Editors note: This column contains new content not originally published in the print edition.
I have heard that question numerous times from observers of the race for State Senate in District 16 to replace Dr. Bill Cassidy. It has gotten vicious.
As I have written in this column before, I know all the candidates. I have known Dan Claitor the longest—since high school. But while I like Dan, I have endorsed Lee Domingue because I believe he will bring a new perspective, energy and ideas to the Legislature as an entrepreneur. He builds, innovates and creates jobs. What is one more lawyer (Claitor) going to do to change the Legislature? The fact that Dan has lived here all his life doesn't earn him a seat in the Senate, but it does raise the question, "What have you contributed and done in our community during that time?"
Maybe the reason both I and Gov. Bobby Jindal endorsed Domingue has something to do with his abilities and his heart for public service, as well as conservative values and a shared vision for our state. But since Claitor—as well as The Advocate's Marsha Shuler and Mark Ballard—can't seem to accept that, he tried to discredit the endorsements by telling WAFB-TV, "There's some other issues out there that I'll just leave it up to the press to investigate and connect the dots on why that would happen."
The reporter said Claitor was referring to Domingue's previous donations to both Jindal's campaign and "Believe in Louisiana," a nonprofit organization meant to promote Jindal's initiatives.
I have never hidden the fact I am a strong supporter of Jindal and serve as chairman of Believe in Louisiana, which was announced last year and has been reported often. It's not a secret. All donations to the governor and those to BIL are reported, transparent and indicative of Domingue's wanting to help and make an impact in Louisiana. He puts his money where his mouth is to support those things he believes in. That's admirable. Even more admirable is the fact he is putting himself on the line and subjecting himself to ridicule, while offering to do public service and help others.
Where does Claitor put his money? In supporting a candidate for judge, a clerk of court and the ex-attorney general. All posts that could directly benefit his legal business. Has that been reported by The Advocate? No, because that does not serve M&M's [Marsha and Mark's] agenda. They want Jindal's candidate to lose. Don't you get it?
It is my opinion, that M&M do not like Jindal or his staff—and I don't think they like me, either. They have demonstrated poor judgment and clear bias in their reporting in their zeal to "get the governor." As one journalist pointed out to me, they have done the bidding of Claitor [and Roy Fletcher, Claitor's consultant, who is likely feeding them] by writing numerous stories on Domingue and doing practically nothing—positive or negative—on the other candidates. That's lazy, and it's unfair.
Do you want another perspective on The Advocate coverage of this race? Veteran political writer John Maginnis wrote in his Political Fax Weekly last Friday, "Leading Senate candidate Dan Claitor doesn't have to spend much money to go negative on his opponent Lee Domingue, because the Baton Rouge Advocate is doing a bang-up job for him." My point exactly.
If we are going to question endorsements, why did Shuler not ask Laurinda Calongne or Claitor if they had made any type of arrangement regarding her campaign debt in exchange for her support? That has happened before, and she mentioned her debt twice in the e-mail she sent out after her first primary loss. So why no question, M&M? Or why haven't Shuler and Ballard asked Dan Claitor why he hired Councilman Byron Sharper and Scott Wilfong to help him in his district attorney's race last year—two guys who were both mentioned in connection with the malicious smear sheet put out on Mayor Kip Holden? Will M&M do any work examining the background of the other candidate?
On their crusade to use the District 16 race to "get Gov. Jindal," they clearly stepped in it and wrote one too many innuendos, impugning the integrity of innocent people, resulting in a very lengthy correction with "regrets for the error" in The Advocate. Credit that action to the publisher and executive editor, who made M&M right their wrong.
If you read the op-ed pieces penned by M&M, you will clearly pick up on their negative opinion of Jindal. Ballard harps week after week. So then you're going to tell me that, when they write a news story, their attitude is not going to bias the story? Are you kidding me? Every time The Advocate mentions Jindal's endorsement of Domingue, it mentions the donations made as if to discredit it, instead of quoting the governor on his reasons. It would seem strange if I didn't know that M&M dislike Jindal and want him to fail in every respect. And I'm convinced they do.
It reminds me very much of the national press and their feelings and treatment of President George W. Bush compared to the treatment they are giving President Barack Obama. Clearly biased. The Advocate is not going to point out their own bias—but I certainly will. I think its coverage of this State Senate election has been embarrassingly one-sided and included very little reporting on the other candidates. It has been unfair to Domingue, who has been used as the whipping boy, and unfair to voters, who don't have a complete picture. But then again, I believe that was M&M's objective all along. The bigger question will be, did their shameless strategy work on the voters of District 16 and manipulate the outcome of the election on April 4—just to get Jindal?
I believe the voters are smarter than that.
Grudge match
A new player on the scene is Jack Dampf, attorney for the wealthy heiress of the Pennington fortunes, Paula Pennington de la Bretonne. Dampf, a neighbor of mine, who has talked with me about the issue, and his client seem to be holding a grudge over a business deal that tanked. Both de la Bretonne and Domingue lost money in the venture. Ironically, it was de la Bretonne who had contacted Domingue about investing and bringing her son into the business. Domingue, who had been close to the family, has made three attempts since 2001 to discuss the conflict with de la Bretonne—and she has refused them all. Strange ... or maybe that's Dampf again.
Domingue has settlement documents signed by de la Bretonne and notarized by Dampf, and they include a cover letter expressing thanks from Dampf. Now Dampf is peddling his one-sided version of the story to the media and others as if he has a smoking gun. Not there. De la Bretonne has refused to give any interviews. WBRZ-TV and WAFB had refused to run the story on March 17—but, of course, The Advocate was quick to put it on the front page, even though Shuler, never could speak with de la Bretonne.
While Dampf points the finger, and Shuler plays along, the fact is this company he refers to had Pam Cowart [Paula's business adviser] on the board of directors and Dalton Meaux as company CFO, placed in that position by de la Bretonne. Dampf also attended board meetings. Doesn't a board provide oversight of the CEO? And what is the CFO responsible for? The fact is, deals and partnerships go awry all the time, and there is always friction when there are financial losses involved. The true debt never became clear until Domingue did an audit. Dampf is only presenting to the media and the public his client's side. And, unfortunately, Shuler, The Advocate and WBRZ are willing to be the pawns. WAFB chose not to cover this he-said, she-said disagreement about a failed partnership, and Kevin Meeks on WJBO-AM described it as "a business deal gone bad between two rich people. So what? Is that news?"
But as I said earlier, I contend that Shuler and her editor, Ballard, have a separate agenda. They want to use this race to attack Jindal. It's not about fairness or facts. Don't forget it when you cast your vote—or when you're reading their articles.
Peas in a pod?
Besides holding a grudge, I wondered why Dampf is wading into the sleaze in order to assist Dan Claitor's candidacy. I did find they both like former Attorney General Richard Ieyoub. In Ieyoub's 1996 race for U.S. Senate, Dampf (a Republican) and his then-law partner, Arlene Edwards (then daughter-in-law of Edwin Edwards), both contributed to Ieyoub's campaign, as did Dan Claitor (a Republican). They were teamed up with Cleo Fields, who endorsed Ieyoub.
Claitor also favored Ieyoub as a candidate for governor in 2003 against Bobby Jindal and Kathleen Blanco and contributed to him twice.
The propensity for these Republicans to support Democrats may be the explanation for third-place finisher Calongne jumping on with Claitor (after claiming the week before she would not make an endorsement). Calongne has made four contributions to Democrat congressman Charlie Melancon; a contribution to Mary Landrieu in 2007 against John Kennedy; and contributed to Blanco in 2004. Just how conservative and loyal are these two Republicans, Claitor and Calongne? And would anyone want to be getting advice from Dampf on how to vote?
Comments
Posted by Devin on March 24, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are we to believe the advertising Lee Domingue purchased in your publication has no bearing on your endorsement, Mr. McCollister?? Money does odd things to people which is why we don't trust this system.
Posted by pmccarron on March 24, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lee's poor voting record put the nail in the coffin for me. Seriously have to question why somebody who doesn't vote would want to run for political office?
Then when I listen to WJBO Radio, the only negative campaigning seems to be coming from the Lee Camp. The radio ad, like this article, slams Claitor for being a lawyer.
I agree most Republicans vomit on site when we see or hear of another Frivolous Lawsuit Trial Lawyer running for political office. Especially, Lawyers that prey on the public, insurance companies, doctors, or government (tax payers), is the last kind of person we want to see in office.
But, that being said...
There is a difference between a lawyer that abuses the system from a lawyer that respects the system. Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican President, was after all, a Lawyer. And Legislators, like lawyers, require a very through knowledge of the law in order to be effective.
Dan Claitor may be a lawyer, but he seems to be the type that respects the system, not one that abuses the system.
Posted by BatonRougeResident on March 24, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the bigger problem for your candidate is that he wasn’t initially forthright about his bankruptcy in Texas. After all, part of his pitch is his business experience. And, while many of us share your support of business initiatives, that doesn’t necessarily translate into support for social initiatives. The creationist agenda is a real problem. Funding for higher education is another problem . Being “Jindal’s” pick isn’t something that is likely to garner a lot of support in a district where the proposed cuts have a direct impact. To the best I can determine even you are not aligned with Governor Jindal on this issue. So, I won’t be too surprised if Dan Claitor wins the senate seat. It’s not the politics this time. I think it’s the issues.
Posted by luciusguillory on March 24, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rolfe should stay out of this one. Domingue has a bad smell about him and just because he gave Bobby over a hundred thousand dollars the governor should have never endorsed him. You have both gone the wrong direction on this one. And LA News link is nothing more then that a bunch of links, the news is the news and Domingue is BAD news.
Posted by lsutigers on March 24, 2009 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rolfe,
What a total disappointment you have become throughout this election. Winston "Lee" Domingue has done nothing but engage in "bad" business deals in Baton Rouge since he arrived after being run out of Texas for the same "bad" business deals. As a long time resident of Baton Rouge, I am appauled that you would write a column where you support the integrity and record of a guy that has been here 10 years with a distinct cloud over his head and question the integrity of Paula de la Bretonne who has done nothing but serve and make Baton Rouge a better place to live without even a hint of impropriety. If you step out of your Domingue Cocoon maybe you will hear the "people" around town tell of how they have either been personally "screwed" by Winston or how they know someone who has. It is truly shocking! I applaud Paula de le Bretonne for coming out and having the courage to speak the truth. I think it is time for others to do the same.
Posted by BigRock on March 25, 2009 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a sad attempt to save a campaign that has completly fallen apart. It's clearly apparent that the NewEarthers, and their enabling friends like Rolfe who support them for their own political gain are not that welcome in this moderate district, which does not blindly subscribe to the radical right-wing agenda supported by Domingue. (We're not Livingston Parish!) I'm looking forward to early voting this week...for Claitor. This diatribe by Rolfe, proves that he is merely a flacky for Timmy Teepel and the radical right wingers who have infected the Republican Party, leading to its recent losses nationally. This missive is the most pathetic thing I have ever read in a "business publication."
The real question that the Business Report should be raising this week is which of these candidates support the flawed chicken plant deal that Rolfe's friends in the Governor's Office are touting as economic development. While the Jindal administration is proposing millions of dollars in cuts to LSU and Pennington, they are pledging $50 million in cash to save a failed chicken business in North Louisiana, virtually subsidising one plant in direct competition with other similar plants that are not fueled by government subsidies. It would be interesting to get a take on whether or not the Senate candidates will support legislation that DED Sec. Moret will push to enable the "Jindal Bailout" to occur.
Posted by ColonelHenryJohnsonRetired on March 25, 2009 at 5:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mister Rolfe,
Can you outline specifically what lies Pat Bergeron has spread about your candidate on his website? Or is your indignation just a matter of it being your ox who's being gored this time?
Is it possible that Bergeron is just hitting a little too close to home?
Posted by LiberatedTiger on March 25, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To answer the question "Why would anyone run for office?", I think that ego-mania, power and wealth-building would be near the top reasons for many candidates. Not the desire to serve.
We will see on election night where the power in this part of the parish really lies.
Posted by Tonmmy on March 25, 2009 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Doesn't a board provide oversight of the CEO? And what is the CFO responsible for?"
As a Domingue insider, are you actually indicating that it is Ms. de le Bratonne's fault that her personally appointed board members did not notice the questionable practices being committed by Lee timely and therefore this is the reason for the "deal and partnership having gone awry." Astonishing
The question is not: "Why would anyone run for office?" Rather, the question is: Why would anyone support Lee Domingue with completet knowledge of his rank past?
Thank you for making the choice of whom to vote for in this election that much easier for those who can vote for Dan Claitor.
Posted by Voice_of_Reason on March 26, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rolfe,
Please stop this tirade. The only real victim of this verbal volley is your own reputation. It is time to step back and reevaluate, as you are violating the same journalistic standards you demand of others.
Today we learn Jindal is endorsing a Democrat for the PSC. Will you go after him now?
The voters are simply not in agreement with you here, and Business Report readers are not taking to the way you are managing this dual role of political activist/publisher.
Posted by jtoussaint2 on March 26, 2009 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rolfe,
You are shooting the messenger. It's true taht Domingue did not vote in elections, and that he gave $100,000 to Believe in Louisiana, your pac, which has connection to the Jindal administration.
Though Ms. Shuler is a mediocore reporter, at best, and Ballard lets his staff members write meaningless stories, The Advocate is generally right about this.
You should have vetted Mr. Domingue before backing him. It appears that you chose him because he shares evangelical beliefs with you.
Posted by clbluesky on March 26, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OH, you gotta love this!
The publisher is full of righteous indignation, again.
Hmmmmmmm. This guy is a walking conflict of interest, certanily not a "journalist".
Mr. McCollister is no publisher(journalist), he is in realiety an embarrassment to the journalism profession.
Mr. McCollister is a spokeperson for every far right wing group in Louisiana, like the Lousiana Family Forum (WOW)and the Healing Place Church (DOUBLE WOW). All you have to do is read his writings and listen to him over the years.
WAKE UP BUSINESS REPORT EMPLOYEES AND UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE A PART OF.
The interesting thing here is that Mr. McCollister believes his own BS, and does not have the slightest idea of how most people in Baton Rouge view HIM (egomaniac)!
Posted by ofichief on March 26, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a resident of District 16, I am dismayed by the monumental waste of time and money that both candidates are expending, without giving us, the voters any inkling of what they stand for. I and many others in the district are sick and tired of this distraction. Unless some serious discourse is forthcoming on the issues rather than the noxious back and forth name calling that has been going on, we will probably stay home on April 4th. I don't advocate this action, but it seems like the only way to get these candidates back on track.
Posted by jsanderssr on March 26, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. M,
You should pay close attention to the comments by Voice of Reason as you're digging quite a hole for your own reputation by deciding to take on the Advocate staff in addition to Bergeron. When you intimate that Shuler and Ballard are lying, maybe you should provide concrete examples of these heinous fabrications. Thus far you've provided none, just slinging mud. You're backing a lousy candidate and getting awfully dirty yourself in the process.
Posted by kpvote4lee on March 26, 2009 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Every business man goes through successes and failures. Past is not present. Would you want someone to bash your past upon others as you strive to make others' futures as well as your future better. No. Slinging nothing but slander upon the one canidate you know is close to beating you is presenting true characteristics of ruthlessness and insecurity. Lee Domingue openly spoke of his past before anyone (public) even knew of his desire to run for canidate. Failures happen, but it is what the person does after failure that really matters. Picking up and creating positvie affirmations for Baton Rouge residents and moving towards a better future is what people need to see.Lee Domingue has done nothing to slander other opponents. He has empathy for Baton Rouge residents, and is willing to put forth his time,money, and commitment to make Baton Rouge a better place. Not voting is one thing, but to vote based on slander is ubsurd. Vote because of the affirmations you value set by the canidates. Vote for what they want to change in Baton Rouge. Don't vote for the canidate who has had failures in the past. If that were the system, we wouldn't have any canidates.
Posted by fourx5 on March 26, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That dead horse must be pretty beat by now, Rolfe.
Posted by truthinprint on March 26, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rolfe, you are proving to be a true idiot if you think that you can fool the population of BR over and over again. Just stick to making money and publishing a biz mag. Stay out of the power broker business. It looks like it is a successful as your awesome run for mayor...
Posted by Tigerfan169 on March 26, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Advocate reporters being lazy, unfair and biased???
Perish the thought!
Shame on you Mr. McCollister for stating your opinion upfront and providing reasons for it. Don't you know that journalists are not supposed to state their beliefs to the public, but rather just write slanted pieces based on their secret agenda?
Posted by fourx5 on March 26, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Don't you know that journalists are not supposed to state their beliefs to the public, but rather just write slanted pieces based on their secret agenda?"
Yes, because as we all know, there is a giant conspiracy of communist, atheist journalists who are secretly collaborating against the forces of good and light (deep south conservatives) and they've managed to keep this effort secret from everyone except for you, Rush, and Rolfe.
Poor you. Must be terrible to be so persecuted.
Posted by BRNative on March 26, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dan Claitor must be loving this because it's taking the focus off of him.
I often disagree with McCollister, but it's time someone stood up and takes notice that NOTHING NEGATIVE has been written about Claitor in The Advocate or on Bergeron's website. It's so glaringly obvious.
As a researcher, all I can say is that it is pathethic that two reporters, a political blog site owner, an attorney and the richest woman in our parish didn't check their facts on Claitor as well.
Allow me to help Shuler-Bergeron-Ballard-Dampf-Pennington. Hint: Did you check for tax liens? Public record is a wonderful thang!
Hint: Past news articles in your own publication and in NOLA showing he is a trial attorney that represented a murderer, a drug addict, a drunken driver.
Gee, this is the kind of man you are trying to tell us is better than a man who is a christian, Domingue, who has made his life an open book?
As bad as Claitor is, for Shuler-Bergeron-Ballard-Dampf-Pennington - he's just right for all of you.
Posted by BD777 on March 26, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Mr. McCollister is a spokeperson for every far right wing group in Louisiana, like the Lousiana Family Forum (WOW)and the Healing Place Church (DOUBLE WOW)."
Are you kidding me? The Louisiana Family Forum and a local church are far right-wing groups? It seems that Mr. McCollister is allowed to stand for whatever he wishes personally, as does every American. So far as vetting goes, I believe that if one does enough research on each candidate (as Rolfe states he knows each of them), then one can reach an unbiased decision.
I am a Republican, wihch does not affect me in this race as both candidates are Republicans. However, if a Democrat had a stonger plan and vision that lined up with my own vision of what our district/city/state/country should be, they get my vote!
By the way, just as Jesus drew a line in the dirt and asked the people who would stone the prostitute who of them had no sin, cast the first stone, I think we'd be good to remember that lesson ourselves.
Posted by GT on March 26, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another Republican whiner! I love the comment by Richard Blackstone. What do you say to that, Rolfe? The voters of the 16th District are smart enough not to be taken by Lee Domingue the way he took people like Ms. De La Bretonne before she found out what he is. I commend her for speaking out. The voters see Domingue for what he is. He thinks he can buy the office, but if he won, he would likely leave us the bill!
Posted by tak on March 26, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When the race for district 16 Senate seat came up and nobody had yet endorsed any of the 3, I decided to investigate on the web. I was - in name only - acquainted with Claitor ( because of the well known bookstore) . Then I found info that did not speak well of Mr. Domingue,(Texas) although he tried to portray himself as very prosperous, mover and shaker. I judged him to be an opportunist, both by his well placed donations and tie to Healing Place Church. His radio interview did not dispel that opinion. When I found out that both Rolfe and Jindal endorsed him, I understood the Jindal decision ( donation of $ ). I now, having read the above article, understand the Rolfe endorsement. And if Rolfe is correct, Mr. Claitor is also an opportunist ( aren't all politicians ). However, he is one on a much smaller scale than Domingue , - one that Jewish people would call "a schlemiel" in Yiddish. But what really set my teeth on edge, was the new radio ad by Domingue, essentially faulting Claitor for earning a living as a lawyer. Good God, if that is the worst thing you can say about your opponent, you better shut up. None of us know much about the Pennington deal, but I think a person of her means, and reputation, is probably not inclined to be upset about money deals, unless there is some reason for it. Dampf is just earning his pay, being her mouthpiece. So, I'll vote for the schmo, the schlemiel - he is probably only looking for a steady income, Domingue is looking for lining his pockets. We'll soon find out.
Posted by rhettspano on March 26, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rolf: You're so high up on that horse of yours I'd be very careful when it comes time to get off. I (and many others no doubt) are asking the same question of Governor Jindal so I'll ask it of you: why are you so determined to see such an obviously dishonest and unethical person elected to the state senate? I see nothing in Mr. Domingue's background that qualifies him to run the people's affairs at such a crucial time. Maybe things are finally changing in Louisiana because I don't see the people of District 16 lining up behind the big shot endorsements of you and the Governor. Better luck next time? I hope not.
Posted by SammyJankis on March 26, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BRNative posted, "Hint: Past news articles in your own publication and in NOLA showing he is a trial attorney that represented a murderer, a drug addict, a drunken driver."
Uhm, gee, do we really hold it against people in this society for providing constitutionally protected rights to citizens of this country? EVERYONE is entitled to legal counsel and legal protections in this country so that no individual can simply make false allegations against another individual that results in false imprisonment or punishment. Additionally, if a murderer or drug addict is not given adequate legal representation, that person's conviction can be overturned by our legal system.
Trial lawyer does not equal evil.
Posted by jrball (JR Ball) on March 26, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Editor's Note: A comment to the publisher's column by Mr. Richard Blackstone Jr. was removed by me for legal and liability reasons. The post contained allegations that this publication could not substantiate. If Mr. Blackstone wishes to provide evidence to support his claim then we will be happy to re-post his comment. Under today's liability and defamation laws as it pertains to Internet comments, a publication can not partially edit a post. Doing so exposes a company to liability on the remainder of the post should the person/company/entity attacked file a lawsuit. Consequently, our only recourse is to either let the post stand as written or remove the entire post.
That said, I respect Mr. Blackstone's opinion and encourage him to express his views in such a way that does not expose any party to legal liability.
Posted by Voice_of_Reason on March 26, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JR Ball,
While your decision is likely correct, what can you expect when a news publication is being used to personally call out private citizens. The remarks within the main article above should also be carefully parsed. This level of commentary has produced a new low water mark.
Please. Pull the car over, take the keys, and let the clear-headed folks do the driving.
Posted by jrball (JR Ball) on March 26, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To Voice: The only place where this political race and all that surrounds it is being discussed or written about in this "news publication" is in the opinion column of the publisher. I respect the views of anyone who offers a dissenting opinion to those expressed by Mr. McCollister and encourage those people to post them online or to submit them (500 words or less) as letters to the editor. The news side of this publication has not called out any private citizens. In fact, the news side has remained out of this race despite being provided story leads and tips that would be deemed "negative" on both candidates in this race. There are 72 pages in the current issue of Business Report, 71 of those make no mention of the race. The only one that does is an opinion column.
Posted by wifewontletmeleaveBR on March 26, 2009 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Ball, based on my knowledge and experience, the party with the deeper pockets get picked in the issues you raise. Therefore, if Mr. Domingue were to sue for being defamed, his options would be a.) your employer or b.) a scion of the Pennington family. Hmmmmmm: I don’t think you have anything to worry about. Please return Mr. Blackstone’s post.
Posted by riviera on March 27, 2009 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well only the very best get CRUCIFIED & this is certainty the case with Mr.McCollister. He has been a voice for better schools, ethics in government, and the list goes on. He is a PUPPET for no one and I suspect never will be. HIS INTEGRITY IS NOT FOR SALE. That is why he does not live in OAKDALE FCC. MR. McCollister stands honestly for what he believes in and he understands the price he must pay for a better LOUISIANA. He is a soldier against the terrorists that want to keep Louisiana as a colony for the select few to continue to exploit. You like me should appreciate this sacrifice paid by all of his family. Ask yourself what you would sacrifice for a better LOUISIANA…….
Posted by IBFreeman on March 27, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This tit for tat going on between Rolfe and Bergeron is no good for either candidate.
What this publication should do is publish the positions of the candidates of important current issues.
Nothing would define the candidates political ideology more than to know their position on things like funding Jindal's proposed government intervention into the chicken processing business. Are the for it or against it? Are they big spenders and government interventionists like Jindal or are they fiscal conservatives??
Posted by tmontana on March 27, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can I ask you all something? Why is it that attacking someone gives you the satisfaction of thinking you're right. I'm sure that plenty of you feel like you're intelligent enough but need to really take a look in the mirror and at your own pasts. I don't care about a business deal gone bad between a business man and a woman who inherited her money. I don't care about two no-name writers of a newspaper that care about themselves and negative press. I don't care about the story of someone who had lost a business in another STATE because if so at least they got back on their feet and succeeded. It's a great story that all of you should take a lesson from because you complain on how the economy is affecting you and maybe you need to learn how to overcome those obstacles instead of complaining because I'm not looking to change your diapers. This is Baton Rouge, La people. Not Los Angelos, Ca or Phoenix, Ar. We have an opportunity to do something great here. If your not interested you can move to the north and be parted of their negative society. To be honest I really don't like politics much and I don't know these canidates really well but it seems that you want to attack our governor who is continuing to do great things for our state. You weren't complaining about him months ago after Gustav when he was getting things done. At least he wasn't in the kitchen baking cookies like our previous predecessor during another major catastrophe. Those of you who want to continue to attack should seriously get a number to a good shrink because you either have daddy issues or you were never held enough as a child. But I know that you won't so at least listen instead of judging someone. As for me I have a decision to make between a lawyer and a business man. So you're saying I have a decision to make between someone who takes people's money (lawyer) and someone who helps people make money(businessman). Wow! Looks like a tough one here. NOT!
Posted by LiberatedTiger on March 27, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No one likes lawyers......until they really need one! I'm sure Winston loves HIS full-time lawyer.
Posted by tak on March 27, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To: Tmontana
The logic you employ is faulty. The issue is NOT between a lawyer and a businessman. Surely, the issue is about their honesty and future plans for Louisiana. Personally I would vote for a plumber so long as I judged his character and ability to be what I want in a candidate. So, I suppose if Bernie Medoff or Allen Stanford were making you and Louisiana money, you'd have no qualms about signing up with either of them. That kind of thinking is what makes Louisiana the 3rd most corrupt state in the union. I however believe and support Jindal, because I judge him to be personally honest. As far as his endorsment ... well everyone can make a mistake.
Posted by br2nyc on March 27, 2009 at 3:59 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by tmontana on March 27, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You know what politics really is? It's a culmination of crybabies who for some reason have to see who can tell on the other. I'm not here to endorse or salute anyone. I'm here to state that I don't care about personal feelings and business practices of the past. The future is what we need to concentrate on and it is the future OF the citizens here in Baton Rouge in this case. I always here about candidates saying how honest they are from themselves and how dishonest they are from their opponents. If history tells us anything can we trust anyone in office? The reason is that I don't want a politician in that office in the first place. I want someone who cares and wants to help the growth of our city and state. If people took the time to talk about issues more and how we are going to help our state then they may learn something about themselves in the process. They may actually care and stop acting like someone took their legos in kindergarden. But I know the game of politics is what it is. As for the person who might have thought I said that it was between a lawyer and a businessman here what I AM ACTUALLY REFERRING TO SO PAY ATTENTION. That is their occupation. They have different thinking methods. I don't want someone telling ME about the laws of our state, I want someone to enforce them. I don't want someone to tell me how to bring businesses here, I want someone to bring businesses here. I DON'T NEED someone telling me they are a leader, I need them to lead by example. I don't need someone telling me how they are going to help Baton Rouge grow, I need them to grow Baton Rouge. It's not what you did that matters here, it is what you are doing and what you will do that counts. If you want to keep being crybabies about this and attacking someone then I think Walmart is having a special on pacifiers and diapers. I suggest you get them yourselves. I'm voting for the candidate that that will help us grow not the one that needs to grow-up!
Posted by Take_A_Stand on March 28, 2009 at 7:40 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by CHS_grad on March 28, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
From a fellow Aloysius/CHS grad.
Take_A_Stand, are you kidding me.
You attack Richard for alleged indiscretions the other candidate writes about in his book. You seem to know alot for someone not connected to the campaign, and have obviously talked with the other candidate, how else could you know Richard allegedly asked him for a loan? As a fellow grad. of both Catholic Schools you should know better, and should apologize to both individuals, one you don't even know, but suggest based upon what you others have "stated" is a "real jerk."
After your tirade of insults, albeit totally one sided, you ask to hear from the candidates. We have, Mr. Doningue pledged to keep the campaign positive, you should take his advice.
I have trouble believing you graduated, perhaps in your next post you could give us a year, and or a teacher you had. CHS is a fine institution, how did you slip through the cracks.
Posted by rhettspano on March 28, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Re Ad Hominem Attack on Richard Blackstone:
Ad hominem attacks are the last bastion of the truly desparate. What does Richard Blackston's supposed indiscretions have to do with Domingue's credability or fitness for office. I will tell you: nothing. What have you to say in support of Domingue's candidacy in light of accusations that he is an unethical business person?
Posted by tmontana on March 28, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People people people, now we are discussing issues outside this election. If you have to argue than I here Jerry Springer may have an opening for his next show. The title is "Whining and Moaning: This my life!" I cannot say for sure about these business dealings or even about what these candidates have done. We can talk about credability all we want but it won't matter because people are going to believe what they believe. God is the only one that knows the whole truth. My only concern with these candidates is what they can and will do for this city and state. Maybe we should focus on that instead of trying to go back to high school and start a he said she said drama.
Posted by Take_A_Stand on March 28, 2009 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CHS_grad:
Take it up with Blackstone.
He opened fire on Domingue and now when someone responds about him all is wrong??? Please.
I am not with any of these campaigns, just stating the facts about Blackstone,
Truth hurts my friend. Maybe next time he'll keep his mouth shut and stop trying to spin 1/2 trues 8 years after the fact.
Posted by wifewontletmeleaveBR on March 28, 2009 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let’s try and bifurcate mother and son. As lsutiger said, “Mrs. de la Bretonne has done nothing but serve and make Baton Rouge a better place to live without even a hint of impropriety.” It was not the son who first raised the allegations about Mr. Domingue.
Posted by jrball (JR Ball) on March 28, 2009 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please note: I have tried to be patient with the posts related to this column due to the passionate level of debate in this campaign. However, any post that makes the slightest hint of an unsubstantiated claim against another person will be immediately removed. This includes items against any candidate or members of the Manship or Pennington/de la Bretonne familes.
Posted by ColonelHenryJohnsonRetired on March 29, 2009 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mister Ball and Mister Rolfie,
Perhaps the most painful part of this exercise to you is the fact that your usual lemmings aren't drinking your Kool Aid this time but rather doing their research and coming to their own conclusions.
Sure, it has to bother you and Little Julio to accept that you've picked the less-than-deserving candidate (if you even realize this) and sell him to the good people of District 16.
Again, Mister Rolfie, please give us a very specific list of lies concerning Mister Winston Lee Domingue contained in Mister Charles Patrick Bergeron's Lanewslink.com website. If you cannot produce, then we are left to presume his information is factual.
Mister Rolfie, does Mister Daniel Albert Claitor's Roman Catholicism have anything to do with your adversity toward him? Considering that your Pastor financially contributed rather heavily to Mister Winston Lee Domingue's campaign, are members of Healing Place to consider the Pastor's "True Friendship" blog (20 March 2009) to be a fatwah in support of his candidacy?
Posted by LiberatedTiger on March 30, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tmontana,
Someone a lot smarter than me once said, and I can only paraphrase, that if you ignore the past you are doomed to repeat it. All we have to go by are these guy's past dealings. We certainly can't judge any one's character solely on campaign ads.
Posted by wifewontletmeleaveBR on March 30, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There have been many instances of people who legally (or morally) owed another $ and continue to pay what they can when they can. The question I have is the amount of political donations Mr. Domingue has made to others(not to mention what he has spent on the race) has exceeded the funds Mrs. de la Bretonne had to cover as a result of her guaranty, right? Based on these expenditures, he could have easily repaid the funds she had to pay to cover the company debts. Why has he not done so?
Posted by tmontana on March 30, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well if people are being judged on their past then they never learned the lesson in the first place. You're only doomed to repeat it if you never took the time to actually learn from it. That would mean politics is definitely not the place to be. The fact of the matter is people are going to say what they want to say. They will discredit someone without even knowing them. That's the world of politics. As far as "drinking the kool aid is concerned" I'd rather have the big fat red kool aid guy bust through the wall and go "YO" then have someone tell others that they picked the wrong candidate.
Posted by LiberatedTiger on March 30, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wifewont...:
I agree. But this is exactly why the corporate entity exists, isn't it. Check out the LA Secretary of State website's corporations database and you can see just how many of the prominent business folks in BR have set up multiple corporate entities just for this type of activity. Run up the bills in one corp, go bankrupt and continue on in the next corp, and so on, and so on (that's the legal part). No personal responsibility.
This used to be considered an embarrassment for a corporation, going bankrupt. Now it's a strategic business decision. No doubt, if Mr. Domingue wanted to pay his debts (moral part), he could have.
Posted by clbluesky on March 30, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yo, BR listen up.
A lot of u who have posted here are in extreme danger of having the "BR good ole boys (Rolfe/BRAC/Metro Council/BRCC,etc)" put out a hit on u.
How dare you do some independent thinking, and then you have the nerve to speak out. WO, look out, the BR good ole boys do not take kindly to that type of activity.
Posted by Kool_Aid_Man on March 30, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Drink the Kool Aid - Oh Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
Posted by wifewontletmeleaveBR on March 31, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
clblue - let's not forget who is giving us (and paying for) this forum. Giving people an open and honest venue to share their differences and ask the tough ?s is great, and the GBR Business Report should be commended for it. Many of the good old boys have their hearts in the right places and a good vision for BR. The recipe for getting us there is where many of us disagree.
Posted by Kool_Aid_Man on March 31, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vote 4 Leeeeeeeeeeee Dominigueeeeeeee
Posted by pmccarron on April 1, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who would have ever thought that a simple senate race to replace Bill Cassidy would have led to WWIII between Republicans in Baton Rouge?
No matter who wins...Lee or Dan... at least we will still have a Republican representing District 16 come April 4th.
Posted by liberty on April 1, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The one trait common to all politicians is deception. By claiming to or attempting to represent "the people" one is constantly either deceiving oneself or the public.
Posted by LiberatedTiger on April 3, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now that everyone appears to be exhausted by the debate here, just one last thing. Everyone, please vote!! Let's not make this hotly-contested race even more controversial by a low turn-out.
Posted by north_wind on April 4, 2009 at 2:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Advocate reported on 03/04/2009 that Domingue donated $100,000 to a political organization headed by you. For me, your endorsement of Domingue voids any credibility you have in any political endorsements.
Posted by daveroberts on April 6, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rolfe,
This entire campaign story, along with your op-ed pieces throughout, have done nothing to improve your image. Far from it, they've made you look quite bad. It's kind of sad.
Posted by brvoter on April 6, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Its obvious to me that, as usual, the average end user cannot recognize intent and design due to their personal discrimination. Rofle has given us a lovely article cataloging some of the "meida's" finest lapses and low and behold he and his candidate get attacked. Way to stay focused. Look up BR cause there it went. I must admit though, its cute when you try.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)