Kennedy to challenge Landrieu for U.S. Senate seat

Source: KTBS 3 News

Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy has launched a campaign Web site announcing he will challenge U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu in next year's election.

In a letter to supporters and posted on the site today, Kennedy said he will file the necessary papers to run for the Senate next year. He also seeks campaign contributions.

Kennedy was a longtime Democrat who recently switched to the Republican party amid widespread speculation he would challenge Landrieu, a Democrat.

Landrieu plans to seek a third term. The election is November 4th.

Read more: http://www.ktbs.com/news/Kennedy-to-challenge-Landrieu-for-U.S.-Senate-seat-6841/

---

I am sending $20 to Mary Landrieu's way. Let's send her some DU LOVE!

election of 1996? Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. In her last election the mood inside Sen. Mary Landrieu's re-election campaign headquarters was glum by midafternoon Saturday. Checks of key precincts showed turnout among African-American voters wasn't nearly what the Democratic incumbent needed. The month long national Republican blitz for challenger Suzanne Haik Terrell appeared to be working.
Then the Landrieu team made two critical on-the-fly tactical decisions. About 1 p.m., Kenner native and former Al Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile set up a conference call with Landrieu; state Sen. Cleo Fields, D-Baton Rouge; and former President Bill Clinton. In blunt terms, according to a member of the Landrieu campaign, Clinton told Fields, a onetime Landrieu nemesis, to step up his get-out-the-vote machinery in African-American neighborhoods and to do it fast.

About 4 p.m., the campaign also shifted the focus of its turnout efforts to eastern New Orleans and Gentilly, aides said. Landrieu raced to the area to canvass the heavily African-American precincts with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin; U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans; and a platoon of volunteers. They worked the streets until the polls closed at 8 p.m.

Black turnout propels win.

We need to do all we can to help Mary again this time. Even though she might disappoint at times she is still a Democrat.

Ben David

Who in their right mind would switch the the Party of Bush?

...would switch to the party of Bush?

Someone who wants to win in a southern state with a large military population.

Louisiana is one of these. So are Texas, South Carolina and Florida.

Most Americans are not liberal. This is not the United States of Northern California...nor will it ever be.

When I lived in the Dallas suburbs years ago, liberals were the couple at the end of street that everyone made fun of. I understand it's still that way...and Texas is now the second largest state in terms of population.

You could say the same of Atlanta, Raleigh, Nashville, Orlando...they're all about the same.

but most americans are pro-choice, against the iraq war, for universal healthcare, pro-civil unions for gays, pro government programs like medicare, ss, schip etc etc etc. Oh, and most americans think Bush is bad at his job.

However, I realize that different kinds of states need different kinds of Democratic candidates.

...are pro-choice?

Maybe that's what you want to believe.

Ohioans just elected a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat governor. He's doing a hell of a job and they love him.

One of the reasons Kerry failed to win Ohio was because there was a gay marriage referendum on the ballot. I personally know of one older lady who crawled up her stairs in a back brace and climbed into her car to go vote against it. That actually happened, in Wayne county. I know the lady personally.

"On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?"

37% Pro-life
48% Pro-choice
8% Both/Mix
7% Unsure

These are typical results from this kind of poll.
Will you take back your "maybe that's what you want to believe" swipe now?

I am well aware of gay marriage bans, MI passed one too even though Kerry won by a good margin.
Most Americans are for civil unions.

...why don't you make sure there's a gay marriage or gay civil unions initiative this coming Fall, in states where it hasn't been already decided.

If what you say is right, people will turn out to vote in favor of it and then put a Democrat into the White House.

Well, what's holding you back? Get going!

:pals:
Way to admit you were wrong about Americans and choice by the way.

...but what I am trying to say is that my wife and I would like the Democratic party (and the country) to get back to where it was in the forties and fifties. We'd even settle for the sixties or seventies. At least we paid our bills and built highways and educated our children properly in those days.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you to question why all these former Dixiecrats are now Republicans...or why these people are so popular even in places like Texas and Florida?

Even Donna Brazile says the abortion issue is rotting the party from inside out. She's a native Louisianan and she gets people of all backgrounds coming up to her and questioning this. Yeah, I understand how much money the party gets from pro-choice activists but justifying that is like saying it's okay to rob banks and give the money to poor people.

Throw the social issues over the side. We have more important things to worry about. Sorry, but it's true.

I want the country back that I remember from the late sixties and early seventies, and I'm not alone. Even the late John Chancellor said the last truly good year we had was probably 1972, before the oil crisis and all the inflation from the war spending and real estate boom. Alan Greenspan says in his new book that when we lost the ability to control the worldwide price of oil, things went precipitously downhill for most Americans. That's why he's obsessed with alternative energy, which is an unusual interest for an eighty year old retired chairman of the Federal Reserve.

"Throw the social issues over the side. We have more important things to worry about. Sorry, but it's true."

I believe what you really mean to say is:

"Throw the gays and women under the bus."

Fixed that for you.

:hi:

...who cares?

I don't. I couldn't care less. I remember a day when nobody cared, but that changed when someone figured out they could raise money for the party with these issues.

Who cares if gays are not allowed to visit their partners of 50+ years on their deathbeds?

I sure as hell do, as do most Democrats. That's why we're here. Because we care.

Why are you here?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"You can't sell abortion, gay rights, gun control and unionism to someone who carries a Bible in their hand."

You're discounting the millions of Christians in the US who have had abortions, are gay, have gay family or friends, don't own handguns, support gun control, belong to a union, etc. Or let me guess, you don't consider those people to be real Christians, is that it?

:wtf:

"Well, fuck you.
<snip>
I've been posting in these forums since before the Net and the web existed. I go back to the days of Fidonet and Usenet, as a university student. Some of those posts would set your hair on fire. I could hit you so hard you wouldn't know what day it was.

And do you know what else? I'd enjoy it. And then I'd do it again."

Do you really want to compare ARPAnet account history? :) I think you'd lose this big-dick contest.

...I don't think so. I truly don't. Some of that stuff goes back to the mid-eighties.

That appears to be what you're saying above, but I may be misreading your oh-so-Democratic ideals. Please clarify whether or not this is really what you mean to say.

---

BTW, I know you'd love to whip out rulers and compare, but I seriously doubt someone like you ever had an ARPAnet account. Prove me wrong and I'll show you mine.

...that's what I said. Ask that question of most Texans and southerners and they'll agree.

I'm for the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not Bernie Sanders.

I appreciate your point of view on this and I agree that we shouldn't expect a Louisiana Democrat to vote like a Democrat from New York City. I also agree that, especially in more conservative states, we need to stress economic issues and take on a more populist program.

BUT, I don't accept that certain social issues are indulgent. Abortion is a subject that MANY people (women especially) are extremely passionate about. And why shouldn't they be? It has to do with their bodies, it has do with religious and philosophical beliefs, it has to do with privacy. Where I am (in a Northern suburb) most of the people I know are Republican, but pro-choice. This isn't a frivilous issue for many people.

Frankly, abortion is not an issue that I'm personally that concerned with. But I certainly am with gay rights. In my generation, it is seen as a civil rights issue. Homosexuality is not a choice and, having gay friends and family, I want them to be able to live as equals and marry whom they please -- I don't see why their marriage affects me or anybody else. I recognize we can't push for gay marriage nationally right now, but I do favor greater equality for gays and lesbians and moving in that direction (enacting civil unions where we can, pushing employment non-discrimination, ending don't-ask-don't-tell). Its about civil rights, not about "deviant sex."

And I'm sure that Harry Truman or Jack Kennedy wouldn't have been sympathetic. But I don't think we can judge moral standards by what people believed fifty years ago. Woodrow Wilson was a firm segregationist -- what relevance does that have today? FDR didn't care to push for an end to segregation -- does that mean we should have ignored the fight for civil rights and simply pushed an economic agenda in the preceding decades?

...but this is precisely what pushed most of the Dixiecrats to the Republican party and has now created an scenario in which it is almost impossible to put a Democrat in the White House.

You're entitled to your opinion. Most assuredly, but we're all paying for this.

Nice try pushing the lie that the military is republican. I have a lot of friends from my old infantry unit and none of them are voting republican. The military population of Louisiana is no more than the military population of PA, NJ, NY or for that matter, Northern California.

as far as I can tell.

made fun of. I understand it's still that way... :eyes:


No not at ALL. There are plenty liberals here in D/FW. I think as diverse as D/FW is, it's hard to really pick out who's a liberal and who's a conservative.

Things are turning around here in the Metroplex. You may not see it, but it is happening.

I think every state has its share of both liberals and conservatives. Some more than others, however, you can't determine what the real percentages are considering not everybody votes, so there really isn't a good gauge on what the percentages would be on how many liberals are living in the Metroplex.

If everyone voted things would look different.

be very important to the Dems in her area.

I hope she gets her sorry, worthless ass voted out! She deserves it.

Then she can move to D.C. and become a lobbyist with Trent Lott. :puke:

priceless

note it shows his missing a bunch of votes as well

never understood the appeal of Edwards at all

Although, according to your source, Edwards had a lower percentage than Landrieu (65% to 80%), it was due to missed votes, not voting "the wrong way" on the issues they tracked.

Guess who had a more conservative voting record that year, Landreau or Edwards:

http://www.adaction.org/1999.pdf

to be fair it was that he wasn't doing his damn job

And she has a pathetic RECENT voting record. PATHETIC. Bush couldn't ask for a more supportive friend. :puke:

to being Dems.

Landrieu has been a horrendous DINO. This guy "was a longterm Democrat" who switched to challenge Landrieu. It is possible that Kennedy is more the democrat than Landrieu. :shrug:

since the Democratic Party appears to be stuffed to the gills with DINOS and Republican "Ivans", why not have US do the same thing to the Republican Party and stuff it with RINOS???

Turnabout is fair play, after all.

Mayor of NY, whose thinking of running for Pres.

If anyone thinks her losing would be a good thing, then they are sadly mistaken. We don't need Republicans gaining any seats in the Senate.

to some Democratic roots...I agree, I don't want another Repug in the Senate, no matter if they are RINO. But, Landrieu needs to be shaken up. If not from a Dem primary challenger, perhaps from a former Dem opposing her from the right.

in the primaries? when the chips are down, we can count on Typhoid Mary to stab us in the back.

She's a DLC/republican saboteur in our party. Her resume includes:

Member "Gang of 14"
Repeated supporter of destructive Bu*h Tax cuts
Voted for Bankruptcy Bill
Voted to limit class action suits against corporations
Voted to Confirm Roberts as Chief justice
Voted for cloture in Alito nomination
Voted for cloture in Bolton nomination
Favors Repeal of Estate Tax
Formed centrist coalition with republicans after 2006 election
Voted for the unconstitutional "Protect America Act"

A Dem that votes Rep and a Rep that used to be a Dem...

choices, choices...

Hard to decide which is worse, pathetic complicity or willful corruption.

is well known for party switching way beyond other states? The laws are very condusive to it there, so party loyalty is way lower. On a side note, maybe the Kucinich/Ron Paul 08 (awful) idea might have some appeal in LA.

She votes with the repukes every time anyway...what's the diff?