By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT — With a margin of 56% to 44%, Rep. Bill Cassidy sealed the deal and sent Mary Landrieu packing last night.  She won only about 16 of Louisiana’s 64 parishes and most of those were in the southern part of the state.

The results were not surprising as Landrieu had polled low, especially after the primary in November.

In her concession speech Landrieu clung to her Obamacare vote and touted it as one of her signature accomplishments even though her position raised the ire of many in Louisiana, especially those facing catastrophic insurance premium hikes next year:

She hailed the Affordable Care Act, the law Mr. Cassidy and his Republican allies hung around her neck at every turn. “We have fought a good fight, and it’s not over yet, for health care,” she said. “This is something to be proud of, and I’m glad we fought for it.”

Mary will, of course, land on her feet.  You can’t spend that many years in politics and get kicked to the curb, and it will be interesting to see if her Obamacare vote lands her some plum appointment now that she’s free from Senate encumbrances.  Surely Obama owes her something for that vote – besides the kickback she already received, that is.

To be fair, Rep. Bill Cassidy is a RINO – he’s not the conservative we need: Col. Rob Maness was that, but Cassidy at least gets us closer to where we need to be.  There will be a place for Col. Maness in Louisiana’s political future, I hope.

But honestly, even Edwin Edwards would have been better than Landrieu (and he took a shellacking, too.).

This is how the system works, and Landrieu knew that.  Last November she pointed out that if you don’t like the way she’s doing her job, and you don’t like Obamacare, you can vote against her:

If they do not like the bill, they can change the bill. We did not wake up one morning and declare this the law. The people of the United States declared this through us as their Representatives. If they do not like it, they can un-elect us. Believe me, they will have a great chance because I am up for reelection right now. They will be able to do that.

Well, here in Louisiana, we took her advice.

Bye, Mary.

DLTDHYITAOTWO.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that ‘only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations’. You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it’s true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game,

C.S. Lewis The  Screwtape Letters #23

Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

1John 4:1

Back in January 2009 in my 2nd full month of blogging the topic of why you should believe in Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular:

Many people give many different reasons why they are Christian in general and or Catholic in particular. I maintain there is only one valid reason, and that reason should trump any and all others:

Because it’s true.

This should and must be the primary reason for being a Christian. No other trumps it. Christianity and the Church is either true or false, there is no middle ground here.

That the Church is based on truth is completely consistent with Christ’s own words yet Christ also emphasised over and over the need for faith  Faith and reason go hand & hand.  Without faith the church becomes a cold place of just rules and without reason one can fall for everything (there is a reason why the church declares some private revelation “worthy of belief”  and others Constat de non supernaturalitate).

To put it simply as when it comes down to doctrine, belief or even miracles, truth is paramount.

Would that our feminist friends (via Ed Driscoll)  had the same standard to wit:

I can’t state this more emphatically: If Jackie’s story is partially or wholly untrue, it doesn’t validate the reasons for disbelieving her.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) December 5, 2014

That comes  from feminist Melissa McEvan who Robert Stacy McCain has described as…

a phenomenon I intend to address at some future time of my choosing.

She continued:

“Discrepancies” is all it takes to convince most of the world Jackie is a liar. Welcome to the rape culture.

Now while this kind of reasoning was, as Glenn Reynolds noted, all the rage in Scottsboro in 1931 at least,  in fairness to Ms. McEvan,  she had a traumatic personal experience that might understandably cloud her reasoning in that direction.

This however is not the case here:

One group of female students said “the rapist” must be expelled. But he hasn’t been found guilty of committing rape, I said. “We know he committed the rape,” one said, with the kind of steely-eyed conviction that recalled (admittedly in a much less lethal context) how KKK members once “knew” that their black victims were guilty of raping local white women.

A male student told me my insistence that individuals suspected of a crime must be fairly tried and found convincingly guilty before we ruin their lives — and being expelled from a prestigious university for rape would undoubtedly be life-ruining — was evidence that I had fallen for the “liberal paradigm” of justice, which tends to benefit white, well-off men. Apparently there is another “paradigm,” a better one, in which women who accuse men of rape are instantly believed and the men in question swiftly and severely punished.

The speeches made by students from the mattress-strewn steps leading up to the beautiful Low Library were chilling. Many focused on the need to believe women who make accusations. “I believe!” they hollered, to cheers from the crowd. This casual assertion of belief in all accusations of sexual assault mirrors the gullible fanaticism of the 17th-century Salem trials,

Or here:

Ultimately, though, from where I sit in Charlottesville, to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.

Or here

“[The wrongly accused] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”

The Irony here is delicious.  The christians of the Catholic Church or as Amanda Marcotte calls us Godbags who the left routinely (and falsely) label as “anti-science”  choose to use a standard of reason, testing for truth when dealing with phenomena that might be considered advantageous to our arguments while Journalists and students attending Universities seem to be basing their beliefs on faith and feelings alone.

I wonder how many of these people who are so ready to believe that one in five women in college are being raped  without question doubt the miracle of the sun at Fatima an event seen by thousands of witnesses?  I submit and suggest if that former figure was true the number of lawyers filing class action suits against every college in the country would be nigh on incalculable.

The reality is feminism like Christianity is a religion.  The other reality is Feminism, unlike Christianity doesn’t have the physical, intellectual or historical evidence to back up its beliefs beyond a tiny but loud niche of humanity that has allies in media and entertainment.

After 2000 years of being under attack Christianity if followed by over 1/5 of the world’s population.  I wouldn’t bet the farm on modern feminism being as successful.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.