The Washington Post reports this morning that 100 American service men and women have been killed in Iraq during the month of December.
The President, meanwhile, continues to insist that he will not be rushed into changing course from his failed policies, regardless of what the people, the Congress, military leaders, military analysts and just about everyone except his wife, his dog, his Vice President, and John McCain believes he should do.
By my count, four Louisiana residents have been killed in Iraq since the release of the Iraq Study Group report earlier this month. It was that report that provided the political cover for Bush to change course, which he promptly refused to take. Instead of trying to extricate us from this catastrophic war, he's actually contemplating escalating the violence.
For a man who bull-rushed this country into the single greatest self-inflicted wound on our national security, global standing and our military based on trumped up intelligence cooked up in the office of his Vice President, Bush has chosen a particularly inopportune time to go all deliberate on us. Oh, what the hell! The war's only costing us a couple of billion dollars per week.
Too bad he didn't take as much time considering his policy options before he and Cheney got us into this mess.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Speaking Ill of the Dead: Ford's Real Legacy
It is with some frustration that I read the laudatory eulogies for ex-president Ford. Ford, we can all agree, was a nice man and a definite improvement over the criminal Richard Nixon. His niceness--and plain-spoken honesty--was a tonic the country needed after Nixon and Agnew.
But the idea that Ford's pardon of Nixon spared the country unnecessary pain and that the act of pardoning a president for any and all acts committed while in office was somehow noble goes beyond the usual stricture that we not speak ill of the dead and into a sort of eulogizing that ignores the real consequences of Ford's act.
Ford "spared" us all the necessity to look Nixon's peculiarly anti-American criminality in the face--and the opportunity to snuff it out forever. Nixon, we should recall, was a prime example of the "Imperial Presidency." Nixon believed that the President could legally do things that would be criminal if done by anyone else. In effect he endorsed the regal idea the the president embodied the state and that, literally, his word was law. He could not break the law because he was the law. As he famously told David Frost: "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
This is precisely the position that King George III took in repressing American aspirations prior to and during the revolutionary period. Nothing could be less American in its spirit. From the invasion of Cambodia, to the invasion of a critic's psychiatrist's office, to the burglary of the opposing political party, to suborning perjury when he was caught: any decision he made could be justified by his belief that the security of the country depended upon his politics and policies.
Following Watergate the country that hounded him out of office was in a mood to hang him high. They wanted to condemn what he'd done and make sure that no man thought himself above the law. The personal ugliness and bigotry of the man which has seeped out over the last 30 years in dribs and drabs would have been revealed in all its grotesquery at a time and in a circumstance which would have demanded its punishment and the institution of legal standards which would have made it clear that no man embodies the Republic--and that to think so is to court the country's contempt and condemnation.
That is what Ford "saved" us from doing. His blanket pardon of the man who made him President saved us from having the moment that would have destroyed the Imperial Presidency.
We got, instead, Ronald Reagan, whose convoluted Iran-Contra shenanigans wrecked our relations in the Middle East and have lead directly to the current mess in Iraq. That administration backed a scheme to fund illegal support of Contra death squads with income from secret sales of advanced weaponry to Iran. (The picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam took place at a moment when the US had abandoned Iran and was supporting and supplying Saddam in his war against Iran and his hostility to Syria.) Reagan initially lied about the affair and then admitted that the arms sales had taken place. Reagan's subsequent deification by the right wing of his party has suppressed any real examination of the still-secret details of this affair and had the effect of reawakening the idea that whatever the President did had to be OK.
Finally we have President Bush, who openly and nonchalantly claims Imperial status for his decisions. Apparently the president cannot commit an illegal act, simply because he is The President. (This is often called by proponents the "unitary executive" and was first suggested by Samuel Alito during the Reagan administration. Such a man Bush now conveniently makes a Justice...) During his presidency Bush has repeatedly made the claim that he only has to enforce the parts of laws he likes, that he can abrogate fundamental treaties like the Geneva Conventions at his whim, that he can torture folks at his pleasure and need not answer to anyone. The list of outrages is long. And it is not just Democrats who complain...the Cato Institute's condemnation of his violations of the Constitution is particularly stinging.
There was a moment in American history when we were primed to reassert a real Republic; one in which no man embodied the state and no one was allowed to consider themselves above the law.
Ford robbed us of that moment. No one, on the left or the right, not even when eulogizing the dead, should applaud that act.
But the idea that Ford's pardon of Nixon spared the country unnecessary pain and that the act of pardoning a president for any and all acts committed while in office was somehow noble goes beyond the usual stricture that we not speak ill of the dead and into a sort of eulogizing that ignores the real consequences of Ford's act.
Ford "spared" us all the necessity to look Nixon's peculiarly anti-American criminality in the face--and the opportunity to snuff it out forever. Nixon, we should recall, was a prime example of the "Imperial Presidency." Nixon believed that the President could legally do things that would be criminal if done by anyone else. In effect he endorsed the regal idea the the president embodied the state and that, literally, his word was law. He could not break the law because he was the law. As he famously told David Frost: "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
This is precisely the position that King George III took in repressing American aspirations prior to and during the revolutionary period. Nothing could be less American in its spirit. From the invasion of Cambodia, to the invasion of a critic's psychiatrist's office, to the burglary of the opposing political party, to suborning perjury when he was caught: any decision he made could be justified by his belief that the security of the country depended upon his politics and policies.
Following Watergate the country that hounded him out of office was in a mood to hang him high. They wanted to condemn what he'd done and make sure that no man thought himself above the law. The personal ugliness and bigotry of the man which has seeped out over the last 30 years in dribs and drabs would have been revealed in all its grotesquery at a time and in a circumstance which would have demanded its punishment and the institution of legal standards which would have made it clear that no man embodies the Republic--and that to think so is to court the country's contempt and condemnation.
That is what Ford "saved" us from doing. His blanket pardon of the man who made him President saved us from having the moment that would have destroyed the Imperial Presidency.
We got, instead, Ronald Reagan, whose convoluted Iran-Contra shenanigans wrecked our relations in the Middle East and have lead directly to the current mess in Iraq. That administration backed a scheme to fund illegal support of Contra death squads with income from secret sales of advanced weaponry to Iran. (The picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam took place at a moment when the US had abandoned Iran and was supporting and supplying Saddam in his war against Iran and his hostility to Syria.) Reagan initially lied about the affair and then admitted that the arms sales had taken place. Reagan's subsequent deification by the right wing of his party has suppressed any real examination of the still-secret details of this affair and had the effect of reawakening the idea that whatever the President did had to be OK.
Finally we have President Bush, who openly and nonchalantly claims Imperial status for his decisions. Apparently the president cannot commit an illegal act, simply because he is The President. (This is often called by proponents the "unitary executive" and was first suggested by Samuel Alito during the Reagan administration. Such a man Bush now conveniently makes a Justice...) During his presidency Bush has repeatedly made the claim that he only has to enforce the parts of laws he likes, that he can abrogate fundamental treaties like the Geneva Conventions at his whim, that he can torture folks at his pleasure and need not answer to anyone. The list of outrages is long. And it is not just Democrats who complain...the Cato Institute's condemnation of his violations of the Constitution is particularly stinging.
There was a moment in American history when we were primed to reassert a real Republic; one in which no man embodied the state and no one was allowed to consider themselves above the law.
Ford robbed us of that moment. No one, on the left or the right, not even when eulogizing the dead, should applaud that act.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Republican Slime Machine Starts Louisiana Franchise
The Baton Rouge Advocate reported on Tuesday that the national Republican Slime Machine has opened its Louisiana franchise with the stated goal of gaining GOP control of the Louisiana Legislature in the 2007 elections.
The group tips its hand by all but naming itself after Tom DeLay's disgraced operation. The operating moniker: "The Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority."
New Orleans developer cum post-Katrina land-grabber Joseph Canizaro is the head of the group, but it's clear that this is the Louisiana version of the national operation that was so successful in the earlier portion of this decade but which has fallen on harder times in 2006. Canizaro is a Bush Pioneer. So, too, is Boysie Bollinger (and he's got the fat contracts for work that didn't pan out on the Coast Guard fleet 'up-grade' to prove it!).
But, the piece that nails this down as a national power grab in Louisiana is the presence of Bob Perry of Texas as a maximum contributor to the new PAC. Perry, you may recall, is the money behind the group that 'swiftboated' John Kerry and in 2004 presidential race. His group's track record in 2006 was less successful, but no less slime-filled.
The group has, The Advocate reports, $600,000 of its goal of $2.5 million that it wants to have in-hand by the time qualifying rolls around in August. The objective is to get Republican majorities in the Louisiana House and Senate. There are 144 seats in the two chambers (39 in the Senate; 105 in the House). If they had a candidate in every race, the PAC could spend more than $17,000 per race. That might not seem like a lot of money but, in a district race, it would be huge.
The story, though, says they intend to be active in only about 37 or so races. Let's say 40 just for rounding purposes. That means they will have the ability to pour more than $60,000 into each of those races!
The group says it will play favorites among Republicans. Must have plenty of ex-Democrats in the group, no? ;-)
So, what does this mean?
Well, the past is no direct guide to the future but it can be instructive. Recall that Tom DeLay used his Texans for a Republican Majority as a money laundering conduit that enabled him to elect a Republican majority in the Texas Legislature. He then used that majority to re-apportion the Texas Congressional delegation in ways that created new Republican-majority districts. OK, well it worked in 2004 but came back to bite the party in Texas in 2006.
So, let's assume the GOP game plan goes as planned. The Republican majority in the Louisiana Legislature (working in concert with what they expect to be Republican Governor Bobby Jindal) would reapportion Louisiana's Congressional districts before the 2008 elections. No doubt they'd cite the recent Census Bureau estimate that the state lost five percent of its population in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They'd target Charlie Melancon and Bill Jefferson's districts, shifting lines to make it more difficult for Democrats to get elected from those districts.
Republican control of the Legislature would also put that party in control of all reapportionment that followed the 2010 Census, including the Legislature (both houses), the Congressional districts, the Public Service Commission, the state Supreme Court, BESE districts and other state districts.
In short, this is an outside directed attempt to re-order Louisiana politics, capitalizing on the demographic shifts as a result of the storms, using techniques developed in Texas and on partnerships developed inside the corrupt national Republican establishment.
It should be noted that DeLay was forced to give up his seat in Congress as a result of the ethical and legal troubles his Texas power grab brought him. No doubt there will be similar hubris and over-reach in this endeavor.
Then, again, we see this one coming.
Break out the slicker suits, the Republicans have committed to taking Louisiana at all costs. It's going to get nasty.
The group tips its hand by all but naming itself after Tom DeLay's disgraced operation. The operating moniker: "The Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority."
New Orleans developer cum post-Katrina land-grabber Joseph Canizaro is the head of the group, but it's clear that this is the Louisiana version of the national operation that was so successful in the earlier portion of this decade but which has fallen on harder times in 2006. Canizaro is a Bush Pioneer. So, too, is Boysie Bollinger (and he's got the fat contracts for work that didn't pan out on the Coast Guard fleet 'up-grade' to prove it!).
But, the piece that nails this down as a national power grab in Louisiana is the presence of Bob Perry of Texas as a maximum contributor to the new PAC. Perry, you may recall, is the money behind the group that 'swiftboated' John Kerry and in 2004 presidential race. His group's track record in 2006 was less successful, but no less slime-filled.
The group has, The Advocate reports, $600,000 of its goal of $2.5 million that it wants to have in-hand by the time qualifying rolls around in August. The objective is to get Republican majorities in the Louisiana House and Senate. There are 144 seats in the two chambers (39 in the Senate; 105 in the House). If they had a candidate in every race, the PAC could spend more than $17,000 per race. That might not seem like a lot of money but, in a district race, it would be huge.
The story, though, says they intend to be active in only about 37 or so races. Let's say 40 just for rounding purposes. That means they will have the ability to pour more than $60,000 into each of those races!
The group says it will play favorites among Republicans. Must have plenty of ex-Democrats in the group, no? ;-)
So, what does this mean?
Well, the past is no direct guide to the future but it can be instructive. Recall that Tom DeLay used his Texans for a Republican Majority as a money laundering conduit that enabled him to elect a Republican majority in the Texas Legislature. He then used that majority to re-apportion the Texas Congressional delegation in ways that created new Republican-majority districts. OK, well it worked in 2004 but came back to bite the party in Texas in 2006.
So, let's assume the GOP game plan goes as planned. The Republican majority in the Louisiana Legislature (working in concert with what they expect to be Republican Governor Bobby Jindal) would reapportion Louisiana's Congressional districts before the 2008 elections. No doubt they'd cite the recent Census Bureau estimate that the state lost five percent of its population in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They'd target Charlie Melancon and Bill Jefferson's districts, shifting lines to make it more difficult for Democrats to get elected from those districts.
Republican control of the Legislature would also put that party in control of all reapportionment that followed the 2010 Census, including the Legislature (both houses), the Congressional districts, the Public Service Commission, the state Supreme Court, BESE districts and other state districts.
In short, this is an outside directed attempt to re-order Louisiana politics, capitalizing on the demographic shifts as a result of the storms, using techniques developed in Texas and on partnerships developed inside the corrupt national Republican establishment.
It should be noted that DeLay was forced to give up his seat in Congress as a result of the ethical and legal troubles his Texas power grab brought him. No doubt there will be similar hubris and over-reach in this endeavor.
Then, again, we see this one coming.
Break out the slicker suits, the Republicans have committed to taking Louisiana at all costs. It's going to get nasty.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Jindal's Ethics Issues
With Republican legislators going partisan in the Special Session, it's clear that the race for governor is now on.
Sure, Bobby Jindal is going through the motions of praying over whether he's going to run or not when, in all actuality, that decision was made the night he lost in 2003.
Jindal will bring something new to this election: a deep bag of connections to corrupt Republicans that extends over the network that he used to raise funds for his congressional races and that he pandered to while in Washington.
Jindal's campaign will explode the myth of Republican rectitude that has been the basis of the party's claim to the moral high ground (such as it exists) in Louisiana politics over the past 30 years. After all, Edwin Edwards was not a member of their party.
No, but Donald "Boysie" Bollinger is and recent stories about Bollinger Shipyards' role in the emerging scandal in the supposed upgrade of the Coast Guard fleet are going to seriously eat away at the state Republicans' phony righteousness.
Then, too, there will be Jindal's ties to Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform. Jindal has signed every pledge that Norquist has stuck in front of him at the same time that Norquist and his various organizations were acting in partnership with and as fronts for money laundering schemes developed by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. I'd be interested in learning more about the ties between Jindal and Ralph Reed. If ever there were two opportunists whose ambitions and egos would have driven paths to cross, those are two.
Then, too, there will be the actual record of Jindal as a public official. I am particularly interested in the boy wonder's role as head of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals in the first Foster term. There was at least one serious public health issue that was swept under the rug during Jindal's tenure that later came back to haunt residents in the Baton Rouge area. Will the media stick to repeating the fawning myths of this guy, or will they actually look at his record with a critical eye on what he really did?
Jindal has gotten a free ride from the media and the political establishment. It is going to be different this time around.
Sure, Bobby Jindal is going through the motions of praying over whether he's going to run or not when, in all actuality, that decision was made the night he lost in 2003.
Jindal will bring something new to this election: a deep bag of connections to corrupt Republicans that extends over the network that he used to raise funds for his congressional races and that he pandered to while in Washington.
Jindal's campaign will explode the myth of Republican rectitude that has been the basis of the party's claim to the moral high ground (such as it exists) in Louisiana politics over the past 30 years. After all, Edwin Edwards was not a member of their party.
No, but Donald "Boysie" Bollinger is and recent stories about Bollinger Shipyards' role in the emerging scandal in the supposed upgrade of the Coast Guard fleet are going to seriously eat away at the state Republicans' phony righteousness.
Then, too, there will be Jindal's ties to Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform. Jindal has signed every pledge that Norquist has stuck in front of him at the same time that Norquist and his various organizations were acting in partnership with and as fronts for money laundering schemes developed by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. I'd be interested in learning more about the ties between Jindal and Ralph Reed. If ever there were two opportunists whose ambitions and egos would have driven paths to cross, those are two.
Then, too, there will be the actual record of Jindal as a public official. I am particularly interested in the boy wonder's role as head of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals in the first Foster term. There was at least one serious public health issue that was swept under the rug during Jindal's tenure that later came back to haunt residents in the Baton Rouge area. Will the media stick to repeating the fawning myths of this guy, or will they actually look at his record with a critical eye on what he really did?
Jindal has gotten a free ride from the media and the political establishment. It is going to be different this time around.
Friday, December 15, 2006
The Vichy Suaves
Thank you to the Baton Rouge Advocate for their illuminating coverage of the so-called "No Party Party" for Republican Parish President Joey Durel which was hosted by Glenn Armentor, a member of the Lafayette Democratic Parish Executive Committee.
Thanks to the reporting by The Advocate, we learned that other members of the Democratic Parish Executive Committee attended the event and, we can only presume, gave money to Durel's re-election bid.
The Advocate also provided a picture of Durel with former Democratic State Party Chairman Mike Skinner.
Joining Armentor and Skinner as members in good standing of the soon-to-be infamous Vichy Democrats were PEC members Jeff Moss and Ken Bouillion.
Now before the Republicans and Democratic apologists go all apoplectic about 'bipartisanship', let's be clear about what the issue is here: It is about leaders of the Democratic Party breaking party rules to raise funds for and endorse a Republican. It is not about Democrats backing Republicans (and it's certainly not about Republicans backing Democrats because, as we know, that just isn't done here).
Face it. There is no bi-partisanship here in Lafayette. There is a strong and visible streak of Democratic surrender, of which Armentor's party is just the latest and most visible example.
And, while Mike Skinner holds no current rank in the party, his legacy is firmly established. No Democratic Party chairman (and possibly no Republican Party chairman) has done more to advance the Republican Party in the 7th District than has Mike Skinner.
Look back to the 2004 election when Skinner, then serving as state party chairman, allowed or condoned the use of the state party's mailing permit to distribute a flier that promoted the candidacy of Sen. Willie Mount over that of Sen. Donald Cravins in the 7th District Congressional race. Adding insult to injury, funds raised by independent Louisiana Democrats for the Kerry campaign were used by the state party to distribute this flier.
The resuling bitterness and recriminations allowed Charles Boustany to get elected to Congress in 2004. That same election, David Vitter became the first Republican since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate from Louisiana.
Mike Skinner, you did a heck of job!
So, it is appropriate that Skinner's picture grace the web story on this event since it is his indifference to the fate of the Democratic Party in this region which set the stage not only for the rise of a certain class of Republicans, it also paved the way for more anti-party behavior on the part of other Democratic 'leaders' (and that is a phrase I use loosely these days), the kind of which was on exhibit on West Bayou Parkway last night.
If any member of the Republican Parish Executive Committee would have the temerity to endorse a Democrat for office, he/she would be ridden out of town on a rail by the same Republicans who are embracing the betrayal of the Democratic party and their oaths by Armento, Moss and Bouillion. As I said, Mike Skinner is in a class by himself.
When we erect the Vichy Democrats Hall of Shame (coming soon to another site), we'll be sure to reserve a special place for Mr. Skinner.
Meanwhile, I would hope that other members of the Lafayette Democratic Executive Committee and other Lafayette Democrats will press for censure of the committee members who took part in last night's tawdry display of opportunism.
With Democrat 'leaders' like this, who needs Republicans?
Thanks to the reporting by The Advocate, we learned that other members of the Democratic Parish Executive Committee attended the event and, we can only presume, gave money to Durel's re-election bid.
The Advocate also provided a picture of Durel with former Democratic State Party Chairman Mike Skinner.
Joining Armentor and Skinner as members in good standing of the soon-to-be infamous Vichy Democrats were PEC members Jeff Moss and Ken Bouillion.
Now before the Republicans and Democratic apologists go all apoplectic about 'bipartisanship', let's be clear about what the issue is here: It is about leaders of the Democratic Party breaking party rules to raise funds for and endorse a Republican. It is not about Democrats backing Republicans (and it's certainly not about Republicans backing Democrats because, as we know, that just isn't done here).
Face it. There is no bi-partisanship here in Lafayette. There is a strong and visible streak of Democratic surrender, of which Armentor's party is just the latest and most visible example.
And, while Mike Skinner holds no current rank in the party, his legacy is firmly established. No Democratic Party chairman (and possibly no Republican Party chairman) has done more to advance the Republican Party in the 7th District than has Mike Skinner.
Look back to the 2004 election when Skinner, then serving as state party chairman, allowed or condoned the use of the state party's mailing permit to distribute a flier that promoted the candidacy of Sen. Willie Mount over that of Sen. Donald Cravins in the 7th District Congressional race. Adding insult to injury, funds raised by independent Louisiana Democrats for the Kerry campaign were used by the state party to distribute this flier.
The resuling bitterness and recriminations allowed Charles Boustany to get elected to Congress in 2004. That same election, David Vitter became the first Republican since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate from Louisiana.
Mike Skinner, you did a heck of job!
So, it is appropriate that Skinner's picture grace the web story on this event since it is his indifference to the fate of the Democratic Party in this region which set the stage not only for the rise of a certain class of Republicans, it also paved the way for more anti-party behavior on the part of other Democratic 'leaders' (and that is a phrase I use loosely these days), the kind of which was on exhibit on West Bayou Parkway last night.
If any member of the Republican Parish Executive Committee would have the temerity to endorse a Democrat for office, he/she would be ridden out of town on a rail by the same Republicans who are embracing the betrayal of the Democratic party and their oaths by Armento, Moss and Bouillion. As I said, Mike Skinner is in a class by himself.
When we erect the Vichy Democrats Hall of Shame (coming soon to another site), we'll be sure to reserve a special place for Mr. Skinner.
Meanwhile, I would hope that other members of the Lafayette Democratic Executive Committee and other Lafayette Democrats will press for censure of the committee members who took part in last night's tawdry display of opportunism.
With Democrat 'leaders' like this, who needs Republicans?
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Well. Well. Well.
In a sudden (but belated) spasm of sanity, a majority of the Lafayette Parish Consolidated Government Council appears to have reached an agreement on a proposal to honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., involving Willow Street.
The Daily Advertiser had this story on Thursday.
The Advocate had this one.
This is a small but necessary step on the part of the white majority on the Council to recognize the legitimate needs of the African American community in Lafayette as expressed by their elected leaders. A lot more work needs to be done merely to repair the damage to the community inflicted over the course of this 15-month long battle.
Congratulations to all participating parties for allowing the greater good of the community to prevail on this matter.
The Daily Advertiser had this story on Thursday.
The Advocate had this one.
This is a small but necessary step on the part of the white majority on the Council to recognize the legitimate needs of the African American community in Lafayette as expressed by their elected leaders. A lot more work needs to be done merely to repair the damage to the community inflicted over the course of this 15-month long battle.
Congratulations to all participating parties for allowing the greater good of the community to prevail on this matter.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
A Challenge to Durel
The Baton Rouge Advocate reports that Lafayette Democratic Parish Executive Committee member Glenn Armentor is being praised by Joey Durel for having the courage to host a fund-raiser for Durel at his home.
The paper carries effusive testimony by the two to the wonders of the particularly phony sort of bi-partisanship that thrives in Lafayette; that is, Democrats shove aside their party to embrace some popular Republican. Republicans, meanwhile, not only refuse to endorse any Democrats, are quick to criticize as wildly partisan anyone who dares point out the sham truce. This being Acadiana and all, does the name Vichy Dems work in this case? Think "Casablanca."
Here's a challenge to Durel: If party has nothing to do with governing Lafayette, if it is really all just about the good of the city and all that, give up your membership in the Republican Party now and run for re-election without a party label.
The paper carries effusive testimony by the two to the wonders of the particularly phony sort of bi-partisanship that thrives in Lafayette; that is, Democrats shove aside their party to embrace some popular Republican. Republicans, meanwhile, not only refuse to endorse any Democrats, are quick to criticize as wildly partisan anyone who dares point out the sham truce. This being Acadiana and all, does the name Vichy Dems work in this case? Think "Casablanca."
Here's a challenge to Durel: If party has nothing to do with governing Lafayette, if it is really all just about the good of the city and all that, give up your membership in the Republican Party now and run for re-election without a party label.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
