Friday, October 29, 2010

Two key Republicans endorse Cedric Glover

Shreveport City Councilman Michael Long and Caddo Parish Commissoner John Escude, both Republicans, today endorsed Cedric Glover for another term as mayor.
Both cited Glover's accomplishments, and Escude said that he was uncomfortable with Bryan Wooley's attack ads against Glover.
I have had the feeling that using the Dannye Malone divorce interrogatories in an attempt to paint Glover as a drug user might backfire on Wooley.
It appears to be happening.


  1. Jim, as you know, I don't really have a dog in this fight...other than the fact that what happens in SHV definitely impacts my town.

    But, I've watched Big Ced, and I think he's a decent man. I don't know about all these allegations of tokin', and I know there has been some mis-management...maybe even worse with the airport stuff.

    But, I think Wooley really has shot himself in the foot. Both feet. And, if he has a third foot, I think he shot it, too, with this final flurry.

    I just listened to sound clips from the debate last night. But, the guy definitely has got some issues. I won't call it a Napoleon complex, but it borders that.

    I did not think that Cedric would be elected the first time. I really thought that Jerry Jones would win. I'm almost ALWAYS wrong in picking horses...but, if a class act like Jones can't beat Cedric, I don't see a petulant attacker like Wooley doing it.

    I'm calling it Glover 57%.


  3. Jim, for clarification - no one in the Republican party considers Michael Long whose record on the City Council resembles that of Calvin Lester and John Escude who is better known as the "follower" in his group of "us 4 and no more" - "KEY" Republicans. Many do not even consider a Long a Republican, but by name only. As far as backfiring - nahhh... too late in the game for that. The fact is, the Wooley camp has CONFIRMED via several sources the dope allegation - that was NOT just thrown out there.

  4. @Jim and Andy, by the way: There is no surprise with the Long and Escude endorsement. This has been discussed for weeks. They never liked Wooley because he didn't ask to join their club. These guys are a joke.

  5. PoliticalProphet, once again...I've got no dog in this fight.

    But you wrote, "the Wooley camp has CONFIRMED via several sources the dope allegation..."

    I think we ALL know that. The problem with it is that it is just "allegation." Heck, I could allege that Brett Favre is in secret talks with the Saints to sign a 10-year-no-cut-contract.

    There's your trouble. Anyone can allege anything. I really do find it beneath a candidate to harp on "allegations." It tells me that they are desperate, and grasping at straws...that they don't really believe that they can win on their own merits, plans, etc. and MUST rely on innuendo.

    Did Cedric smoke pot? I don't know. And, neither does Wooley. But, if I was running against Cedric, I'd leave it to others to discuss. I thought it was pretty low class of him to go the way he did in the debate.

    In the last 30 years I have not voted for a Democrat over a Republican. But, if I DID have a vote in the SHV mayoral election, I can tell you for sure it wouldn't be for the R guy. I might not vote at all...but Wooley surely wouldn't get mine.

  6. PoliticalProphet - I don't know, I would say a city councilman and the president of the commission are pretty 'key', in government if not in the inner workings of the party.
    As to being too late to backfire, I don't think so. Come Tuesday night we'll see who is the better 'prophet'.

  7. imho, this is a race between a white republican and a black democrat. all the latter will vote glover, but i don't think wooley has won over nearly all the former. meaning glover will win, because he has full support from his base, whereas, thanks to stuff like those attacks in the debates, wooley has divided his.

  8. I'm pretty sure that Glover is going to win - just based on demographics.

    I'm also not totally thrilled about Wooley. The only decent stance he has - tax incentives. Other than that, not too much substance.

    However, typically where there is smoke there is fire. Cedric's a big boy, and it would take a lot of smoke to surround him. ;)

    All this does make for some fun blogging - and raising Big G's blood pressure just a bit.


  9. Who is this pet shreveport who is posting spam links all over the internet. I am not going to follow the link and take a chance on getting my computer infected, but I am beginning to wonder what it is about. I am curious, but I have had the computer to crash or to be hijacked before from clicking on a link, so I am not that gullible anymore.

  10. I find it odd that a good number of endorsements seem to be made out of dislike for a certain candidate, rather than agreement and support for the policies of the other.

  11. Matt,

    I agree whole heartedly that it is odd, and possibly a shame, that some endorsements are based on dislikes for a certain candidate. But for the most part I don't recall Wooley ever citing his disagreements with Glover's policies. He may have, but I don't recall because the 99.9% of Wooley's adds were nothing but personal attacks. Even the ad about Glover's SUV was an attack. All the ad had to say was Glover bought an SUV, but it went on to say he did it because he was more concerned about his personal safety over the saftey of citizens of Shreveport.
    Each ad that came out was personal attacks after another. People are really tired of muck raking and manure slining politics. I honestly don't know what Wooley stands for except that he thinks Glover is a low-life s.o.b.
    I, like Andy, don't have a dog in this fight, but if I did I would have to pull the lever for Glover, because I am tired of gutter politics and politicians who come out of the gutter.

  12. Don't know what happened but the last post was from me.

  13. Matt, I am nobody from nowhere, so my endorsement would mean nothing. But I am definately going to vote against Wooley, and his tactics, rather in support of Glover and his policies.

    Glover might have smoked MJ with Malone and Sibley, but those interrogatories certainly do not establish the fact of it. And it is low-down, dirty, sorry tactics to make the accusations based on such a thing. Why haven't they gotten a sworn affadavit from the Malone ex-wife who was represented by the attorney who wrote the interrogatory? If she really saw such a thing, she should be willing to swear to it under penalty of perjury.
    Without any additional evidence, I figure these interrogatories were just a way to inform Malone that they were going to get real nasty, and destroy his reputation and his law practice unless he forked over big money to settle. The names of Glover and Sibley were used just to let him know that she and her lawyers would destroy his ablility to represent the City of Shreveport in particular.
    The fact that they settled the divorce before he even gave an answer to the interrogatory demonstrates that the dirty hard-ball tactics worked.
    I hope such dirty filthy unethical tactics do not succeed in this, or any other election.

  14. Jim,

    I don't understand why I kept showing up as anonymous in post 3:41 and 3:57.
    Every time I would put my name in the box and hit publish it would come out as blue letter Anonymous. Maybe that can be my new name BLUE ANONYMOUS.
    I wasn't running from my statements. Honest.

  15. Glad I live almost 2 hours away from this mess.

  16. I'm not saying I'm for one or the other. I live in Bossier. My statement was merely an observation. So far nobody has disagreed and said the endorsements were because Glover was such a fantastic guy, but because Wooley is less than satisfactory.

  17. Matt, I think you're right, but unfortunately that's not unusual in any election. I think there are as many votes against as for in most cases.

  18. I understand that many elections run that way. The point I'm making is in terms of public endorsements, where the one receiving the endorsement has nothing to lose, and the one making the endorsement has everything to lose and very little to gain. Take a look at the National Review and their endorsement of John McCain over J. D. Hayworth for U. S. Senate. They caught a lot of hell over and it hurt their credibility.

    Subquestion: What happens if Wooley wins? (it's a hypothetical. Don't go crazy trying to tell my how Wooley won't win. That's not the point of the question.)

  19. Matt,

    In my endorsement of Glover I laid out pretty clear reasons why I was supporting him. I did say that Wooley had run a slimy campaign, but that's not my reason for supporting Glover.

    In my endorsement I said that Glover had proven himself to me since he was elected; I pointed out a few examples where he seemed to working with the best interest of Shreveport at heart and a couple of instances where he just seems to be "good people."

    I may not like Wooley, and I might think he's run a nasty, mudslinging campaign, but that has nothing to do with why I support Glover.

    That said, I haven't seen too many explanations for why folks support Wooley other than that they don't like Glover. So I guess I sort of see where you're coming from in your 8:37 post.

  20. Matt,

    I don't understand why the Shreveport Slimes endorse people they endorse, while they know damn good and well they are going against the majority of their readers. I can't even begin to tell you how many times they've endorsed a candidate I wouldn't even consider to come in my house and clean my toilet.

    Then there are times the Slimes surprises me and endorses a candidate that doesn't fit their liberal agenda.

    You have people and publications that would endorse a polecat just as long as it had a D after its name, and the same goes for one who would endorse nothing but a Republican not matter what. These people and publications are not good indicators on how to vote, because of their biases.

    I've read this blog for over a year. and I pretty much know that its conservative and a lot of people who post here are also conservative. But when I see people I know who are staunch conservatives backing a Democrat, that make me sit up and take notice, and tells me that somethings wrong with a candidate they would have normally supported, and they are willing to risk losing readers because principle is more important than politics.

    Too many times principles have been sacrifices to get a person elected just for the party. I am very conservative in my views and would likely not vote for a Democrat. But when I see a candidate that is unscrupulous and underhanded, I will not vote for that person just because of party affiliation, and I think this is why people who are normally conservative are endorsing Glover. This ones about maintaining principles even if it will cost them readership.

  21. @Pat -

    First, my comment is a general observation, not aimed specifically at one person or another.

    Often times people will vote for someone because they don't like the other.

    A public endorsement is quite different. You're staking your reputation on a candidate for the sake of spiting the other. It just doesn't seem real smart, and often doesn't make for an effective selling point.

    "Buy Coca-Cola because Pepsi sucks!" That statement tells me nothing about Coca-Cola.

    I've had fun with this thread. The discussion in general terms is rather thought provoking.


Rules of the road:
1. No personal attacks or insults.
2. No accustory statements about wrongdoing or criminal acts against anyone.
3. Say all you want about the pros and cons concerning the candidates and the issues, or the general subject of the blog post, just follow Rule #1 and Rule #2.