Thursday, October 28, 2010

Cedric Glover for Mayor

The Shreveport mayoral race has my blood pressure up.  I don't often write about local politics, and what a shocker, I'm about to endorse the Democrat.

Dear Shreveport - do NOT elect Bryan Wooley.  Wooley will get some votes simply because he's got the "R" after his name, but he is, in my own personal opinion, a worm.  I'm sorry, Bryan - I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but you have run the dirtiest, smarmiest, nastiest campaign I have EVER seen, and in Louisiana, that says a lot.

Let me just start with Bryan Wooley for a moment.  The whole campaign sign issue tells me a lot about Bryan Wooley and how he intends to conduct business.  A city ordinance says that signs in commercial areas can only be 16 feet square, but Wooley, clever, sneaky little thing that he is, cut his 32 square foot signs in half so he would be "in compliance."

Seriously.  He cut them in half.

I have to agree with John Settle on this one:  Wooley was thumbing his nose at the law and it took a lawsuit to get him to comply.  As a city councilman, Wooley knows the ordinance, or at least he should.  He didn't care.  He found a way around it.

Wooley has taken what I consider to be cheap shots at Mayor Glover.  The mayor is, as many of you know, a very large man.  I watched one of the local stations interview Wooley after the primary; when asked what he was going to do next, Wooley said he was "going to the gym, going to stay in shape, and get back to work."  Was that a cheap shot at Glover?  Sounded like it to me.

Wooley says he will "demand that criminals be arrested," but I don't think Glover has ever said they shouldn't be.  Wooley says he will cut down on fire department and EMS runs; he says an AK-47 spray is "not acceptable" but again, I don't think Glover ever has said that it is.  Wooley says cops are just public relations officers in Shreveport and not law enforcement officers.  "We will not cater to criminals" he says.  I don't believe Glover does.  Wooley criticizes Glover for vetoing the police pay raise but wants to purchse more vehicles and equipment.  He says he's going to give the police offiers a raise and new equipment, but doesn't say how he'll do it.

When Glover vetoed the police pay raise in 2008 it was not because he thought their salary is sufficient as is;  it was because the $2 million plan was "imprudent and unwise" at a time when city leaders were struggling with an $8 million shortfall.  The City Council did not contest the veto.

In the mayoral debate last night and in currently circulating campaign ads, Wooley is trying to link Mayor Glover to drug use which is totally unproven and unfounded.  It's dirty politics.  Wooley said last night:

"Taking donations, major donations, from crack cocaine felons is not leadership," Wooley said. "And accusations of doing drugs in front of children is not leadership. And you would think this is the activity of a criminal. But instead it's the behavior of our mayor. And all of it has happened since he took office the last four years."

But he offers no proof.  Nothing.  The donations issue to which he refers was covered here (at a site paid for by Bryan Wooley.)

The drug use issue comes up in an interrogatory in a divorce case; again, no evidence that Glover is guilty of anything, yet Wooley is working it for all it's worth.  You can ask anything in an interrogatory; it doesn't mean it's true. 

All in all, Wooley is throwing mud and dirt in every direction rather than leaning on his own qualifications.

Glover, from my perspective, has run clean and pretty decent campaign.  To be honest, I didn't vote for him initially; I voted for Jerry Jones.  But, Glover has proven himself to be a true supporter of Shreveport and its citizens.  He's on the scene and on the job all the time.  He's traveled to China to lobby for Hummer jobs in Shreveport; he was on the bank of the Red River when those poor drowning victims were being recovered this summer.  He was at El Chico attending a fundraiser for Sgt. Greg Washam in July, encouraging citizens to come on out in support on his Twitter page.

Glover cut a personal check in support of the Highland Jazz and Blues festival last year in the amount of $500.00.  I believe he believes in this city and I believe he works tirelessly to drum up support and entice businesses to invest in this city.

Now, with regard to the "your rights have been suspended" argument, I still believe Glover was interpreted out of context.  He tried to clarify that remark:

When you have been pulled over for whatever suspected action that you have taken, at that point your right to continue to proceed has been taken away. If you chose to continue to advance down the road in your truck, despite the fact that you know that you have been properly and appropriately signaled by a law enforcement personnel to pull over, then you are in violation of the law.
So that's the first right that you've had at that particular point in time that has been suspended. Your choice to keep your driver's license in your pocket and away from even inspection has been suspended. Your choice to keep your vehicle registration and insurance information in your glove compartment or wherever it is that you keep it...has been suspended.

Your right to be able to hold onto your weapon and say whether I have a weapon or not is my own business at that particular point in time...has been suspended.

He might have poor communication skills sometimes, but what he means, at least as I interpret it, is that an officer's safety is paramount. If an officer asks you if you have a gun, you aren't really allowed to say "none of your business." I guess you COULD say that, but then the officer would be correct in assuming himself to be in danger. His life might be on the line.

Communication skills or not, Glover has the experience and the know how to solve Shreveport's problems. Wooley is not ready to be mayor. Wooley manipulates the city ordinances, he assumes facts that are not proven to be true, he has been intentionally misleading, and I'm always suspicious of a candidate who is more interested in slinging mud than promoting his own qualifications and agenda.

In short, I believe Glover has the interest of the City at heart and not the interest of himself. Shreveport is a city with problems; we've got crime and lots of it. There are lots of reasons for that; the economy is poor, unemployment is high, the mood in the country is tense and angry. Wooley advertises himself as the "great uniter" but we've heard that before and his actions are not backing that up.

Cedric Glover has my vote.


Rex Moncrief said...

Hi Pat,

Great post with solid reasons on your support of Glover. I agree that Cedric has tried to do his best to promote Shreveport. Even though I'm dead-set against him, I have stated that the choice is basically a "lesser of 2 evils" to use a pun.

With that said, if he would directly answer some of the questions, he could put the election to bed. Instead he uses his typical flowery pulpit language to skate around the questions.

One last thing, as far as "rights suspended", you can't be taken out of context when the ENTIRE conversation including all the audio are posted. Plus, he continued to repeat his mantra the following week in a telephone call from the Moon Griffon Show and from Tom Gresham (Gun Talk Magazine) as well as a few dozen others that called. Gotta give him credit - he didn't really back down until KTBS got involved.

Also, you might want to know your rights as a citizen and the laws if you are stopped, whether carrying a weapon or not. Glover certainly does not - and that's my primary beef with him.

Great blog and good perspectives. I do stop by and read it from time to time.

Jim said...

Pat, a great post. At this point, I'm not sure that this might not backfire on Wooley.
As I told Rex either in a comment or an email, since I'm not a Shreveport resident, I'm not picking one here. I stay in enough trouble in Bossier!
Thank you for always speaking your mind.

Anonymous said...

I have followed the link from the MyBossier bloglist a few times, and quite frankly I did not think that you had any mind of your own. I always thought that you are just a "me too" conservative red state bandwagon passenger.
I was amazed to see that you have formed a well thought out opinion, and have endorsed a candidate whose name is not followed by "R". This is very admirable.

Matt Sciba said...

I'm not a resident of Shreveport, but I'll weigh in anyway.

I'm not a fan of Glover's increased use of surveillance cameras throughout the city. It seems I spot more throughout downtown each week.

Glover is also a member of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun group "Mayors against illegal guns" (oppose concealed carry reciprocity, tracking ammunition sales, etc.).

Furthermore, the "suspend your rights" issue arose out of a man's claim of being profiled due to his pro-gun, military, and religious stickers. He claimed to be the victim of illegal search and seizure. Glover supported the officer in saying your rights can be suspended. Even when you're arrested, you still have rights.

Those strikes carry far more weight in my book than squabbles about proper size of campaign signs.

Jazz One said...

Pat, I had to read it twice. I agree with you on this.
I see where you are coming from. I've been in Austin for awhile, but have always kept up with what is going on back home. I try to explain Louisiana politics to people here. It's a different ballgame.
I worked in tv news when Glover was on the city council. I think he is good people.

Jazz One said...

Anonymous, we may agree politically but I think both parties have their good points and bad points. There are some people on both sides that are bad stereotypes of their side. Your comment comes off really condescending.
I don't live in Shreveport, but I keep up with home on the net. I think the reasons that Pat gave could be applied to a lot of races, on both sides.
I do understand that Louisiana politics have always been a different thing. For someone "on your team" campaigning so dirty, you'd vote against them, it must be pretty bad.
Not all Liberals are caricatures. Not all Conservatives are caricatures.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how long it is going to take local candidates to recognize the fact that Martin Grau's gutter political campaigns hurt them more than they help. Fleming realized it and dropped him, but Wooley and others keep feeding the slime monster.

Anonymous said...

I don't really have a problem with either of the candidates. I have met both of them personally and think that either one is suitable for Shreveport. Sis, your vote for Glover will offset my early vote for Wooley so its a wash.

"Suspended rights" get off the issue...the first Bush in his war on drugs changed the search and seizure right from one that called for probable cause to one that is at the discretion of the officer involved...and since the vehicle is considered an extension of your home anything found in your vehicle allows for a search of your home.

"Anonymous" it is quite admirable of you to admit that your initial opinion of the writer was incorrect. I will have to go to your "myBossier" blog and see if you have another other good and well thought out opinions. You should be more careful initially in how you judge.

Matt Sciba said...

Anonymous 7:21-

An officer cannot simply search a vehicle because he wants to. If he does not have probable cause, he must have consent to search the car. In the event of which I spoke earlier, the interview with the driver said he did not give consent to search his vehicle.

State v Ferrand 664 So.2d 396 - "As the officer
acknowledged, the public possession of an openly
displayed handgun is not a crime in Louisiana and does
not alone provide probable cause for an arrest."

(Bush's war on drugs? I believe Nixon was the first to declare war on drugs. Does it change with each president? If so, I guess we can now call it "Obama's war on drugs"?)

Anonymous said...


It is one thing to quote the way the law is written. The way its is interpreted and enforced, especially in Texas and Arizona, is a totally different thing. There is a lowered expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle..the "automovile exception" from Reamey's Rule....never, ever, ever put anything in your vehicle you do not want the police to see>
these days, regardless of what the law may be on the possession of firearms if you have a concealed or unconcealed firearm in your vehicle the police are going to question you about it,,and rightfully so..
it was under Bush Sr that the 4th amendment right of search and seizure in a motor vehicle was weakened........Obama doesn't have a war on drugs...he has a war on fiscal responsibility that coincides with his program to strengthen the governments control over everyone

Matt Sciba said...

I did a little research about "Ramey's rule". It is a good idea to keep out of your vehicle anything you do not wish the police to see.

That being said, I still have not found a single shred of documentation stating that a police officer does not need to have "probable cause". It seems Ramey's rule addresses more the warrant-less searches, not the reason for the search. The police still need a reason to search your vehicle if they have no evidence of a crime.

Laurence L. said...

"He's traveled to China to lobby for Hummer jobs in Shreveport"...this supposed deal with Sichuan Tengzhong (who??), a Chinese heavy equipment company and not an auto maker, to buy the Hummer brand was a flim flam by all involved. While it only fell apart officially in 2-10 when Saab backed out, it had been doomed by the Chinese regulators from start, as well as GM who had already announced it was closing the Shreveport plant in 2012, final finnis.

Glover's trips to DC and China (how much did THAT cost taxpayers?) were lot's of fun for him I'm sure, but pretty pointless for 800 jobs. I can't help but think that some of this information was available to him a the time, and was pretty hard to justify flagrant aggrandizing showboating on his part.

Grandstanding with free useless trips abroad sounds a lot like someone else in the news lately...

And, whaat? Dirty politics in a campaign in Louisiana? How terrible...maybe Wooley is just taking a cue from Democrats in other local races going on around the country. I kind of liked the split sign work around (chuckle chuckle), reminded me of Iran-Contra. It was torn up in the media at he time but in the end, it worked for Reagan.

Deanna said...

Glover thought a $2 million pay raise was "imprudent and unwise" yet he had no problem taking $4 million in stimulus to hire new officers.

And sign-gate is the most ignorant reason I can think to vote for Glover. The judge DISMISSED the case, saying that the ordinance was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Bryan offered to take the signs down before the judge dismissed the case, but Settle (a Glover supporter) wouldn't just drop the case.

As for Taro Harvey, he is a convicted felon. He shouldn't be involved in the mayor's campaign if Glover doesn't want to answer questions about it. As a former candidate I can tell you how laughable the idea is that Glover's team "accidentally" wrote Harvey's name down as a contributor.
If you look at the there is lmuch documentation behind the allegations.
The interrogatories are very telling. I talked to a lawyer and asked him why answers would be sealed. He said trade secrets for businesses, and also to PROTECT A THIRD PARTY FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. Why would it need to be sealed if the answer was no?

Glover recently attacked Bryan outright about being short on the KSLA debate- Bryan did not attack Glover for being fat, you put words in his mouth. I have heard Glover say things about Bryan's height in council meetings more than once.

Anonymous said...

I tend to look at all this is kind of a "Ronald Reagan" view.....are you better off now that you were....

in the past four years I have seen no economic growth in Shreveport and the income in my field has been cut in half, there seems to be little interest and enthusiasm in the business community to do anything to change this situation, and Shreveport has shown no signs of improvement over the past four years...that may not all be Glovers fault but it sure is a reflection of his administration

Jazz One said...

Pat, I bet you have readers at the Wooley campaign office now.
Anonymous, if that is your real name, you said, Obama "... has a war on fiscal responsibility that coincides with his program to strengthen the governments control over everyone." That is the same thing Liberals said against Bush during his terms. It's some of the same things usually said anytime your "team" is out of power. It's sour grapes. There is no real point being made, just whining. My team did it during Bush, you guys doing the same thing with Obama.
It kind of like as soon as you compare your opposition to Nazis, you've lost the argument.
I am still confused, I don't think Obama is running for Mayor of Shreveport.

Anonymous said...

Jazz my real name is Hutch..I am Pat's brother.....the reference to Obama was in response to someones post referring to my original post where I mentioned Bush's War on Drugs and the way it impacted the 4th amendment on illegal search and seizures...also, I don't have a say you do so (democrap) I vote for the candidate I like regardless of party affiliation In this election EVERYBODY should vote against ANY candidate that is an incumbent because they all need to go....and I am not whining because my party is out of office. If you are too blind to see what our current administration is doing then you deserve everything you have coming for your continued support...and no he is not running for Mayor of Shreveport..but maybe he is a position he might be a bit more capable of handling....

Anonymous said...

I am a white male republican who is voting for Glover. I know several others.

Anonymous said...

Just to make it clear, Deanna, if Glover's reference to Wooley standing on a box is to be construed as an "attack", it was an attack for standing on a box, not for being short.
A man who stands on a box to avoid appearing short probably has more prejudice against short people than those who ridicule him for standing on a box.

Jazz One said...

Hutch, great name. Shreveport is my home town, but not being a far right winger, or right winger, I felt like I had to speak in hushed tones.
When I hear someone use the word "liberal" or "democrat" like they just stepped in something, I get defensive. When I hear people who I agree with scapegoated for every ill in the world, it makes me a little defensive.
I was trying to watch football last weekend and nearly every commercial was about how that person is the most conservative, their opponent is the most liberal, and Obama is their opponents BFF. (On top of it all my fav teams lost)
I see now where you were referencing what someone else said about Obama.
I just didn't see how Obama related to the Shreveport mayoral election.
People, in general, get what they vote for.
So Conservatives are against "profiling" now?

Anonymous said...

The streets will go out of control if Glover is elected to serve another term. The common blacks have no respect for him or his word. Street crime will spiral out of control. The police can only police if the citizens allow them. With no confidence in the leadership at the top the bottom will fall. Get your guns ready cause you're going to need them. You can mark my word on this one....

Glover can into power waving a big stick and no sensitivity toward the social needs of the community. The streets are feed up this type of mentality.

Pat Austin said...

Lively play here in the comments!

Thanks to all for playing. I stand by my endorsement, believe I stated my position clearly. You're entitled to your point of view and I'm entitled to mine.

Before I hit the "Post" button last night, I told my husband, "This is going to make some people really angry."

I knew you would not all agree with me and that's perfectly fine; that's what we love about politics.

Some of you might appreciate this email I received this evening: (he didn't ask me to keep it confidential and as always, unless otherwise requested, an email is open game):

Dear Pat,

I read your So It Goes In Shreveport blog, and I am writing in regard to your endorsement of Cedric Glover for mayor. I am not an eligible voter in the city (I actually live in Texas), but I'm only right across the border in Panola County. I have business connections in Shreveport, and I am there several times a month. Therefore, I consider myself knowledgeable in regard to Shreveport politics.

Usually, I agree with your points of view. But in regard to your endorsement of Mayor Glover, I am appalled. Glover stands for everything that is wrong with local politics, and he's not someone I would want representing me on a state or national level, either. Your endorsement of him is obviously based on the fact that you despise his opponent, and as such your endorsement is without any merit whatsoever. If you don't like the opposition, in my opinion, you should butt out. The only reason you endorse a candidate is because you believe in him or her, and not because you don't like the opposition. Otherwise, you risk losing a lot of credibility with your audience. Which is exactly what has happened with me.

I won't be reading, or recommending, your work any longer. I wish you the best, but your knowledge of politics needs a lot of sharpening.


SOOOO, Thomas, I'm sorry to lose you. We can't all agree all of the time.

If you only follow those with whom you agree you will never grow very much. But good luck to you.

And again, thanks to the rest of you for your input.

Jim said...

As a blogger I can say that if the criteria for reading was total agreement, none of us would be reading much!
Pat, you're right - the give and take and sharing of opinions is what makes politics, and blogging about it, fun and interesting.

G.R. said...

Thankfully I'm not voting in this election, for if I did, I would like for Glover to fully answer to the claims concerning campaign contributions.

With that said, I would find it hard pressed to vote for a person like Wooley, too. He has yet to mention any accomplishments he has achieved while on the city council. I've heard what he wants to do as mayor. It's easy to say what one wants to do, but what one has done is a better indicator of future accomplishments.

The sign-gate issue is a concern as well. I don't care if the ordinance was ruled unconstitutional, because it hadn't been ruled as such when Wooley decide to thumb his nose at it. At the time it was an enforceable ordinance, and to have a sitting law maker disregard the law tells me a lot and makes me believe he will circumvent the laws as mayor.

We have too many people like that in power already.
As far as citing the Truth About Glover website, not exactly unbiased when sponsored by the Wooley for Mayor Campaign, and referred to by a volunteer for the Wooley of Mayor Campaign.

The Wooley Campaign had my interest over the contributions issue, and like I said, it has not been answered to a lot of peoples' satisfaction. But with the latest tactic of digging up and slinging what ever possible muck they think will stick is old and tiresome and for me and lots of others, a turn-off. And I think the crap they are slinging is going to have some back splatter, but that remains to be seen, and we'll find out Tuesday.

Sherri said...


You wrote:
"The interrogatories are very telling. I talked to a lawyer and asked him why answers would be sealed. He said trade secrets for businesses, and also to PROTECT A THIRD PARTY FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. Why would it need to be sealed if the answer was no?"

I'd say your first mistake was talking to a lawyer.

Your other mistake is assuming facts not in evidence. Because a question is asked does not make it fact.

There are other reasons why an interrogatory response would be sealed besides the two you mentioned, Malone's position with the city is only one of them.

Did I miss the part in your response where you pointed to your candidate's accomplishments or qualifications for this job?

Anonymous said...

Pat, you really should watch using the words "in short" anywhere in a blog talking about Wooley.

Anonymous said...

White female Republican voting for Glover, here. I like the job he's done, overall, and Wooley does not come close to impressing me as a leader of any sort. I agree with the blogger about Wooley's dirty sign tactics. Some here think it's no big deal, and are even amused - to me, however, it indicates a lack of integrity.

By chance, I was in an accounting class with Mr. Glover at LSU-S quite a few years ago. I didn't know him from Adam, but ended up being very impressed by how personable and astute he was. Even then, he struck me as being a natural leader. I was not at all surprised to see him run in and then win the mayoral race.

Since Glover's become mayor, my husband has interacted with him a few times on civic/business matters, and he likes him quite a bit, as well. Husband is about as conservative as you can get, and the fact that he thinks Mr. Glover has been very good for business in Shreveport, and also good for the city in general, carries a lot of weight with me.

Just my two cents... happy election day!