New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin may run for Governor

[Henrykrinkle]

Still, I have long thought that in an attempt to save the historical areas of the city that are clearly above sea level from sinking any further, Louisiana should create some type of large retaining lake (like Lake Ponchatrian) in those areas of New Orleans that are extremely low-lying, like the 9th ward.  There's pretty much nothing of historical value there.

There was a lot of talk about that idea during the first year or so after Katrina, in connection with a plan to shrink the "footprint" of New Orleans, but I think the idea has faded out. It's an interesting idea, but if the ninth ward were made into a retaining pond, the large majortiy of the city would actually still be flooded. There is a neighborhood in the middle of the city called Broadmoor that is known as the "bottom of the bowl," which I guess could be turned into a retaining pond, but Broadmoor is strongly on the rebound due to a strong neighborhood association. 

Ultimately, the more time that passes without any progress in some of the neighborhoods, the more likely it is that such an idea will come to fruition.  It certainly wouldn't surprise me.

[Verily]

It isn't even like Venice, which has historical architectural value.

You've obviously never been to New Orleans, have you? That's probably one of the most laughable statements I've ever read on this forum.

I meant the areas that would sink. The French Quarter is in no danger from flooding anyway; it's well above sea level.

[TeePee4Prez]

Well, I may support Jindal by defualt.  I'd rather see him take out of the DINO boobs of Blanco or Nagin in 2007 rather than Mary Landrieu in 2008.

I have to agree with Harry that Jindal is an ultracon, but he obviously has a base of support in LA and you may have to assess where he can do the least damage compared to what's already in there.

[WalterMitty]

Why is this failed Bush supporter being talked about so much for higher office?

what is mitch landrieu doing these days?

[Brandon H]

Why is this failed Bush supporter being talked about so much for higher office?

what is mitch landrieu doing these days?

Seeking re-election to Lt. Governor.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Why is this failed Bush supporter being talked about so much for higher office?

what is mitch landrieu doing these days?

Seeking re-election to Lt. Governor.

Could he be a candidate to replace Bill Jefferson in Congress?  No on second thoughts he wouldn't be able to win would he?  Given all the black local politicians in Memphis wanting to challenge Rep. Steve Cohen. 

[WalterMitty]

Why is this failed Bush supporter being talked about so much for higher office?

what is mitch landrieu doing these days?

Seeking re-election to Lt. Governor.

lolz.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why is this failed Bush supporter being talked about so much for higher office?

what is mitch landrieu doing these days?

Seeking re-election to Lt. Governor.

lolz.

Here's hoping he loses that race as well!

[Reaganfan]

Federal, State, and Local government ALL messed up. Anyone who tried to make it a partisan issue is not informed of the situation.

Then why wasn't there a backlash against Jeb Bush in Florida after the storm devestated areas of Miami and the Panhandle? Why wasn't there massive looting and crime in Alabama and signs saying "IMPEACH RILEY"? Why isn't Governor Haley Barbour losing re-election in a few months?

The fact is, New Orleans recieved Category 1-2 force winds. That's a minimal-moderate hurricane wind. However, the waves and surge broke the levees and flooded a large area. But Mississippi was LEVELED. Nothing was left there.

The biggest problems with Katrina were:

1. New Orleans needs three days to fully evacuate the city. The National Hurricane Center forecast track on the night of Friday, August 26th showed the hurricane striking New Orleans (or atleast coming very close) as a devestating major hurricane.

[img]http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/graphics/AT12/15.AL1205W5.GIF[img]

Nagin did not issue the evacuation. Saturday came...nothing. By the time the storm was less than 24 hours from landfall...he finally issued the evacuation. He had the chance to give it three days, but instead waited about 24 hours before landfall. Big mistake.

2. Lack of preparedness. In Florida, Hurricane Katrina was making landfall in Miami and people were driving around as if it were a thunderstorm rather than a hurricane. This was tragic and over a dozen people died...mostly due to fallen trees. New Orleans people were simply not able to come to terms that they had to leave and leave right away.

To blame George Bush...is...is just unbelieveable. When the President went to Colorado to run the efforts during Hurricane Rita...he was said to have done "too much."

[7,052,770]

Why isn't Governor Haley Barbour losing re-election in a few months?

He might.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Why isn't Governor Haley Barbour losing re-election in a few months?

He might.

Yes and baseball might expand to Japan

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Why isn't Governor Haley Barbour losing re-election in a few months?

He might.

not (unfortunatly)

[Brandon H]

Federal, State, and Local government ALL messed up. Anyone who tried to make it a partisan issue is not informed of the situation.

Then why wasn't there a backlash against Jeb Bush in Florida after the storm devestated areas of Miami and the Panhandle? Why wasn't there massive looting and crime in Alabama and signs saying "IMPEACH RILEY"? Why isn't Governor Haley Barbour losing re-election in a few months?

The people in Florida got the hell out. Plus being 2004 was an election year and after what happened in 2000 in Florida, George Bush was going to do every little thing he could to make sure Florida got the help it needed. Had the response to Florida in 2004 been like Katina in 2005, Bush would have lost Florida.

The fact is, New Orleans recieved Category 1-2 force winds. That's a minimal-moderate hurricane wind. However, the waves and surge broke the levees and flooded a large area. But Mississippi was LEVELED. Nothing was left there.

The winds were Cat 3 at the time of impact, but in the Gulf, at one time the winds were Cat 5. The winds weakened, but that was still a Cat 5 storm surge.

There is more waterways (Rivers, Lakes, Canals, Bayous) in the New Orleans area than in Mississippi and a larger population base. There were a lot more people who were lacking either the resources or sense to leave the place.

The biggest problems with Katrina were:

1. New Orleans needs three days to fully evacuate the city. The National Hurricane Center forecast track on the night of Friday, August 26th showed the hurricane striking New Orleans (or atleast coming very close) as a devestating major hurricane.



Nagin did not issue the evacuation. Saturday came...nothing. By the time the storm was less than 24 hours from landfall...he finally issued the evacuation. He had the chance to give it three days, but instead waited about 24 hours before landfall. Big mistake.

Big mistake, but Nagin explained his reasoning. In 2004 when Ivan threatened New Orleans but turned and hit Alabama or Florida, Nagin ordered an evacuation. Some people in New Orleans, who are idiots, sued Nagin and the city for ordering the evacuation when the city was spared. Nagin should have ordered the evacuation regardless, but that was the reason he gave.

2. Lack of preparedness. In Florida, Hurricane Katrina was making landfall in Miami and people were driving around as if it were a thunderstorm rather than a hurricane. This was tragic and over a dozen people died...mostly due to fallen trees. New Orleans people were simply not able to come to terms that they had to leave and leave right away.

To blame George Bush...is...is just unbelieveable. When the President went to Colorado to run the efforts during Hurricane Rita...he was said to have done "too much."

I'm not so much blaming Bush directly, but I am blaming the executive branch of government which Bush as the president is the head of. Originally I was blaming Michael Brown, head of FEMA, but after hearing his side, I put some of the blame on Chertoff and DHS. Brown said Ridge was much better at the job than Chertoff and said he wouldn't have had some of the issues he did if Ridge were then head of DHS. Bush appointed Chertoff and while not directly Bush's fault, the President, not the head of DHS answers to the people.

BTW,
This is my parents house a couple days Katrina (the two story one towards the back left):

[7,052,770]

Why isn't Governor Haley Barbour losing re-election in a few months?

He might.

Yes and baseball might expand to Japan

Uh, I specifically said that it would be cool if baseball expanded to Japan, not "baseball might expand to Japan"....

But anyway, even if I had said that, Barbour could still lose.  There hasn't even been a poll, so no one really knows right now.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

But anyway, even if I had said that, Barbour could still lose.  There hasn't even been a poll, so no one really knows right now.

Rose colored glasses not withstanding, I think you'd have to be pretty naive not to "know right now," even without a poll.  A race between "Popular Republican Governor in a Heavily Republican State" vs. "Democrat I've Never Heard Of" rarely turns out in favor of the Democrat.

[7,052,770]

But anyway, even if I had said that, Barbour could still lose.  There hasn't even been a poll, so no one really knows right now.

Rose colored glasses not withstanding, I think you'd have to be pretty naive not to "know right now," even without a poll.  A race between "Popular Republican Governor in a Heavily Republican State" vs. "Democrat I've Never Heard Of" rarely turns out in favor of the Democrat.

Barbour's not all that popular amongst the Religious Right since he passes looser restrictions on casinos after Katrina.  They just might defect to Eaves, who's really courting him.
Also, of course you haven't heard of John Arthur Eaves, since you live in Massachusetts, but any Mississippian who pays attention is definitely familiar with the name, even if some of the familiarity is with his father (the candidate is a Jr.).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

But anyway, even if I had said that, Barbour could still lose.  There hasn't even been a poll, so no one really knows right now.

Rose colored glasses not withstanding, I think you'd have to be pretty naive not to "know right now," even without a poll.  A race between "Popular Republican Governor in a Heavily Republican State" vs. "Democrat I've Never Heard Of" rarely turns out in favor of the Democrat.

Barbour's not all that popular amongst the Religious Right since he passes looser restrictions on casinos after Katrina.  They just might defect to Eaves, who's really courting him.
Also, of course you haven't heard of John Arthur Eaves, since you live in Massachusetts, but any Mississippian who pays attention is definitely familiar with the name, even if some of the familiarity is with his father (the candidate is a Jr.).

Last poll I saw of Barbour's popularity among Republicans was 83 - 17% after the 2006 elections.  There are always some defections with a candidate, but somehow, I doubt "looser casino restrictions" are enough to sink a candidate's conservative credentials and force the most hardcore Republican element over to the camp of a Democrat to the tune of anything greater than a single percentage point.

[7,052,770]

But anyway, even if I had said that, Barbour could still lose.  There hasn't even been a poll, so no one really knows right now.

Rose colored glasses not withstanding, I think you'd have to be pretty naive not to "know right now," even without a poll.  A race between "Popular Republican Governor in a Heavily Republican State" vs. "Democrat I've Never Heard Of" rarely turns out in favor of the Democrat.

Barbour's not all that popular amongst the Religious Right since he passes looser restrictions on casinos after Katrina.  They just might defect to Eaves, who's really courting him.
Also, of course you haven't heard of John Arthur Eaves, since you live in Massachusetts, but any Mississippian who pays attention is definitely familiar with the name, even if some of the familiarity is with his father (the candidate is a Jr.).

Last poll I saw of Barbour's popularity among Republicans was 83 - 17% after the 2006 elections.  There are always some defections with a candidate, but somehow, I doubt "looser casino restrictions" are enough to sink a candidate's conservative credentials and force the most hardcore Republican element over to the camp of a Democrat to the tune of anything greater than a single percentage point.

You misunderestimate the silliness and inability to see the big picture of fundies then.
I would estimate 20% of fundamentalists who voted for Barbour in 2003 won't vote for him in 2007.
Now will Barbour pick up enough Musgrove voters who are either turned off by the fact that Eaves is a fundamentalist Christian, or that are impressed with Barbour's "Katrina handling?"  Probably.  Maybe not though.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

But anyway, even if I had said that, Barbour could still lose.  There hasn't even been a poll, so no one really knows right now.

Rose colored glasses not withstanding, I think you'd have to be pretty naive not to "know right now," even without a poll.  A race between "Popular Republican Governor in a Heavily Republican State" vs. "Democrat I've Never Heard Of" rarely turns out in favor of the Democrat.

Barbour's not all that popular amongst the Religious Right since he passes looser restrictions on casinos after Katrina.  They just might defect to Eaves, who's really courting him.
Also, of course you haven't heard of John Arthur Eaves, since you live in Massachusetts, but any Mississippian who pays attention is definitely familiar with the name, even if some of the familiarity is with his father (the candidate is a Jr.).

Last poll I saw of Barbour's popularity among Republicans was 83 - 17% after the 2006 elections.  There are always some defections with a candidate, but somehow, I doubt "looser casino restrictions" are enough to sink a candidate's conservative credentials and force the most hardcore Republican element over to the camp of a Democrat to the tune of anything greater than a single percentage point.

You misunderestimate the silliness and inability to see the big picture of fundies then.
I would estimate 20% of fundamentalists who voted for Barbour in 2003 won't vote for him in 2007.
Now will Barbour pick up enough Musgrove voters who are either turned off by the fact that Eaves is a fundamentalist Christian, or that are impressed with Barbour's "Katrina handling?"  Probably.  Maybe not though.

No, I'm pretty sure I understand "fundies" just fine.  I've had to deal with enough of them in my previous life.

[HardRCafé]

Also, of course you haven't heard of John Arthur Eaves, since you live in Massachusetts, but any Mississippian who pays attention is definitely familiar with the name, even if some of the familiarity is with his father (the candidate is a Jr.).

They know him in the same capacity they know Matthew Lesko, only with a mullet instead of a Riddler costume.  (Come to think of it, Matthew Lesko might come closer.)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

But anyway, even if I had said that, Barbour could still lose.  There hasn't even been a poll, so no one really knows right now.

Rose colored glasses not withstanding, I think you'd have to be pretty naive not to "know right now," even without a poll.  A race between "Popular Republican Governor in a Heavily Republican State" vs. "Democrat I've Never Heard Of" rarely turns out in favor of the Democrat.

Barbour's not all that popular amongst the Religious Right since he passes looser restrictions on casinos after Katrina.  They just might defect to Eaves, who's really courting him.
Also, of course you haven't heard of John Arthur Eaves, since you live in Massachusetts, but any Mississippian who pays attention is definitely familiar with the name, even if some of the familiarity is with his father (the candidate is a Jr.).

Last poll I saw of Barbour's popularity among Republicans was 83 - 17% after the 2006 elections.  There are always some defections with a candidate, but somehow, I doubt "looser casino restrictions" are enough to sink a candidate's conservative credentials and force the most hardcore Republican element over to the camp of a Democrat to the tune of anything greater than a single percentage point.

You misunderestimate the silliness and inability to see the big picture of fundies then.
I would estimate 20% of fundamentalists who voted for Barbour in 2003 won't vote for him in 2007.
Now will Barbour pick up enough Musgrove voters who are either turned off by the fact that Eaves is a fundamentalist Christian, or that are impressed with Barbour's "Katrina handling?"  Probably.  Maybe not though.

No, I'm pretty sure I understand "fundies" just fine.  I've had to deal with enough of them in my previous life.

On top of that everyone else agrees with your conclusion, except for Harry.

[7,052,770]

But anyway, even if I had said that, Barbour could still lose.  There hasn't even been a poll, so no one really knows right now.

Rose colored glasses not withstanding, I think you'd have to be pretty naive not to "know right now," even without a poll.  A race between "Popular Republican Governor in a Heavily Republican State" vs. "Democrat I've Never Heard Of" rarely turns out in favor of the Democrat.

Barbour's not all that popular amongst the Religious Right since he passes looser restrictions on casinos after Katrina.  They just might defect to Eaves, who's really courting him.
Also, of course you haven't heard of John Arthur Eaves, since you live in Massachusetts, but any Mississippian who pays attention is definitely familiar with the name, even if some of the familiarity is with his father (the candidate is a Jr.).

Last poll I saw of Barbour's popularity among Republicans was 83 - 17% after the 2006 elections.  There are always some defections with a candidate, but somehow, I doubt "looser casino restrictions" are enough to sink a candidate's conservative credentials and force the most hardcore Republican element over to the camp of a Democrat to the tune of anything greater than a single percentage point.

You misunderestimate the silliness and inability to see the big picture of fundies then.
I would estimate 20% of fundamentalists who voted for Barbour in 2003 won't vote for him in 2007.
Now will Barbour pick up enough Musgrove voters who are either turned off by the fact that Eaves is a fundamentalist Christian, or that are impressed with Barbour's "Katrina handling?"  Probably.  Maybe not though.

No, I'm pretty sure I understand "fundies" just fine.  I've had to deal with enough of them in my previous life.

On top of that everyone else agrees with your conclusion, except for Harry.

ORLY?  Did you poll everyone or something?
Also, as the only member of this forum to live in Mississippi, and one of the few to interact with fundies on a daily basis, I think I have a little more knowledge on this than you.  Similarly, you won't see me arguing with you about Ohio things.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

But anyway, even if I had said that, Barbour could still lose.  There hasn't even been a poll, so no one really knows right now.

Rose colored glasses not withstanding, I think you'd have to be pretty naive not to "know right now," even without a poll.  A race between "Popular Republican Governor in a Heavily Republican State" vs. "Democrat I've Never Heard Of" rarely turns out in favor of the Democrat.

Barbour's not all that popular amongst the Religious Right since he passes looser restrictions on casinos after Katrina.  They just might defect to Eaves, who's really courting him.
Also, of course you haven't heard of John Arthur Eaves, since you live in Massachusetts, but any Mississippian who pays attention is definitely familiar with the name, even if some of the familiarity is with his father (the candidate is a Jr.).

Last poll I saw of Barbour's popularity among Republicans was 83 - 17% after the 2006 elections.  There are always some defections with a candidate, but somehow, I doubt "looser casino restrictions" are enough to sink a candidate's conservative credentials and force the most hardcore Republican element over to the camp of a Democrat to the tune of anything greater than a single percentage point.

You misunderestimate the silliness and inability to see the big picture of fundies then.
I would estimate 20% of fundamentalists who voted for Barbour in 2003 won't vote for him in 2007.
Now will Barbour pick up enough Musgrove voters who are either turned off by the fact that Eaves is a fundamentalist Christian, or that are impressed with Barbour's "Katrina handling?"  Probably.  Maybe not though.

No, I'm pretty sure I understand "fundies" just fine.  I've had to deal with enough of them in my previous life.

On top of that everyone else agrees with your conclusion, except for Harry.

ORLY?  Did you poll everyone or something?
Also, as the only member of this forum to live in Mississippi, and one of the few to interact with fundies on a daily basis, I think I have a little more knowledge on this than you.  Similarly, you won't see me arguing with you about Ohio things.

My best friend is as religious, conservitive, far right, a Southern Baptist as you'll ever meet, but he is a great guy, we just don't talk about politics. To those of you who have comments like " sure he's resonable, except about gays, evoulution, etc".  His parents got mad at him because he read Darwin's book (the title escapes me) so he could make up his own mind about it, and he reached the conclusion that Darwin wasn't "evil", just wrong and that people who were preaching hate (like Falwell, who both he and I think misrepresents Southern Baptism) either don't understand religion or are deliberiberatly misleading everyone they can.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

But anyway, even if I had said that, Barbour could still lose.  There hasn't even been a poll, so no one really knows right now.

Rose colored glasses not withstanding, I think you'd have to be pretty naive not to "know right now," even without a poll.  A race between "Popular Republican Governor in a Heavily Republican State" vs. "Democrat I've Never Heard Of" rarely turns out in favor of the Democrat.

Barbour's not all that popular amongst the Religious Right since he passes looser restrictions on casinos after Katrina.  They just might defect to Eaves, who's really courting him.
Also, of course you haven't heard of John Arthur Eaves, since you live in Massachusetts, but any Mississippian who pays attention is definitely familiar with the name, even if some of the familiarity is with his father (the candidate is a Jr.).

Last poll I saw of Barbour's popularity among Republicans was 83 - 17% after the 2006 elections.  There are always some defections with a candidate, but somehow, I doubt "looser casino restrictions" are enough to sink a candidate's conservative credentials and force the most hardcore Republican element over to the camp of a Democrat to the tune of anything greater than a single percentage point.

You misunderestimate the silliness and inability to see the big picture of fundies then.
I would estimate 20% of fundamentalists who voted for Barbour in 2003 won't vote for him in 2007.
Now will Barbour pick up enough Musgrove voters who are either turned off by the fact that Eaves is a fundamentalist Christian, or that are impressed with Barbour's "Katrina handling?"  Probably.  Maybe not though.

No, I'm pretty sure I understand "fundies" just fine.  I've had to deal with enough of them in my previous life.

On top of that everyone else agrees with your conclusion, except for Harry.

ORLY?  Did you poll everyone or something?
Also, as the only member of this forum to live in Mississippi, and one of the few to interact with fundies on a daily basis, I think I have a little more knowledge on this than you.  Similarly, you won't see me arguing with you about Ohio things.

Also, if I'm WRONG about something with Ohio politics, or even if you think I am, I would be gratefull if you would help me avoid making the same mistake again and/or offer your opinion on the matter should you know enough about it to do so and be able to do it in a nonbiased manner so as to obtain the best and most understanding that can come from the post.

[7,052,770]

But anyway, even if I had said that, Barbour could still lose.  There hasn't even been a poll, so no one really knows right now.

Rose colored glasses not withstanding, I think you'd have to be pretty naive not to "know right now," even without a poll.  A race between "Popular Republican Governor in a Heavily Republican State" vs. "Democrat I've Never Heard Of" rarely turns out in favor of the Democrat.

Barbour's not all that popular amongst the Religious Right since he passes looser restrictions on casinos after Katrina.  They just might defect to Eaves, who's really courting him.
Also, of course you haven't heard of John Arthur Eaves, since you live in Massachusetts, but any Mississippian who pays attention is definitely familiar with the name, even if some of the familiarity is with his father (the candidate is a Jr.).

Last poll I saw of Barbour's popularity among Republicans was 83 - 17% after the 2006 elections.  There are always some defections with a candidate, but somehow, I doubt "looser casino restrictions" are enough to sink a candidate's conservative credentials and force the most hardcore Republican element over to the camp of a Democrat to the tune of anything greater than a single percentage point.

You misunderestimate the silliness and inability to see the big picture of fundies then.
I would estimate 20% of fundamentalists who voted for Barbour in 2003 won't vote for him in 2007.
Now will Barbour pick up enough Musgrove voters who are either turned off by the fact that Eaves is a fundamentalist Christian, or that are impressed with Barbour's "Katrina handling?"  Probably.  Maybe not though.

No, I'm pretty sure I understand "fundies" just fine.  I've had to deal with enough of them in my previous life.

On top of that everyone else agrees with your conclusion, except for Harry.

ORLY?  Did you poll everyone or something?
Also, as the only member of this forum to live in Mississippi, and one of the few to interact with fundies on a daily basis, I think I have a little more knowledge on this than you.  Similarly, you won't see me arguing with you about Ohio things.

My best friend is as religious, conservitive, far right, a Southern Baptist as you'll ever meet, but he is a great guy, we just don't talk about politics. To those of you who have comments like " sure he's resonable, except about gays, evoulution, etc".  His parents got mad at him because he read Darwin's book (the title escapes me) so he could make up his own mind about it, and he reached the conclusion that Darwin wasn't "evil", just wrong and that people who were preaching hate (like Falwell, who both he and I think misrepresents Southern Baptism) either don't understand religion or are deliberiberatly misleading everyone they can.

Yes, most fundies are good people.  That wasn't the point I was trying to make.  The point I was trying to make is that they're very idealistic and not pragmatic, and will often stay home and not go vote for the candidate that from their perspective is the lesser of 2 evils.

For an example, see the Mississippi governor's election, 1999.  Musgrove, a Democrat, won in a close upset, because just enough fundies stayed home.