Comments on: Jindal vs. Breaux

by: Arthur Breaux

Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:30:12 +0000

I have known John Breaux in politics since I was a teeny weeny kid. almost a half century later, he is one of the very few politicians who has not committed some stupid act and done what the people voted him in for……politik!
He is true Louisianaian, not cajun as much as me (I was born in Abbeville) but, he is straight arrow!

He knows Louisiana politics is a lot of behind the door, so, he might hesitate,…… but, if he wants to do a good service to Louisiana, and recover her back to the pre devistation of all of the crap we have endured; then he should run.

Yep, he was in Louisiana government before any of you naysayers say that he isn’t a Louisianaian because he doesn’t live there. I think he is ok for the quals…..

by: Mummy

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:59:37 +0000

John Breaux while in Congress representing Louisiana lived in Washington. That is very understandable. However, now that he is a resident of Maryland, I think it is a slap in the faces of all Louisiana residents that he wants to represent us as Governer. If Louisiana meant so much to him he would be living here NOW. This is hyprocritical of him to even consider running for Governor of Louisiana while being a resident of another state. Someone should put a stop to this nonsense and allow a true Louisiana resident to run for Governor.

by: louisianagirl

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:22:51 +0000

Walt Gibson must be from out of state. The Breaux Act? Yes, the Breaux Act, which requires a certain amount of federal and state funds to engage in wetland rebuilding projects. Ever heard of hit? Shall I continue?

by: Dan Z.

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:10:49 +0000

Walt: Would you care to go into detail on how Breaux “used the state”?

by: Walt Gibson

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:23:18 +0000

Breaux used the state to serve in political office. When he finished his political career, he left to become a resident of Maryland. Breaux is interested in Breaux and not what happens in our state.

by: Dan Z.

Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:31:03 +0000

In the Baton Rouge paper “The Advocate”, there is an article about Jindal’s feelings on a potential Breaux candidacy. He doesn’t seem worried, or at least I am sure that is what he wants you to believe. Jindal has typically followed the “political wisdom” that you should never mention your opponent by name if you are in the lead and you should rarely even talk about them. If you have the lead, just keep talking about yourself.

Now, look at what is happening. Jindal is making statements about Breaux’s legal eligibility (even though I do not believe Jindal is a lawyer) and he is making statements in his updates implying that Breaux isn’t being “honest” with his intentions.

Look at what he said…

“There is something to be said for being open and honest about your intentions. Straight talk is in very short supply in the political world,”

Here is a personal message for “Bobby” from me on that issue.

“I agree Mr. Jindal, straight talk is in very short supply in the political world. You are one of the guilty parties when it comes to not shooting straight. I seem to recall you not admitting that you where running for governor all through the Congressional election. And after you won, you said you would have to “pray on it”. If you expect people to believe that you really didn’t know that you where running for governor before November 2006 (or November 2004 for that matter) I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. You campaigned for Congress from Kentwood to Ruston and everywhere in between. Kentwood is in your district, Ruston and everywhere in between is not. ”

And just in case the Jindal supporters don’t believe where Jindal claimed to have campaigned, here it is from the Horse’s mouth.

http://www.bobbyjindal.com/pressrelease.php?ID=0000012804

“Whenever I visit any given town in Louisiana, like Kentwood, Ruston, and everywhere in between, it is inevitable that someone will mention how important it is for that community to create new economic opportunities. To bring new businesses to the region. To create high-paying jobs for local residents. To move the town forward.”

This was posted on his website before the campaign for Congress is over. Why was Jindal going to Ruston and everywhere in between if he was not using his election as a tool to run for Governor?

So there you have it, Congressman Jindal is not a straight talker. He spins and dances around the issues. He lies about using his Congressional campaign as a tool to campaign for Governor. Furthermore, he is the pot calling the kettle black when he attacks Breaux for taking his time on “officially” announcing his candidacy.

The most important thing to take from Jindal’s actions about the whole Breaux issue is the fact that Jindal is scared of Breaux running. If Jindal felt that he would have the lead going head to head with Breaux, he wouldn’t be dwelling on it. The fact that he is spending time attacking the possibility of a Breaux run shows that he is afraid of what it might do to his chances of being our next Governor.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/6480327.html

by: al c

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:31:25 +0000

After visiting Foster Campbell’s website, I am convinced that he can be our next governor. One of the keys to Montana Sen. John Tester’s victory over Conrad Burns last November was Burns’ ties with big oil. Jerry McNerry defeated a GOP incumbant in a heavily Conservative Republican congressional district by adressing his ties to big oil and his belief that global warming does not exist. Jindal voted against the Clean Energy Act of 2007 which would seek funding for renewable and alternative energy. Call me an optimist, but Jindal doesn’t stand a chance come November.

by: Dan Z.

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:48:28 +0000

Willie: Tony G. is a candidate for governor. The candidate he was speaking of was himself.

by: Willie Stark

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:36:45 +0000

Tony G,
I’m sorry i don’t have more time to play on the internet and keep better pace with our battle of political philosophies. The candidate suggestion you made holds no ground in this discussion because you failed to name a candidate. Honestly, who wouldn’t want to see the kind of candidate in office like the one you mentioned….I just dont think there are any who fit this bill. Especially not in this politically brainwashed state. Afterall, this discussion thread was Piyush v. Breaux…. I dont care for either so I brought up an alternative: PSC Commissioner Campbell who has a plan to save LA. I’m looking foward to your suggestion.

As far as the coastline goes, the Federal Government didnt tear up our coastline. They havent drilled one oil well off our coastline which by the way has been proven to speed up coastal erosion. So why should they have to pay? Furthermore, wasn’t receiving oil money from the Federal Government to rebuild our state Piyush’s idea?

by: Tony G

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:13:33 +0000

No answer? I’ll answer, the Fed’s have been short changing us for 70 years. Would the state have used the money to maintain the coastline? One can only surmise. We also have the oil companies to look at. They leased the land. So now we have three entities that bare some responsibility. It is my belief that the Federal Government along with the State have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the preservation of the coastline. The oil and gas industry as leasees bare the burden repairing any damages done or caused by their activities, unless they are contractally released from thereof. In any case everyday that passess we lose a few more miles. I’ll hold their hands to the fire. There’s been enough talk. We need action.