Still asking the question


A long, long time ago (May to be exact) I wrote a column titled: "You want it shaken or stirred?" It concerned the differences between our two Representatives now engaged in mortal combat for the chance to represent the Third Congressional District after the feds gerrymandered things to "represent" Louisianans better after Hurricane Katrina.

Now that the race has fulminated to a heat level approaching something near solar, we see there are no differences in the individual's approach to the issues. Boustany says he's best; Landry says the same about himself.

How does the average voter decide?

PAC (political action committees) or as some people describe them; Political Attack Combatants, are now embroiled in the campaign. They're supposedly guilty of such nefarious activities as distortions of incumbent stances on issues, prevarications of one candidate's inability to step from the political herd to be a recognized leader moving the herd away from business as usual and the fact one of them has a better hairline than the other.

Such is politics. So the question remains: Do you want more of what's been destructive to your chance to regain control of your government or do you want more of the "same old, same old?"

It's your decision.

Watching government's growth over the last 50 years I've been paying attention has been instructive concerning its destructive element affecting the average citizen. Representative (both senatorial and congressional) government has done little to protect the mainstay of this nation: the Middle Class. The real reason for this is because the Middle Class is what we once sagely referred to as the Silent Majority; the people quietly taking care of the business of American business. They go to work; they pay their taxes and watch as others not so industrious gain wealth or subsistence redistributed from the middle class' tax coffers.

This has been going on since Franklin Roosevelt and run unabated and un-slowed through today. Nobody wanting to be re-elected dare buck the system. That's what we call "going along to get along". Those entrenched in this system have a lot to lose: like pensions and privileges. I don't believe in anybody's unbridled drive to do good works selflessly. NO politician is altruistic. They all have agendas. Some are merely less obnoxious than others, but agendas nonetheless.

So; we come to the question at hand: "Do You Want It Shaken or Stirred?"

Do you want to send a representative to Congress who'll continue to "go along" with an antiquated system of patronizing those toeing the ideological line acquiring only enough for the people sending him there (so they'll keep him there); or do you want somebody that'll start shaking this foundationally corrupt program benefiting only those actually in power?

The choice is clear if you want things to change. Boustany's a party man. He pays attention to the commands and demands of John Boehner and the cabal Boehner holds sway over. This posture holds benefits for Boustany but has few recognizable allowances for his constituents. Boustany waits in queue for the benefits assigned him as designated by the party.

Landry's a maverick seeking out what he defines as what's wrong. In what appears a quixotic manner, he attacks the owners of the windmill for their shorting the weight of the grain milled and thus shorting the profit of the people doing the work making it possible for the miller to be in business in the first place.

Who serves you best? The one "going along" and waiting in queue for your share of a moldy piece of cake; or the one wants to be assured you get true value for what you've worked for; a whole loaf of fresh bread?

Boustany's what he is. Better than nothing. But, he's going along to get along and he can't deny it. Landry's more hardline and was sent to STOP playing by the established rules benefiting nobody but those in the establishment. We must stop this "Class" distinction established by those who represent against those represented. They've become entrenched. They feel unassailable and irreplaceable.

Until we start limiting terms we're not safe from these people.

Thanks for listening