry was posted in Bobby Jindal, David Vitter, Louisiana Politics, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Donald Trump unites Louisiana GOP leaders and David Duke

  1. says:

    Keep speaking sensibility, Bob. We need your voice!


    Sent from my iPhone


    Liked by 1 person

  2. Stephen Winham says:

    While they may have had scruples during the Edwards/Duke debacle, Louisiana Republicans now clearly place party power and victory over all else. Trump is not the narcissist Jindal alleges. He is an egomaniac. Jindal need look no further than the nearest mirror (or placid pool) to find the narcissist. We can only hope his support could be the kiss of death for Trump as it has been for everybody else he has supported, including, most importantly, himself.


  3. Jindal may resurrect his unfortunate shenanigans in the future, but what is more troubling to me is how Trump is bringing back into the fold the likes of David Duke and the Republican leadership in this state is not even blinking an eye, much less the electorate. Well said, Bob Mann. (Based upon this phenomenon, I guess we can be assured of seeing Jindal back in the future).


  4. martybankson says:

    It looks like this big rush to “unify” the Republican Party under their new leader, regardless of baggage, is also working across the country, as well as in La. Rachel Maddow, for a report in her show last night, had done an unofficial head count of U. S. Congresspeople and came up with a list of a mere five souls in both Houses that definitely denounced any support of Trump.


  5. jechoisir says:

    We need look no further than the most recent governor’s election to see that when given even a remotely viable alternative to venality, Republican voters have no problem voting for a Democrat, no matter what line party officials take.

    However, in this presidential election, the Democrats have provided no remotely viable alternative to Trump. Hillary Clinton should not be confused with Edwin Edwards. Through proudly corrupt, Edwards had a successful record running the state. Clinton has no such record and yet she has enough venality to make her odious to voters in general. The analogy is flawed.

    Democrats and Republicans have turned up two terrible candidates for the highest office in the nation. A lot of Republicans will sit the election out, I believe. Some will reluctantly vote Republican hoping that leaders like Paul Ryan will be able to keep things together for four years. No longtime Republican voters and certainly no conservative Republican voters I know find any reason for happiness.

    So until the Democrats turn up a good alternative to Trump, I think modesty urges they look to their own party’s problems. They have unofficially crowned a candidate who can’t win general elections against a 74-year-old Socialist and must rely on the party’s Old Gang for her election.

    So arrogant and hostile to traditional values and the electorate has the current Democrat been and such a failure in both domestic and international affairs has he been, that the nation is in the grips of a populist revolution.

    I understand that this is a partisan site, but in this election all parisans ought to examine their political consciences and histories. I see no room for anybody to be proud.


    • martybankson says:

      Insinuations of Clinton’s “venality” are just that and , to date, unfounded. Her unfavorability is probably more a factor of a smear campaign against her beginning about the time of attempt to get a sensible healthcare program established in Bill’s first term, and continuing through today. The patriarchy doesn’t appreciate assertive women. Her only crime IMO is being more of the same neoliberal capitalist ruling class which every Republican aspiring to public office also belongs.


  6. jechoisir says:

    I did not refer to “insinuations.” Reports in major national papers this past week alone reveal her clearly stated determination to keep her official business private and off-the-official record. They detail specific ways she devised to break the law and use her private email server for transmitting top-secret intelligence documents. She and her staff had a well-understood plan for deleting alert levels and forwarding official messages to her private email. What she herself has acknowledged publicly would get most people prosecuted and convicted of crimes. But people who have watched the Clintons over the years don’t find it unusual that what would have gotten Condolezza Rice booted out office is, like those great stock tips of an earlier day, whitewashed by the Democratic Party. That’s the Clinton way.

    And I don’t believe anyone who reads this blog doesn’t know it.


    • martybankson says:

      The unnamed “reports” in newspapers that “… detail specific ways she devised to break the law and use her private email server for transmitting top-secret intelligence documents” remain as insinuations and allegations until proven otherwise, despite any one’s wish to the contrary, or special knowledge assumed of readers of this blog.
      Any of the current Dems still running or some unexpected third party entry, once elected, will only be filling a niche in government required by the Constitution. The wheels of the corporatocracy will continue to grind on, with only minor tweaking and burnishing from the President. Trump presents a more immediate danger with his penchant for demagoguery lack of attention to detail about much of anything.


  7. Stephen Winham says:

    Let’s boil this down to its essence: Barring unforeseen circumstances, on election day we will be left with 2 choices – don’t vote at all, or vote for the person we believe will be the least ineffective. A truly sad state of affairs, the reasons for which are readily discernible.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jechoisir says:

      I agree, Mr. Winham. I cannot get Yeats’ “Second Coming” out of my mind: “the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” It’s been a long 8 years and it’s going to be another long 4 years, I fear. The spirit of party and partisanship only preclude serious discussion and action by those who care not about party but about the welfare of the entire nation.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Why do people always think it is Hillary? Sanders consistently beats Trump is most polls. A write in is also a possible win – just look up the important Presidents who won with a write in.


Comments are closed.