The Advocate Blog Network

Banner image

Levee board makes huge error

The ideological blinders of five members of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East (henceforth: “the board”) were on full display yesterday when they voted to proceed with the levee board’s lawsuit against 88 energy-related companies even though a federal district judge had dismissed the suit so scathingly that I described the board’s loss as being the equivalent of Cumberland College’s 0-222 loss to Georgia Tech in a 1916 football game.

The board had a chance to escape the suit free and clear from all costs and expenses. As I suggested in my most recent column on the subject, I believe it is quite likely that a key provision in the board’s contract with the lawyers amounts to a violation of canons of legal ethics.

The provision says that the lawyers, on their own discretion, effectively have nearly full power to decide to appeal a lower court’s decision — with consultation with the levee board, but without the levee board’s approval. When combined with another provision, called a “poison pill,” that puts the board on the hook for millions in legal fees if the board ends the suit even if the lawyers want to go forward, the provision in question amounts to letting the the lawyers bilk the client for millions of dollars without the client’s full agreement.

This would seem to violate the state’s canon of ethics. I’ll let you follow the link and read the relevant part of the canon for yourselves. Specifically, see this:

A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation, and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.

This should mean that, once the federal district court issued a judgment (a dismissal is indeed the equivalent of a judgment), the board should have been free to refuse to appeal it without triggering the so-called poison pill.

But the board went ahead anyway. The thought seems to be that if it keeps appealing this thing all the way to the Supreme Court, and lose, well then, the poison pill will disintegrate and the contract with the lawyers will revert to a strict contingency fee arrangement, meaning that the board will owe not a dime in fees (although it might still owe certain limited expenses). So why not keep pushing for a huge jackpot by appealing until all appeals are done?

Here’s why. First, those aforementioned expenses will continue to accrue. Second, the appeals are likely to take several more years to work their way through federal courts (and perhaps to bounce back and forth among levels of the federal courts and even, in some aspects, in state courts), all of which provides more chances for those reimbursable expenses to build up. But the expenses of a long- drawn-out process, though important, are less important than other factors.

Such a lengthy process can actually get in the way of ongoing efforts, in which energy companies had been helpful, to find other ways to finance coastal restoration. Faced with a multi-billion lawsuit, the energy companies will spend their time and effort fighting the suit rather than contributing to the restoration.  The lengthy appeals (as encouraged by the poison pill) thus serve to “poison the well” for other solutions.

The way to attract cooperation is certainly not to turn the would-be co-operator into an adversary.

The board should have told the lawyers to cease and desist. Either way, somebody with expertise in the subject  of Louisiana legal ethics should consider asking somebody with enforcement power to investigate whether the attorneys are in violation of those canons of ethics. I am no expert on this, but I can read. The plain language of the canons at least raises the possibility that the board’s contract with the lawyers is unethical.

Vitter makes sense on Common Core

U.S. David Vitter, after bumbling through a double-reverse on Common Core in the past 10 months, is now making a lot of sense on school standards as he kicks his gubernatorial campaign into gear.

U. S. Sen. David Vitter, a contender for governor and an opponent of Common Core, said Friday the state should form a panel of teachers, parents and others to draft new classroom standards.

“The idea that you can only have strong, challenging standards if you surrender control to national elites is just crazy,” Vitter said in a prepared statement.

“We can have real rigor and Louisiana control and we will,” he said.

This is of utmost importance. Ask legislators who support Common Core (sometimes literally without even knowing what it is, which can be seen if you wade through enough committee video), or ask business lobbyists who support it, and they’ll tell you again and again that, well, we really need standards, dontcha know, and we need Common Core because, well dadgum it, Common Core is a set of standards. But they can’t tell you what exactly is in those particular standards, or why they are good standards; they just know they are byGod for standards.

Vitter punctures this pathetic balloon by reminding people that Louisianans are perfectly capable of producing their own good standards without accepting ones that make math more confusing and time-consuming, promote (at least indirectly) disgustingly trashy “literature,” jettison cursive writing, are written in inscrutable bureaucratic gobbledygook, and leave the door open for illegally nationalized control of local curriculum.

Not all standards are good standards. Common Core’s standards are awful. We can and should do better. And we must.

Thanks to Mary Landrieu for her service

As a mainstream conservative, I am glad that Bill Cassidy defeated Mary Landrieu in today’s U.S. Senate race. She voted wrong way, way, way too often… and she ran an ugly campaign.

But it also was an extremely hard-working campaign, a never-say-die campaign, from a hard-working and never-say-die senator. Mary Landrieu was an extremely hard worker in the Senate, especially when Louisiana’s parochial interests were at stake. She didn’t “deliver” as often as she or her Louisiana media backers claimed — not even close — but she did deliver as often as anybody in her position could.

Mary Landrieu either fell out of touch with the Louisiana majority’s values or with its political opinions — or, worse, might have even become dismissive of those values and opinions. She clearly wasn’t the right person to represent those opinions going forward.

But she did serve with passion and verve, and usually with honor (her race-baiting campaign notwithstanding). She merits thanks for her service.

Desperation, Prevarication from Landrieu Campaign

Within a week, I will have a report (or several) that will describe two tremendously successful Mary Landrieu campaign events.  Both of them were very impressive. I’ll also be reporting on some Bill Cassidy news. But when I see falsehoods and nonsense, I cannot allow those things to stand just because I intended to hold my own accounts for a larger story (or stories).

In that light, I must call foul on the Landrieu campaign for a press release it put out yesterday that was both inaccurate and, frankly, sophomoric. The release is not posted at the campaign web site yet, so I will paste the entire thing below. One can see that it is full of bombastic charges of supposed Cassidy “lies” and “accidental admi[ssions].”

I’ll momentarily get to the flat-out falsehoods of both commission and omission in the release. But first, let’s look at what falls more in the category of tendentiously misleading nonsense.

To wit: Part of the release’s desperation and sophomoric nature becomes obvious for anybody who takes the time to listen to the audio. Despite the release’s claims that Cassidy somehow “admitted” that he doesn’t believe Landrieu supports amnesty, the only thing he actually said was that “no, not at all” when badgered about whether his answer to a prior question meant that he is “against Senator Rubio’s amnesty.” As that quick sentence of his is immediately followed by “I’ll tell you what,I’ll discuss it with Rubio,” it is clear that he isn’t denying that the Senate bill in question is “amnesty” and certainly not admitting either that he himself supports “Rubio’s amnesty” or that “he doesn’t believe Senator Landrieu supports amnesty.”

It’s one thing to catch somebody saying something hypocritical; it’s another to badger someone until you can take five words he said out of context and reinterpret them to say something entirely different than what he actually, clearly was saying. This is the same sort of thing that attracted both local and national disdain when the Landrieu campaign ran a TV ad taking a few stammers from a Cassidy speech and trying to make it seem like he’s incapable of putting a coherent sentence together.

Now, as for the straight fact check. The release asserts that “no more than 60 voters showed up” at the event in Gonzales. That’s just a flat-out lie. I was there. As part of my reporting, I counted the people there. In a crowd like that in which people aren’t entirely stationary, I count by grouping people by eye in groups of ten — sometimes literally counting to ten, individual by individual, when I can see each one clearly, and sometimes estimating ten when the group is across the room (so I might be off by one or at most two people in each group of ten on the other side of the room, but — try it yourself — I can be absolutely certain that each group is definitely between eight and twelve).  By that method, I counted 19 groups of ten, about half of which were firm counts and half of which were of the 8-12, estimated variety. So there were somewhere between 170 and 210 people there, and most likely between about 180 and 200.

There is no way, none whatsoever, that an honest observer could mistake 190 people as being just 60.

(By way of comparison, a Landrieu event in Opelousas later that day — much harder to count because people were coming and going, and some were milling outside, some in an anteroom, and some in a rather large main hall — featured, by the same counting methods, something over 240 attendees, maybe as many as many as 280 at each of the two times [in the course of an hour] that I counted.)

Also misleading (although  technically somewhat accurate) was the Landrieu release’s assertion that Senator Marco Rubio “was a no-show, leaving Congressman Cassidy to stand only with his long-time friend and political mentor, Governor Bobby Jindal.” Well, sort of. Rubio’s flight was delayed. So he called in a statement — which was played from a phone held up to a microphone — from whatever airport he was stuck at, apologizing for the circumstances beyond his control. Rubio did make it in time for a later event in Kenner. Meanwhile, to say that Cassidy was left with “only” his “political mentor” Bobby Jindal was a bit goofy: U.S. Sen. David Vitter, far more of a “political mentor” for Cassidy than Jindal has been, also spoke, as did Garret Graves, the congressional candidate who is poised to defeat Landrieu’s embarrassing Democratic ticket-mate, the felonious Edwin Edwards.

Of course campaign press releases are going to present opponents in a somewhat unflattering light. But when a campaign misrepresents so many things in one release, it’s pretty pathetic.

Below is the copy of the full release:

Mary Landrieu
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Landrieu Media


Senator Rubio A No-Show At Today’s Event

Embarrassingly Small Crowd Shows Up For Cassidy’s ‘Victory Rally’

NEW ORLEANS, LA – At a campaign stop in Gonzalez, Louisiana today, Congressman Bill Cassidy was caught in his multiples lies about Senator Mary Landrieu’s position on immigration when he said the comprehensive immigration reform bill she voted for last year did not equate to amnesty.

In an exchange with a participant at the event, Congressman Cassidy said he does not oppose Senator Marco Rubio’s bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill that he has repeatedly attacked Senator Landrieu for voting for — even calling it “amnesty” in campaign ads, speeches, and debates.

“Congressman Cassidy’s hypocrisy was on full display for the few Louisiana voters that showed up at today’s event,” said Fabien Levy, Communications Director for the Landrieu campaign. “Caught in a lie, Congressman Cassidy had no choice but to admit the bill he has attacked Senator Landrieu for supporting is the furthest thing from amnesty.”

While the event was dubbed a “Victory Rally” with Senator Rubio, the senator was a no-show, leaving Congressman Cassidy to stand only with his long-time friend and political mentor, Governor Bobby Jindal. Even more embarrassing than being stood up by Senator Rubio was the fact that no more than 60 voters showed up at today’s event that was hyped up to be a huge unity rally.

Congressman Cassidy has also campaigned in Louisiana with Senator John McCain, another architect of the bipartisan immigration bill, despite misleading voters by calling the bill “amnesty” when referring to Senator Landrieu’s vote for it.

Congressman Cassidy has been caught in the past for lying about Senator Landrieu’s position on immigration. His immigration ads have been called “false,” “bogus,” and “ridiculous” by independent fact checkers, who have gone on to say the ads are full of “hypocrisy.”

The following is the exchange between Congressman Cassidy and the participant at today’s event:

Participant: Dr. Cassidy, so nice to meet you.

Congressman Cassidy: Nice to meet you.

Participant: “I’m just… Don’t you think Senator Rubio supports amnesty as well?”

Congressman Cassidy: “Rubio, well he’s not going to be for executive amnesty, I can tell you that.”

Participant: “But he voted for the same bill that Senator Landrieu did.”

Congressman Cassidy: “Yeah, you can ask him about that.”

Participant: “But what do you think?”

Congressman Cassidy: “Uhhhhh… I’m against amnesty. And so…”

Participant: “So are you against Senator Rubio’s amnesty?”

Congressman Cassidy: “No, not at all. Well, I’ll tell you what, I’ll discuss it with Rubio.”

Audio from today’s event that can be used for news reports can be found HERE.

Devastating Blow to Sen. Landrieu… but…

By filibustering to death Mary Landrieu’s latest attempt to gain full congressional passage of legislation approving the Keystone Pipeline, 41 of her fellow Democratic senators clearly send the message that Landrieu’s presence in the Senate is less important to them than their ideological commitment to environmental leftism or their desire to stay on good terms with a hard-left big-donor base. It already was fairly clear that Landrieu’s vaunted “clout” in the Senate was vastly overstated (or overrated) even when Democrats controlled the Senate; now it’s crystal-clear that she really doesn’t have the political “stroke” with her own party to accomplish things they just don’t want to do.

Anybody with sense can see that this revelation gives yet another boost to the Senate campaign of her challenger, U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, who is leading Landrieu substantially in the polls.

Indeed, it lends credence to the argument that Landrieu should withdraw from the runoff rather than suffer what could be a landslide defeat.

But conservatives should not chortle at this result. First and most importantly, the defeat of the bill means that bad policy prevails. Keystone will provide jobs and cheaper energy; blocking it, as President Obama and Senate Democrats continue to do, is horribly counterproductive.

Second (or leading to the second point), this stunning defeat for Landrieu also highlights just how tough a road she has had to walk for these past 18 years. Landrieu is an old-style liberal serving an increasingly conservative state, while dealing with a Senate Democratic caucus that is more hard-leftist than liberal. I’ve never understood why she moved left in the past six years rather than further right, even as her already center-right state edged further rightward. Her more liberal voting record in this past term was sure to make it harder for her to be re-elected. Yet the second reason conservatives should not chortle is that it is a bad sign for the country that even a slightly more liberal Landrieu still wasn’t seen by her colleagues as important enough to their agenda to be worth casting a key vote to save her. What that means is that cross-party co-operation is likely to be even harder to achieve in the future; if the only Democrats remaining are hard-line left, it’s bad for American republican (small ‘r’) government.

Third, one must grudgingly give credit to Landrieu for giving the Pipeline the “old college try.” Even if it’s clear that her efforts for home-state interests are unavailing (as they have been on multiple issues since Obama became president), and that therefore it makes little sense to keep her in the Senate, it’s also clear that her unabashedly up-front doggedness is an admirable trait. As President Lincoln said about Ulysses Grant (except that the gender is obviously different), “I like this man: he fights.” Conservatives and moderates who both have reason to be happy to see her go (moderates because she so often cast party-line votes for her hard-left colleagues that they almost never reciprocated for her) nonetheless should not chortle, because her brand of doggedness is a politically dying brand that we should not wish to see die.

Landrieu should recognize that her position is untenable, and that her time in the Senate is basically done. But she did not waste that time; she worked.


BP has a point

Last Friday at The Corner, the blog section of National Review Online, I explored the case that BP is petitioning to the Supreme Court, challenging numerous awards from one of the major settlement agreements stemming from the awful 2010 oil spill.

Now it goes without saying that BP’s name is mud in Louisiana. In general, I have no quarrel with that. But it is also true that there is no doubt — none whatsoever — that several dozen (at least) of the settlement awards are slated for people/businesses that suffered no damage from the spill, whether direct or with any reasonable nexus thereto.

Without prejudging the case, which does involve several cross-cutting legal questions, I argue that the high court absolutely should agree to hear the case (to grant certiorari), because the legal issues raised are important not just for the current case but for the legal system as a whole. Please do take a look at the story linked above.

Does Mary Landrieu Really Think We’re Racists?

For a conservative, I’ve been remarkably friendly to Mary Landrieu in these pages and elsewhere. But now, in an interview for Meet the Press, Landrieu has gone beyond the pale. In effect, she says too many of her own state’s voters are racists. Watch for yourself, here. It’s flabbergasting.

The question to her was, “Why does President Obama have a hard time in Louisiana?” Landrieu gave two reasons. First, she said, is because we don’t like his energy policies. Fine. But then came this (and the quote is direct): “I’ll be very, very honest with you. The South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans,” Landrieu told NBC News in an interview. “It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader.”

She’s saying Louisiana white people are racist. And it’s part of a plan. All over the country, Democrats are pulling out the race card — so flagrantly and frankly illegitimately that even the New York Times has noted it. And Landrieu certainly hasn’t objected when political action committees supporting her have spread shameless, racially charged falsehoods about her opponent Bill Cassidy, such as that he wants (making it sound almost present tense) to turn Grambling University into a prison when in fact something he wrote way back in 1991 can more fairly be read as calling for saving money from other colleges in order to devote more to flagships — such as Grambling.

Look, Mary Landrieu is a fighter. She also can be charming. I like her. And she works hard for Louisiana (as would, presumably, just about any senator we elect, because whoever gets there will want to keep their job!). But nothing excuses her tacit accusation that her own state’s people are racist — or at least that race, rather than an honest opposition to Obama’s agenda, is what drives Louisiana opposition to the president.

Playing the race card like this is shameful.

That is all.

A Long-Ago Colleague Runs for DA

With Walter Reed, longtime District Attorney in St. Tammany and Washington Parishes, retiring amidst significant controversy, the voters in those parishes have a chance to start anew.  I pretend no deep knowledge about the whole field of candidates, and I cannot pretend objectivity. It turns out that an old colleague of mine, Warren Montgomery, is running for the seat. It was 27 years ago that I spent a whole campaign, about eight months worth, checking in about once weekly with Warren, and we had mostly lost touch since then. What I saw during those eight months in 1987, and in a few subsequent interactions, was a man of deep integrity and personal decency. (I was doing issues research for Congressman Bob Livingston’s campaign for governor; Montgomery was Livingston’s district aide — and our brief communications mostly involved helping keep straight the lines between congressional work and campaign work, so that we wouldn’t unethically conflate the two. Warren, to his credit, was a stickler for following the rules.)

I caught up with Warren the other day. Herewith, a very brief sketch of what he told me.

First, his resume: New Orleans’ Jesuit High School; LSU undergrad; LSU Law School. Now age 59. Served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney from 1983 through 1985, prosecuting cases involving mail fraud and income tax fraud before joining a key drug-enforcement task force. (More on that in a moment.) Then to Livingston’s office, 1986 through 1988. Then 12 years in private business expanding the Icee franchise to new markets. Then back into law in 2001, in private practice, both civil and criminal, including lots of pro bono indigent defense work. He ran for a state district court judgeship six years ago, finishing second in a three-way race. Other than that, he has not tried for elective office (other than some volunteer Republican Party posts), but has occasionally helped other candidates, including enthusiastic local volunteer leadership for Rick Santorum’s Republican presidential campaign in 2012. (Santorum won the Louisiana contest.)

Warren speaks with some relish about his last drug-enforcement case in the office of then U.S. Attorney John Volz. Called U.S. vs. Zabaneh, it involved a major marijuana smuggling ring out of Belize. The main honcho was named Angel John Zabaneh. First U.S. agents captured his girlfriend (last name; Fajardo) and another friend, Wilbur “Monkey” Fulbright, and convicted both of them. They indicted Zebaneh; when he left Belize for Guatemala, the latter refused him admittance because of the American indictment, and sent him on a plane to the United States, where law enforcement officials were waiting. Eventually the U.S. Attorney’s office convicted him and nearly 50 others, and recovered a stunning $20 million in marijuana.

Montgomery cites that case as an example of his diligence.

So, I asked, why does he want to be D.A.?

“We need a change in the leadership of the district attorney’s office and I didn’t think the other candidates had the combination of experience and independence that the change requires….

“We need to establish a code of conduct so that the conflicts of interest that have been alleged no longer occur either by the D.A. himself or by the assistant district attorneys. We need to eliminate [the allowance for lawyers in the office to simultaneously engage in] private practice; we need to treat service as the full-time job it is.
Practicing law on the side while you are DA has the potential for conflicts of interest…. The other thing is we need to increase the use of technology and we have to speed up the process so that it’s shorter from the time of arrest to the time of resolution. One way to do this is to put more people into alternative courts: DUI courts, mental health courts, drug courts, and especially a veterans court so that, for instance, a veteran suffering from PTSD and attempting to  self-medicate by using marijuana,we don’t put him in jail but give him another mechanism so he learns to cope by some other method without violating the law.”
So there you have it. Warren Montgomery is a good man. Louisiana needs good men to run for office.

Exclusive: RNC Goes After Mary Landrieu

Tomorrow (Tuesday) morning, the RNC will release a 90-second web ad identifying Mary Landrieu as the key target in their effort to overthrow the Obama-Democratic majority that has run the U.S. Senate for the past eight years, while using video from her and from President Obama that directly, repeatedly and embarrassingly puts the onus of Obamacare’s unpopularity on her doorstep. It’s pretty much a one-issue ad — message: Obamacare and its problems are Landrieu’s fault — but it tries to make that one issue devastating by very well-crafted use of video footage. Nobody can accuse the RNC of misstating facts, because it’s all there in the video.

Give Landrieu credit: Unlike some other Democrats who tried to obfuscate their support for Obamacare, she obviously believed it would work and she stood by it. At least it shows the courage of her convictions. Of course, most Americans, and probably most Louisianans (I haven’t seen a recent poll of Louisiana voters on this), believe her convictions were wrong, and that Obamacare has made the American medical system worse. That’s certainly what I believe. It has been a disaster, and a predictable one at that.

I would add something else, though. Most people think it’s not enough to say one is against Obamacare; they want to know what a candidate is for, in its place. Conservatives have had a lot of good answers to that, but the media don’t put that info in the headlines. It starts with allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines. It allows small businesses and individuals to band together to join “purchasing pools” for insurance deals they are too small to get on their own. It allows for expanded use of health savings accounts, equal tax treatment for individuals buying their own insurance as for corporations providing it, and it does various things to guarantee coverage for those who through no fault of their own have been denied it.

Obamacare goes in exactly the opposite direction from these sensible reforms. It was a horrible idea from the very start, and the RNC is making sure people know it was an idea Landrieu embraced.

Senator Landrieu airs her problems

As of this afternoon, Sen. Mary Landrieu is acknowledging some $34,000 of campaign-related flights, going back apparently a dozen years or more, that were improperly charged to her Senate office account, and therefore to taxpayers. She said her campaign has now reimbursed the Senate, and thus the taxpayers, for the errors.

Let’s be clear what this is and what it isn’t. What it is not, at least not necessarily, is a sign of intentional corruption. Sometimes record-keeping in Congress can indeed get sloppy. Sometimes when a trip from DC to Louisiana is mostly for official purposes, and then a quick campaign flight is added on, it can be possible for a Senate office worker who is not being attentive to just pay for the whole trip from the office account. And face it: Landrieu and her husband together are millionaires, apparently several times over, and her campaign fundraising always has been successful, too. For her or her campaign, $34,000 over 12 years is relative child’s play. There would be no real incentive to slough those flights off on the taxpayers, unless it was part and parcel of a habitual effort to stick taxpayers or other innocents with all sorts of tabs, amounting to a lot more than $34,000, that Landrieu or her campaign wanted to avoid. That certainly does not seem to be the case here. What we are then left with, it seems — absent a mens rea, meaning (approximately) a “guilty mind” — is an example of fairly longstanding book-keeping incompetence.

It’s definitely an embarrassment, but not likely “corruption” in the way the word is usually understood.

The question is, how big an embarrassment should it be?

Well, since it’s not just two flights, but apparently a dozen or more, that makes the incompetence itself somewhat habitual. Looked at one way, it also can be an indicator of an office staff that no longer is vigilant enough about making a distinction between politicking and governing. And, since staffs really do take their cues from the top, it could serve as an indicator that Sen. Landrieu herself might, somewhere along the line, have fallen into the Beltway blindness, combined with a feeling of entitlement which sometimes comes with a long practice of power.

There’s a potentially good analogy available: Back in the early 1990s, a huge number of congressmen were caught up in what became known as the “House Bank Scandal,” whereby a special bank for congressman was allowing them to kite checks for months or even years at a time. In conjunction with a similar sort of scandal involving the House Post Office, it quickly came to symbolize a Congress that had grown out of touch, with a sense of entitlement to special treatment that ordinary people wouldn’t get. Indeed, it became a national flash point, and over the course of two election cycles it played a huge role in re-election losses by dozens of incumbents.

Except in egregious examples (involving maybe two dozen members whose abuses were so large or habitual that it seemed to amount to deliberate corruption), most Members involved turned out to be responsible for only a few overdrafts here and there. The fewer there were, the more likely the problems were merely book-keeping, just as almost everybody at one time or another in his life makes a mistake and overdraws a checking account. Still, enraged voters often treated even one “kited” check as an indicator that the congressman in question had been captured by the self-serving Beltway mentality — and, in response, threw those Members out on their ears in the next possible election.

It seems to me that Landrieu’s airplane troubles — Mary’s Air Errors, perhaps? — fall in the same category as the House Bank Scandal, somewhere in the mid-level range of transgressors back then. In other words, Landrieu’s office didn’t err just once or twice or three times, which really could be shrugged off in the greater scheme of things; but she apparently did not rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars of false charges to taxpayers, involving dozens upon dozens of flights, either.

UPDATE: It’s a bit worse than I thought. By my count, there are right around 100 flights at issue, of which 43 (quick count!) were wrongly charged. That gets pretty close to “dozens.”

Louisiana voters should look at the totality of the record to decide for themselves if Mary’s Air Errors, in conjunction with other behaviors, are evidence that she has lost touch with the non-entitled lives of ordinary people. I make no judgment here. I hope, though, that I have provided some reasonable context.