Mary Landrieu's vote will cost tax payers $100 Million

What they said.

 

Our friends over at RedState are in high dudgeon again, this time over news reports that Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu "sold" her vote on health care reform to Harry Reid -- not for $100 million, as was initially claimed, but $300 million, as she corrected reporters off the floor.
"Back in the old days, people would at least look ashamed when caught being bribed, but not Mary Landrieu," wrote Erick Erickson last night. "Senator Harry Reid put a provision on the health care plan that originally called for $100 million to be funneled to Louisiana exclusively. Mary Landrieu refused to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to the health care debate. Reid raised the offer to $300 million and Mary proved she wasn't a cheap date after all -- she took the increase, voted for cloture, and then bragged about the $300 million bribe."

Said Landrieu in defense of her actions: "I will correct something. It's not $100 million, it's $300 million, and I'm proud of it and will keep fighting for it."

Erickson's decision to highlight the Landrieu vote -- using rhetoric originally suggested by the communications shop at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which put out a release on Saturday afternoon in which it labeled the Reid-Landrieu swap "The Louisiana Purchase" -- is good news for the NRSC's high command, as it demonstrates that just because Erickson and his cohorts at RedState are feuding with the NRSC over the Florida U.S. Senate primary, they are still willing to work together when their perceived interests converge.
The only problem here, of course, is that Louisianans have already proven themselves to hold what might be called a somewhat less rigid approach to what might be called the "moral" side of the work done on their behalf by their representatives in Washington than either Erickson or the NRSC might like.
Not for Louisianans, the curse of the straight-up moralizers, no sirree.
Why, all one must do to find evidence of this is look at John Breaux, Landrieu's former colleague representing Louisiana in the Senate, who famously defended his own trough-swilling in 1981 -- when he crossed party lines to cast the decisive vote for Ronald Reagan's tax-cutting budget, in exchange for some piece of federal pork offered by the Reagan White House -- by declaring that his vote was not available for sale, "but it is available for rent."
Or look at the 1991 Governor's race in Louisiana, where a the fall runoff campaign pitted shady former Gov. Edwin Edwards against scary former Klansman David Duke, and Edwards won the race using the slogan, "Vote for the crook. It's important."
Louisianans are a far more tolerant lot than most. There seems to be an implicit understanding between Louisiana voters and Louisiana's elected officials: Louisiana's voters don't mind it when their representatives are crooks, as long as their crooked representatives bring home the bacon.
So RedState and the NRSC can dudgeon away -- but Mary Landrieu, who's not even up for reelection again until 2014, isn't about to be swayed. Especially not when she can rent her vote for $300 million a pop.


http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/in_the_right/2009/11/redstate.html


Once again our politicos make our state look like crap.

 

I would like nothing more than for the world to work this way. It doesn't though and the only people with the power to change it are the very people who stand to gain the least from the change. The difference between you and I is that I have come to accept the fact that this is simply the way the world works and no matter how I think it should work, it's going to continue down this path.

You apparently feel that the principle is more important than the result. To that, I congratulate you for not having sold your soul to the political process.

It is my personal opinion that as a state, we do not have the luxury of placing our principles above "results at any cost". We (Louisiana) only have a handful of electoral votes, so our best option is to elect a competent representative, keep them in power as long as possible so as to increase his/her seniority and reap the benefits of their political clout. This is why we're looking at $300 million to close the gap in our state budget shortfall in a couple years. I understand that it's nowhere near as legitimate as a $223 million dollar bridge to an island inhabited by less than $100 people or a $10 billion dollar unnecessary military base in another country for American troops, but it's going to help everyone in Louisiana and I could personally give a **** less how it affects the rest of the country because that's how they feel about us.

I get over it by bathing every morning...

 

Yes. There are 53 Blue Dogs in the House.

 

hmmmmmm?

 

I hope not because one sellout is all I can handle this week.

There are three possible sources mentioned.

1) Landrieu - not credible
2) Newsweek - not credible
3) An unknown secretary who made a vague claim and wouldn't attribute it to Jindal

I'll wait until we get a little more information.

MM...where did you get the article? Is it local or another liberal "bottom of the birdcage" waste of time like the New York Times or Washington Post?

 

1) When did Mary Landrieu become "not credible"?

2) Jindal has an eye on the national scene, so don't expect him to give a Democrat credit for anything.

3) When did sending money back home to your constituents become "selling out"? Exactly why do we send representation to Washington if not to provide for the constituents?

Has no one here ever taken a civics class?