We've got some folks protesting our very own Congressman Bill Cassidy's seeming indifference to health care reform, as he continually pans the Democrat's health care reform bill, which will bring health care to another 30 million people. That's right ... 30,000,000 people. Anyhow, here's the Advocate's coverage of the protest:
In the interest of keeping y'all informed, the Kingfish and some champions of working class Louisianans have compiled a list of the town halls that our Republican elected officials are hosting throughout Louisiana over the next week. If you know of any that are not on this list, or you have the details of one that we know of, but haven't been able to nail down, please let me know in the comments, or you can email me at ryan at dailykingfish dot com.
Fri Aug 14, 2009
Host: Rep. Alexander Where: Monroe City Hall, Council Chamber; 400 Lea Joyner Expressway; Monroe,La. 71210 Time: 2 PM - 3 PM
Mon Aug 17, 2009
Host: Sinning Senator David Vitter Where: St. James Parish Courthouse;
5800 La 44; Convent, LA 70723 Time: 8:30 AM - 9:30 AM
Host: Sinning Senator David Vitter Where: Lafayette South Regional Branch Library; 6101 Johnston St.; Lafayette, LA 70503 Time: 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM
Host: Rep. Cassidy Where: Ascension Parish; Dutchtown High School; 13165 Highway 73; Geismar, LA Time: 5:30 PM - 6:30 PM
Tue Aug 18, 2009
Host: Rep. Scalise - Washington Parish Town Hall Where: Bogalusa City Hall, 202 Arkansas Ave. Bogalusa Time: 10:30 AM - 11:30 AM
Host: Sinning Senator Vitter - Monroe Town Hall Where: ULM Student Union Field House 700 University Ave. Time: 1:30 PM - 2:30 PM
Host: Sinning Senator Vitter - Bienville Parish Town Hall
Where: Arcadia City Hall
Time: 4 PM - 5 PM
Host: Rep. Cao - Westwego Town Hall Where: Jefferson Performing Arts Center
177 Sala Ave.
Westwego, LA 70094
Time: 6 PM - 7 PM
Wed Aug 19, 2009
Host: Sinning Senator Vitter - DeSot Parish Town Hall Where: DeSoto Chamber of Commerce; Mansfield, LA Time: UNKNOWN
Host: Sinning Senator Vitter - Marksville Town Hall
LOCATION AND TIME UNKNOWN
Host: Rep. Scalise - Jefferson Parish Town Hall Where: Jefferson Parish Council Chambers, 1221 Elmwood Park Blvd; Harahan, LA Time: 7 PM - 8 PM
Thu Aug 20, 2009
Host: Rep. Scalise - Orleans Parish Town Hall Where: St. Dominic's Knight's of Columbus Hall, 6254 Vicksburg St.; New Orleans, LA Time: 2 PM - 3 PM
Host: Rep. Cao - Algiers Town Hall Where:
Delgado Community College West Bank Campus, 2600 General Meyer Avenue;
Building #1; Room 130;
New Orleans, LA 70114 Time: 6 PM - 7:30 PM
Fri Aug 21, 2009
Host: Rep. Scalise - Tangipahoa Parish Town Hall Where: Ponchatoula City Hall Council Chambers, 125 W. Hickory St.; Ponchatoula, LA Time: 11 AM - 12 PM
What I'm wondering is if the Sinning Senator and his Republican friends will allow the following:
Anyone to enter the Town Hall
UNSCREENED questions from the floor
Supporters of President Obama's health care reform plan to speak without being shouted down or derided
"We're not going to cry emergency every time we have a Katrina ..."
Notwithstanding the fact that crying emergency was how the Bush Administration funded the war in Iraq for much of the past 8 years, this asinine Republican Congresswoman from Tennessee is saying that she's against emergency disaster relief spending for another Federal Flood or natural disaster? Talk about an empathy deficit.
Congressman Charlie Melancon's press flack put out the following statement:
"Congressman Melancon is very disappointed. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were two of the most devastating disasters in the history of our country, and the people of Louisiana have been fighting for the past four years to recover from the damage. Ms. Blackburn's dismissive comment makes light of their courageous struggle to rebuild what was destroyed by the storms."
And Lord knows it's been a long, hard slog for many Louisianans and their communities. That brings me to the title of this post:
Where are the statements condemning that idiotic belief held by Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee from our Republican Congressmen?
Anything from Rep. John Fleming? NOPE.
Anything from Rep. Charles Boustany? NOPE.
Anything from Rep. Steve Scalise? NOPE.
Anything from Rep. Anh "Joe" Cao? NOPE.
Nice going there, fellas. So good to know you're going to stand up and defend Louisiana.
So what's the beef about? $50,000 in unpaid consulting fees.
What's really interesting is that Mr. Cassidy's lawyer and his campaign treasurer are on two different pages about this lawsuit, according to this article in the Advocate by Sarah Chacko:
When asked for a response from Cassidy about the lawsuit, press secretary Wes Climer said the congressman deferred comment to his attorney, Leo Hamilton.
"We find the suit baseless," Hamilton said.
However, Cassidy's campaign committee is setting aside contributions for a potential settlement.
"It is anticipated that the lawsuit will be settled with an amount owed to the media advisor well in excess of any amounts that have been received as campaign contributions after the general election," according to a letter from Cassidy's campaign treasurer, Ralph Stephens, to the Federal Elections Commission.
So, which is it? Is the Congressman confident of victory, or is he preparing to fork over more than $50,000 to the maker of one of the Ten Worst Ads of last year's election cycle?
While I've been whipping attention to the fact that Senator Landrieu doesn't want to listen to her constituents on the issue, Rep. Bill Cassidy has been busy currying favor with the banking and health care industries with his plan for health care reform:
He envisions a modified form of the current Health Savings Accounts that would "wrap around" to cover catastrophic treatment as well as preventative treatment.
So ... folks who work, and contribute to the Health Savings Account set up by their employer would be okay ... until they or their children get cancer, a heart attack, or some other catastrophic illness, which would deplete the money in said health savings account.
How would this rein in the costs? It won't.
How would this increase access to health care? It won't.
Pray tell what would this idiotic plan do, other than giving banks more fees to charge, and health care providers more opportunities to over-charge for medical services?
Lucky for us, y'all can ask the Congressman himself at the town hall meeting he's holding in the auditorium at Our Lady of the Lake Medical Center tomorrow at 5:30 PM.
Former Congressman Don Cazayoux has taken a position with Perry Dampf Dispute Solutions in Baton Rouge.
This move is surprising, but not altogether unexpected, as the United States Attorneys positions in Louisiana have yet to be filled with Democratic appointees. The background for those unaware is that Mr. Cazayoux was a reportedly a front-runner for the United States Attorney (USA) position in Baton Rouge, which has been led by Bush appointee David R. Dugas since 2001. It has been five months since the Obama Administration took office, and they have yet to announce their USA's in Louisiana.
Traditionally, Senators from the President's party have significant input in whom gets nominated for the highly prestigious posts in their state. For Louisiana, that means Senator Landrieu has the final say as to who is named USA in the three districts for Louisiana - the Eastern, based in New Orleans; the Middle, based in Baton Rouge; and the Western, based in Shreveport.
The question now is whether this new job for Mr. Cazayoux means that he will not be the United States Attorney for the Middle District. If he is not going to be the USA, will he be taking on a rematch campaign against current Congressman Cassidy?
The Business Report notes that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) will be in town Saturday to attend a town hall at Bill Cassidy's district office, and then will headline a fundraiser for the accidental Congressman at a private residence.
The Employee Free Choice Act has been introduced in the House as H.R. 1409 and in the Senate as S. 560.
The corporate lobbies of America are prepared to spend $200 MILLION to defeat EFCA. I've had many conservative friends (they hate being identified as Republicans these days), and some Democratic friends express concern that EFCA will "do away with the secret ballot" with respect to the choice of deciding whether to join a union.
Unfortunately, they are all repeating the lies from the corporate propaganda machine. Right now, if you were to try to unionize your workplace ... your employer has the right to decide which process you use to decide whether y'all unionize or not - you sign a card or you have a secret ballot. Not surprisingly, companies often choose to force their workers to endure a secret ballot. Labor lawyer Gordon Lafer explains why:
When employees want to form a union, they have to go through a process that looks more like the discredited practices of rogue regimes abroad than like anything we would call American.
For an election to be "free and fair," both sides must have equal access to media and the voters. But not under labor law. Anti-union managers are free to campaign to every employee, every day, throughout the day; but pro-union employees can campaign only on break time. Furthermore, management can post anti-union propaganda on bulletin boards and walls - while prohibiting pro-union employees from doing the same.
By law, employers can force workers to attend mass anti-union propaganda events. Not only are pro-union employees not given equal time, but they can be forced to attend on condition that they not ask any questions. Recent data show that workers are forced to attend between five and 10 such one-sided meetings."
And yet you never hear about that part of union organizing from the corporate interests. All you hear is that the secret ballot will go away. Again, it's NOT TRUE. With respect to elections, the bill simply puts the choice of HOW TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO UNIONIZE where it belongs ... with the workers.
"Funny how the free-traders and deregulators suddenly want the government in everyone's face again when it comes to whether or not regular people should be able to decide for themselves how they want to tell their friends and coworkers that they'd maybe like to get together and cooperate on some stuff.
If I want into a union and feel like saying so, get the hell out of my way, boss. Nobody asked you. It shouldn't be up to you how I get to express that any more than you get to decide how I invite people out for beers after work."
Now ... we've got nine representatives up in Washington. Six of 'em are going to vote "NO" no matter what - Vitter, Scalise, Fleming, Alexander, Cassidy and Boustany.
The other three ... Representative Cao, Representative Melancon and Senator Landrieu are going to be slammed with phone calls from nervous folks here in Louisiana telling them NOT to vote for EFCA. So ... call them, and tell them to stand up for Louisiana's working families by voting for EFCA:
In the wake of the brou-haha over RNC Chairman Michael Steele's apology to Rush Limbaugh over his comments about him:
"So let's put it into context here. Let's put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly."
Then not even 48 hours goes by before we get this from Mr. Steele:
""My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate ... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."
So what did the Lousiana GOP have to say about this? Here's Governor PBJ on CNN's Larry King Live:
King: All right, governor, here was Rush Limbaugh at this weekend's CPAC Conference. Watch.
Rush Limbaugh: What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?
King: Governor, do you think people are thinking about capitalism now or are they thinking about problems?
Jindal: Look, clearly, the American people are worried about paying their mortgages, keeping their jobs and paying their health care bills. I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives. I think he articulates what a lot of people are concerned about.
King: Do you want him [Obama] to fail?
Jindal: I don't want those policies to be adopted. I want my country to succeed, but I don't want policies to be adopted.
King: What if the policies work?
Jindal: Well, again...
King: What if they work?
Jindal: This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's going work ... to spend in excess of our revenues.
And just for the sake of comparison, here's what Joseph "Holy" Cao's Chief of Staff told Big Red Cotton:
Cao's chief of staff Clayton Hall says on the record:
"No... the problems in this country are too big. Rush Limbaugh can say whatever he wants to say. Congressman Cao does not want the president to fail."
So I asked him does Cao want the stimulus package, which he voted against, to fail. Hall gave a curt "No".
Heh. There's a schism within the LA GOP regarding the power of Rush. Obviously, Governor PBJ is a wimp. Cao, like Oyster notes, knows kung fu.
What about the rest of Louisiana's GOP delegation?
This is a new feature that I plan to do on a regular basis; hopefully, a weekly basis, once I purchase a new computer. For the first month of the 111th Congress, there were 46 roll call votes in the House,and there are 6 votes I am focusing on in the House:
There are some surprises here. The Presidential Records Act was to deny President Bush the power to seal his records forever, and allow the House to investigate the Bush Administration's malfeasance. So it was surprising to see Reps. Scalise and Alexander vote for it. Perhaps they were voting to ensure that the Clinton records would stay open or something.
Other than that, the only other surprise is Representative Cao. He did vote for the Presidential Records Act as well as the Paycheck Fairness Act, which posits that workers, regardless of gender, should be paid equally for the same work. But he didn't vote for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which supplied the remedy for when an employer pays a woman (or a man) less than his job counterparts. Rep. Cao also voted to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, and expand it to include an additional 10 million children.
Other than Rep. Cao, the rest of the Louisiana Republican delegation - Rep. Scalise, Rep. Fleming, Rep. Alexander, Rep. Cassidy and Rep. Boustany - voted against equal pay for women, and against ensuring that Louisiana's children have health insurance.
The entire Louisiana Republican delegation in the House voted against the shelling out the rest of the TARP funds to the nation's banks. Interestingly, Reps. Alexander and Scalise flipped their votes ... perhaps because they trusted President Bush more than they trust President Obama? It seems that the Louisiana Republican delegation is in the same boat as Rush Limbaugh - they want to see the economy fail.
Editor's Note: CenLamar has some background info on the activities of the Draft Stormy folks at DC Mardi Gras.
Washington Mardi Gras is being held this week, so the folks behind the Draft Stormy movement decided to make Draft Stormy beads to hand out amongst the political elite attending the event.
For those unaware of what Washington Mardi Gras is, here's The Advertiser's take on it:
For many of the more than 2,000 Louisianians who've come to Washington to participate in a swirl of parties and receptions, this Mardi Gras is all about business.
It's not known how many deals are cut over hors d'oeuvres at the hospitality suites that Louisiana cities like Lafayette and Shreveport operate in the Washington Hilton - the main site of the Mardi Gras.
Former Sen. Russell Long firmly established a tradition in 1957 by forming the Mystick Krewe.
During one of the festivities, presumably at the Washington Hilton, there were many, many beads handed out and worn quite proudly by patrons. Amongst the revelers in a Draft Stormy effort are:
Rep. Steve Scalise, R-LA-01: (although admittedly, he seems confused)
Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-LA-06:
Who knew even the Republican Members of the Louisiana House delegation are as eager to insert some good ol entertainment into next year's Republican primary?!
On Friday, Congress took up the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which seeks to ensure that women have a remedy when their right to equal pay for equal work has been denied by their employer. Seems fair, no?
Well, the Supreme Court, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, applied a strict constructionist view of the statutes governing pay in the workplace, and denied women the right to sue their employer over sex discrimination in pay if they didn't bring such a suit within 180 days of a corporation deciding to discriminate against the worker. What the Supreme Court majority failed to understand in this case was that most businesses do not publish their pay scale for all workers to see, so it is not likely that anyone will know that they are being paid less than their colleague within a 180 day period.
According to the entire Republican delegation representing Louisiana in Congress, it is not fair to make businesses that pay women who perform the same work as their male counterparts accountable to the legal system unless such a suit is brought with 6 months of receiving less pay as their male counterpart for the same work. In fact, to the Louisiana Republican delegation - Steve Scalise, Joseph Cao, John Fleming, Rodney Alexander, Bill Cassidy and Charles Boustany - it is downright discriminatory to those businesses, who ought to be able to discriminate against women in the workplace at will, and never face repercussions for doing so.
As Jeffrey at Library Chronicles notes, the vote made by Congressman Gao is not one that Congressman Jefferson would have made. I would add that Congressman Cazayoux would have voted differently than Congressman Cassidy as well.
I should note that the bill passed overwhelmingly, thanks to the new Democratic majority in the U.S. House, 247 to 171, with 15 Members not voting.
If you add up the totals of both Cazayoux and Jackson, that means that the majority of the voters in LA-06 voted for a pro-union candidate. A majority voted against Mr. Cassidy.
There were two things at play here - the belief that a Democrat needs to emphasize their conservative credentials in order to win, which I discussed here; and the fact that Michael Jackson was bought and paid for by L. Lane Grigsby, the owner of Cajun Contractors, an anti-union construction corporation. I wonder what Mr. Jackson gains being paid off by Mr. Grigsby to spoil the election. Some have suggested that the Federal Election Commission needs to delve into the full extent of their financial relationship, since Mr. Grigsby has already made illegal donations to Mr. Cassidy, and the fact that there is no disclaimer on ANY of Mr. Jackson's election paraphernalia:
This is the image plastered on billboards all over North Baton Rouge:
And this is the image on the few lawn signs they had printed up:
Do any of y'all see the union label on these signs? I don't. Do any of y'all see the disclaimer required by federal election law that states it must detail who paid for the signs? I don't.
Mr. Jackson is a lawyer. I'm sure as a candidate, he took the time to read federal election law as to what was required of him as a candidate. The fact that he didn't put a disclaimer up there leads me to believe that there is a pattern of disregarding the law on his part. Mr. Grigsby broke the law by donating more than is legally allowed to Mr. Cassidy. And we know that Mr. Grigsby has donated nearly half of the money raised by Mr. Jackson in this campaign. Were there more donations that we don't know about?
All of that aside, I am saddened by the decisions made by Michael Jackson in this election. While I understand his frustration about losing the special election primary run-off in April, as someone who is progressive, how he runs a campaign fueled in large part by money from a wealthy, anti-union, Republican donor who is diametrically opposed to most of what he stands for is beyond me.
I don't buy the idea floated by other progressives that this election was the best opportunity for a progressive candidate to win election to Congress. I also don't buy the idea floated by some black commentators that this was the best opportunity for a black politician to win election to Congress from this district.
The conventional "wisdom" propping up this belief were the ideas that the white "conservative" Democrat and the white Republican would split the white vote down the middle, and so long as the "independent" black candidate took 90% of the black vote in a general election plus the liberal white vote, the black candidate would win.
Such thinking assumes that black voters are sheep, and will only vote for the black candidate. Black voters are Democrats, y'all. The vast majority of them vote for the Democrat in a general election, not the black candidate. This election should prove that, as Don pulled a majority of the black vote from majority African-American precincts in EBR Parish:
Candidate
African American Votes
% of African American Vote
Bill Cassidy (R)
1,503
4.91%
Don Cazayoux (D)
19,955
65.20%
Michael Jackson (Lane Grigsby)
9,147
29.89%
I've actually had a few discussions with folks via email and in person that voted for Michael Jackson, and they all say that it wasn't unreasonable to assume that Michael Jackson could win he took 90% of the black vote like he did in April. The problem with that analysis is that it conveniently forgets that Mr. Jackson got 90% of the black vote in a Democratic Party primary. Either way, black folks would win ... they would get their concerns listened to by whomever got out of the Democratic primary. In a general election, when black voters make up far less that 50% of the vote, getting 90% of the black vote simply ain't enough to win in a 3 way race. If Mr. Jackson were the Democrat, perhaps, but he wasn't. He ran as an Independent who was paid off by L. Lane Grigsby to tilt the race to Bill Cassidy.
There is one more thing these folks forgot ... when there is a Republican candidate in the race, to assume that a majority of black Democrats will vote for the Independent black candidate is
fallacy, especially when the white Democratic candidate is almost certain to get the endorsement of the party's first black Presidential nominee. Why these folks thought that there was a snowball's chance in hell that a majority of black folks were going to disregard the endorsement of Barack Obama is also beyond me. Further, please tell me the last time an Independent candidate won in a 3 way election in this state.
Another person I have discussed this with brought up the salient point that it makes no sense to keep pushing DINO's like Mary Landrieu and Don Cazayoux when I am for progressive policies, and they are not.
In a general election, when the choice is between a Republican, a Democrat, and an Independent candidate (who can't win), the most progressive candidate will ALWAYS be the Democrat. I don't care how smart Bill Cassidy is. He votes the way the fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party tells him. Otherwise, he wouldn't have a 100% rating from the Louisiana Family Forum. And in the United State Congress, where the Republican Party exercises a vise-like grip on their Members' votes, Mr. Cassidy will not be free to exercise his "reasonableness." He will be forced to vote the way the Republican leadership wants him to, just so he can get their support for re-election. And he has done just that in the Legislature, with respect to his votes for the Louisiana Family Forum.
Mr. Jackson's egomaniacal candidacy sent Mr. Cassidy to Washington. His shameless selling out of the working families in this district is absolutely despicable. The losers in this are not Don Cazayoux, who will be fine; nor Mr. Jackson, who will also be fine; but the black voters of Baton Rouge. They have done without adequate representation for all but 6 months of the last 15 years.
They can thank Mr. Jackson for the lack of representation for the next two.
A couple of observations ... LA-01 needs to be redrawn before we can consider it being competitive.
LA-07 ... Cravins did a great job for a first time candidate that started LATE. If he decides to run in 2010, he's got to start in January with the fundraising, and make sure he has $1 million to drop, if not more.
LA-06 ... Congratulations, Mr. Cassidy. You can thank Michael Jackson and L. Lane Grigsby for your victory. If you add Jackson and Cazayoux's total, you get 11,623 votes more than Cassidy, and I'm sure that 90% of Jackson's total would have gone to Cazayoux.
In Cassidy's most recent FEC report, Lane Grigsby, the owner of Cajun Contractors that is attempting single-handedly to unseat Rep. Don Cazayoux by supporting both Republican Bill Cassidy and Independent Michael Jackson, has, along with his wife, daughter, son-in-law, and his CFO's wife, illegally contributed $8,700 to Republican hopeful Bill Cassidy. Don't believe me ... read the law (pdf alert):
§ 441a. Limitations, contributions, and expenditures
(a) Dollar limits on contributions.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (i) and section 315A (2 U.S.C. § 441a-1), no person shall make contributions-
1(A) to any candidate and his authorized political committees with respect to any election for Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed $2,300*
I don't have a problem with several individual family members maxing out ... that's fine. If several individual family members give more than they are allowed to give, that's illegal. That's a broken law. And it is CLEAR that the Cassidy campaign and Lane Grigsby, his family and a friend have broken the law:
I knew that Republican hopeful Bill Cassidy was determined to be a Congressman, but I didn't realize that he'd be willing to break the law to do it, as federal election law states that one can only donate $2,300 per election.
It's also nice to see L. Lane Grigsby be so vigilant about following the law in this regard. After all, he's the guy pushing money towards Independent candidate Michael Jackson and Republican Bill Cassidy. There are rumors flying that L. Lane is the one paying for the Jackson billboards all over Baton Rouge, since there is no disclaimer as to who has paid for them, as required by federal election law.
I've been hearing from the liberals in the Garden District that they are voting for Republican hopeful Bill Cassidy because they think he's more socially "liberal" than the Democratic incumbent, Don Cazayoux. I make this statement since I'm told that Cassidy friend BM was overheard at a Garden District party pushing Cassidy in conversations with fellow party-goers a few weeks back (PG stands for party-goer:
BM: "You should vote for Bill Cassidy. He's the real liberal in this race."
PG: "Well, what about Cassidy's Louisiana Family Forum ratings?"
BM: "Well, I talked to him about that, and he said that he just did that to get elected."
Rumors abound that Bill has received donations from Planned Parenthood board members during his State Senate campaign, as they believed he was an ally, thanks to his position on the Medical Committee of the Baton Rouge Area Foundation, (pdf alert), which has donated a minimum of $31,250 to Planned Parenthood of Louisiana for educational purposes since 2004. I've attempted to find out exactly how much was donated to Bill, but have had no luck, presumably due to security concerns on the part of the Planned Parenthood Board.
Well, he's turned out to be some ally of Planned Parenthood ... receiving a 100% rating from the Louisiana Family Forum in BOTH legislative sessions he's served in:
Those votes include bills limiting access to abortion at any time during the pregnancy to only when the woman's life is at stake, never mind that the woman may be the victim of rape or incest; allowing creationism to be taught in public schools; repealing the progressive Stelly Tax Plan; and refusing to expand the Louisiana Government spending cap at a time when we have major, serious infrastructure needs.
Bill Cassidy ... a former ally of Planned Parenthood, who will say anything and become anyone simply to get elected. That's not the kind of change we need in Washington.
I mentioned this terrible, terrible ad from the Cassidy campaign in the past:
Well, Politico called this ad one of the year's TOP 10 Worst ads of the election cycle. While I agree, I think they could at least know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to why the ad was run:
The ad begins with Cassidy's wife pull-starting a generator - for no obvious reason - and yelling, "Okay, Bill!" Cassidy then begins an anti-earmark, drill-now spiel in the rain, under an umbrella, again with no explanation. Maybe it had something to do with Katrina. The ad - the candidate's first - has been taken down from the campaign's YouTube page. But we dug it back up.
Wow. Maybe it had something to do with Katrina? Are the people who wrote the piece at Politico that dumb? Do y'all recall a little hurricane called Gustav? If you don't, I suggest you take a look at this this post, and this one.
I've been wondering where Jackson was going to raise the necessary money to run a real campaign. The Politico's Scorecard gives us some answers:
Through his own 527 organization, Grigsby has bankrolled much of Jackson's campaign, helping him get his message out to black voters in the district.
Over half of Jackson's $58,450 in fundraising to date has come from Grigsby, his family or his associates at his construction company.
Grigsby has spent money on anti-Cazayoux mailers endorsing Jackson's campaign. The mailer features a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. on the front and attacks Cazayoux for his connections to labor groups. At first glance, the piece looks like it's from Jackson's campaign.
He also has been paying to produce yard signs for Jackson, according to a Democratic source in the district.
We've noted the numerous donations to the Jackson campaign from the Grigsby family. We have the MLK mailer, which we'll scan and put up in the morning.
Yesterday, I received a fundraising email from the Cazayoux campaign decrying the "outrageous ads" attacking Don in this election. Intrigued, I decided to investigate. Sure enough, the National Republican Campaign Committee, a group that Cassidy could publicly ask to stop running the ad, and they would likely comply, is running the following ad:
This ad is so disturbing that even Republicans I know have commented on the tone of it. And these Republicans are allies in the culture wars - pro-life, anti-gay rights, etc. Let's take a look at the claims:
The ad references HB 736, with no mention of what year, or when the vote took place. So I investigated. And I found two bills that refer to human cloning in 2005 in the Louisiana Legislature:
HB 492, introduced by Dan Morrish
HB 736, introduced by Eric LaFleur
So, according to this ad, I would have expected Don to have voted against these bills, as they both called for the prohibition of human cloning in the field of stem cell research.
OH, SNAP! Don voted in FAVOR of BOTH BILLS, which called for the prohibition of human cloning in the State of Louisiana.
But, wait ... the ad references a few newspaper/magazine articles from TIME, San Francisco Chronicle, Daily Advertiser. Might it mention Don's "support for human cloning?"
OH, SNAP! The articles are all about how some scientists found a way to clone a MONKEY embryo. Perhaps the excellent fact-checkers behind the National Republican Campaign Committee ad can tell me what that has to do with a pro-life, anti-human cloning Democratic officeholder by the name of Don Cazayoux?
They can't ... and you know why?
Don Cazayoux voted in FAVOR of PROHIBITING HUMAN CLONING in the State of Louisiana EVERY TIME he voted on the issue in the Louisiana State Legislature!
But, wait ... the ad does reference some Louisiana Family Forum propoganda. Let's check out where that came from:
See the asterisks next to all of Don's "answers"? If you read the NOTE at the bottom of the chart, it states:
Democratic candidate Don Cazayoux .... chose not to respond to LFF's Questionnaire. Responses for Don Cazayoux were taken from the candidate's federal party platform.
Hmmm ... despite Don's lengthy record on these issues in the Louisiana State Legislature, the LFF couldn't be bothered to tell the voters of Louisiana the truth. Instead, they resort to subterfuge and use the Democratic Party Platform to fill in Don's answers.
Hmmm ... here's the platform, folks (pdf alert). I could not find the term "human cloning" in this document at all. Perhaps you can.
So, let's recap: Don voted to prohibit human cloning in the Louisiana Legislature both times he faced the issue. The newspaper/magazine articles talk about how scientists were able to clone monkey embryos, not human embryos. The Louisiana Family Forum is LYING when it comes to Don's position on human cloning, linking to a document that doesn't even mention the issue.
When is Bill Cassidy going to condemn this blatant lie? When will he tell the NRCC to stop lying to the voters of LA-06? Hmmm ... I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, considering that all the Cassidy campaign has done with its' own negative ads attacking Don Cazayoux is LIE.
If you're fed up with the Cassidy/Republican lies, donate to Don so he can fight back with a ground game during the final weekend of the race and turn out the Democratic vote.
Washington Mardi Gras is being held this week, so the folks behind the 
