Duck Dynasty-endorsed Republican wins La. House seat

[CaseyJones]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/duck-dynasty-endorsed-republican-wins-la.-house-seat/article/2539272


An unknown political novice who has never visited Washington, D.C., won a special election for Louisiana's 5th District seat Saturday on the endorsement of the “Duck Dynasty” family and a promise to fix Obamacare.

Vance McAllister beat establishment candidate Neil Riser, a state senator, in Saturday's runoff election created when former Rep. Rodney Alexander resigned on September 26 to become secretary of the Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs under Republican Governor Bobby Jindal.

He told local KNOE TV that “Washington may not be ready for me.”

In the race, McAllister, a businessman in the Monroe, La., area, self-funded most of his campaign. He is a friend of the patriarch of TV’s “Duck Dynasty,” Phil Robertson, who endorsed his congressional bid.

A handful of Washington GOP operatives tried to get one of the members of the Duck Dynasty family to run for the seat, but failed.

But the race showed just how powerful the Duck Dynasty trademark is in the area, said an election observer.

[klamath]

The stories I have read made it out that this guy is the compromiser moderate and the other guy was the tea party extremist reinforcing the idea that the extremist non compromisers lost again.

[phill4paul]

Another socon that supports traditional marriage but wants big government out of every other aspect of your life. :rolleyes:

[69360]

Another socon that supports traditional marriage but wants big government out of every other aspect of your life. :rolleyes:

Why is that the end of the world? I don't agree with him on marriage, but certainly could work with somebody like that. The MSM has people so worked up about gays that it's become a dividing issue between people who really should be working together.

[phill4paul]

Why is that the end of the world? I don't agree with him on marriage, but certainly could work with somebody like that. The MSM has people so worked up about gays that it's become a dividing issue between people who really should be working together.

No. Not the end of the world. But, rather, a look into the mindset of a politician. Traditional marriage is a Christian Conservative mindset. It says, to me, that the politician is against big government unless it is an issue that his voters approve of. In which case big government is A-O-K. Big government is big government. Doesn't matter how you care to frame it.

[Henry Rogue]

No. Not the end of the world. But, rather, a look into the mindset of a politician. Traditional marriage is a Christian Conservative mindset. It says, to me, that the politician is against big government unless it is an issue that his voters approve of. In which case big government is A-O-K. Big government is big government. Doesn't matter how you care to frame it.
I agree Sixty-Nine thousand Three Hundred and Sixty percent

[gwax23]

No. Not the end of the world. But, rather, a look into the mindset of a politician. Traditional marriage is a Christian Conservative mindset. It says, to me, that the politician is against big government unless it is an issue that his voters approve of. In which case big government is A-O-K. Big government is big government. Doesn't matter how you care to frame it.

Well said. I think the term "Populist" would be a good way to describe this.

[Southron]

I'm not surprised at the results. The Robertsons appeal to working class voters.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

The stories I have read made it out that this guy is the compromiser moderate and the other guy was the tea party extremist reinforcing the idea that the extremist non compromisers lost again.

twaddle.

This was based on local politics, and it was an an anti-Jindal vote. Period.

Pro-NSA Congressman Alexander resigned so he could take a state job from Jindal for a couple years to max out his state pension (from 7K to 83K). Jindal and Eric Cantor had the wheels pre-greased for this Neil Riser guy with money, staff, endorsements, etc. Riser is nothing but a bought-and-sold partisanized puppet doofus.

Macallister was the outsider candidate here. He is pro-gun, pro-life and a succesful businessman. He's not a crypto-Marxist, despite having made a play for Democrat votes last week. It will be interesting to see where he comes down on war & peace and the police state. Hopefully on our side.

[vita3]

Hope he does some good in the swamp of DC, I'll be looking out for him

[Snew]

No. Not the end of the world. But, rather, a look into the mindset of a politician. Traditional marriage is a Christian Conservative mindset. It says, to me, that the politician is against big government unless it is an issue that his voters approve of. In which case big government is A-O-K. Big government is big government. Doesn't matter how you care to frame it.
This. I'm wary of anyone who supports "traditional marriage" and is planning on using government to accomplish their socialcon goals.

[torchbearer]

The stories I have read made it out that this guy is the compromiser moderate and the other guy was the tea party extremist reinforcing the idea that the extremist non compromisers lost again.

the "extremist", Riser, was a wolf in sheep's clothing. His associates were the ones who used violence on us at the convention. and the "tea party" that endorse him was a poser front for those same people that used violence on us.
Riser ran attack ads saying Vance was a moderate. But the DD guys are not moderates and were the ones behind Vance running.

The reason Duck Dynasty intervened was because of some dirty politics that saw Alexander resign and get a place on Jindal's cabinet. He resigned at a time that no one would have time to really get a campaign together. But Riser was in on the deal, as he is a Jindal lackey, and had his campaign and website ready the day Alexander resigned.

They were trying to gift wrap the seat for Riser. Who is not a 'tea party' extremist. He is a psychopathic authoritarian.

[69360]

No. Not the end of the world. But, rather, a look into the mindset of a politician. Traditional marriage is a Christian Conservative mindset. It says, to me, that the politician is against big government unless it is an issue that his voters approve of. In which case big government is A-O-K. Big government is big government. Doesn't matter how you care to frame it.

It's one issue, I can agree with the christian conservatives on everything but the way they treat the gays. That's somebody who is an ally, not somebody you ridicule and alienate.

[klamath]

the "extremist", Riser, was a wolf in sheep's clothing. His associates were the ones who used violence on us at the convention. and the "tea party" that endorse him was a poser front for those same people that used violence on us.
Riser ran attack ads saying Vance was a moderate. But the DD guys are not moderates and were the ones behind Vance running.

The reason Duck Dynasty intervened was because of some dirty politics that saw Alexander resign and get a place on Jindal's cabinet. He resigned at a time that no one would have time to really get a campaign together. But Riser was in on the deal, as he is a Jindal lackey, and had his campaign and website ready the day Alexander resigned.

They were trying to gift wrap the seat for Riser. Who is not a 'tea party' extremist. He is a psychopathic authoritarian.good to know. The media is pushing this angle just because they want it to be the national compaign mantra. "Get rid of extremists!" They know there will be a big turnover in congress and so they want to drive it in a direction LEAST harmful to their agenda.

[Keith and stuff]

It is unfortunate that the pro-big spending and pro-amnesty candidate won, but that's how it works sometimes. Sure, he was a Republican but he had Democratic support behind him and it was in LA. Plus of course, he had local celebrity support and the big government folks all lined up behind him, so he won, and won big with 60% of the vote. It's still very likely better than having a Democrat in the seat so it wasn't a bad day.

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://news.yahoo.com/mcallister-wins-5th-district-congressional-seat-031702144.html


McAllister will represent a largely rural district along the Mississippi River delta dotted with farmland and plagued by poverty. The 5th District covers all or part of 24 parishes, from northeast and central Louisiana into southeastern parishes bordering Mississippi.


The congressional seat was vacant because Republican Rodney Alexander decided to leave Washington in the middle of his sixth term and take a job in Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration. In the race to succeed him, Alexander was supporting Riser, an ally of Jindal.


Best known for a constitutional provision toughening Louisiana gun rights, Riser announced his campaign immediately after Alexander announced his departure, raising accusations that Jindal and Alexander tried to influence the election for Riser. All three denied the claim.


"Riser got punished for being too closely allied to Gov. Jindal," Stockley said.


McAllister's ability to reach the runoff in a pack of 14 candidates, including six elected officials, caught many by surprise. He made the runoff with little outside help, no prior name recognition and no heavyweight fundraising.

His friendship with "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson helped draw attention to his long-shot bid for office, and McAllister's own deep pockets paid for most of his campaign expenses.


McAllister spent at least $800,000 of his own money on the race, according to the Federal Election Commission. By comparison, Riser raised a similar amount and put no personal wealth into the campaign.

View Comments (225)

[CaptLouAlbano]

This. I'm wary of anyone who supports "traditional marriage" and is planning on using government to accomplish their socialcon goals.

Are you equally wary of anyone who supports "gay marriage" and is planning on using government to accomplish their socially liberal goals?

[pcosmar]

Are you equally wary of anyone who supports "gay marriage" and is planning on using government to accomplish their socially liberal goals?

As long as the Government is involved in any way with marriage,, and there are any benefits at all given to married couples,, then any and every marriage should be equally accepted and respected under the law.

Either that or get the government OUT of every and all aspects of marriage.

It is either/or..

I would prefer OUT altogether.

[Athan]

the "extremist", Riser, was a wolf in sheep's clothing. His associates were the ones who used violence on us at the convention. and the "tea party" that endorse him was a poser front for those same people that used violence on us.

So! This is a GOOD THING. Thanks Duck Dynasty!

[CaptLouAlbano]

As long as the Government is involved in any way with marriage,, and there are any benefits at all given to married couples,, then any and every marriage should be equally accepted and respected under the law.

The same logic could be applied to a lot of issues. For example, as long as the government is involved in health care, then everyone should have health care.

The correct answer from a small gov't/libertarian perspective regarding marriage is that the government should not be involved in marriage at all, and we should work towards that goal. Until we reach that goal, the government should pass no new laws regarding the status of marriage, since any new laws force the citizens of a state to accept whatever definition the government places on the institution of marriage.

The truth is, gays can get married (there are people that will perform such ceremonies), they can call themselves married if they choose to. What the gay marriage lobby wants is for the government to recognize their status, force others to recognize that status, give them a piece of paper and convey to them all the tax and regulatory benefits that go along with that piece of paper.

[pcosmar]

The correct answer from a small gov't/libertarian perspective regarding marriage is that the government should not be involved in marriage at all, and we should work towards that goal. Until we reach that goal, the government should pass no new laws regarding the status of marriage, since any new laws force the citizens of a state to accept whatever definition the government places on the institution of marriage.



Nope,, until we reach that goal,, everyone should be treated equally under the law.
Anything less is unacceptable.

Perhaps something offensive to some will inspire them to look at it differently.
Force them to get Government out of marriage altogether,, rather than have someone else's marriage forced on them.

There are many that use the government to oppress others that need some of that oppression focused on them in order for them to reassess their priorities.

What the gay marriage lobby wants is for the government to recognize their status, force others to recognize that status, give them a piece of paper and convey to them all the tax and regulatory benefits that go along with that piece of paper..
Exactly. equal under the law.
As it should be..

Or get Government out of it altogether. And their voices need to be focused in that direction. Rather than denying the same to someone else that they disagree with.

[torchbearer]

It is unfortunate that the pro-big spending and pro-amnesty candidate won, but that's how it works sometimes. Sure, he was a Republican but he had Democratic support behind him and it was in LA. Plus of course, he had local celebrity support and the big government folks all lined up behind him, so he won, and won big with 60% of the vote. It's still very likely better than having a Democrat in the seat so it wasn't a bad day.

The reason he had democrat support is because he wasn't Riser. Everyone in this district saw Riser as a Jindal stooge.
The last thing the dems want is a Jindal stooge.
SO Riser's attack ads backfired, making Vance seem moderate.

[Snew]

Are you equally wary of anyone who supports "gay marriage" and is planning on using government to accomplish their socially liberal goals?

of course, since I'm wary of all politicians.

[phill4paul]

The same logic could be applied to a lot of issues. For example, as long as the government is involved in health care, then everyone should have health care.

The correct answer from a small gov't/libertarian perspective regarding marriage is that the government should not be involved in marriage at all, and we should work towards that goal. Until we reach that goal, the government should pass no new laws regarding the status of marriage, since any new laws force the citizens of a state to accept whatever definition the government places on the institution of marriage.

The truth is, gays can get married (there are people that will perform such ceremonies), they can call themselves married if they choose to. What the gay marriage lobby wants is for the government to recognize their status, force others to recognize that status, give them a piece of paper and convey to them all the tax and regulatory benefits that go along with that piece of paper.

And the traditional marriage lobbies want to keep the pie to themselves. Don't even try to bullshit me that the proponents of "tradition marriage" for even one second really want government out of marriage. They don't. They just want their petty tyranny.

[CaptLouAlbano]

And the traditional marriage lobbies want to keep the pie to themselves. Don't even try to bullshit me that the proponents of "tradition marriage" for even one second really want government out of marriage. They don't. They just want their petty tyranny.

I never said that they did. Both sides are wrong. My point is that passing new laws, either pro gay marriage, or pro traditional marriage is the wrong way to go about things. It is better to do nothing, than to add new laws.

[CaseyJones]

Rep. Vance McAllister sworn into office

http://www.katc.com/news/rep-vance-mcallister-sworn-into-office/

[serenityrick]

Another socon that supports traditional marriage but wants big government out of every other aspect of your life. :rolleyes:

The crux of being a conservative in supporting traditional marriage is actually supporting the idea that the government cannot force the church to marry someone against their beliefs.

You are right about the whole "mindset of a politician" thing since republican politicians are instead arguing for laws that keep gays from getting married which is completely out of line with the issue.

Personally, government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.