Posted on 11/10/2002 12:45:54 AM PST by elenchus
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:58:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
However, you couldn't have been more wrong as to the intended meaning of my "(Ahem)". Governor Foster is a wealthy man and I have absolutely no reason to believe he would do anything dishonest. I surely hope not, I voted for the man twice. I thought his explanation about the NRSC money was disingenuous and my impression was that it had more to do with Cooksey's inability to raise campaign money rather than as a matter of principle. So I stand by that statement.
You were not wrong about my comments regarding Dr Cooksey's behavior. They were not intended to be complimentary. His behavior was deplorable, publically disresepctful to Mrs Terrell and unbecoming for a man of his age and experience. IMO, his post election conduct illustrated perfectly why he ran a distant third. If Dr Cooksey were a gentleman he would have exercised a little more discipline and refrained from making those spiteful public statements about Mrs Terrell. He should have addressed his concerns and dissatisfaction privately to Mrs Terrell not to the press.
Although I used the words "loser" and "cry babies" to describe their behavior I suppose if one were determined to find split hairs one could define that usuage as name calling. So be it. Likewise I'm sure someone, somewhere might characterize their recent comments as winning or gracious in defeat but I would not.
Landrieu has pretty much ignored her base for the past 6 years and now she expects their support. That hasn't gone over well and they are letting her know about it. I don't think there is a chance they won't come around but wooing them will absorb a lot of time and resources. I think her support of Boxer during the floor debates has already hurt her to some degree but not as much as I had expected. Hopefully we'll be able to find an effective way of reminding the Republican base of that. The Governor's remarks about not liking Terrell's negative ads during the primary were not helpful and he handicapped the campaign unnecessarily. Apparently he equates pointing out Landrieu's record as going negative.
Now, I'll try one more time to make what I consider the important point of all three of these posts. Imagine that the situation had been reversed and your candidate had lost. Imagine that the loss were a result of false accusations that she is not sufficiently pro-life and that the winning candidate had received half a million dollars in money from outside the state. I'm sure you believe that she'd never say anything like what Dr. Cooksey said, but imagine that in a moment of hurt and frustration she had said something that was ungracious and unbecoming. If a volunteer from the winning campaign had said about her what you said about Dr. Cooksey, would that make you more likely or less likely to give enthusiastic support to that candidate's runoff campaign?
As a commentator, Rush's job is to make comments. I remember in early '96 him saying that the Democrats were in such disarray that they didn't have a chance in the fall. No one would listen to him if he were giving detailed technical explanations of some wonderful election-predicting computer program even if that program were right in 9 of 10 races. He has to be a little "on the edge." I also think he sometimes tries to make self-fulfilling prophecies. If he had been able to persuade enough moderates that the Democrats were in disarray in '96, we might have been spared four years of Clinton. I would love for him to say something that energizes our base for the runoff.
I think what he's really doing is looking at the voting patterns of the state over the past few years. Louisiana is trending Republican, and Mary Landrieu must cast herself as independent-minded and slightly conservative without losing the base on the left. Suzie Terrell is receiving support from across the country, and I doubt that the cross-country support for Mrs. Landrieu is as enthusiastic. The GOP will be sending some big names to support Mrs. Terrell, but support from well-known Democrats would only hurt Mrs. Landrieu. The election isn't a cake walk for Mrs. Terrell. The GOP will have to work hard to mobilize their supporters. I think they'll have an easier time mobilizing their people than the Democrats will, but the runoff cannot be taken for granted.
WFTR
Bill
NO. What Dr Cooksey did is inexcusable. Period. It was unacceptable for a man and peevishly unprofessional for a former elected representative. Whatever was or was not said about him it is history, pre-November 5th. It is now post-November 5th, his campaign is over and he is history. In light of his behavior I can't help but feel that that is a real good thing for the people of Louisiana.
Now, that is it. I'm not considering, discussing or talking about this little man any more.
It's time to start taking names in preparation for kicking butt.
Don't tug on Superman's cape...
Exactly. Foster started crawfishin' today. LOL. Think I'll send him a quarter. LOL
Unfortunately, in your last address you refused to answer the simple question of my most recent post on the topic. I have never questioned that the remarks of Dr. Cooksey and Governor Foster were inappropriate, but my point was that the words and tone that you chose to criticise them was likewise inappropriate. I think it's obvious that your refusal to answer my question makes a two things very clear.
1. When I made my first criticism, you responded that you hadn't engaged in name calling. I showed you your own posts that made it clear that you had. If you hadn't believed that you weren't name calling, I don't think you would have denied it, but your denial makes me wonder whether insulting people is something you do without giving it much thought. When this behavior was pointed out to you, your first response was to deny it instead of looking more closely to see whether it could be true. I think if you had looked at your original comments, you would have seen that they constituted name calling. Finally, even when confronted with proof, you refused to admit what you did.
2. Your steadfast refusal to answer my question likely means that your answer to the question of my previous post would have been "yes." If the situations had been reversed; your candidate had said something unbecoming; and one of us had called her a "loser," "cry baby," or "unsuitable for public office," you would not have given enthusiastic support to the Republican candidate in the runoff.
I'll make this point one more time. I doubt that you will read it and know that you won't answer, but it's a point worth making. Your candidate's winning a primary does not entitle you to anyone's vote. Your candidate must still earn every vote, and that requirement extends even to those who supported another candidate from your party in the primary. Losing is hard, and people say hard things when they lose. It isn't right, but it's life. When you can't resist the urge to cast insults in return, you only hurt your candidate's chances of winning the votes of the loser's supporters. I've cast those insults too, so I'm speaking to myself as well as others. However, I hope that we will all think twice and try to avoid doing things that only make us lose more elections.
WFTR
Bill
I don't know what "butt" you think you'll be "kicking," but if you think that losing votes is a concern to either of these guys, you aren't aware of the situation. Governor Foster won his last election with about 55 or 60% of the vote. In late August, Karl Rove was in full court press to persuade him to run for this seat. He was the only Republican who would have been able to win the seat almost without a fight. When he refused to run, many Republican planners were discouraged that we could win the seat at all. Governor Foster's only interest when he leaves his current office is to hunt, fish, and enjoy his family. Likewise, Dr. Cooksey had promised to serve only three terms in the House, and he is fulfilling that promise by stepping down in January. At his age, there would be no point in making another run for any office. He wanted to serve six more years in Washington before retiring, but he'll be happy returning to private life.
Pretty good reasoning there. I can't fight your logic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.