David Duke, Hookers, and Other Stuff Nobody Cares About

Who Cares?

Every Monday morning at 9:00 AM,  Jeff Crouere is kind enough to share his audience with me on his Ringside Politics radio show.  There are two particular callers whose politics are far to he left of  Jeff and myself.  These particular callers often  refer to “white Christian conservatives,” who they love to   associate with David Duke.

Many Louisiana Democrats love reminding the world that Duke ran as a Republican in the 1991 gubernatorial election.  They have long used the dirty trick  tactic of using Duke to define Louisiana  conservatives.  Some seem determined to elevate David Duke’s importance beyond anything that remotely resembles reality.  We’ve seen how  political pundits have   gone to ridiculous lengths to connect Duke to candidates they are seeking  to destroy.

One example of this was in 2014, when Lamar White of Cenlamar.com unearthed some postings on the White- Supremicist Web Site Storm Front.  The posts appeared to link Congressman Steve Scalise with David Duke. At the time, Scalise was well on the way to being named house majority whip, and the David Duke revelation threatened to derail his ambitions.

We all know how that one ended. Scalise went on to be majority whip, and at one time was  in the running for majority leader.

The truth is that no one cares about David Duke anymore.  No one cares about who may  have run with him back in the day.  No one cares about who bought his mailing list.    David Duke is a dead horse that some people want to keep beating.   They are free to do so,  but no one appears to be listening.

Which brings me to the governor’s race.

Senator David Vitter has long been considered the front- runner.  Our state faces crippling long-term deficits and problems with financing higher education, among other things.  Are we hearing a serious conversation about such things?

Or course not. Instead, we are hearing about David Vitter and prostitutes

In my previous post, I pointed to some flaws in a seemingly failed attempt to revive the David Vitter prostitution scandal.  One of the outlets who ran with the story later found inconsistencies in the story about Vitter’s alleged affair with a New Orleans hooker.

That wasn’t enough to put the issue to rest, of course.

That’s because the alleged  prostitution scandal is “the new David Duke.” What do I mean by that? I mean that in spite of repeatedly failing to gain any traction, Vitter’s foes are hell bent on continually digging it back up and finding a different way to spin it.

Vitter’s 2010 senate victory should have made one thing very clear: people in this state are largely unconcerned about any mistakes he’s made in his personal life.  Those opposing Vitter in 2010 were certain that the D.C. madam scandal would end  his career, and built an entire strategy around this idea

It didn’t work.

We should all ask ourselves, why are some so obsessed with Vitter’s alleged affair?   In the most recent debate, even fellow Republican Scott Angelle got on the bandwagon.  Does anyone believe that Angelle seriously gives a damn about whether or not VItter is a faithful husband?  Does he truly believe that it has any bearing on Louisiana’s future? Or is it just an excuse to go after someone who is a threat to his personal vested interests?

David Duke and the prostitution scandal come  from a playbook that is old and worn.   They are  symptoms of a political class who has long since lost touch with the concerns of everyday people, whose children are graduating college and heading across state lines to greener pastures on a daily basis.    While Louisiana worries over its future,  many politicians and pundits are desperate to revive  the scandals of the past, all in the hopes of advancing some narrow, personal agenda.

Louisiana is facing serious problems and we need a serious discussion. Instead, we are getting tabloid sensationalism devoid of substance.

It's only fair to share...Share on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someoneShare on Facebook

Comments

comments