If Sandy P is right (that Nagin was the better candidate) – and she may well be, then how did New Orleans arrive at that point? I am willing to readily accept that he might be because A) I don’t know LA politics, but he was hardly a picture of leadership, & seemed to screw up pretty badly & pretty self-righteously; and B) I remember the LA bumper stickers of a few years ago: Vote for the Crook, It’s Important. Choices that might under normal conditions seem bad, in some political climates may well be the best of the two.
And how much does gerrymandering take what should be hard America – where bad policy & bad choices are punished at the next election – and make it soft America?
From last September, here are my brief sketches of New Orleans and Louisiana.
(I’m still thinking about your second question.)
I think Nagin was the better choice because:
From what I’ve gleaned from various blogs after Katrina – he actually did try and start cleaning it up – NOLA was a tough nut to crack. He was better than what they had elected previously.
Landrieu’s family and history is a big part of the reason LA is the mess it is. Well, that and the froggie influence.
What does this mean for Mary’s seat?????
Knocking off bro for this position was a big thing. All that pork flowing back to NOAL via the bro/sis team?
Dare I even type the word “emancipated?”
Can NOLA keep it is the more important question.
If Bobby J. wants to move up, maybe he should move down to mayor?