fbpx ');*/ /*jQuery("#postgridID").addClass("second"); jQuery("#content-wrapper #page-wrapper .tt-content .vc_row .tt-slider-content #postgridID").before(''); */ });

Type to search

WATCH: Landrieu Touts Republican Supporter, Seniority In New Ad

Memo Pad Politics

WATCH: Landrieu Touts Republican Supporter, Seniority In New Ad


While most 2014 candidates are doing their best to distance themselves from Washington D.C., Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is continuing to take the opposite course in her difficult re-election campaign.

On Monday, Senator Landrieu released a new campaign ad reminding voters of her powerful position as chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

“I have over 3,000 employees, and even though I’m a Republican and don’t always agree with her, Louisiana can’t afford to lose Mary Landrieu,” the ad’s star, ship builder Boysie Bollinger, says in the 30-second spot. “She’s chairman of the Energy Committee, the most powerful position a person can have for Louisiana.”

“It means more boats, more jobs, and more oil and gas. She does big things for Louisiana,” he continues, in a thick drawl. “I’m with Mary.”

“Ship builder” is Landrieu’s second consecutive ad to emphasize the importance of her chairmanship. The previous ad, released two weeks ago, generated controversy for its re-enactment of an Energy Committee hearing.

The oil and gas industry is a strong supporter of Landrieu’s re-election bid; the third-term incumbent has raised almost $600,000 from the sector, more than double the amount raised by her chief Republican rival, U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy.

The new ad, which stars a self-described Republican, also represents Landrieu’s latest in a long series of efforts to highlight her bipartisan credentials. In her 2008 re-election, exit polls found that Landrieu won 63 percent of moderate voters and 30 percent of conservatives; given the more conservative electorate that is likely to turn out in November’s midterm election, Landrieu will probably have to replicate (if not improve upon) those numbers to stand a chance.

Landrieu currently has a comfortable lead in the polls over her Republican opponents, but it appears she’ll fall short of the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff against the second-place candidate.

Screenshot: YouTube

Henry Decker

Henry Decker was formerly the Managing Editor of The National Memo. He is currently an Online Associate at MRCampaigns.

  • 1


  1. Sand_Cat April 28, 2014

    Another of those no-win choices: a GOP candidate who’s likely to be a lunatic, or a Democrat who supports the GOP’s position on what may be the most important issue or issues of our time (well, after whether corporations should ever have been given any rights reserved for “persons,” and whether we can stop them even if we wake up at this point. Unfortunately Ms Landrieu likely leans the wrong way on that one, too).

    1. Mark Sales May 1, 2014

      Litter-feline; you apparently have a problem with candidates trying to align themselves with the views of the voters that they hope to represent.

      1. Sand_Cat May 1, 2014

        Thanks for the infantile toilet-humor.
        It would be nice if our ‘leaders” would actually lead, but I guess it’s too much to hope for in backwaters like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, the Carolinas, and similar places. So, are you with Mary, or are you just a troll looking for a chance to demean people who would prefer better choices than we currently get in most of our elections?

        1. Mark Sales May 2, 2014

          Thanks, you dodged the question about whether you preferred representative government and instead chose to disrespect the opinions of the citizens of five states of the Union. I guess I must be a troll rather than an elitist such as yourself. I will vote for Mary, unless there is a better candidate; which is what a hopeless troll that still believes in the ideals of the country should do.

          1. Sand_Cat May 2, 2014

            I didn’t dodge any question; if you had any sense you would have known the answer. If you’d paid any attention to what I wrote, you’d know I’d vote the same, but I guess wishing for better is just pure evil. Who’s the elitist?
            And you dodged the question about why you, like almost every right-wing troll I’ve encountered, chose to resort to infantile bodily-function humor.

          2. Mark Sales May 2, 2014

            Because it was not a question but an infantile response of it’s own.

  2. paulyz April 29, 2014

    Won’t the ship-builders and other businesses shell out tremendous amounts of money for Health Care for their employees under Obamacare? Sen. Landrieu still has to face all the voters that have seen their costs for health care rise, or those that had lost their health care or jobs because of her lying about Obamacare………………..

    1. Allan Richardson April 29, 2014

      Far more people nationwide have had their health care costs LOWERED, or have had the opportunity to get health care for the FIRST TIME, than have ACTUALLY had their costs rise or lost any good policies or jobs. The lying is in the “examples” Republicans use, which always turn out to be either total fabrications, or people who didn’t bother to search for the lower cost coverage, or people who found them but REFUSED to take them because it would spoil their stories.

      The only people who cannot get ANY coverage under the ACA are those who fall in the Medicaid gap AND LIVE IN RED STATES whose governments decided to kill that option, just as the visiting Martians in the movie “Mars Attacks” blasted with ray guns the doves released at the welcoming ceremony.

      Oh, and there are no “death panels” (though there were in the private insurance companies before the ACA took effect, and WILL BE AGAIN IF IT IS REPEALED, denying or cancelling coverage when policyholders get sick and need it), and no “electronic implants” either.

      1. Mark Sales May 1, 2014

        Allan, help me out with the arithmetic. please. How are healthcare costs being lowered for “more people”? Big picture; old way was that folks paid for their insurance directly or through contributions by way of their labor (including medicaid) – those not covered had their tab (through EMS & emergency room visits etc.) picked up through everyone’s tax contributions. New way is that the same except policies cost more (except where part of the tab is covered by taxes which just hides that the costs are shared), the deductibles are higher (and therefore an additional opportunity for hiding the actual cost), expanded medicaid coverage simply means – you got it, more costs covered by deductions from working folks paychecks. Since the whole “ACA” process seems just to involved inflating the medical-tax-industry by requiring everyone to sign up for a bunch of stuff which under the free healthcare market they didn’t want; how is all this the fault of “lying” Republicans?

        1. Allan Richardson May 1, 2014

          The first lie, which undercuts most of your other points, is that there is a “free” market for healthcare. Emergency care is not something that you can choose to buy or not buy, to shop and compare sellers by price and performance (even if you know the price, most of us have no way to judge performance; the unlicensed veterinarian might be “willing” to take out your appendix for $100 flat fee, and if you THOUGHT he was a qualified surgeon, you might take the offer). If the price of celery goes up too much, you can make a salad without celery, and if enough people do that, the price of celery goes down again. But when you need emergency care, you are in no position to bargain; your life is at stake. There are requirements that emergency rooms must treat critically ill or injured patients, but ONLY to the point of being “stabilized,” meaning able to walk out. They will refer patients to other doctors, but uninsured patients without money cannot follow up, so they just come back for the same thing a few times and then die.

          Regular checkups, however, are something that patients CAN decide not to buy. That is not a good decision, but it is a NON-DECISION for those without good health insurance. Since taxpayer money will often be used to treat them in the emergency room because they did not get a checkup, it makes sense to spend a fraction of that amount to prevent those emergency room visits by subsidizing health insurance. Care of long term conditions such as cancer in remission (or cancer detected early), diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and others requires far more doctor visits, lab tests and long term prescriptions than the vast majority of people could afford without a good insurance policy, even if the “free market” brought the price down (but remember, it would come down AT THE COST OF LIVES because uninsured people would do without and die).

          And getting insurance is not a “choice” for anyone with pre-existing conditions, or is such an expensive “choice” that it is not feasible. By the way, almost all of those “lost due to Obamacare” policies are the pseudo-policies created to bilk people who could not get insurance otherwise, with unrealistically low premiums and very high deductibles so that they are never going to cover anything. There are actual cases of BABIES whose parents’ work-related insurance had LIFETIME caps on claims (now banned by the ACA, by the way) which were exceeded before they left the NICU. At that point, the REST of the family became uninsured along with that baby, and IF the baby grew up, he/she would never be accepted for ANY health plan because of the pre-existing condition (now banned by the ACA). If the insurance companies were not politically allied with social conservatives to elect Republicans, they would have advised, or even coerced, the mother to abort that child as the only way the family could continue to get health insurance for themselves, EVER.

          Signing up for “a bunch of free stuff which under the ‘free’ healthcare market they didn’t want” is exactly what insurance is: spreading the risk of claims among as large a group of people as possible. Your car insurance protects you from accidents, theft, vandalism, hailstorms, etc. Would you risk dropping theft charges just because you live in a low theft area? What if you were the one car owner that year to have your car stolen? The only vehicles that do not need theft coverage — YET — are the Lunar Rovers left on the Moon by NASA! Requiring the risk pool to cover even people who don’t “think” they need a certain coverage makes it cheaper overall for everyone (not to mention simpler for claims processors). A nun may not EXPECT to need coverage for prenatal care or STD infections, but what if she were raped? Insurance is SUPPOSED to cover EVERYONE at the same rate for the same set of possible claims.

          There are high deductibles on some policies right now because the insurance companies are waiting to see how well the claim history works, and few of them have entered the marketplace. With fewer indigent ER visits, and more insured (previously not) people with LOW, but not zero, risks, in the pool, and more patients living longer and thus paying premiums longer, claims will come down, especially since people seeing a doctor regularly are more likely to follow doctor’s recommendations for healthy lifestyle (and at the lowest education levels, more likely to KNOW what those recommendations are), and will be LESS likely to need expensive chronic disease care, and/or ER care, later.

          The truth is that the only way the “free market” without regulation can bring health care costs down is by letting people stay sick and die. The “brutal” facts of economics may be acceptable to our sense of decency when it comes to celery, cell phones, cellophane tape, or Selicas, none of which is a life or death necessity, but not when life-saving or life-improving health care (glasses and hearing aids for poor kids so they can learn and not drop out of school, for example) is involved. At least I ASSUME that you have such a sense of decency.

          The same logic, by the way, applies to attorney services for criminal defendants. Before our Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who could not afford a lawyer was in the same position as one who was legally prevented from having one, which would be unconstitutional, there have been indigent attorney provisions, either through a Public Defender office or a referral list, so that no one goes without legal representation when his or her life, liberty or property are at stake in a criminal trial. Do you object to your tax money going to ensure a fair trial for people who often turn out to be guilty criminals??

          Thank you for discussing these questions calmly and rationally instead of merely parroting talking points like paulyz has done. I respect you even though I disagree with you over these points. I admit that the ACA is not the BEST option, but it is the best that COULD be done in the face of GOP opposition. I would welcome its eventual replacement by Medicare for all, which is what Johnson, Kennedy, Truman and on back to Roosevelt (BOTH of them) were trying for. If we were not so emotionally afraid of “socialism” we would see that, like the experiences of other wealthy industrialized democracies, and like the “socialized” police and firefighting services we pay for (whether we use them or not), it just makes sense to remove the potential financial DISASTERS for individuals and families, allowing them to take the small risks for themselves.

          1. Mark Sales May 1, 2014

            OK Allen, aside from your diatribe related to “free market” and your primer in praise of (already over regulated) insurance industry(?); why are you ignoring the main question; you say (generally) costs are going down for “more” (people) than they are increasing? My question on the other hand was that since the baseline costs are basically similar (trending upward of course unlike entropy) than before ACA, all the special interest options and overhead mandated by ACA pile new expenses on workers/taxpayers’ backs. So how dare the party(s) in power p*ss down our backs and call it rain?

  3. terry b April 29, 2014

    Mary is doing what is necessary to get re-elected. Her past should be the best thing to help her keep her job. She is so superior to anyone running against her and thus deserves to remain Louisiana’s Senator.

    1. Sand_Cat May 1, 2014

      Yes, I understand that.
      Just dreaming of a better world.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.