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.
Last year, Republican candidate Dr. John Fleming campaigned on his medical credentials, often telling his audiences that when he got elected, he'd introduce a health care reform bill to Congress for its consideration. Don't believe me? Check out his campaign website:
If you can't read that second to last paragraph, it states:
When elected, I will submit to Congress a plan that includes the option for private insurance for all Americans that includes portability, large risk pools, health savings accounts, competition between providers to control costs and reforms that allow patients to become wise consumers.
Well, you've had more than 9 months now, Congressman. Where's that bill?
"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.
[UPDATE] It appears that they've photoshopped out the State Flag of Oklahoma. They really couldn't find a a similar picture of the Stars and Stripes flying above the Louisiana state flag?
Not that I have anything about the great state of Oklahoma, but it is very curious that Louisiana Congressman John Fleming would choose to put a graphic up on his Congressional website that shows Oklahoma's state flag flying right beneath the Stars and Stripes.
If you take a look at the flag graphic right next to the Fort Polk graphic, take a look at the flag flying beneath the US Flag. Doesn't it look suspiciously like the State Flag of Oklahoma:
I don't think it's too much to ask that a Congressman from Louisiana honor the state flag of the state he actually represents in Congress on his website, do you?
During last year's qualifying period, candidate John Fleming had this to say: (scroll to the bottom)
"I believe it is critical to elect a congressman who will live in the District, as I will, as an actual resident and not just a legal resident so voters have a chance to see and speak directly with their congressman."
Today, The Hill reported that Congressman John Fleming recently bought a $825,000 house on Capitol Hill ... and wait for it ... is receiving the DC homestead exemption for the property:
Why is receiving the homestead exemption significant? Because one must declare that it is their primary residence in order to receive it.
Now it's possible that the DC taxing authorities have screwed up ... but we shall see. Until then, Mr. Fleming may just have gone DC on us.
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.
For the first time in over two decades, there was a competitive general election for this Congressional seat, thanks to the retirement of out-going Republican Rep. Jim McCrery. The Democratic candidate in this race, Paul Carmouche, traded on the goodwill his service in Caddo Parish as their District Attorney for the past three decades to make it a competitive race.
One of the smart things done by his campaign was to highlight his law and order credentials, and remind folks that he's been the District Attorney for most of their lives. Not a week went by during his campaign that my inbox did not have an email announcing an endorsement from one of Louisiana's District Attorneys or Sheriffs.
However, it baffles me that so many Louisiana Democrats feel the need to run a "Republican-lite" campaign. If voters are given a choice between a Republican-lite candidate and a Republican, they'll choose the Republican every single time. Yet, Mr. Carmouche felt the need to run such a campaign.
Most of the literature, as well as two of the three ads from his campaign that I know of, have some variation of "Louisiana values" mentioned, usually pro-life and pro-gun. Those are fine values to hold. But when you're running as a Democrat, even here in Louisiana, you want to ensure that Democrats get out and vote.
Most Democrats I know in this state want to hear about how you're going to help bridge the ever-increasing income gap between the rich and the rest of us. They want to hear about your ideas to keep their children in Louisiana once they finish high school and/or college. They want to hear about your ideas to improve education.
I have no doubt that Mr. Carmouche told voters these things in person. But he can only meet so many voters. These things NEED to be mentioned on the air, whether it's radio or television. These things need to be mentioned in mailers to voters. And I didn't see that.
But what really galls me about this race is a mailer sent out before the general election:
Take a look at the upper right corner ... pro-family = traditonal marriage? Seriously?!
What really bothers me, and many others, is why the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC) allowed their mail permit to be used for this mailer. After the palm card debacle in 2004 that didn't include State Senator Don Cravins Sr's name, which led to the black community largely staying home in the December run-off between State Senator Willie Landry Mount and eventual winner Charles Boustany, one would think that the DSCC would be much, much more careful as to what they were paying for, or what their name was going on. Apparently not.
Gay marriage was NOT an issue in this campaign. And yet, for some reason, it's in the mailer sent out on behalf of the Carmouche campaign. When contacted by LGBT groups in Louisiana and Shreveport about the mailer, Mr. Carmouche refused to meet with them, or even return their phone calls.
Why I am making such a big deal out of this? Well, for one, who cares if two men or two women choose to spend their lives together? And if they do, they deserve the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy ... like inheriting Social Security payments, visiting their loved one in the hospital, and some 1300 other rights that are automatically granted to heterosexual couples once they say "I do." They deserve it not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because the Constitution states that all are equal in the eyes of the law. Gay couples sure ain't equal to heterosexual couples under the laws of this nation.
On top of that, when in the world did being in favor of marriage between a man and a woman equal being "pro-family?" Families come in many forms ... some by blood, and some by choice. I know people who consider their friends to be more of a family to them than their blood relations. And while I'm on the topic, what is so pro-family about disowning a child because they are gay?
Back to the election in LA-04, there's an LGBT group called PACE up in Shreveport. They have over 200+ members. And I'm certain that there are more LGBT folks than that in LA-04. After they got that mailer, do you think they were enthusiastic about voting for Mr. Carmouche? I think not.
But even more galling is the fact that Mr. Carmouche refused to meet with LGBT groups that asked for a meeting, and even refused to return phone calls to them! How much time does a phone call take? A simple phone call could have won this election for Mr. Carmouche. What makes me say that?
"Of more than 92,000 votes cast throughout the 13 parishes of this district, it appears that our campaign has fallen slightly short. I will not ask for a recount of any of the paper ballots, and I offer my warmest congratulations to Dr. Fleming.
"Over the past 10 months, I enjoyed getting out every day and
listening to and talking to the people of this area. It has been the highest honor to serve as the Caddo Parish District Attorney for the past three decades and I look forward to exploring ways in which I may be of continued service to this great community.
I'll have a post-mortem on this race in a bit. It'll be explosive, I can promise you that.
Congratulations to Mr. Fleming ... hopefully, he won't marginalize himself by introducing his insane 23% sales tax idea as a bill in Congress.
Despite being down by 356 votes after Saturday's electronic voting, Democratic candidate Paul Carmouche has not conceded the election. He told Shreveport's KTBS Saturday night:
Carmouche said he wants to see what happens when voting machines are rechecked on Tuesday. He said he also wanted to make sure that all provisional ballots -- paper ballots cast when there is a problem at a polling place -- have been counted.
So, keep your powder dry folks ... this thing ain't over yet.
One more point ... there is a discrepancy between the text-based site and the flash-based site, both run by the Secretary of State's office, in terms of the % of the precincts reporting. The text-based site is reporting 100% as of 11:21 PM CST, but the flash-based site is only reporting 95% as of 11:22 PM CST. Which is it, Mr. Secretary?
Although the Secretary of State is reporting that Fleming (R) has 356 more votes tonight in the unofficial tallies of electronic and absentee voting. Might it be provisional ballots? What's causing the AP to hold back?
Aight, we've got 640 precincts in this district ... it's a large district, roughly the size of the entire state of Rhode Island, methinks. With 640 of 640 precincts in:
Candidate
Votes
% of Vote
Paul Carmouche (D)
44,141
47.69%
John Fleming (R)
44,497
48.07%
It's down to Bossier Parish, y'all ... a traditionally GOP parish. Folks, this one is gonna get REALLY REALLY REALLY close. All precincts in save for 37 from Bossier Parish.
The numbers are not going to add up to 100% because there are two minor party candidates that will only take roughly 3-4% of the vote at the most. My guess is they'll combine for 2% when it's all in.
UPDATE: Just got an email reminding me that the DCCC virtual phonebank is still up and running. The polls below show that it's anybody's game. Every single vote will count, and if you don't believe it, just ask Al Franken in Minnesota. If you have 15 minutes, you can do this ... just click here for the DCCC virtual phonebank.
The citizens of LA-04 are voting in the last truly contested election of the 2008 election cycle. The polls of this race have been all over the map: (hat tip to swingstateproject for the polls)
The Kitchens Group (11/18-19, likely voters, 11/6-7 in parens):
Paul Carmouche (D): 48 (45)
John Fleming (R): 37 (35)
Undecided: 13 (16)
(MoE: ±4.0%)
SurveyUSA for Roll Call (11/17-18, likely voters):
Paul Carmouche (D): 45
John Fleming (R): 47
(MoE: ±3.9%)
Public Opinion Strategies for John Fleming (11/17-18, likely voters):
Paul Carmouche (D): 42
John Fleming (R): 43
(MoE: ±4.9%)
That's Paul Carmouche on the right giving an interview to a lonely (and cold) cameraman from one of Shreveport's local news channels.
This race is going to hinge on the turnout. The DCCC has been active ... sending folks to the district, and utilizing their volunteer base to remind folks to vote. President-elect Obama has been less involved, cutting a radio ad to remind folks to vote, but his campaign team did send out two or three emails for funds and volunteers.
Turnout, according to various sources, has been "leisurely." I'm guessing that means it's not nearly as high as the turnout on Election Day. Check back here tonight for the live-blogging of the results, as the SoS website has a tendency to crash under the weight of interested partisans wanting to know what's happening.
This morning, the jobless report came out from the Department of Labor ... businesses have shed 533,000 jobs in the last month. It's the worst one month loss of jobs in 35 years. For the entire year, it's one million nine hundred and sixty-three thousand jobs lost. 1,963,000.
Here's Democratic candidate Paul Carmouche's response to the numbers:
"Today we learned that the monthly jobless numbers are the worst in 35 years. The unemployment rate jumped to 6.5 percent and our economy lost 533,000 jobs. We did not need these numbers to confirm what we already know: Main Street is hurting badly. In Congress, my number one priority will be to do what's right to get our economy moving again, to ensure that we bring good jobs to the area, and to protect your taxpayer dollars.
What's Fleming's proposal - cut taxes even more? What good will that do for folks not working? Put Social Security in the stock market? Yeah, I really like the idea of rewarding the Wall Street with the money in our safety net ... when they've already brought us to the brink of the Great Depression 2.0.
It's going to take a massive infrastructure spending program to get our nation back up and running again ... something along the lines of FDR's WPA program. And John Fleming won't be there to help out ... he'll align himself with the neo-Hooverites in the GOP who see their salvation in the ruin of the Obama Administration.
We need Carmouche. And you can help remind folks to vote through the DCCC's virtual phonebank. It's easy, and you have to sign up, but after that, it's a breeze. And 30 minutes of phone calls will go a LONG way to ensuring a victory on Saturday night.
President-elect Obama has been busy putting together his Cabinet over the last few weeks. But he still found the time to cut a radio ad and an automated call for Democratic candidate Paul Carmouche. The ad went up today, and the calls will likely go out in the next few days, in advance of Saturday's election.
Here's the text of the radio ad:
This is Barack Obama.
Together we made history, but there is still one more important election in Louisiana on Saturday, December 6th.
Democrat Paul Carmouche is running for Congress.
To change America and to get Louisiana's economy back on track - I need leaders like Paul Carmouche working with me in Washington. Let me tell you about Paul Carmouche. Paul is an effective and fair district attorney...who stood up for the victims of violent crime...Paul supports tax relief for the middle class and will work with me to create jobs and get Louisiana's economy moving.
Paul Carmouche is the kind of leader we need in Washington...to make a difference for the people of Northwest Louisiana.
On Saturday, December 6th please support Democrat Paul Carmouche.
This is good news for the Carmouche campaign, but I wouldn't get complacent. This is a district that has been Republican since 1988.* Mr. Carmouche needs all the help he can get ... so if you have the cash, click on the icon on the right to donate. Remember, Dick Cheney is making his last stand in LA-04 tomorrow morning. Help Mr. Carmouche put this election away if you can afford to help. Even $5 goes a long way.
-------------------
* Although one can argue that this district hasn't been represented by a Democrat since 1980, as former Gov. Buddy Roemer represented this district from 1980 to 1987. I've met Mr. Roemer, and he is among the most tone-deaf people I have ever met, as I wanted to discuss politics and education in Louisiana with him, and he was more interested in selling me his latest business venture.
The Shreveport Times informs us all that Vice-President Dick Cheney will be making his last stand at a fundraiser for Republican hopeful John Fleming on Friday.
Fleming asks the citizens of LA-04 to shell out $10,000 to have their pictures taken with DarthVice President Cheney.
This tells us all what kind of Congressman that John Fleming plans to be - one that will be a values voter ... and then, on the economic issues, do whatever the Republican leadership tells him to do.
He's already started down that track by doing what his consultants told him to do - toe the Republican line on Social Security - let's allow folks to put their payroll taxes in the stock market - to win the primary, and then muddle the waters by putting up an ad claiming that you're going to keep Social Security out of the stock market during the general election. That's not honest leadership ... that's misleading the voters.
The Democratic candidate, Paul Carmouche, is a Louisiana Democrat, which means on the cultural hot-button issues, he's not going to be voting the way, say, Speaker Pelosi would. But on the economic issues, he stands with us:
Paul will end corporate welfare for companies that are shipping good paying American jobs overseas.
Paul opposes higher taxes and new taxes, especially for the middle class and small businesses. The wealthy and big corporations that move American jobs overseas should pay more of their fair share.
Paul will look for opportunities to make the tax system fairer for working people, the middle class and small businesses.
Help Mr. Carmouche counter the hundreds of thousands that Cheney will raise for Republican wingnut John Fleming!
UPDATE: The Carmouche campaign has invited the public to join Mr. Carmouche for coffee and donuts on Thursday morning to discuss their concerns. The meeting is at the Carmouche HQ - 4847 Line Ave. in Shreveport on Thursday morning starting at 8:30 AM. The first 25 people through the door will receive a rubber duck to symbolize the Vice=President's status as a lame duck.
Yesterday, we brought you this video of Fleming speaking to seniors about Social Security on October 1st:
Well, apparently Mr. Fleming either flipped his position, or he's lying to the voters of LA-04, because he's running this ad in which he states that he will work to, wait for it ... "keep social security out of the stock market":
Republican candidate John Fleming announces that he is in favor of privatizing Social Security:
I find his position incredible, especially since Social Security disability payments and survivor's benefits saved his family when he was a high school senior and attending college. Apparently, his mother got hurt on the job, and his dad passed away from a heart attack months before John's graduation from high school. From his bio on his website:
"Things were tough financially. It would take a while for my dad's Social Security survivor's checks to start coming and for funds from his life insurance policy to arrive. All we had was a small check from my mother's disability.
Mr. Fleming, you claim you haven't forgotten where you came from. If that is the case, why would you advocate putting Social Security benefits in the stock market? The stock market is not always rising ... matter of fact, it's dropped near 3000 points in the last two months, which has caused many people to lose a good chunk of their retirement funds that they were counting on.
Social Security is, was, and always should be a safety net for the American people. Putting it in the stock market will take away that safety net ... and put folks on a high wire ... trying to determine the best time to cash out, thereby make some folks winners and some folks losers. And no matter what, among the winners will always be banks and financial institutions that administer the mutual funds. That was never the intention of framers of Social Security ... it was intended to ensure a basic standard of living for folks after a lifetime of working.
That's Paul Carmouche on the right giving an interview to a lonely (and cold) cameraman from one of Shreveport's local news channels. 
