Holden endorses Mary Landrieu
Print
Email
Save
Reprints
Twitter
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
“The bottom line is we need Mary Landrieu in the U.S. Senate,” Holden said Monday.
“Unless you were in the bunkers, you have no idea how much she contributed,” Holden added.
Landrieu returned the favor, calling Holden a visionary who worked to make Baton Rouge into a beacon of hope for thousands of south Louisiana residents displaced by the hurricane.
Landrieu also said she’s excited about the mayor’s $989 million bond proposal, which would be funded with a new half-cent sales tax and a new 9.9-mill property tax. Holden is asking the Metro Council to schedule the tax election during the Nov. 4 presidential election.
Among other things, the bond issue includes a $145 million expansion of the River Center and a $248 million nature-themed tourist attraction on the downtown riverfront.
“Downtown Baton Rouge has been more transformed than any other city in Louisiana in the past 20 years,” Landrieu said.
She said she was able to help the transformation by obtaining funding for the Center for Planning Excellence, which has also been active in Alexandria, Livingston Parish and Ascension Parish.
The Center for Planning Excellence is a nonprofit organization that has been working on updating Plan Baton Rouge for the downtown area and on redevelopment of Old South Baton Rouge.
After Monday’s news conference, Holden said he doesn’t believe that Saturday’s defeat of a proposed bond issue for schools in Central might be a bad omen for the chances of his tax proposal.
Holden said his proposed bond issue includes two major drainage projects that will help protect homes and businesses in Central during major rains.
If those drainage projects were proposed as part of a special taxing district, Central residents would have to pay higher taxes than under the proposed parishwide bond issue. By spreading the cost of the two projects across the parish, the proposed bond issue would lower costs of the drainage projects for Central, Holden said.
With Holden’s endorsement, Landrieu said she’s now received endorsements from more than 70 Louisiana mayors, including Republicans and Democrats.
-
Kip blew that one.
-
Kip made the right choice for Louisiana. I know Mary Landrieu will continue to be an excellent senator who will not shame our state like her junior counterpart (junior is referring to the David not his 21 year old "friend".)
-
These tax and spend, pork project, cold cash liberals have got to go.
-
Yes, OJ, they do need to go. Kip says she "contributed." No, not really. What she did was she managed to get her hands on millions of stolen dollars from citizens of other states and spread it out across the Banana Republic of Louisiana. It was not Landrieu's money at all. As the old saying goes, there's nothing a liberal cannot fix with someone else's money. Oh how so true.
-
This doesn't surprise me Kip endorsing Mary L. He's pulling one of his SAMBO acts again. Anything to get the white votes.
-
Landrieu - the tax and spend Dem would like the bond issue. If she likes it so much, then she should FUND it. Kip, we still like you, even with the bond issue and supporting Landrieu. On another note, I have never voted for someone based on who supports them. If anything, it has turned me away from a candidate because of their alliances.
-
We don't need her in the Senate, she wants to stay there just like Kip wants to stay in the mayors office. This is a perfect example of one politician complimenting another on their ability to get other peoples money. It makes no difference if they are Dem or Repub they both are one in the same today when it comes to spending OUR money. We need all new blood from top to bottom local to federal before anything will even hint at real change. No I don't mean Obama either.
-
Wait! I have an idea lets just build it and have no way to pay for it! We can do it just like every program passed under Bush!
-
Although I believe Mary Landrieu has done a lot for LA, this sounds like a "I will endorse you, if you endorse me and my tax plan" situation.
-
James, excellent point. Liberal is used as dirty word by the republicans. liberalism is a position that believes in responsibility and community. The founding fathers were liberals that believed in being responsible for our own fate. Taxing is the cost of participating in a civilization. Maybe OJ would like to live off the backs of everyone else and not pay for what he uses and consumes. That position is the republican view. Live by credit card. Look at the infrastructure.
-
"Taxing is the cost of participating in civilization." Obviously, our friend, Debbie, never read the words of chief justice Louis Brandeis. He made it quite clear he held a totally opposite view than Debbie's. In one of his famous decisions, he waxed eloquent about the right to be left alone. Burdening someone with taxation to finance the cost of unconstitutional projects contradicts the right to be left alone. As a product of the government schools, I failed to see where OJ was advocating living off the backs of anyone else. Could you please point that out to me? Please?
-
The $989,000,000 tax proposal will probably cost taxpayers a lot more since it will be bonded. Someone else posted a message that indicated it will cost close to $2,000,000,000. We need to know the actual final cost to taxpayers. Is Mary Landrieu actually endorsing the mayor's tax package, or is she just excited about it?
-
Crikey - Mark is back today. Does he not know the fed govt tracks these very posts, and uses them to place surveillance on his computer and in his home? Those black helicopters arent checking up on traffic on the nines, you know. More seriously, to cling to strict day-one constitutionalism is laughably simpleminded. Has our society changed in any way since 1776? I reckon so. To try to drag the clock back is lunacy and nonsense. Mark and co may be happy living in shacks, declaring their own republics, fearing the feds, and running through the woods with heavy armament each weekend playing 'patriot'. The rest of us alas must live in the real world - and that means taxation of some form to fund the services many of us rely on (occasionally decent roads, public lighting and police/ambulance, vaccinations, air traffic control, water safety standards - the list is endless). Of course, plenty in govt waste that cash miserably. To claim it a 'liberal' folly, basedon the last 8 years of right wing control, is a hopeless lie. Remember, Reagan qaudrupled the nat debt in 8 years - even with a veto pen.
-
Jed, don't you have some food to shoot at? Mark is right in what he says. It is not folly to believe in the principles that were derived in 1776. The underlying principle was that government should have very limited power over the governed. The federal government should only have been to provide for the things that the states could not provide for themselves. They even spelled those out. Common Defense, Interstate commerce regulation, and treaties with foriegn nations. Liberals today want the government to provide everyting for everyone. That is certainly outside the scope of what was to be, even with all the changes between then and now.
-
At the time of the revolution, clean water, interstates, safe food, education of all children, equality of all citizens, voting rights for women and african-americans, etc were not known. There is a reason the constitution is called a living and breathing document. As the nation as grown and the responsibilities have changed, the principals have changed. The idea of limited intervention you espouse can be seen in the Great Depression of last century, when Wilson believed no government intervention in business is good. They can govern themselves and citizens can fend for themselves. If you have relatives from this country and that era, let them tell you about a very limiting federal government leaving business alone and not protecting workers and consumers.
-
Even at the state level, it's not the function of legitimate government to "provide services." At least not under the umbrella of a republican form of government. Now, if we are a socialist form of government, the people's first allegiance is to the state. Whether it's Mary Landrieu or Kip Holden, the formula is the same: take money from the sovereign citizen and use it to create a socialist society where the state is the sovereign. There's nothing new about this, Jed.
-
Debbie's been drinking the Kool Aid. No, Debbie, the principles have NOT changed nor have the "responsibilities" of government. No, Debbie, it's not a "living and breathing document." It's a CONTRACT between the several states and the central (federal) government created by the states. BTW, the concept of education WAS known to the founders, don't even go there. Education was a function of the private sector, not government. Now that government has stuck it's nose under that tent, look around at the horrible results. Your concept of "protecting workers and consumers" is more in tune with the communist form of government than that of a constitutional republic, which is what form of government the constitution guarantees to all the states. Or has that provision been repealed?
-
"Now, if we are a socialist form of government, the people's first allegiance is to the state" Now of course that is baloney. Having lived in several 'socialist countries' (which are as free as you and me and, in several ways (travel to Cuba for instance) more free. This remains the only country I have visited that mandates allegiance to itself of its citizens, by way of a pledge. now of course you can say 'well that pledge is to the flag and constitution' but, really, those are only symbols of the state - well one a symbol, one a governing document. We make kids pledge to the state every morning, and at every nascar race and sporting event, where of course the state equals military (always with the veterans, and the flyover). We worship the state no less than and Soviet, and woe betide the traitor who speaks up against it (as long as it is embodied militaristic fascism-lite). While the underlying priciples of the const. may be sound, to cling to its literal interpretation in this day and age is as idiotic as those that would claim the bible inerrant and factual in every way. As Mark say "There's nothing new about this" amd that is the problem. These are 200 year old notions that have made no allowance for the constant change and development built in to the very document - hence the maddening generalities found therein. The fed govt is no more dangerous and insidious than any other form of government. Indeed, as in many of these 'socialist' countries (which I suspect Mark has scarcely visited), the government is actually of, by, and for the people. Does that sound familiar?
-
As far as education goes, Deb is right on that one. As Mark no doubt knows (or can immediately rebut), the Law of 1647 (Old Deluder Satan Act) required townships of 50 or more families to hire a schoolmaster for the kids therein, as a response to the pathetic negligent response to the Law of 1642 requiring private families to educate their children privately in religious teaching. Alas, the private sector failed, and govt stepped in - the families all shared the schoolmasters expertise and paid for him. Why, isnt that public schooling? And over 100 years before 1776. The role of govt is more than just boogeyman - it is to provide services to its populace - simple as that. Today, we have a more literate and educated population than ever before, with massively fewer people in poverty, the elderly cared for medically, minority groups protected, children vaccinated, product safety standards enforced, safe food, and clean water. All because private entities are unable or unwilling to foot the bill. If all one has is a profit motive, the general good goes out the window. And despite this, we can still choose private schooling, eat what we want, go where we want, read what we want, meet whom we want, and so on. I am as free as any puritan, indeed more so (although the Patriot Act is worrisome - thanks conservatives!)
-
It's only baloney to those who have no desire to live a truly free life and refuse to see the simplest of things. The only thing you've gotten right is the fact some socialists nations ARE more free than us. That should shout volumes to even the most brainwashed Amerikans. Getting back to the subject of the article, Mary Landrieu is cut from the same cloth as some of the readers. To her, there's absolutely nothing wrong with creating a form of government contrary to the very contract she (and Kip) have sworn an oath to uphold and defend.
-
Well, I concur to a degree on that. There are few pledging allegiance you have even read the thing. Hence, the multiple votes to suspect H Corpus, the FISA renewal (without warrants), the Patriot Act (Remember Ari Fleischer and 'watch what you say') and so on. While I have a grudging admiration for those that would prefer to restict the long arm of activist government, I see that as more of an anomolous problem, symptomatic of a particular administration in any given time. Generally, the government is innocuous, benign, and somewhat hapless. I know - I work for one. The days of log cabins, powdered wigs, and continental congresses are long over - time and life have progresed - and regression is simply not an option. you seem unable to understand that. You benefit every day in a thousand ways from big government (right or left) and dont even know it. How much would you be willing to give up? I suspect, when push came to shove - not that much.
-
I see Mark Edward threw around the strict constructionist stance to interpreting the consitution. I am suprised he didn't quote Justice Scalia when he did it. Most right wingers love to quote Scalia's position and idiolize him for it. Scalia sure did spout his smart mouth about this in nearly every case and every speech he has ever given in front of his Federalist Society hacks...right up until the time he needed the constitution to breath to get GWB elected. Guess he saw it differently when he injected the federal government into the State of Florida's election law interpretation...but the constitution needed to be a breathing document then to serve his self interest. If you people think the republicans are fiscally conservative and don't waste our tax dollars like every other politician, then I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale...
-
Don't fret citizens. We have MEM cornered at the University in Oxford. He's in our sights now, just waiting for orders for his Gitmo vacation.
-
Why does Landrieu support the nearly billion dollar package Holden wants voters to pay for? I have not seen any solid details of the mayor's plan that indicate it will be successful. I havent seen the increased demand for hotel space in downtown Baton Rouge to warrant tax payers (who are already paying increased prices for nearly everything) to pay even more money. I drove aroudn downtown B.R. about 2 Saturday nights ago and it was like a ghost town around there so where is the demand for more hotel space? I havent seen where B.R. is gaining tourism to the point where we need to spend $248 million on some initiative all because Holden wants B.R. to be like N.O. (and I mean like N.O. in terms of tourism, nothing else). These measures really make no sense, this sounds like some over-exicted plan Holden woke up one morning and said "Im goingo take this to the Council to see what they say". B.R. is not a tourist attraction and never will be. Have you even been to downtown N.O., downtown Miami, downtown NYC, downtown L.A., downtown Chicago, Boston or Philadelphia or Detriot. Those downtown areas are packed with foot traffic and car traffic. Driving around downtown B.R. is like driving through downtown Lafayette or Monroe after dark, big bunch of nothing. IF demand should ever increase for all these initiatives in the future than im for it but right now it makes no sense to pay more money for something that, in its current form,. wont work at all.
-
Providing hotel space is definitely a governmental function.
-
That should read "NOT a governmental function."
-
"GINA," you are one ANGRY chick!!! Next time you call someone a with Kip's character a derogatory name, take a look in the mirror. THINK ABOUT IT!! Great CHOICE KIP!!!!
-
More proof Hizzoner Da Kingfish is unfit to be mayor. Maybe when Landrieu is unemployed next year Da Kingfish will get her a minimum wage job at his new downtown monkey show.
Click "Report Abuse" to notify our moderators that a comment may contain objectionable content.
Your comment appears to contain objectionable content and must be reviewed by a site moderator. If your comment is deemed objectionable, it will not appear on the site.
 | ||||
| Most Popular | Most Emailed | Hot Topics | ||
