What Will/Would Louisiana Look Like Under A Governor Edwards?

[BigSkyBob]

Its probably worth noting that in Louisiana, its tradition that the Governor picks the legislative leaders (Speaker, Pro Temp, etc.). We could very likely see a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats leading under Edwards.

I think there has been a bit of slight of hand. The Senate will probably be 26R-13D. Peeling the away seven "moderate" Republicans is achievable. What the Senate does not have is 13 "moderate" Democrats. Some of the 13 Democratic Senators are liberal. Shifting right enough to pick up some not-so-conservative Republicans risks loosing liberal Democrats. On the other hand, the most liberal of Democratic Senators are going to want something for going along with the Edwards program. Voting for Edwards over Vitter is a vote for empowering liberals.

Were Edwards to win, and if the ideological and policy differences between Vitter and Edwards are as slight as you have suggested, the best path forward for John Edwards would be to simply switch parties after the election. I don't see that happening because Edwards isn't the "conservative" his surrogates are claiming that he is. That's rather ironic for a candidate running on the slogan that his opponent is a "liar."

[BigSkyBob]

Only noted idiot BigSkyBob could suggest that Edwards should switch parties before he is even elected as a Democrat.

OT: Freedom State, of course.

Your theory has the problem that I don't suggest "Edwards switch parties" precisely because I believe that John Bel Edwards is left of center. Other have stated thing like Edwards is a "conservative Democrat" and that Vitter [certainly a conservative] and Edwards agree on most major issues. If they are right, which I do not believe, then Edwards easiest path forward to govern from the right is to switch parties. [Nor, did I suggest he switch parties today. I merely speculated about him following the example of Buddy Roemer [sp?] and switching parties after he was elected as a Democrat, assuming he is a conservative, and wants to govern as a conservative, which are two things that I simply don't believe to be true.]

[BigSkyBob]

Only noted idiot BigSkyBob could suggest that Edwards should switch parties before he is even elected as a Democrat.

OT: Freedom State, of course.

Your theory has the problem that I don't suggest "Edwards switch parties" precisely because I believe that John Bel Edwards is left of center. Other have stated thing like Edwards is a "conservative Democrat" and that Vitter [certainly a conservative] and Edwards agree on most major issues. If they are right, which I do not believe, then Edwards easiest path forward to govern from the right is to switch parties. [Nor, did I suggest he switch parties today. I merely speculated about him following the example of Buddy Roemer [sp?] and switching parties after he was elected as a Democrat, assuming he is a conservative, and wants to govern as a conservative, which are two things that I simply don't believe to be true.]

'Conservative Democrat' means 'conservative for a Democrat', not 'Democrat who is A Conservative'.

I've pointed out your tendency to speak as if 'conservative' is a binary, yes-or-no, non-relative descriptor before. It's a very curious belief you have there.

And, I consider your belief to be rather odd yourself.  In general, "conservative" and "liberal" a nexus of beliefs about issues of public concern. Either "conservative" as a label refers to the former nexus or it does not.

The English language has a term for a somewhat liberal Democrat who is further to the right than a liberal Democrat: "a relatively conservative Democrat."

When you conflate, "a relatively conservative Democrat" with "an [actually] conservative Democrat" then you negate any ability to distinguish between the two [which, is probably the point to this particular abuse of the English language. "Conservative Democrat" is much easier sell than "somewhat liberal" south of the Mason Dixon line.]

[BigSkyBob]

Only noted idiot BigSkyBob could suggest that Edwards should switch parties before he is even elected as a Democrat.

OT: Freedom State, of course.

Your theory has the problem that I don't suggest "Edwards switch parties" precisely because I believe that John Bel Edwards is left of center. Other have stated thing like Edwards is a "conservative Democrat" and that Vitter [certainly a conservative] and Edwards agree on most major issues. If they are right, which I do not believe, then Edwards easiest path forward to govern from the right is to switch parties. [Nor, did I suggest he switch parties today. I merely speculated about him following the example of Buddy Roemer [sp?] and switching parties after he was elected as a Democrat, assuming he is a conservative, and wants to govern as a conservative, which are two things that I simply don't believe to be true.]

'Conservative Democrat' means 'conservative for a Democrat', not 'Democrat who is A Conservative'.

I've pointed out your tendency to speak as if 'conservative' is a binary, yes-or-no, non-relative descriptor before. It's a very curious belief you have there.

And, I consider your belief to be rather odd yourself.  In general, "conservative" and "liberal" a nexus of beliefs about issues of public concern. Either "conservative" as a label refers to the former nexus or it does not.

The English language has a term for a somewhat liberal Democrat who is further to the right than a liberal Democrat: "a relatively conservative Democrat."

When you conflate, "a relatively conservative Democrat" with "an [actually] conservative Democrat" then you negate any ability to distinguish between the two [which, is probably the point to this particular abuse of the English language. "Conservative Democrat" is much easier sell than "somewhat liberal" south of the Mason Dixon line.]

OK, but nobody is going to campaign while referring to themselves "a relatively conservative Democrat" (and the media certainly won't either) because that essentially is word-vomit and sounds stupid.

Umm, "moderate" would suffice, as would "moderate Democrat." Note that "moderate Democrat" would connote a Democrat that is "moderate" on the issues. So, why shouldn't "conservative Democrat" refer to a Democrat that is conservative on the issues?

Nor, do people say "liberal Democrats" to refer to Democrats that are relatively further to the left than a generic "liberal" or a generic "Democrat."

"Conservative Democrat" is a marketing ploy akin claiming one particular model is "the sporty Yugo!," or "the fuel-efficient Hummer!"