New Orleans District 5 Senate Race
Metroblogging New Orleans has a brief aside on David Williams (Craig Giesecke attended the “meet the bloggers” gathering at Still Perkin.)
The inimitable Maitri over at VatulBlog has put up her Official Endorsements. I am happy to see that she is wholeheartedly behind my uncle David.
The Gambit’s Endorsements:They like David and Cheryl.
The Head Pelican’s thoughts on the District 5 Senate race, and it’s candidates.
I’d also like to point out the League of Women Voters page that contains breakdowns on all the current candidates (David’s is down at the bottom due to our last name)
I would also like to share the one quote from Gambit that shows where I got my civic streak from: “Williams has a long record of public service devoted to reaching across racial and economic lines.” While he and I may differ in a number of areas I am convinced that my own history of civic and cultural work comes from the same source as his, my grandfather.
While Gambit does not endorse David it is because they cannot decide between him and Cheryl Gray. “We wish they could both win seats in the Senate,” reads the line in their endorsements page. As always, my endorsement is obvious.
This afternoon in the Still Perkin coffeshop on Prytania Senatorial candidate David R.M. Williams met with several local bloggers including Maitri of Vatul Blog fame, Metroblogger’s Craig Giesecke, Becky Houtman and yours truly.
It was an enlightening two hours or so, but then I am prejudiced, he is my uncle after all. Since family ties make anything I have to say suspect I will instead be linking to any other pieces that float up through the blogosphere as I locate them. I will be paying particular attention to the bloggers who were kind enough to join us.
Also, since I am family, and am obeying strict transparency, I can be very direct about encouraging you to vote for David Williams. I think he is our best shot
Almost anything I could write on the race would end up being discounted due to my blood relationship with one of the candidates, my uncle David Williams. Instead I am doing my best to help him connect with that strange new medium called the blogosphere.
Tomorrow at a local coffee shop I will introduce a number of local bloggers to David and then sit back while they interact. (I think this is something we need to do more of in contemporary politics, and I would wholeheartedly support certain bloggers being accorded full press credentials, but that is another post.) Not quite a press conference, but it should result in a far more interesting and personal set of results.
Some of my fellow bloggers have already seen David speak at the forum last Tuesday, see what they have to say.
I will be posting links of the results of this little gathering as my fellow bloggers post, so check back here for updates.
If any bloggers wish to attend that have not contacted me yet, please email me at humidcity (at) gmail (dot) com before 12:15 Sunday and I will fill you in.
-Loki
Here is the latest installment in the ongoing stupidity with David Vitter. I am forced to say that my opinion of him is the same it has been since 1981, he is a buffoon. Par for the course with La. politicians. So now, weeks after congratulating me for agreeing with his assinine stance that Gay Marriage is the Uber Issue despite outr devastation, I finally got an email saying this:
Dear Mr. Williams,
I have recently learned that you received a letter from me that incorrectly identified your position on the Federal Marriage Amendment. I am deeply sorry for this mistake and wish to assure you that this is not a common occurrence, but it i s one that I strive to correct as soon as possible.
Thank you for contacting me in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. As you may know, the Marriage Protection Amendment, states, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State … shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than a man and a women.” This legislation amending the U.S. Constitution would require passage by two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and Senate, and also ratification by three-quarters of the states.
I believe marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. The Marriage Protection Amendment removes the debate regarding the definition of marriage from the hands of the courts and judges and returns this decision to the American people, where I feel it belongs.
Once again, thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on this issue. Please continue to contact me in the future about other issues important to you.
Sincerely,
Senator David Vitter
United States Senator
Aren’t form letters just precious?
Dear Mr. Williams,
Thank you for contacting me in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment. I share your concern on this issue, and I agree with you 100 percent.
You may be pleased to know that I am an original cosponsor of a Senate resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. The amendment prohibits the Constitution or any state constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of a man and a woman.
During my tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives I cosponsored and voted for a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and woman. Sadly the bill did not get the two-thirds votes needed for passage. I am now working in the Senate to protect the institution of marriage. Like you I feel this is essential to the future of our country, and I recognize the importance marriage plays in the lives of our children.
I believe marriage to be a union between a man and a woman. This definition should be held not to enforce discriminatory acts, but to uphold the sanctity of marriage. The Federal Marriage Amendment removes the debate regarding the definition of marriage from the hands of the courts and returns this decision to the American people, where it belongs. In fact, no state legislature and no popular referendum has passed in any state allowing any other definition of marriage except as between a man and a woman. In addition over 38 states have passed legislation protecting traditional marriage. In Louisiana , our statewide referendum passed with nearly 80 percent of the vote.
Thank you again for contacting me in support of traditional families and in defense of marriage. Rest assured I will continue to fight to protect our shared Louisiana values. Once again, thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on this issue. Please feel free to contact me in the future about issues important to you and your family.
Sincerely,
Senator David Vitter
United States Senator
Okay David, you obviously do not read the mail nor does your staff. Really makes you wonder what the real public opinion is (on anything). You sorry piece of detritus. (Sorry that word may be a bit obscure for you, try piece of sh*t it sorts better with the vocabulary you had when we knew each other).
I am going to lay another gem on Mr. Vitter, I have just agreed to do a regular column for Powers and Morrison and he is going to get a spotlight thrown on his homophobic, primitive, and ignorant behind. I am fed up to the teeth with the neocon disregard for the will of the people. The fact that I know this one makes it almost too much to bear.
Please add a comment with any documented dirt you have on my dear former classmate as I am getting my keyboard warmed up to begin serving him up a hearty helping of toxic gumbo.
For shame David, do you think the Christian Brothers at De La Salle would be proud of your disregard for your constituents and their opinions?
EDIT: My comments on Vitter seem to have unearthd a vast amount of ill will towards him on the New Orleans LiveJournal Community (Here’s the thread)
CNN.com - Senate set to reject gay marriage ban - Jun 6, 2006 “I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one,” said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican.
Okay, now you have gone too far. ( Thanks to Peter Dubuque for pointing this out in his comment on my Vitter’s Vitriol post) As we sit amidst the rubble hoping not to get blown to kingdom come by this years hurricane season our most pressing worry is certainly gay marriage!
I’m sorry but this is beyond the pale. The fact that I find him to be a jackass notwithstanding, that comment alone is cause for a recall. Are we really going to tolerate this sanctimonious and self impressed fool to continue to hold office? Category Five Levee Protection! Now! To hell with the homophobia, there won’t be anyone (straight or gay) around to argue it if we all get washed away!
Contact him, tell him what you think is important.
EDIT: Here is the text I just sent him through his website’s form:
Dear David,
your comments to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/06/same.sex.marriage/index.html) “I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one,” were absolutely out of bounds. When New Orleans and it’s environs are devastated you cannot think of anything more important than your own homophobia? You should either step down or seriously reconsider your priorities.
You shouldn’t have to be told this, you grew up here. I know, we graduated togetehr at De La Salle back in ‘85. To show the mammoth disdain for your home required in making that statement is indicative of a disdain for your constituency that is unconscionable.
You were under intelligent in High School, but you have become a fool of the greatest caliber as an adult.
Resign,
George “Loki” Williams
Some nice commentary on the Gay Marriage Issue (federal level, not state this time) on The Washington Monthly including more pithy comments from Davey boy.