Yesterday saw the close of the qualifying period for a slew of races.These races include the replacement of Mitch Landrieu as our Lt. Governor and all of the Federal races – each congressional district as well as the Vitter Senate seat.(This column is about the Federal Races, the State races will follow.)
There has been so much action it is almost enough to make this political junkies head spin right off my neck, but let’s take a look at the more notable races.
USSenate
David Vitter has had his share of problems and now it seems as if he has more than his far share of challengers.First – let’s look at the Republican Primary – yes, - exciting – there will be one!
Two Republican Challengers will be facing off with the embattled senator and they are former Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor and little known Nick Accardo of Franklin.Traylor is definitely the surprise here in this race and could really give Vitter a run for his money.Lacking no far right bonafides, Traylor enters the race as a “country lawyer” with strong support from north Louisiana and in the business community.Traylor is arguably most famous for writing the opinion of Louisiana’s highest court that retained Louisiana’s Anti Sodomy Laws that are still on the books here in our state (albeit completely unenforceable after Lawrence v. Texas).For more on this check out what they are saying on TPM.
Congressman Lord Boustany stated in his Republican response tonight:
"We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care."
Well, there's a smidgen of truth in that ... for medical providers. Texas passed medical tort liability reform back in 2003, and the insurance premiums for Texas medical providers have decreased, at least for those associated with the Texas Medical Liability Trust:
"TMLT has now reduced rates for Texas physicians six consecutive years since the passage of House Bill 4 and Proposition 12 in 2003," said Bob Fields, president and CEO of TMLT. For the first five years, rates were reduced across the board for all specialties: 12% in 2004; 5% in 2005; 5% in 2006; 7.5% in 2007; 6.5% in 2008. For 2009, all specialties will receive a rate decrease but the reduction will vary by specialty and territory with an average decrease of 4.7%. According to Fields, the cumulative premium savings realized by policyholders will exceed $275 million since January 2004.
Hmmmm ... no wonder Congressman Lord Boustany likes medical liability reform. After all, he was sued for medical malpractice himself three times. But the proponents of medical liability reform are missing the point of health care reform ... health care reform is to lower the costs of medical care for patients, not the malpractice insurance costs for medical providers.
Then again, no wonder the Republicans are pushing this classic bait-and-switch ... as the Republicans traditionally raise more money from health professionals than do the Democrats, although that has changed with the ascendance of the Democratic Party, and the shameless fundraising prowess of the Blue Dogs over the last few years.
Congressman Lord Boustany stated in his Republican response tonight:
"Replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer."
Ya know, I almost feel bad for you, my Lord. Your ideological brain wrap is severely limiting your critical thinking skills. The public option would be a non-profit, unsubsidized (that means the federal government will NOT be covering its costs) insurance program that will directly compete with insurance companies game enough to compete for money of tens of millions of Americans who don't have health insurance through their job.
For the folks that have private health insurance, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, or TriCare, they will not have this option. Why? Because they'll already have health insurance. They won't need to sign up for the public health insurance program.
Congressman Lord Boustany stated in his Republican response tonight that:
"...Republicans are ready, and we've been ready to work with the President for common sense reforms ..."
Really, Congressman Lord Boustany? Then why, pray tell, did your own party lie about a bill that you co-sponsored that would have required Medicare to reimburse patients for the cost of taking care of their end-of-life wishes. You know, the so-called "death panels" that the Republicans have been scaring people about.
Lord Boustany gave the Republican response this evening to President Obama's Address to the Nation on health care reform. Unfortunately, he couldn't help but lie repeatedly in his speech. Hell, the first lie came when he introduced himself to the nation by stating:
I'm also a heart surgeon, with over 20 years' experience ... "
Unless you've been in a cave over the last few days, you know that President Obama will giving a speech on health care reform in less than 10 minutes.
But what you may not know is that Congressman Charles Boustany (R, LA-07)has been picked to give the Republican response to the President's speech. You'd think they'd steer clear of Louisiana Republicans after Governor PBJ's stupendously bad response back in February. But no ... they picked the talented Mr. Boustany.
Here's some background on him:
CongressmanLord Boustany not only tried to buy an English Title of Nobility so he could hang with the Queen Mum ...
but he's also a birther ... ya know, those crazy right wing nuts that are somehow convinced that President Obama is a foreign agent intent on destroying the American way of life. Here's the proof that Boustany's one of 'em:
Lord Boustany is the third Congressman in, at the 0.27 mark:
BOUSTANY: Well, it's certainly being looked at.
STARK: What do you personally believe, I mean -- do you think there's a question here?
BOUSTANY: I think there are questions, we'll have to see.
And if that's not enough to make your head spin about the talented Lord Boustany ...
He's an original co-sponsor of the "death panels" that has lots of folks in Louisiana up in arms. I mean, a Republican doctor in favor of the death panels that'll pull the plug on Grandma?
And he's giving the Republican rebuttal speech to Obama? Stay tuned for analysis after the rebuttal.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Last week, Congressman Steny Hoyer, the Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives came to Louisiana to attend a fundraiser for Don Cravins, Jr., who is running for Congress from LA-07.
Another fellow blogger at the Daily Advertiser, the local paper of Lafayette, was at the event, and had this to say:
[Rep. Hoyer] shared with us, a rather impressive group of folks assembled at the Petroleum Club, that he came to Louisiana and specifically to this district because he knows how terribly under-represented we have been by our current Congressman, Dr. Charles Boustany.
In the room was former Congressman Chris John throwing his support behind Don Cravins - and Steny Hoyer made a point of stating that while he worked with Chris for all those years, he often saw Chris at opposite sides of issues. Chris represented this district, just as Don will. Congressman Hoyer spoke to the lack luster performance of our current congressman, and then gave a ringing endorsement of Don Cravins, Jr.
He said he is making this endorsement knowing that, much like with Chris John, he would be on opposite sides on some issues, but he knows that Don will represent this district well, and always be sure to represent the DISTRICT.
There FIVE days left. Leave it all on the field. Volunteer. Donate.
Believe me folks, I've been on the losing end of a campaign where we lost by 3,700 votes, and on the winning end of a campaign where we won by 2,100 votes. Winning is SO MUCH BETTER.
Your vote matters. The vote of your family and friends matter. The votes of your neighbors matter.
You don't want to wake up the morning after the election wondering what more YOU could have done. LEAVE IT ALL ON THE FIELD.
Traditionally, the way Democratic candidates have won in LA-07 is that they are from the Lafayette portion of the district, so they can keep it close there, and then they run up the score in Lake Charles, which is a union-friendly town.
Well, Lord Boustany knows this, which is why he's limiting his appearances with Don Cravins, Jr. to the Lafayette portion of the district. The Lord of Lafayette knows that if he appears in a televised debate with Cravins in Lake Charles, the race gets a little too close for his comfort.
It's also why Don Cravins challenged Lord Boustany to a televised debate in Lake Charles the other night at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette debate:
"The people of the western part of the district deserve to hear from the candidates. Peter Vidrine and I have agreed to attend, but Charles Boustany has not. If he doesn't think that people still hurting from Hurricanes Ike, Gustav and Rita don't deserve a true debate than he is horribly mistaken. It would be disrespectful of him not to attend."
Lord Boustany is laughing these days, thinking that his cash advantage will ensure his re-election. That may happen, but I wouldn't be so comfortable if I were him for a couple of reasons:
1. He flip-flopped on the $700 Billion Bailout Fiasco, which was supposed to save our economy. Apparently, it's not working, as the Dow slipped below 10,000 for the first time since 2004. On Monday, Boustany voted Nay. Monday's bill was a straight-up bill, with no earmarks in it at all. On Friday, however, Lord Boustany voted Yea. Friday's bill is laden with earmarks. This one made me scratch my head because I thought Rep. Boustany was against earmarks ... apparently, he's flip-flopped on earmarks too.
2. In a poll commissioned by the Louisiana Democratic Party, and conducted by the Zata 3 polling firm between September 19 to September 23 of 450 random voters, with a 4.6 margin of error, Boustany actually trails Cravins by 1 point amongst informed voters - 37 to 36 percent.
This is good news, but the informed voters thing threw me for a loop. I'm not a pollster, so I didn't understand what it meant. Essentially, an informed voter is given both positive and negative information about both candidates running, and then asked whom they were more likely to vote for.
So ... what that means is that the Cravins campaign has their work cut out for them, as it is apparent that they need to ensure that the voters in LA-07 are aware of the problems that the Lord of Lafayette has.
If you're a concerned Louisianan, and want to see effective representation in Congress ... representation that will fight to get the money needed to rebuild after Hurricanes Rita, Gustav and Ike; representation that will fight for universal access to quality, affordable health care; representation that will always listen to the people before the lobbyists; then y'all need to call one of the following numbers:
Lafayette Office: (337) 233-8777 Lake Charles Office: (337) 315-6625
and tell them y'all want to volunteer. That's the Cravins' campaign office phone #'s, and they'll be more than happy to put y'all to work!
A tax break for rum produced in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands may trigger a hangover for proponents of Congress' huge bailout bill after the U.S. Senate tacked on tax reductions for the islands' liquor.
In its current form, the estimated cost of the U.S. Caribbean rum tax proposal, which provides payment to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for rum imported into the mainland, is US$192 million over 10 years.
Normally, this tax break would be extended with little fanfare, but the Senate screwed the pooch on this one, y'all. Something tells me that we're going to be revisiting this mess under the next Administration come January.
Anyhow, here's the breakdown of the Louisiana delegation in the House vote:
Ayes:
LA-03: Charlie Melancon (D)
LA-04: Jim McCrery (R)
LA-05: Rodney Alexander (R)
LA-07: Charles Boustany (R)
Nays:
LA-01: Steve Scalise (R)
LA-02: Bill Jefferson (D)
LA-06: Don Cazayoux (D)
Steve's in the fight of his life in LA-01; and so is Bill over in LA-02; and Don is facing a tough re-election battle against Bill Cassidy. Still, Don sent out this statement about his vote: (emphasis added)
""Today, I cast my vote against Senate version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. This was decidedly one of the toughest votes I have taken during my career in elected office, but I am confident that I cast the right vote. It is my firm belief that giving Wall Street $700 billion in taxpayer money is not the right way to solve the fundamental challenges facing our economy and financial markets. I was hopeful that the new compromise bill would have a smaller pricetag with less taxpayer liability, but it did not."
... the reason earmarks aren't a critical problem is that they are a tiny percentage of total federal spending.
For instance, estimates from watchdog groups of total earmark spending in fiscal 2008 range from $16-18 billion. Current estimated outlays for the federal government in fiscal 2008 are $2.9 trillion (PDF alert). That's less than one percent.
To put it another way, the current projected deficit is roughly $400 billion. Even if John McCain got rid of every earmark (an impossible task), it would only make a small contribution to deficit reduction. (See Factcheck.org's takedown of McCain's exaggerated claims of how much it can save by reducing earmarks.)
Now, LA-07, as we all know, got hammered by Hurricane Rita on September 24, 2005. Cameron took a pretty big hit. And Lord Boustany's disdain for earmarks is the height of irresponsible representation ... as I'm sure that there was an earmark for building a floodwall, or raising the levees or rebuilding the coastline out in Southwest Louisiana that you could have requested to help prevent Cameron from getting flooded for the second time in less than three years by a hurricane that wasn't even a direct hit:
I was struck by the following in that Advocate article linked to just above:
Clifton Hebert, director of the Cameron Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness, offered a grim report of damage to his area with a lot of home damage from flooding. This included homes that had been moved, twisted and hollowed out.
"It's going to be really tough. It's pretty much done in a lot of people," he said. "Three years later they were just beginning to recuperate and they lose everything again."
"We had 6,500 homes and businesses damaged and 1,700 severely damaged for Rita," said Rebecca Broussard, director of the Vermilion Parish Office of Emergency Preparedness. "This time, it will depend on the houses that were elevated after Rita. A lot of them were waiting on housing mitigation loans, now three years later."
Three years to get housing mitigation loans? Three YEARS?! With all those "Making Congress Work Outreach Sessions" your staff had all over the district last year, I'm sure someone told you that they were having a hard time getting loans to raise their homes above flood level.
(Promoted ... and added some comments of my own in bold. - promoted by ryan)
The DCCC has put this on the Red 2 Blue list. So national money will pour into this district. Lord Boustany will have a hard time keeping up with money being dumped into media buys. I see a BLUE November.
DCCC Press:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced today the next round of candidates who earned a spot in the DCCC's highly competitive Red to Blue program. These six candidates qualified for the fourth round of the Red to Blue program by surpassing demanding fundraising goals and skillfully demonstrating to voters that they stand for change and will represent new priorities when elected to Congress.
"The candidates for change being named to the DCCC Red to Blue program are running solid campaigns and are committed to making things easier for middle class families in their districts," said Chris Van Hollen, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "With less than 100 days to make their case for change to voters in their districts, the Red to Blue program will give these candidates the financial and structural edge to be even more competitive in November."
Chairman Van Hollen joined Red to Blue co-chairs Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Artur Davis (D-AL), and Bruce Braley (D-IA) to announce six candidates who qualified for the Red to Blue program:
(LA-07) Don Cravins, Jr.
(NV-02) Jill Derby
(OH-02) Vic Wulsin
(PA-03) Kathy Dahlkemper
(VA-05) Tom Perriello
(VA-10) Judy Feder
Reflecting Democrats' expanding playing field this cycle, there are now 44 candidates on the Red to Blue program. The Red to Blue program highlights top Democratic campaigns across the country and offers them financial, communications, and strategic support. The program will introduce Democratic supporters to new, competitive candidates in order to help expand the fundraising base for these campaigns. A complete list of Red to Blue candidates is available on the DCCC website at: www.dccc.org/page/content/redtoblue/.
Red to Blue was a proven success in the 2006 cycle. In 2006, the Red to Blue program raised nearly $22.6 million for 56 campaigns with an average of $404,000 per campaign. Red to Blue was also responsible for solidifying the structure of dozens of campaigns and making a real difference for Democrats across America.
This is incredible news for the Cravins campaign. I fully expected them to be on the Emerging Races list, and they are, but to have three targeted races - Carmouche in the 4th, Cazayoux in the 6th, and now Cravins in the 7th - in little ol Louisiana? That's impressive.
It says a LOT about the strength of the candidates in Louisiana that the DCCC is betting quite heavily in our state. The question is ... can the candidates and their campaigns deliver?
Only time will tell us that. But there is one thing you can do to help out ... talk to your frienda and neighbors about the election, register them if they are not registered, VOLUNTEER, and most importantly, VOTE. I'll have a post up in the next few days about volunteer opportunities in LA-01, LA-02, LA-04, LA-06, and LA-07.
Last week, Congressman Steny Hoyer, the Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives came to Louisiana to attend a fundraiser for 
Traditionally, the way Democratic candidates have won in LA-07 is that they are from the Lafayette portion of the district, so they can keep it close there, and then they run up the score in Lake Charles, which is a union-friendly town.
