I have some questions for Louisiana’s congressional Republicans 

By Robert Mann

Let’s get right to it: Your national party will nominate an unabashed racist, Donald Trump, for president. Why do you support that racist?

I know you’ve been lying low lately, but you cannot slink away from your endorsement of Trump. On May 5, the Louisiana Republican Party issued a statement by state chair Roger Villere and the Republicans in the state’s congressional delegation, except for Rep. Garret Graves (he later endorsed Trump). Your statement said, in part:

“The Republican Party of Louisiana congratulates Donald Trump on becoming the presumptive Republican nominee. We urge all Republicans to now unite in order to defeat Hillary Clinton in November … The stakes are too high to hand over the keys to the White House to another far-left Democrat.”

Do you really believe electing a so-called “far-left Democrat” is worse than handing the White House to a racist Republican?

Surely you knew who you were endorsing, right? If you missed the news, here’s a brief primer:

  • Trump was the nation’s leading “birther” in 2011-12, proclaiming that President Barack Obama was not an American and was born in Kenya. Trump also suggested Obama might be a Muslim. Last year, Trump expressed doubts Obama is a citizen.
  • When he launched his presidential campaign, Trump attacked an entire class of people – Mexican immigrants – labeling them as drug dealers, criminals and “rapists.”

  • He’s proposed banning Muslims from traveling to the United States.

  • Last weekend, Trump said the federal judge presiding over the fraud lawsuit against the so-called “Trump University,” Gonzalo Curiel, could not be fair to him because he “is Mexican.”

“I’m building a wall,” Trump said of Curiel’s alleged inability to be impartial. “It’s an inherent conflict of interest.”

Continue reading on NOLA.com at this link.

This entry was posted in Louisiana Politics, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to I have some questions for Louisiana’s congressional Republicans 

  1. Stephen Winham says:

    I would ask ANY Trump supporter to read this article:


    Having done so, can you not see that Donald Trump is this man’s analog in our own country and, if so, how could you, in your wildest moment, support his candidacy?


  2. Stephen Winham says:

    P. S. The choice in the EWE/Duke election was an obvious one – This one should be far more obvious.


  3. martybankson says:

    It shouldn’t be surprising that the Repub leadership final discovered that a little political correctness might actually work in their favor for once. Media talking heads think that after concerns expressed by McConnell portend a probationary period in which Trump will need to clean up his act–clean it up, or else. What “or else” implies is still up in the air.
    So Trump reads a prepared teleprompted speech after Tuesday’s primaries, and he was very cool. The Faux Trump. The Real will return.
    The Real La. Repub delegation in the house will continue showing their collective cowardice in the face of higher ups, whether it be to Jindal or the state or national directives on Trump. The best response you could expect to hear from them on your dozen questions Bob might be “Because–Benghazi.”


  4. jechoisir says:

    The choice in the EWE/DUKE election was obvious for this reason: EWE had proven he could run a state government.

    He publicly flaunted his Mediterranean-style macho amorality and corruption, bragging to the press that it would have to find him in bed with a live boy or a dead girl to remove him from the office he’d made his private cash cow. He stood on the steps of the federal courthouse and thumbed his nose at the rule of law, mocked the young prosecutor’s innocence for believing in it, dared him to find a jury in Louisiana that would convict him. He was an affront to public decency.

    But he had come into office during flush times, had looked after the big lobbies, had seen that both big oil and education were well rewarded.

    His corruption seeped into every institution in the state. Is there anyone reading this column who lived during Edwards’ terms that does not know at least one person who went to jail for him?

    A young professor at a historically quiet little university, I watched university officials who became hogs at overflowing troughs. They used state funds to build private vacation houses, diverted federal funds designated for students to pointless positions they created for politicians’ dumb cousins and lackeys. And they laughed openly at the “prissiness” of the one or two deans whose integrity emphasized their own corruption.It was the world of Tiny Duffy and Willie Stark at his worst in Robert Penn Warren’s “All the King’s Men.”

    Edwin Edwards’ abuse of public office was criminal, and everyone who knew anything about government in this state knew that. It was no better than David Duke’s antique racism. It was just different.

    But Edwards had successfully run the state. His extraordinary intellect made him politically savy and personally charming. His wit exceeded any since the Longs’ and deflected attention from his corruption. He was the Gallic game cock that South Louisiana adored and that bemused North Louisiana.

    Hillary Clinton might be so corrupt and corruptible as Edwards, but there the comparison ends. Edwards was gregarious. He was a pragmatist. Whatever he was, he was not a hater. There was scarcely a public interest in which an intelligent person could not persuade him to invest. He had gone to state schools and liked the folks he met there, understood the needs of a wide variety of groups. And at base, one felt he cared about them. And he was smart enough to figure out how to make things work reasonably well for all.

    Clinton is a theorist who has always distanced herself from ordinary people. She sees the intersts of blacks, Hispanics, and other sub-groups as distinct from the interests of the whole, and so she has always pitted groups against one another. She is a contemporary version of Lady Bountiful, occasionally going among the have-nots and promising them participation in government at the expense of others and feeling that that by saying something nice she has done something nice. She will not spread the wealth, but take it away from one group and give it to another. She thinks in terms of dichotomies—this v. that. She seems unable to think in terms of this AND that. Hers is a limited mind and vision. So intellectually, she is unsuited to an office that requires a broad mind, a wide-ranging intellect, versatility, and gregariousness.

    Nor does she have a record of success at governance to recommend her. She has from the outset desired power for its own sake. She made a bargain with the Devil: she would live in a marriage where she had no power and use that union to gain power. She would knowingly defame and silence the many, many women her husband abused for the sake of that power. She proved highly ineffective as Secretary of State. If, as she sometimes hints, she disagreed with the President’s imprudent foreign policy, she didn’t care enough about a competing vision and the good of the country to resign office, and many did. As in her marriage, she hung in there, doing the will of a man she disliked and thought ineffective, twirling from one disaster to the next because she believed that such a course would give her what she needed to be president.

    Clinton has always been a low-achiever in public politics. She has relied on powerful men for whom she would seemingly do anything if she thought it advanced her chances to be the Queen of the All the Wild Things—-all while laying claim to the title of feminist. Had she not attached herself to Bill Clinton, who thinks she would have risen to her current position?

    I personally wish she were like Edwin Edwards because then the nation could say, “Vote for the Crook.” Then the U.S. might have a chance to repair the damages done in the last eight years. But she aint Edwin Edwards. And like it or not, we have Twiddly Dee and Twiddly Dum as “choices.”


    • Stephen Winham says:

      I hope you realize I am not an apologist for Hillary Clinton, nor did I intend to imply any similarities between her and EWE or, for that matter, Trump and Duke. I am just saying that there is no way I would vote for either Duke or Trump and trying to make abundantly clear that I consider Trump much more dangerous than Duke.


    • martybankson says:

      M. Jechoisir, I may not be 100% totally sure about the subject of Bob’s blog post (as you can see from my comment above), but I am sure it was not an invitation for a near 900-word diatribe on HRC. The points taken on Trump are recent and verifiable facts. The spineless behavior of the state legislature vis’-a-vis’ the official part line, be it from the RNC, Jindal, or The Grover Norquist Manifesto has been evident. The over generalizations about HRC’s lack of character, motivation, accomplishment, and qualifications are devoid of enough collaborating hard evidence to make them anything more than mean-spirited memes.
      I suppose your comment was directed as a reply to Mr. Winham’s comment, where your comment would have been a better fit as a reply to his post, rather than as a general post on the topic of the article (as I am replying to your post).


  5. jechoisir says:

    Mr. Bankston, now how in the world could I be more specific about Mrs. Clinton and the inappropriateness of the EWE/DD analogy and stay within my 900-word limit?

    But yessir, I will watch the placement of my remarks in the future. Thank you for correcting my error in format protocol. I appreciate the advice.

    But I think for myself. And my political thought stems from more general beliefs about the nature of man and man in society as well as with ethical principles. And they, sir, are neither Democratic nor Republican. I work within a party, but I am not of a party mind. Too independent,

    Unlike what state and national Democrats are doing with Mrs. Clinton, I cannot gloss over the grossness of Mr. Trump. Or the hubris of Governor Jindal. We would not have a Democrat for Governor of this state had a lot of Republicans refused to hew the party line.

    And having looked at the behavior of so many Democratic legislatures, I wondered that Mr. Mann, whose blog I read because it tends to make me think, was able to get so worked up at that of this Republican legislature. I know his political biases, but I also know he is thoughtful.

    Is it mean-spirited to have studied a person’s public life and behavior and to conclude that person is not who she pretends to be or what perhaps she imagines herself to be—-when the person is running for public office? to note the fundamental irony of Mrs. Clinton’s version of feminism? Is it petty to observe Mrs. Clinton’s partnership in using the means of government to attack women whom her husband abused? Or to work a deal with, say, Laureate University, that earned her husband a whopping $17 and the “university” at least $5 million in grants from the State Department, when she was Secretary of State? According to Professor Jonathan Turley and an April article in the NYTimes, Mrs. Clinton recommended that entity both to the President and to the State Department, saying “Bill thinks highly of [Mr. Becker, its head]” even as she was opposing for-profit colleges publicly? I thought everyone knew the Clintons could not distinguish between what was theirs privately and what belonged to the government.

    But I’ve already exceeded my word limit and no doubt have not properly aligned my comment. And I’ve not been a good member of the chorus.


    • Stephen Winham says:

      Quick point: I was not attempting to draw analogies among the people as I apparently failed to make clear in my original response. It is certainly your right to attack HRC, but I sincerely hope you would not vote for DJT – If so, your intellect has failed you.


  6. If Dr. Ben Carson says Trump isn’t a racist and that’s good enough for me.
    The country cannot continue in this same direction. Like it or not, this country has roots.


    • Stephen Winham says:

      So your choice for a change of direction would be total destruction of our country?

      And, believing Trump is not a racist and that America should not forget its own roots is a good enough reason to vote for him, ignoring every other utterly ridiculous thing about him?

      Can you not look beyond Trump’s simple parroting of all our frustrations to discern what he does or does not propose to do about them? Do you seriously believe it is even possible to actually build the wall he proposes? And, that is just one example of his failure to propose real solutions to any of the problems our country faces. It’s all well and good to point the problems out (to the extent he is right about them), but to then not provide realistic solutions is irresponsible and dangerous.


Comments are closed.