In the final #RetakeCongress segment of this election cycle, Liberal Dan Radio will be returning to the point where I first entered into the political realm. Ten years ago, in 2004, I tossed my hat in the ring for Louisiana’s first congressional district. This year, one of the candidates seeking to represent the district in Congress is Lee Dugas.
This veteran of Desert Storm seeks to combat the GOP in its war on women and also fight their budget cuts that hurt the veterans they claim to support, Listen in to the show to learn more or you can call in to ask questions.
The show starts at 8pm Central so for more talk from the left that’s right, make sure to tune in.
On the October 22nd, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio I will be discussing the ballot in Louisiana, various congressional races, the Senatorial election, and the Constitutional amendments.
I will also go into the Louisiana Fraternal Order of Police endorsement of Bill Cassidy and why it is unAmerican.
Those issues, headlines, tweet of the week, and more talk from the left that’s right on Liberal Dan Radip: 8pm Central on Blog Talk Radio.
On the September 10, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:
I will discuss the endorsement of unrepentant convicted felon Edwin Edwards for the 6th congressional district of Louisiana by the Louisiana Democratic Party. Previously I had stated my reasons for opposing his candidacy and what might happen if the state party went ahead and supported him anyway.
I will also have on the show previous guest Joanna Schroeder from the Good Men Project. We will discuss a variety of issues from the controversial nail polish and Cee Lo greens comments to the Ray Rice firing by the NFL.
Those issue, headlines, tweet of the week and more tonight at a special time, 9pm Central, on BlogTalkRadio.
The Louisiana Democratic Party has endorsed unrepentant convicted felon Edwin Edwards for Louisiana’s 6th congressional district. The seat is an open seat with no incumbent because the current office holder is Bill Cassidy, one of the Republican challengers to Democratic incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu.
First, read this post about why I oppose the Edwin Edwards candidacy. Now that the Louisiana Democratic party has endorsed him I have been getting grief from some fellow progressives about my refusal to jump aboard the Edwin Edwards bandwagon.
Some suggest that I oppose allowing felons back into society. That is false. I supported Malik Rahim for Congress when he ran against Bill Jefferson and Joseph Cao. He was a convicted felon but unlike Edwards, Rahim spent his post prison time helping others instead of helping himself.
And let’s just ignore for a second the fact that it is just wrong to support Edwards because of his criminal background that should not be trusted. Let’s ignore that supporting his candidacy is the ultimate “the ends justifies the means” statement. Let’s look at this from a purely political standpoint. Senator Landrieu is facing a difficult reelection campaign. All of her elections have been close, but this one is going to be the closest yet. Does she really need to have the baggage of an Edwin Edwards candidacy being used against her? I can imagine the Bill Cassidy or Col. Rob Maness ads now. “Look at Mary Landrieu, she is supported by Democrats. These same Democrats support convicted felon Edwin Edwards”. Democrats nationwide are struggling to keep hold of the Senate. Even if Edwards can pull off a win in this election, is one additional seat in the house worth losing the Senate? I don’t think so.
I lived in Maryland when the Edwards/Duke election took place. And had I been living in Louisiana and had I been of voting age I would have absolutely voted for Edwards against Duke. That time voting for the crook is important. This time there is no Duke. This time rejecting the crook is important. That election embarrassed Louisiana nationwide. And it wasn’t just because we had a Klansman running. It was also because that opponent of the Klansman was using the phrase “vote for the crook” to try and win. This will be another embarrassment to both Louisiana and Democrats. I wonder how many other Republicans will be able to leverage Democratic support for Edwards into political points. Look, it may very well be the case that Edwards could win and that his win would have no negative impact on anyone else running. But in this election I fear that we cannot take that risk. And I fear that the endorsement of Edwards by the Louisiana Democratic Party could very well be the nail in the coffin of the Landrieu campaign.
But now the second is over, and we should not ignore the fact that regardless of his ability to win that we should be rejecting the Edwards candidacy. The ends do not justify the means. Edwin Edwards to this day insists that he did no wrong. He is delusional. He is greedy. He is selfish. He needs to go away. At the end of the day I have two children. I have to be able to look them in the eye and set a good example for them. I cannot do so while supporting Edwards and I cannot support a party that endorses corruption like the Louisiana Democratic Party just did.
When I first heard of the possibility of an Edwards campaign I said that if the Louisiana Democratic Party endorses Edwards that I would cut my ties with the party. I intend to follow through on that promise. I can fight for progressive causes without waiving the banner of the Democratic party. Other states have benefited with a progressive third party pushing for progressive issue. I will still likely vote for and support progressive candidates despite their party affiliation. I will vote for Cedric Richmond and Mary Landrieu. But I refuse to do so as a member of a party that holds on to past corruption instead of building to the future. If it would be possible to be a registered Democrat nationally while rejecting the state party I would do so. But there seems to be no way to do that.
Update: I found out that you can change your voter registration online. If you do leave the party, tweet @LaDemos and make sure to use the hashtag #ILeftLADemos
On the July 9, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:
Two weeks ago I was the guest of Steven VanderGast, host of Move the Middle on Blog Talk Radio. We had a really good discussion on several issues. This week I welcome him on my podcast for more of the same conversation. Any topic is fair game, so join the discussion.
I will also have headlines, tweet of the week, and more at 8pm Central on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.
On the July 2, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:
The horrible ruling by the Supreme Court came down pertaining to Hobby Lobby and the mandate for employer based coverage to provide oral contraception. I will go into why this ruling was terrible. (Check out liberaldan.com and @liberaldanradio on Twitter to see some of my initial criticisms).
Then, in the second half hour of the show, I will have on Niki Papazoglakis, founder of Freagle, the virtual town square. We will discuss why she started this venture, what her plans for it are, and how you can help get it off the ground.
Those stories, headlines, tweet of the week, and more Wednesday and 8pm Central on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.
A) It ignores science. Science has not shown any evidence that oral contraception is an abortifacient (even in the extremely wrong definition of abortion that includes preventing implantation)
B) I don’t want ANYBODY’S religious freedoms trampled on but if one makes a claim that a pill causes an abortion as part of their legal filings they should be required to prove that before it is accepted as an argument before the court. If you say “x harms me and as such I shouldn’t be required to do x” shouldn’t you have to prove the harm done by x? Or are we now allowing people to claim harm when none exists?
C) It doesn’t matter how many kinds of pills Hobby Lobby provides. Other companies take an even more restrictive stance and would ban all oral contraception. This ruling allows that.
D) the decision of what pill a patient should use should be up to her and her doctor only. Hobby Lobby (and other employers) should have no say.
E) The birth control, and any other benefit obtained in lieu of pay, should all be considered paid, IN FULL, by that employees labor and that employees labor alone.
F) This is not about religious freedom. Had an Islamic group complained under the RFRA Conservatives would not have come out in support of them. This is about forcing Christian beliefs on others using government.
G) Previously the way that we dealt with a bad ruling (Lily Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire) we elected a Democratic Congress to support this President and enable him to deliver on a change to the law via the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It is time to rally the troops and do this again. If we edit the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and require persons claiming harm to establish that harm is actually happening before requiring government to prove why the actions causing the harm are necessary then we can return the law back to where it should be.
I have A LOT of thoughts on the horrible Supreme Court ruling pertaining to the oral contraception mandate. This is just one of many posts on it.
In the past I have discussed my issues with the “Food Babe” and her stances that she takes on food. One of the most egregious items was when she said that Subway sandwiches should eliminate a certain chemical from their bread because that same chemical is found in yoga mats and who wants to eat yoga mats? Seriously, she is that stupid. Well, her argument unfortunately worked and Subway caved.
So how is Hobby Lobby like the “Food Babe”? Well, in their argument they are saying that they are opposed to “their money”* being spent on abortifacients. They then claim that these oral contraceptive measures cause abortions. They provide no proof of this. They offer no scientific evidence that these pills cause abortions, They just believe it to be so, much like the Food Babe believes it to be so that you are eating yoga mats when you ate a Subway Sandwich. Just as the Food Babe didn’t provide evidence that the ingredient in the bread was harmful and instead used beliefs to push her agenda, Hobby Lobby never provided evidence that coverage of these pills harms them under their freedom of religion since they never proved abortions are caused by these pills.
These kinds of nitwit arguments are dumbing down our country and they need to stop.
I have A LOT to say about the Supreme Court ruling against the oral contraception mandate that was made today and expect many posts to come about that issue in the days to come and as half of the podcast on Wednesday. But I didn’t want to overlook the horrible ruling the Supreme Court made the other day about buffer zones.
A lot has been said about this already. My main argument is this. The court seems to believe that people have the right to give counsel to others on the sidewalk. I disagree. The people should have the right to OFFER counsel to those who wish to hear them. People should also be free to not listen. You do not have the right to have me as a captive audience. If I am trying to get from point A to point B you should not be free to impede my way nor should you be free to force the words that you want me to hear into my ears. Your offer of counsel can be provided at a distance with a big sign that says :”if you want to talk to me about your choice to have an abortion, please come over here”. Individuals seeking an abortion would then be free to walk over to the person and engage in a conversation if they so choose. If they do not choose, then they can just walk into the clinic for whatever business they wish to conduct.
The Supreme Court made a good ruling this week and I discussed it on my show. It required that law enforcement obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone and that it was not the same as searching a wallet. That was a good ruling. But we had two bad rulings. One was the ruling that President Obama violated the Constitution by his appointing three people to the National Labor Relations Board during what he believed was a Congressional recess. The other ruling struck down a buffer zone law that required people protesting abortions to stay back a certain number of feet even if they were on public property (like a sidewalk). I will deal with that second ruling in another post.
In the ruling of the non-recess appointments the Supreme Court had ruled that a 3 day recess was not a long enough recess to justify a recess appointment. Arbitrarily Justice Breyer said that a recess less than 10 days would be too short. I am not exactly sure where that figure comes from, since no where does the Constitution place a requirement on the number of days a recess might be. There has been a tradition of Presidents not making such appointments during breaks less than 10 days. That tradition is not found in any law. However, I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere so that isn’t my issue with the ruling.
My issue with the ruling is the trampling or even usurpation of the Presidential authority to make recess appointments by making bogus “pro-forma” sessions in order to block such appointments. What happened in this case is that the House required the Senate to have meetings called “pro forma” sessions of the Senate every third day in order to keep the President from saying that the Senate was actually in recess. What happened during these sessions? One Senator came in and banged a gavel. That’s it. No business was conducted. So how on earth can the Supreme Court justify calling such meetings an interruption of a recess? It is just absurd.
The ruling could have been worse. According to the minority opinion they believed that recess appointments should only happen if the vacancy starts during the recess. This is the wording of the Constitution on the matter:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
It seems to me that all that the Constitution requires is for the vacancy to exist during the Recess of the Senate (i.e. it must be happening during the recess). It doesn’t require the vacancy to start in that vacancy. But saying it could have been worse does not make me feel better about a bad ruling. The idea that one person banging a gavel in the Senate because the House requires it is enough to call it no longer a recess is a trampling of a constitutional authority of the President and that the court couldn’t see that disturbs me greatly.