I was polled last night strictly on “how do I fell about” and matchups. No I didn’t take notes on who was matched up but I picked Landrieu in all cases except where he wasn’t involved and Fielkow was.

• His relationship, if there is one, with Ray Nagin. Do he and Nagin speak? Mitch might even be Nagin’s preference over some of the others. Then again, given Nagin’s recent injection of race into the race, how will THAT affect a Landrieu candidacy? No matter what, Nagin will be a factor on several levels in this race.

Ray Nagin’s preference is Troy Henry.

I agree that his campaign was wimpy, but did you criticize him for running a wimpy campaign during the 2006 runoff? I honestly can’t remember what you personally either wrote or said on TV, but I can remember that TV pundits, op-ed writers, and a prominent local political website (that I’d later realize had ties to a group, the GNOR, that endorsed and campaigned for Nagin) insisted on praising both candidates for running such clean, issues-oriented campaigns, even after Nagin began to pummel Landrieu in ads that implied he was crooked. The other librarian blogger and I both commented on Nagin’s gall in saying that if Mitch started throwing elbows, he’d respond by throwing elbows himself — after Nagin had already started the elbow throwing. But, again, my memory of that campaign is that all of the professional pundits kept saying (in effect), “my, what nice, pleasant campaigns they’re both running,” even after Nagin started the attack ads. Before you criticize Landrieu too harshly for the “wimpy” campaign, don’t you think you should acknowledge that the media coverage made it very difficult for Landrieu to respond with attack ads of his own? To carry Nagin’s metaphor a step further, don’t you think Landrieu would have been whistled for the foul?

Of course, I know that losing and candidates and their supporters always blame the media, but I’ll give Nagin, or Jim Carvin, credit for realizing just how far they could push it. Of course, for all Nagin’s complaints about media bias, we all know that Nagin had his share of supporters among the TV commentators — one of the most prominent was even on his payroll. Don’t think the one I’m referring to, was bribed and bought, just a strong Nagin supporter — or he wouldn’t have worked for Nagin’s campaign.

Dambala, do you have anything to base the statement about Troy Henry on? I know that you have sources and connections that I don’t, but reporters get played and spun by sources all the time. I’m sure bloggers can be played too. Not only that, first responders are often some of the biggest spreaders of urban legends, I imagine that that knowledgeable political insiders are often spreaders of false rumors even when they don’t have an agenda. In either case, the superficial similarities would make it an easy conclusion to jump to or rumor to spread, whether it had any factual basis or not.

David, I’ll respond to two comments that I feel are directed at me.

First, I said that Mitch wussed out IMMEDIATELY after the campaign, in my first analysis in Gambit right after the runoff. That was in the May 30, 2006, issue of Gambit, in a story titled “Winnas and Loozas.” (Sorry I don’t know how to insert a link here.) Here’s what I said then:
“Landrieu also refused to criticize Nagin in debates. This “kid glove” approach made him look timid, even daunted by Nagin. His black vote, which was 25 percent in the primary, shrank to 20 percent in the runoff. One could argue that he lost black anti-Nagin votes between the primary and the runoff because he wussed out. He was afraid of being the white guy picking on the black mayor after the big, bad storm — because his liberal white conscience feared a black backlash.

Consequently, he soft-peddled any potential criticism of Nagin — and there was a lot that he could have criticized Nagin for — or kept it to himself. The ultimate irony for Landrieu was that while he didn’t even take a swing at Nagin, he got the backlash anyway: blacks turned out for the mayor in overwhelming numbers…”

Why didn’t I criticize Landrieu sooner? Because (a) the runoff was only 4 weeks long, and (b) I wanted to give him time to respond to Nagin’s attacks. Nagin attacked about 10 days into the runoff, so Landrieu had a relatively small window in which to respond. He did answer with one ad that sort of criticized Nagin (the spot about Nagin’s failure to haul away junk cars faster), but it was mild compared to Nagin’s attacks on Landrieu. By the time Landrieu’s failure to respond adequately (or to throw a punch himself) became fatal, the campaign was almost over.

The other thing to which I’d like to respond is your unsupported statement: “Before you criticize Landrieu too harshly for the “wimpy” campaign, don’t you think you should acknowledge that the media coverage made it very difficult for Landrieu to respond with attack ads of his own?” I’m not sure where your logic is coming from on this one. Exactly what did the media do or fail to do that made it so difficult for Landrieu to respond to Nagin’s attacks? I had several very long conversations with Landrieu after the race and not once did he mention anything about the media’s treatment of him or Nagin as part of his decision-making matrix with regard to attacking (or not attacking) Nagin. Rather, it was always (in Mitch’s mind) a matter of not treading too harshly on the city’s racial tensions, which in Landrieu’s opinion were quite high then. Respectfully, I’m going with Mitch’s logic on this one, not yours.

- Dambala, do you have anything to base the statement about Troy Henry on? I know that you have sources and connections that I don’t, but reporters get played and spun by sources all the time. I’m sure bloggers can be played too. Not only that, first responders are often some of the biggest spreaders of urban legends, I imagine that that knowledgeable political insiders are often spreaders of false rumors even when they don’t have an agenda. In either case, the superficial similarities would make it an easy conclusion to jump to or rumor to spread, whether it had any factual basis or not.

yeah i do. Give me a few days and I will post my thesis and info.

Actually, Clancy, neither comment was directed at you personally. It’s very difficult to find links to four year old newscasts, but, like I said, my memory is of TV analysts praising both candidates for the elevated tone of the campaign — even after the attack ads had started. I specifically remember Silas Lee saying words to that effect, but it wasn’t until later that I found out that he had done work for the Nagin campaign. Again, I don’t think Lee took a bribe by any means, but he certainly should have disclosed that he was a Nagin supporter. I suspect that if I dug through the archives at BayouBuzz, I could find similar statements there. Considering how many BayouBuzz writers are current or former Greater New Orleans Republicans members, their coverage could hardly be considered unbiased. At least two BayouBuzz writers were frequently on TV during the campaign, but I didn’t watch WGNO often enough to comment on Jeff Crouere’s analysis one way or another. Again, I don’t want to overdo the criticism, but it was another case of Nagin supporters who were surrounded by Nagin supporters praising the elevated tone of the campaign. I still think that Landrieu should have hit back, but his reluctance was understandable under the circumstances. I can even understand that local journalists might have been reluctant to, or might not have thought it was their place to, point out that Nagin lowered the tone in the final weeks, but that doesn’t excuse the ridiculous praise for the elevated tone from both candidates. Even if “praise for the elevated tone” is a minor overstatement on my part, I definitely remember looking at the TV set several times in May 2006 and saying, “WTF? How the hell can you say NEITHER candidate has taken the kid gloves off?”

None of that was directed at you, other than to repeat my assertion that the continued insistence that neither candidate had taken the kid gloves off* (after Nagin took the kid gloves off) made it difficult for Landrieu to punch back. I can’t be the only person who noticed that TV analysts went out of their way to say that neither candidate had taken the kid gloves off after one candidate had. You see it all the time in national political coverage, statements get repeated even after they’re no longer true and that does often influence later events.

But don’t worry, I will have a specific criticism of you as soon as caught up enough on other things to start blogging more. Nothing too negative, and nothing I’d feel uncomfortable asking you about face-to-face.

*Or thrown any real punches, or whatever the exact terms used were.

Does anyone else see this becoming an actual “do over” now with Mitch Landrieu (as himself) vs. Troy Henry (as what Nagin was supposed to be)

I think Landrieu’s stepping into the ring just made Troy Henry the strongest “other” candidate.

I feel Landrieu’s political and public service history trumps Ed Murray who had the strongest “governmental experience” angle- leaving those who would support him with only race as the deciding factor. Landrieu’s experience also trumps Perry, Jacobs, and that judge lady I can’t even think of. Mitch’s race also trumps Georges, Couhig, and Jacobs for people who ‘just want a white mayor’.

Henry gives a business candidate that can appeal to black AND white voters who still want a “business man”. I think his education and business record would appeal to black voters who want to see a successful black business person “succeed” (like being mayor of New Orleans is a successful step up for an executive, but I get it). Also, black and white voters who believe the private market should dictate government and not vise-versa and whites not wanting to see a Landrieu in the mayors office would support Henry (just like Nagin before)

Therefore, I think this is Landrieu’s to lose since he will ultimately be playing the same game as last time. I think Landrieu’s success is all going to rely on how he comes out and plays the field because he should know the opponent pretty well and even better the opposing views against him.

Many of us are looking to get rid of their car by cash for junk cars in Chicago as their car might not be in condition to sell. If you are having old scrap car which not in a good condition or even hard to make it start they if becomes real challenge to sell it. The very first step to take in this case is to sell junk car in Chicago and that ask for good researching skill to get much money.