Thursday, October 18, 2007
I must be clairvoyant
Last night, I wrote the following (slightly edited) in a comment at oyster's:
Why would anybody think that Jindal orchestrated it? Fourth reason why Jindal is good:
Still it seems to have been a clumsy statement on Georges' part, but remember we're not reading the text of a formal interview. It seems like it might be an illustration of why I have such mixed feeling abouts Stephanie Grace -- she occasionally does really good political analysis. However, every election she dutifully writes a column about the need to focus on the issues rather than campaign strategy or the trivial and the titillating, and every election she writes a couple of columns about campaign strategy, the trivial and the titillating. I'd like to see her notes, if not hear a tape of, the conversation.
BTW, Rogers was a Boasso fan before he ran against his hero and paying sponsor Jindal:
So what did Stephanie Grace write about today? It didn't seem like a column about the issues to me. I'm still curious that Georges interview with Grace. It's common practice for a journalist to have a chat with a politician and then report key points, but I don't like the practice. I'd hate to think that a journalist who constantly calls for more focus on the issues decided to go for something juicy instead, but we can't tell without seeing the line of questions that led to the comment. Not that I care about Georges, I'm either voting for the real Democrat or the candidate with a real record as a reformer.
I don't know who started the mud-slinging between Boasso and Jindal, but I know that I saw anti-Georges commercials from the Republicans long before I saw anti-Jindal commercials from Georges. So, for the second case of something being predictable, rather than me being clairvoyant:
I didn't foresee Georges making a strong enough push for black votes to possibly make a runoff himself, but I did foresee him getting enough white votes to force Jindal into a runoff. Which do you think is causing the Republicans to "launch negative broadsides against Georges the ferocity of which has yet to be seen in American politics?"
I'm still predicting a runoff, but that's as far as I'll go based on yard signs in my small corner of the world.
Why would anybody think that Jindal orchestrated it? Fourth reason why Jindal is good:
* Bobby Jindal is Good because he delivered his own child. No really, he did. His wife woke up in the middle of the night in labor. Before the ambulance could reach the Casa del Jindal, Bobby J welcomed this third child into the world. Not to take anything away from Mrs. Jindal, who according to published reports, did most of the work. But we're still pretty damn impressed.
Still it seems to have been a clumsy statement on Georges' part, but remember we're not reading the text of a formal interview. It seems like it might be an illustration of why I have such mixed feeling abouts Stephanie Grace -- she occasionally does really good political analysis. However, every election she dutifully writes a column about the need to focus on the issues rather than campaign strategy or the trivial and the titillating, and every election she writes a couple of columns about campaign strategy, the trivial and the titillating. I'd like to see her notes, if not hear a tape of, the conversation.
BTW, Rogers was a Boasso fan before he ran against his hero and paying sponsor Jindal:
Boasso’s Bill Dead
May 10, 2005
The state retirement system is a “ticking time bomb.” I did not invent this term, but I understand it’s meaning. Senator Walter Boasso tried to stop the clock, but his colleagues made sure that this didn’t happen. At this point, it’s just a matter of time until the bomb explodes.
The problem was stated by Senator Boasso himself, in a letter submitted to this site:
The State had to pay $1.7 billion of the state’s retirement systems’ liabilities during the last legislative session. As previously stated, this said $1.7 billion brings the total of the unfunded accrued liability (UAL) for the state retirement systems to $11 billion.
This is what Boasso was trying to stop. His attempt has been shot down. Time to run for cover.
–Chad E. Rogers
So what did Stephanie Grace write about today? It didn't seem like a column about the issues to me. I'm still curious that Georges interview with Grace. It's common practice for a journalist to have a chat with a politician and then report key points, but I don't like the practice. I'd hate to think that a journalist who constantly calls for more focus on the issues decided to go for something juicy instead, but we can't tell without seeing the line of questions that led to the comment. Not that I care about Georges, I'm either voting for the real Democrat or the candidate with a real record as a reformer.
I don't know who started the mud-slinging between Boasso and Jindal, but I know that I saw anti-Georges commercials from the Republicans long before I saw anti-Jindal commercials from Georges. So, for the second case of something being predictable, rather than me being clairvoyant:
Also, the no traction line from Couhig seemed odd, Georges yard signs have been popping up in Metairie for a couple of weeks now; if Georges starts to poll above 10% expect "the most ferocious campaign attacks in the history of American politics," because Georges' vote would all come at jindal's expense and almost certainly force a runoff.
I didn't foresee Georges making a strong enough push for black votes to possibly make a runoff himself, but I did foresee him getting enough white votes to force Jindal into a runoff. Which do you think is causing the Republicans to "launch negative broadsides against Georges the ferocity of which has yet to be seen in American politics?"
I'm still predicting a runoff, but that's as far as I'll go based on yard signs in my small corner of the world.
