2. Duped constituentcy into believing that he wanted to be their representative in the US Congress. Miracously he determined the day after his reelection he wanted to be Governor of Louisiana.

3. While serving as a second term Congressman he spent the majority of his time in other Districts canvassing for votes in his Gubernatorial bid. Leaving his District for all practical purposes unrepresented.

There’s no vendetta here just an urgency to make sure people have an alternative view of the facts. The truth of the matter is most mainstream publications always stop short of revealing the whole story. Folks like you who blind to the truth are the opposite end of the spectrum. I have read your writings elsewhere and believe me it almost sounds like your fruit for him but I realize you’re just overly impressed. Every story has two sides. You chastise people for expressing theirs. I guess that’s in your communist nature. I’ll put it to you, if Jindal is that good what difference does it make what I say or anybody else for that matter? You can belittle me and my efforts all you want, it only shows the immaturity you posesses as a supposed adult. Perhaps you were promised a ride on the Bobby Jindal bus, I don’t know. All I can tell you is potna you’re no better than anybody else. Neither is your candidate.

You call the way you counter my arguments as objective? That is the funniest thing ive heard all day!

And now you are comparing me to Bush? That is just plain laughable. I don’t stick with the same evidence, I am finding new evidence about Jindal every week. That claim is laughable too.

There are hidden truths. Look at the thread about the Republican Party proving me right! They purposefully leave out the fact that Jindal voted against the bill with the dead zone dollars in their attempt to mislead people that Jindal secured those funds for us.

But people who would just normally believe what the GOP tells them, and who wouldnt follow the link to the article and bother to read it, would just think that the link is there to give credit and believe that they are getting the whole story. This is why sites like this are needed, to debunk the myth.

And I am not the one with conspiracy theories. In the debate about the health record, I am the one who brought solid evidence. You argued with “mights” and “maybes”. You are one of the people who promoted the conspiracy that I was behind the Tony G. campaign. So don’t talk to me about conspiracies when you use lies and conjecture to try and win your point.

Your tactics are sad, pathetic and transparent.

If you wouldn’t be so outright hostile from the jump, you would likely get a better response to some of the things you say, but you start everything on here with the premise that there is a hidden truth, but you have not once uncovered any of these supposed truths. All you have done is provide conspiracy theories and conjecture to mask the fact that EVERYTHING you bitch about Jindal in regards to is merely a difference in political opinion. Why don’t you get your own blog and call it “DanZimmerman’s Progressive Ideas for a Brighter Louisiana” blog. I can guarantee you that if you were trying to reach out to voters in that way you might actually make a difference, rather than make people laugh.

But the name of the site also doesn’t have the meaning that you are assigning to it. Both sites discuss the quality of choice that Bobby Jindal is for Governor. One says that he is a good choice and the other says he is a bad choice. You are taking the name of the site literally in that he is bad in general.

“Of course, you have rallied the already anti-Jindal troops to the cause by playing semantic games with statements and making mountains out of molehills. But you have done nothing to convince anyone that isn’t already convinced that Jindal is “bad.””

Actually, I have spoken to many people about Bobby Jindal and when I tell them the truth about him they change their minds. The fact of the matter is that Jindal has made mountains of out molehills by elevating his accomplishments and misleading the voters about his record.

“You are an obnoxious blowhard, which is why you got such a paltry amount of votes directly in 2004 and indirectly in 2006. ”

Actually, I attribute the majority of the reason for my loss in 2004 (and for Davids loss in 2006) as an inability to raise funds. When I spoke to people 1 on 1 I convinced many of them that what they had heard about Jindal was all wrong. I just didn’t have enough money to get that message to as many people as I could.

I spent $3000 bucks in the 2004 campaign and got over 12,000 votes. I don’t view that as bad at all.

“Yes, you will probably go door-to-door for a candidate or two on a Saturday this fall, but as far as having any influence with any serious candidate, Campbell and Boasso wouldn’t touch you with a ten foot pole.”

Actually, I have spoken to two of the three major candidates opposing Jindal and both appreciate the content of the site and the third has used my arguments verbatim on his website. My hard work researching Jindal and reporting on his true record will help them in the upcoming election. The impact this site has might not be quantifiable. However, do not fool yourself into thinking that people are unaware of this site.

“You mentioned constantly how you embrace your being fat, so how can you cry about being called fat with a straight face? ”
I am not crying about being called fat. I am telling you that you look like an idiot for making fun of my size when I have already made fun of my own size on this and other forums already.

You are correct that when it comes to elections, so far I have lost. But in the grand scheme of things I am a winner in life. I have a great job, a wonderful wife, generally good health (amazing because of my size, I know.. but my blood pressure and cholestorol levels are perfect), and great friends. I have absolutely nothing to complain about. I am happy where I am in life regardless of my electoral losses. And I even view those losses as learning experiences that have given me insight into things I never would have known had I not decided to participate in the electoral process. I love learning new things and meeting new people. And when I see something that needs to be said (like the lack of candidates making coastal restoration and hurricane protection their top priority in 2004) I stood up and tried to make a difference. So regardless of whether I succeeded, at least I made the effort and tried.

But see, apparantly you dont seem to be able to grasp the concept that I am not someone who defines my life by politics. Politics is a hobby, it is something I enjoy debating and participating in. The fact that I know a lot about Jindal and his record is a side effect of me running in the 2004 election.

Perhaps one day I will run again because I do want to make a positive impact to the community I live in. But I have so many other wonderful things going on in my life that even if I where to never win any elections, I would still consider my life to be a success. This is why your behavior here is amusing. You try and tear me down but there is absolutely nothing your pathetic little troll behavior could ever hope to do that will cause me to shed a tear.

Your obsession with playing semantic games has gotten you all worked up about my statements that you were waxed twice by Jindal in two successive elections. Candidates and their campaign managers are inseparable in terms of successes, thus you are considered a LOSER in both contests by virtue of your intimate involvement in one as a candidate and the other as a hack campaign advisor.

You will not be considered a three-time loser if Jindal wins this election because you are not running any one of his opponents’ campaigns. If you were, then it could be argued that you would be a three-time loser, although much of that “loser” status should be spread around to the other losing candidates and their senior staffs. You sitting behind a computer, bending over backwards to spin semantics to attempt to make Jindal look “bad” with the “content” you deem “worthwhile” on this site will have veeeeery little to NOTHING to do with preventing Jindal from winning (as he seems poised to do at this point). So in a very indirect way, you could be said to be a THREE TIME LOSER due to your efforts with this website, but being an objective, rational person, I wouldn’t make such a claim, as tempting as it may be.

You are an obnoxious blowhard, which is why you got such a paltry amount of votes directly in 2004 and indirectly in 2006. That is why no serious Democrat candidate wants you as an active member of their campaign. Yes, you will probably go door-to-door for a candidate or two on a Saturday this fall, but as far as having any influence with any serious candidate, Campbell and Boasso wouldn’t touch you with a ten foot pole. You do in fact fill a very valuable role to the Democrat election machine by being a fringe badmouther of one candidate. Personally, I would find such a role pathetic and degrading, but to someone like you who is obnoxious and prone to emotional exaggerations and illogical conclusions AND who is unabashedly partisan, you are an ideal “blogger” for this “anti” role you fit so well into.

You falling back to this perceived moral high ground by crying about “personal attacks” is almost as pathetic as your degrading yourself by blogging here. You mentioned constantly how you embrace your being fat, so how can you cry about being called fat with a straight face? As far as your being a loser, that is what you are. You haven’t won anything except a seat on the Jefferson Parish Democratic PEC, which, considering how few Democrats are in JP, is hardly an accomplishment. You’ve lost both elections when it counted, getting no greater than four per-cent. Unless you can validly claim you won those elections, you are a loser.

You may feel that the issues I discuss are non-issues and that is your right. Others, when I speak to them about Jindal, disagree.

You may feel that I am bringing cheap spin, I am claiming that the Jindal campaign is nothing but cheap spin.

When you claimed that I lost to Jindal twice, that implied that I ran against him twice. Now you are waivering on that and saying that my being a campaign manager counts as a “loss” as well. Will you call me a three time loser if he wins this election? If so, you are the joke sir.

Now, when I ran against Jindal I ran an issues based campaign. I did question Jindal’s record but I also brought forward some solutions to the problems that I felt where important. I don’t define that as being an obnoxious blowhard but hey, it is obvious that you dislike me and my politics so you are obviously biased. People who read anything you say on this forum will take your words as a grain of salt.

The bottom line is this. You take my words against Jindal as being less credible because I lost to him and you think I have some sort of vendetta. The owner of this site obviously believes otherwise. He must believe that because I have ran against him in the past that I am probably more likely to know what I am talking about when it comes to Bobby Jindal because I would have had to research him in the election.

The readers of this blog are free to believe what they want to believe. If they believe you, so be it. If they believe me, then great. But you constantly making personal attacks against me does not help you to look credible whatsoever.