![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)
And you shall know the truth…
“Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.” – Immanuel Kant
Listen. Do you hear it? A statement has been made by the people of the sixth Congressional district. They have stood up, and with a loud voice cried, “we have had enough!” They have rallied together and shown that this new Louisiana that we hear so much about is not just a brain child of the politicians. The people are tired of the old ways, and want to see a change as well.
During the Congressional race, one of the candidates, Paul Sawyer, decided to use a tried and true tactic. Negative campaigning. Now, I’ll be honest, I don’t particularly like a negative campaign, but there is a time and a place to point out the flaws of your opponent. In this case, however, an old mistake was dug up, twisted, and overblown. You are, one and all, already familiar with the attack, so I won’t burden you with specifics. Suffice it to say that I did the research, and found the attack, shall we say, lacking in substance? Still, this is not a condemnation of Paul Sawyer.
Without a doubt, Sawyer paid for his sharp tongue. His first attack was launched, and he slipped in the polls. His second aired and he slipped further, and on election day, the heir apparent, the chosen one, finished third in the primary, ending his chances to succeed his former employer. The target? Well, he faired better. The people recognized his integrity, and his determination to stick to what was important. Never did Woody Jenkins lash out at his foes, merely deflect the muck thrown his way. He handled the assault with dignity and class, and above all else, he stayed on message.
Two candidates remain in the race, now, and let this be a lesson. Neither candidate holds the nomination as of yet. Both Woody Jenkins and Laurinda Calongne have an opportunity to get their message out to the people of the sixth district. I urge you both, do not wander off of the path. The temptation to attack is strong, but we are all on the same team here. Remember, your values are what we are interested in. Be forthright and honest. Speak to the people of your plans, and they will respond. If you find yourself in a desperate place, trailing your opponent, hold firm to your resolve. Bring your message, and let the people decide, and truth, the child of time, will vindicate you.
Len @ March 10, 2008
It is always nice to have your views confirmed at the polls (or anywhere, for that matter) and I was pleased to see the results of the election.
I had a brief conversation following the election that, the more I consider it, begins to concern me. It was brief and I don’t want to read too much into it, but it seems to reflect a mindset founded in experience, but also in unclear thinking.
I was told by someone that they voted for Ms. Calongne, for two reasons. First they liked her views on things (and I can’t fault that: I voted for Woody on the same grounds). But they did NOT vote for Woody (therefore, did vote for her) because (paraphrasing) he’s been ‘in the system’ too long, and HAS to have been influenced by the corruption there.
It concerns me that supposedly clear thinking people are willing to presume on the basis of absolutely no evidence at all, that someone with several years of experience -and a long standing record of conservatism and integrity- is automatically discredited ON THE BASIS of having earned that experience.
I’ve been in a particular line of work for several years. I’ve gained a lot of experience in that line of work: I know my business. I’ve also gained a reputation in this field, for two things. One is that I DO know my business; the other is Integrity. I’m going to tell you the truth, and I’m going to do the Right Thing then deal with the consequences.
Now I have two questions. First, if this other person’s view is correct, where does that leave me? Should people now consider me unreliable both in professional knowledge and in integrity, simply on the basis of my years of experience? Somehow, that doesn’t seem to make sense to me: seems it should be just the other way around…years of experience and demonstrated integrity should be taken as actual evidence in my favor rather than against me.
Second (and more important), if that view is true, then what would motivate someone to actually do the hard work and make the hard choices, when the reward of that is to be discarded as ‘unreliable’ in the very face of contrary evidence? Why should a next-generation Woody spend years demonstrating the kind of character we’re (finally) demanding, if we are then going to cast him aside because “you’ve spent years doing this, so you MUST be getting corrupted”?
Huh? What? Say that again…I think I missed something. Maybe I’m just getting old (like I keep being told), but that sounds like ’stinking thinking’ to me.
Here’s a thought. If you want MORE honest and conservative politicians on the scene, then support the ones that are there now, and have been there through all the tough times. Just a thought…