Senator Landrieu announced today her recommendations for three posts in the federal government that are located right here in Louisiana: the United States Attorney for the Middle District, a United States District Court Judge, and the United States Marshal for the Middle District. Her choices are:
Don Cazayoux for United States Attorney
Y'all know Don if you've been a regular reader of this site. In terms of his qualifications to be a United States Attorney, Don received his bachelor's and Master's degrees from LSU prior to earning his J.D. from Georgetown University. He originally began working in private practice in Baton Rouge, before going home to Pointe Coupee to work as an Assistant District Attorney, never losing a jury trial.
From there, he ran for the State House of Representatives, serving for 8 years, prior to winning election to Congress last spring.
Brian Jackson for U.S. District Court Judge
From 1994 to 2002, Mr. Jackson was the First Assistant United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana, where he managed or litigated a variety of civil and criminal cases. Because of his leadership, he was selected in 2001 to be the interim U.S. Attorney for the Middle District pending the confirmation of then-President Bush's nominee.
Since 2002, Brian Jackson has been a partner in the law firm of Liskow & Lewis, where he heads the firm's government investigations and white collar crime groups. In terms of his academic qualifications, he graduated from Xavier University of Louisiana and Southern University School of Law where he served as editor-in-chief of the Southern University Law Review. He also received an LL.M. from Georgetown University in international and comparative law.
Kevin Harrison for United States Marshal
Since receiving his bachelor's degree from Nicholls State University, Mr. Harrison has worked his way up the ranks of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Since 2005, he has been the Assistant Agent in Charge of the DEA's operations in 51 of Louisiana's parishes (there are 64). New Orleans.
The recommendation of Mr. Cazayoux all but confirms he will not be the Democratic candidate against Bill Cassidy next fall, barring unforeseen circumstances.
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?
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.
Last week, I brought this ad on Craigslist to your attention. But there is much, much more happening in regards to 2010:
Two commentators have dropped Don Cazayoux's name as a candidate for the Senate in 2010, here and here. This may be why the Business Report reported today that Senator Landrieu is among those pushing to have Cazayoux named as the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana.
According to well-placed sources, one on the Republican side of the aisle, and another on the Democratic side of the aisle, Congressman Rodney Alexander is considering running for the Senate in 2010. And these sources tell me he's not made up his mind entirely as to which party he'd make the run in! I can't see Alexander being welcomed with open arms in the Democratic primary, so my guess is he's stuck in the GOP.
It's an open secret within Democratic politics that Shaw Chairman Jim Bernhard is seriously considering running for the Senate. What folks don't know is that some of the big money donors in Louisiana Democratic politics, like Sarah Palin donor Calvin Fayard, are attempting to clear the field for Mr. Bernhard. Whether they are successful is another matter, as rumors abound that the Landrieu camp is trying to entice a Central or Northern Louisiana Democrat into the race.
Sinator Vitter is still attempting to shore up his biggest weakness - North Louisiana - by calling into Tom Pace's "Talk of the Town" radio show tomorrow on Shreveport's KRMD-AM 1340. You can listen in here.
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.
I write today with mixed feelings about this campaign season. While I am elated that this nation has seen fit to send Barack Obama to the White House, I am not surprised that Louisiana did not put her 9 Electoral Votes in Mr. Obama's column. I am however, looking into buying a "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Obama" bumper sticker for my car when I go out of state in it.
I am elated that Senator Mary Landrieu won her campaign relatively easily. Did you notice that you can drop Orleans Parish from the totals, and she STILL would have won? This means that no Democrat running a state-wide campaign from here on out should even think about not running a state-wide field operation. That field operation, which contacted many Democrats for the first time in years(!), gave Senator Landrieu her impressive margin.
I am not surprised that Jim Harlan lost in LA-01. It's unfortunate, but the results of this election show that there is much, much, much more work to be done. I don't anticipate seeing a Democrat elected in that district for some time to come.
I am incredibly upset about the result in LA-06. I'll have more to write on this one later, but suffice it to say that I hope someone out there sees fit to give Mr. Cassidy hell for the next two years by starting a blog marking his every move for the next two years, to make it a little easier for any Democrat that decides to run against Mr. Cassidy in two years in terms of opposition research. Here's one such example of a fine blog tracking a Republican Member of Congress.
I am disappointed in the result in LA-07. But I am optimistic about State Senator Don Cravins, Jr. I think he has a future in the Democratic Party of this state since he's only 38, and the fact that he started the campaign LATE. Hopefully, if he decides to run again, he'll start the fundraising process in January, and continue to meet with voters throughout the 7th District during the two years.
One of the things that stands out to me about this election season is that the candidates that tried to out-Republican the real Republicans in their races LOST. Mr. Harlan, Mr. Cazayoux, Mr. Cravins, Jr ... all ran ads emphasizing their pro-life, pro-gun views. That's all good and fine ONCE.
In LA-01, all of Mr. Harlan's ads mentioned that he was pro-life and pro-gun.
In LA-06, quite a few of Mr. Cazayoux's ads mentioned his conservative views. This is NOT a completely conservative district. Yes, the voters are culturally conservative, but they will vote for a pro-union Democrat. A majority of them did on Tuesday.
In LA-07, Mr. Cravins ran four ads - 2 focusing on him ... one on his conservative views, and the other on how he's a church-going man.
The Republican playbook is to smear Democrats on the cultural issues. There is nothing we can do about that. They're going to do it even when it is obvious that the Democratic candidate has the same views on the cultural issues as the Republican does! Focus on why you're a Democrat. Remind people that there are other issues to consider ... like the economy, health care, the environment, and on and on. And do it not only on the stump, where few voters see you, but also on television.
The results in our congressional elections affirm Howard Dean's message of 2004: If voters are given a choice between a Republican and Republican-lite, they'll choose the real Republican every single time.
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 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.
Cazayoux finally broke down the amounts raised and spent for this election on its own, which is why the numbers are so different from the last fundraising report I put up. He's still raised more than Cassidy, although Cassidy has a cash on hand advantage.
I'm not sure that's gonna matter, because Cazayoux spent all that money early on re-introducing himself to the district before the Republican smear machine got going. It's paid off so far, with Cazayoux leading by 16% or 17% depending on which poll you believe. If the Cassidy people think it's closer, then I dare them to release their polling.
Michael Jackson has no coin. At least not enough to win. So you know he's going for the spoiler role here. What I wanna know is who is paying for all those billboards in the area. Since they DO NOT contain the "Paid for by" disclaimer required by FEDERAL LAW, we don't know.
The DCCC released a poll today, which was conducted by Bennett, Petts & Normington on October 8th and 9th of 400 registered voters with a 4.9% margin of error:
Candidate
Poll % (September/July #'s)
Bill Cassidy (R)
29% (32%/36%)
Don Cazayoux (D)
46% (48%/43%)
Michael Jackson (I)
9% (9%/13%)
With two polls showing a double digit lead for Rep. Don Cazayoux, it's looking good. Add to the news that Cassidy admits to socialism for the wealthy, it's looking better.
But, anything can happen in three weeks. I don't think any of us wanna wake up on November 5th thinking we should have done more. Leave it all on the field ... donate or volunteer!
Don's statement after voting against the Senate version of the bailout makes the distinction quite clear:
"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."
I guess Cassidy believes in socialism for the wealthy, but not for the rest of us.
But what interested me is that they took that "Rain" ad down from their YouTube page. Fortunately, I save all ads that I watch, so, in the interest of being upfront, here's the ad:
A friend of mine recently commented to me that he was ecstatic about Bill Cassidy's fundraising prowess. I knew that Cassidy has been helped by national Republicans, such as the Vice-President, but that friend was saying, nah, Cassidy has raised $2 million according to The Advocate:
Cassidy picked up contributions from fellow physicians, business executives and GOP political action committees, having collected $2.1 million, which also includes the money he raised for May's special election.
Read that sentence twice, especially ... "which also includes the money he raised for May's special election." Ummm, I'm not sure where the hell the Advocate was in May, but Cassidy didn't run then. That would the current Congressman from this district - Don Cazayoux.
I wonder if this poor journalism, as that Republican friend insisted. I'm not sure ... I think it's the Republican bias of The Advocate shining through. What say y'all?
Can YOU raise more money than Dick Cheney? Can you help stand up for Don Cazayoux? Don stood with us on the bailout, voting NAY both times the House voted, on MondayandFriday.
Can YOU raise more money than Dick Cheney? Can you stand up for Don, who voted to increase our investment in alternative energy sources? Can you stand up for a Congressman that gets it, rather than one who believes that running against earmarks will save the economy?
I knew when I saw that Cassidy was sitting on a large war chest that the attack ads that contain outright fabrications or overly simplistic explanations would start coming out. And not even 48 hours later:
Hmmm ... let's go over these claims:
Cassidy campaigns as if earmarks are the biggest problem in Washington these days. Earmarks are the source of much of the money that is currently spent by the federal government to rebuild our state in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike, Mr. Cassidy. You really want to do away with them?
I'm not going to address the gas taxes Don may or may not have voted in the Louisiana Legislature, mainly because they offer no evidence for these claims other other Louisiana Legislative Journals 2000-2007. I don't have the time to go through SEVEN years of the Legislative Journals with a fine-tooth comb. My guess is that the Cassidy people didn't either, and just threw that up there.
That $13.6 billion in new gas taxes charge? The roll call cited is the wrong vote! The ad cites Roll Call 454, which was a Motion to Recommit the Bill with Instructions.
The actual vote they wanted to cite - Roll Call 455 - extended the Alternative Minimum Tax patch to ensure that middle-class taxpayers didn't get caught by the AMT, which would have raised their tax liability significantly. It paid for the loss of the revenue by limiting the deductions taken by oil and gas interests, which have been doing quite well the last few years, which means, Mr. Cassidy, it ain't a tax. Nice try, though. Also, I don't think the middle-class families of Louisiana will have a problem with that vote.
The charge that Don doesn't support alternative energy? Again, they get the Roll Call Vote # WRONG, as well as the Bill #. Can the Cassidy campaign even shoot straight?
Hey Cassidy campaign ... the roll call vote you're looking for is 599, and the bill # is H.R. 6899. Now, Don did vote against that bill, so let me allow Don to explain from a press release sent out the day after the vote:
"Last night, I voted against H.R. 6899 because it did not contain revenue sharing provisions for states if they opt in to open up their waters for drilling. While this bill is a step in the right direction because it includes offshore drilling in its approach, Louisiana fought long and hard for revenue sharing and these provisions are important for encouraging other states to opt in to open up more areas for drilling."
"However, I was proud to vote for the Peterson-Abercrombie bill as a better alternative. The bill expands offshore drilling, provides states which choose to drill offshore with revenue sharing, and increases the use of alternative energy. Though the bill ultimately failed, its bi-partisan approach and its similarities to H.R. 6899 give me hope that Congress will be able to work together and pass a comprehensive energy policy that sets America on the road to energy independence."
The Advocate reports that Vice-President Dick Cheney will be leaving his unidentified bunker to raise money at fundraisers for Republican candidates Steve Scalise and Bill Cassidy on Monday.
Cheney's first stop will be in Metairie to help out at a Scalise fundraiser. The Scalise campaign that continues to insist it's not a close race. Then why do they have Vice-President Dick Cheney coming in to raise some money for them?
"His comments are going to be on behalf of our campaign," Cassidy said. "It is not a public event."
If you're running for Congress, don't we deserve to know who you're associating with, and what folks speaking on your campaign's behalf are saying?
Now, since Cheney has been one of the most secretive Vice Presidents we've ever had, one would normally assume that he wanted the events closed to the public. Apparently, that's not the case:
"Cheney will be speaking at both events, but they are closed to the media and public at the request of the campaigns," [Cheney spokeswomen Megan] Mitchell said.
Guess they don't want to see pictures of Cheney and them plastered all over the news.
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."
