SINator Vitter came out swinging yesterday against those of us that want to see our government respect the rule of law and investigate and potentially prosecute those who formulated the Bush Administration's approval of torture against so-called "enemy combatants": (emphasis added)
"Even considering and talking about any possible prosecution of any of these classes of people is absolutely detrimental to our work in this area and will really discourage folks in the intelligence business, or folks who might go into the business on behalf of our country. I think it is turning a political disagreement and debate into criminal prosecutions."
It's absolutely detrimental to consider or talk about prosecuting those who came up with legal fictions to give the Bush Administration a "legal" justification to torture? Those making the case for an investigation and potential prosecutions are taking a political disagreement and making it a crime?
SINator, are you out of your effin mind? You call yourself a Christian? A lawyer?
Second, look at the timeline of the Bush Adminstration's search for a legal justification for torture in this declassified memo from the Senate Intelligence Committee (pdf alert):
March 28, 2002:
Abu Zubaydah is captured.
April, 2002:
In April 2002, attorneys from the CIA's Office of General Counsel began discussions with the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council and OLC concerning the CIA's proposed interrogation plan for Abu Zubaydah and legal restrictions on that interrogation.
May 2002:
According to CIA records, because the CIA believed that Abu Zubaida was withholding imminent threat information during the initial interrogation sessions, attorneys from the CIA's Office of General Counsel met ... to discuss the possible use of alternative interrogation methods that differed from the traditional methods used by the U.S. military and intelligence community. At this meeting, the CIA proposed particular alternative interrogation methods, including waterboarding.
July 17, 2002:
Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) met with the National Security Adviser, who advised that the CIA could proceed with its proposed interrogation of Abu Zubaida. This advice, which authorized CIA to proceed as a policy matter, was subject to a determination of legality by OLC.
July 24, 2002:
OLC orally advised the CIA that the Attorney General had concluded that certain proposed interrogation techniques were lawful and, on July 26, that the use of waterboarding was lawful.
Aug. 1, 2002:
OLC issued three documents analyzing U.S. obligations with respect to the treatment of detainees. Two of these three documents were unclassified: an unclassified opinion interpreting the federal criminal prohibition on torture, and a letter concerning U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture. [...]
According to CIA records, after receiving the legal approval of the Department of Justice and approval from the National Security Adviser, the CIA went forward with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah.
"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.
"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."
Those links, between al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, were never proven, nor ever found, mainly because those links NEVER existed, as the CIA and others (presumably other intelligence agencies around the globe) told Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld repeatedly:
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Gee, SINator, now I know why you want to call this a "political disagreement." You want to help cover the ass of the Bush Administration. But there's a problem for you if you're a Christian ... the justification for the Bush Administration's conduct at that point in time is, in a word, evil.
Making matters even worse, we've already prosecuted and sentenced those who tortured at Abu Ghraib, in compliance with the entire system set up by the Bush Administration:
And you want to protect the creators of that system. That's not a political disagreement, SINator. It's aiding and abetting a crime.
The Old River Road, the Kingfish of the Louisiana Right, expresses dismay that Governor PBJ publicly expressed his support for State Senator Rob Marionneaux to be the next Executive Secretary of the Public Service Commission, by calling it the wrong kind of bipartisanship. Not to pick a fight with the fine bloggers over at The Old River Road, but when Republicans talk about bipartisanship, they generally mean Democrats who will do what they want ... think Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman, folks.
Anyhow, the position is opening up because the current Executive Secretary, Lawrence St. Blanc, who has served in that capacity since 1995, is retiring this month.
While Old River Road has taken the hyper-partisan view of PBJ's move ... I'm betting PBJ's backing of Marionneaux was done simply because it helps remove a potential Democratic challenger from next year's Senate race. After all, Mr. Marionneaux has been mentioned as a potential candidate by national sources, and was rumored to be waiting on Jim Bernhard's decision on whether to run before announcing a campaign of his own.
(This was sent to me by an interested observer, who also sent it to Swamp Fox, which is a research and communications firm that works with political candidates and groups. - promoted by ryan)
While it appears that the Employee Free Choice Act has been given a much tougher row to hoe in the Senate thanks to Senator Spector's decision to effectively end his political career by announcing that he will vote against cloture when EFCA comes up for a vote, opponents of EFCA are taking no chances.
SINator Vitter tells folks on this conference call - mostly local Chamber of Commerce folks - that they need to lobby Senator Landrieu personally:
While many other well-known Republicans in Louisiana have passed on challenging the SINator, Secretary of State Jay Dardenne continues to feed the rumor mill:
"I'm continuing to get a lot of encouragement from a lot of people," Dardenne said Tuesday. "I have not decided to run, nor have I ruled out the possibility that I may run."
I don't think Dardenne will challenge the SINator ... but I do think he's a media whore, which is why he continues to encourage speculation that he may run.
The Transportation Security Administration has cleared Senator David Vitter (R-LA) of wrongdoing in his reported airport rage incident.
To be exact, it was determined that Vitter did not pose a security threat. He did open the door to his plane's gate, which he should not have done after it had been shut, but he didn't go further after the alarm went off.
The TSA's statement: "TSA worked with local partners to review the incident and determined the actions of the individual did not pose a security threat. The individual caused a door to alarm but did not proceed into a restricted area."
The TSA has just declared that it is totally cool and perfectly legal for you to go around airports opening doors to restricted areas and setting off alarms as long as you do not "proceed into a restricted area." (Or does this only apply to Republican Senators who are in a hurry and don't want to be treated like us common lowlifes.) Anybody else think that the TSA's decision sets a horribly dangerous precedent?
One thing that is clear is that Hookerlover David Vitter is exceptional at committing potentially or clearly illegal acts and getting away with it clean as a whistle.
Here's Vitter's rap sheet so far:
Late-90's to Early-00's (?): Solicited an unknown number of prostitutes in possibly multiple jurisdictions including Louisiana and the District of Columbia.
April 7, 2008: Was accomplice to the damaging of public property at the City Hall of Gonzales, Louisiana; and then fled the scene of the crime.
March 5, 2009: Created a public disturbance at an airport boarding gate, reportedly yelling at airport staff; and then violated TSA policy by opening the door to a restricted area in defiance of the airport staff, setting off an alarm; and then reportedly departed the scene of the crime when security was to be alerted.
How many more crimes can Vitter commit before Election Day 2010? Further, is every Republican in Louisiana content to support this values-deficient, hypocritical scofflaw?
At a Sept. 21, 1993, town hall meeting in Metairie, he got into a confrontation with a questioner that led to a lawsuit against him.
Mercedes Hernandez, who was involved in Republican politics, testified that she frequently attended local meetings to engage officials on the issues, usually tape-recording the events. At a town hall meeting, Hernandez asked the state representative about a rumor she'd heard that he was supporting a gay-rights bill in the Legislature. Vitter became "enraged by her question, left the podium where he was standing, advanced toward her in a rapid, threatening manner, pushing aside chairs ... and grabbed a portable tape recorder" that Hernandez was holding, according to her legal complaint.
This past Saturday, the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee held a meeting in Shreveport. One of the issues on the agenda was whether or not to open up the party primary to Independent and third party members. It was voted down by a vote of 114-5. They even made it one of the bylaws of the Louisiana Republican Party, making it even tougher to change it, as such a change would require a 2/3 vote to open the GOP primaries.
What does this mean? It means that the Louisiana GOP just made it much, much tougher for a challenger to defeat David Vitter in a GOP primary, especially since John Cooksey, and Tony Perkins have decided NOT to challenge the mercurial SINator.
The only potential challenger left standing amongst GOP elected officials is Secretary of State Jay Dardenne. While he has pointedly kept his name circulating in GOP circles by not issuing a Shermanesque statement closing the door on a potential challenge, I cannot see him challenging the SINator, as I believe he wants to keep his powder dry until 2015, when Governor PBJ will be term-limited, providing, of course, that he wins re-election.
All of this leaves Stormy Daniels as the only candidate still seriously considering a challenge to the SINator.
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:
According to an HOH tipster who witnessed the scene, the Louisiana Republican arrived Thursday evening at his United Airlines gate 20 minutes before the plane was scheduled to depart, only to find the gate had already been closed. Undeterred, Vitter opened the door, setting off a security alarm and prompting an airline worker to warn him that entering the gate was forbidden.
Vitter, our spy said, gave the airline worker an earful, employing the timeworn "do-you-know-who-I-am" tirade that apparently grew quite heated.
That led to some back and forth, and the worker announced to the irritable Vitter that he was going to summon security.
Vitter, according to the witness, remained defiant, yelling that the employee could call the police if he wanted to and their supervisors, who, presumably, might be more impressed with his Senator's pin.
But after talking a huffy big game, Vitter apparently thought better of pushing the confrontation any further. When the gate attendant left to find a security guard, Vitter turned tail and simply fled the scene.
Sinator Vitter ... still intent on embarrassing Louisiana, this time by violating security rules, and treating an employee who was only doing their job like crap.
UPDATE: According to the Times-Pic, the SINator's office sent out a statement:
"After being delayed on the Senate floor ensuring a vote on my anti-pay-raise amendment and in a rush to make my flight home for town hall meetings the next day, I accidentally went through a wrong door at the gate. I did have a conversation with an airline employee, but it was certainly not like this silly gossip column made it out to be."
Hmmmm ... Roll Call demoted to a silly gossip column. I love how he tries to excuse breaking airline security rules by saying he was hard at work defending the interests of the American people with his FAILED "anti-pay-raise amendment" and then rushing home to make town hall meetings with his constituents.
Pray tell, which day did all this go down? Where were those town hall meetings? Something to follow up on with his local offices.
UPDATE II: I called the SINator's office this morning, and spoke to a very nice lady in the Metairie office. She stated that there was a town hall meeting in St. Charles Parish last Friday, the day after his "accidental" door opening; and that the next Town Hall meeting will be in St. Tammany Parish.
The poll that I linked to earlier on the 2010 Senate race has some really useful information for politicians considering running against Vitter, but also tells about how Louisianans feel about a few of their elected officials:
Candidate
Very Favorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
Very Unfavorable
No Opinion
Net (Fav - Unfav)
President Obama
14%
33%
31%
13%
9%
3
Sinator Vitter
12%
37%
21%
21%
9%
7
Governor PBJ
21%
33%
23%
16%
7%
15
Sec State Dardenne
15%
33%
12%
10%
30%
26
Governor PBJ has a net favorable/unfavorable rating of 15. Only 54% of Louisianans now have a favorable opinion of him, and that's after it was in the 60's for most of last year. Why folks are surprised that PBJ's numbers aren't that hot is beyond me, really. He's had a rough year and a third as Governor thus far:
He is misperceiving the public mood out there ... folks actually want the government to step in and fix the problem. They are realizing that the robber barons of Wall Street caused this problem, not the government. And they also realize that the only entity with any power to rein in said robber barons is ... well ... the government. And his speech last Tuesday night made that crystal clear to Louisianans.
Events like this aren't gonna help, especially when the Governor is committing what they call political suicide in Texas by leaving millions in federal money on the table.
The Big Orange Blog commissioned Research 2000 to poll Louisiana this week. They polled the Senate race using Charlie Melancon and Don Cazayoux as stand-ins for strong Democratic candidate:
If Mr. Perkins gives him a fight for the fundie vote in a Republican primary, Vitter very well may be in serious trouble once he gets in a general election, as he will have to shore the GOP base while trying to convince independents that he's got their concerns covered up in Washington.
But here's one of the nuggets of gold from that poll:
Candidate
Poll %
David Vitter (R)
43%
Jay Dardenne (R)
32%
Stormy Daniels (R)
1%
If Secretary of State Jay Dardenne were to throw his hat into a Republican primary, he would force Vitter into a run-off. As for Ms. Daniels 1% showing in this poll ... few folks even know who she is who she is. Once she gets on the air, barnstorms the state, meets Louisianans, there should be another poll done. Then we'll know if her candidacy is for real. Until then, it's too early to count her out.
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?
Sinator Vitter introduced an amendment to the 2009 Omnibus Budget that is being considered in the Senate. Of course, since he's running for re-election, he's hitting a conservative hot button issue, (which is all he seems to do these days), family planning services.
Here's the text of the amendment:
SA 601. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1105 , making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be made available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under title X of the Public Health Service Act.
First, Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.
Now, other than the fact that Sinator Vitter is running for re-election next year, why is he singling out Planned Parenthood in his amendment?
Yes, Planned Parenthood provides abortions to women who choose to exercise that constitutionally protected right. But unlike what anti-choice/pro-life lobby tells you, abortion services only account for three percent of Planned Parenthood's services. As the nation's largest family planning and reproductive health services provider, they offer way more than that:
Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 82 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 621,000 unintended pregnancies each year.
Planned Parenthood provides nearly one million Pap tests and more than 850,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.
Planned Parenthood provides more than 3.3 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, each year.
But that's getting away from the point ... federal funds are not allowed to be used to provide abortion services. PERIOD.
The federal money that Planned Parenthood receives goes to providing reproductive health services and family planning services for women who need them. And Sinator Vitter, that paragon of personal morality, wants to keep Planned Parenthood from offering those services - pap smears, breast exams, tests and treatments for STD's, birth control, condoms - to the men and women who need them.
If you're outraged, call your Senator, and tell to vote NAY on Sinator Vitter's amendment (it's SA 601). If you're from Louisiana, call the Sinator's office, and tell 'em that the Sinator is wrong on this issue ... all women, regardless of socioeconomic status, deserve family planning and reproductive health services.
UPDATE: I'm hearing that the Big Orange blog will be releasing polling data on Louisiana later this week.
Sinator Vitter dodged one potential opponent in the Republican primary in the person of former Rep. John Cooksey, who was reported to be setting up a committee to explore the idea of running for the seat.
"I am not running for the U.S. Senate against David Vitter."
That's fine ... as we are still looking at a nice GOP menage a trois - the Sinator, the Adult Film Star, and the Moralizer. Should be fun!
On the Democratic side, Congressman Charlie Melancon has repeatedly been asked to consider running for state-wide office. Thus far, he has refused to make a run, preferring to remain in the House, where he leads the Blue Dog Caucus. For the 2010 Senate race, that seems to be the case as well:
"Never say never, but I'm not contemplating a run at this time."
That leaves the field to two candidates that are actively considering making the race:
Jim Bernhard: the former Chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party, and founder of one of Louisiana's Fortune 500 companies, The Shaw Group, has been out and about meeting folks up in Washington and here in Louisiana about making a run for the Senate. I have no doubt that the DSCC LOVES the idea of a Bernhard run, because Mr. Bernhard can self-finance.
Honestly, I'm not impressed by the Democratic field right now. Chris John is a conservative pro-business type that will run a center-right campaign, which will not go anywhere. I don't know Mr. Bernhard's politics, other than he's a Democrat. But I do know that uber-wealthy candidates often lose. I'll keep an open mind on him, but I'd like to know where he stands on various issues. I'd also like to see a certain CenLa Mayor get in the race. He knows who he is.
"John is willing to put up $200,000 of his own money to take on Vitter. He only wants to know that there is public support for a run," said a senior advisor to the former Congressman-who asked not to be named.
Friends of Cooksey are reportedly in the nascent stages of forming a "Draft Congressman Cooksey" organization that already has a telephone number. The politically interested, particularly Republicans, are being encouraged to dial (504) 552-9273, and--if they so desire--express their willingness to support Cooksey in primary challenge against David Vitter.
Sources close the congressman say that he is ready to take on the incumbent, but only if sufficient Republican support truly exists for a primary challenge.
Mr. Cooksey, a social conservative from North Louisiana, would present the strongest challenge to Sinator Vitter in a Republican primary to date. Vitter's weakness is in the northern parishes of the state, since he's perceived as a New Orleanian, and the fact that he engaged in extramarital affairs with prostitutes is not looked upon favorably by voters up there, who are overwhelmingly Baptist.
If Mr. Perkins stays out of the race, Sinator Vitter will be in the fight of his life. However, if Mr. Perkins gets in the race, it will help Sinator Vitter, as Mr. Perkins will split the conservative vote with Mr. Cooksey, leaving Sinator Vitter to battle Ms. Daniels for the country-club set.
So, folks, see that phone in bold? (504) 552-9273. Call it and express your support for Mr. Cooksey's challenge!
Reports came out yesterday that Louisiana Family Forum head Tony Perkins is considering, yet again, running for the Senate. This time, however, he'd be running against Sinator Vitter and presumably, Stormy Daniels, in a Republican primary.
This would be quite an entertaining threesome primary ... a hypocritical Sinator who likes to commit the crime of prostitution, all the while pontificating about family values; an up-from-the-bootstraps gal that has moved from being a porn star to being a producer of adult films; and a religious political wanna-be that has associated with unsavory characters in the past:
Sinator Vitter once again calls for a resignation. Unfortunately, it's not his own, but that of Illinois Senator Roland Burris, for:
Vitter said that Burris "clearly, at a minimum, misled the Illinois Legislature and the voters of the Illinois" by giving incomplete answers about his contacts with and fundraising efforts for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) as Blagojevich was considering appointing Burris to the state's Senate seat.
[When asked about his own sex scandal, he replied]: "I honestly don't know anybody who would compare these situations. They are dramatically different."
Dramatically different? Sinator, clearly, at a minimum, you misled the voters of Louisiana about your family values in every single campaign you have ever run!
"Originally, the focus wasn't even about making me as a candidate. I think it was about bringing attention to the Senate race in general. Then the response was overwhelmingly positive. And I think everyone is just running with it."
When Mr. Sanchez told her that SINator Vitter would be a tough fight, she stated that she is "always up for a good fight."
"I think anyone that knows me ... is more than aware of that. Politics can't be any dirtier of a job than the one I am already in."
My unsolicited advice to Ms. Daniels would be to run as an Independent to ensure that she can give SINator Vitter a fight all the way into November 2010.
I also disagree with Mr. Clancy DuBos' (of the New Orleans Gambit) claim that someone with a clean record on family values is needed to make a dent in SINator Vitter's base ... as the TV commercials that come out of such a campaign would essentially compel the media to print her broadsides against the good SINator's hypocrisy, which would in turn, force the SINator's base to confront it as well.
The race for 2010 just got more interesting ... as Stormy Daniels, the subject of an intense grassroots Draft Stormy effort initiated on the ground here in Louisiana will be appearing today on the Rick Sanchez show on CNN at 3:20 PM EST, which is 2:20 EST for us here in Louisiana.
She makes it clear that if she were to run, she would make exposing SINator Vitter's hypocrisy a major part of her campaign. The question today is, will she give a Shermanesque statement closing the door on a run for the Senate, or will she keep the door open?
Our erstwhile SINator has been burnishing his conservative credentials lately, trying to make us good folks back home forget about his peccadilloes.
Well, last night, a Democrat finally got tired of hearing SINator Vitter bashing the very folks that helped clean and rebuild 3,500 homes in Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:
Here's the backstory, courtesy of Congress Matters, a great new blog covering Congress:
Vitter's amendment was particularly petty, as Durbin points out, given that ACORN volunteers rehabilitated some 3500 homes in Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Vitter thanks them for their service by trying to use them as a whipping boy.
The amendment was defeated, but not as soundly as it should have been. The vote was 45-51, with Max Baucus (D-MT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Jon Tester (D-MT) voting for it.
I don't mind telling you that it's a little bit embarrassing that so many Democratic Senators were this easily manipulated by the Senate's most infamous still-serving patron of prostitutes. I understand that you have to compartmentalize things like that, but when there's a question of where to place the benefit of the doubt, I couldn't blame a Senator for saying it weighs against Vitter on nearly any conceivable issue.
So, let's recap ... the Republicans are lying about how grants are to be doled out ... as they will be awarded on a competitive basis, so no one yet knows if ACORN will receive a dime from this bill. And Vitter's out there repeating the smear to win points amongst his conservative base.
Last week, Chris Tidmore set the water cooler talk circuit of Louisiana ablaze with his article about how the porn star has been found ... now they are looking for staff. But the identity of the potential Senatorial candidate was unknown. Not anymore:
Ms. Daniels was born and raised in Baton Rouge, LA. The product of a single mother, Ms. Daniels epitomizes the up by the bootstraps story that our Sinator constantly invokes. She was the editor of her high school newspaper and president of the 4-H club.
She then chose to enter the adult film industry, where she worked her way up from being an actress to directing and producing adult films.
Her citizenship should not be an issue, as she owns a home in the state, and comes home to cheer on her beloved Tigers at Death Valley during football season.
The question is, will she run? If y'all want an entertaining Senate race next fall, especially since the scuttlebutt is that old retread Chris John is being courted to run against Vitter, I suggest y'all go on over to the website to sign the petition to convince Ms. Daniels to declare her candidacy.
Are they having a little spat? Is that why Jindal hasn't endorsed?
With fundraising in mind, Governor PBJ is going up to Washington, D.C. in late March to lend his "star power" to the Republican Party's 2010 House fundraising efforts. But before he heads to Washington, Governor PBJ will be headlining another fundraiser, this one in North Carolina for the John Locke Foundation, next week!
Governor, we are facing a $350-ish million dollar shortfall for the current fiscal year, and an estimated $2 billion shortfall for the next fiscal year, thanks in part to your signature on the Stelly Tax Repeal. Shouldn't you stay home, like you did during the Inauguration, and work on finding ways to cut the budget or raise revenues to close that shortfall, instead of leaving the state to increase your name recognition in advance of the 2012 Republican primaries?
Chris Tidmore, a well-known Republican activist in Louisiana has printed an article that is sure to set the water cooler talk circuit ablaze across the state:
"They finally found a porn star to run against David Vitter."
Mr. Tidmore is discussing this Craigslist ad that appeared back in November, mere days after the elections:
Reply to: job-909956144@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-11-07, 4:02PM CST
Seeking a female candidate to challenge David Vitter in the Republican primary for the United States Senate in 2010. Candidate must be over thirty years old and a registered Republican in the state of Louisiana. Beyond this, we are looking for a candidate with a history in some aspect of the adult entertainment industry who has taken the benefit of that experience both monetarily and otherwise and translated it into success in their later career.
Candidate will have the benefit of an experienced campaign staff including finance and media teams. Reasonable compensation as allowed by federal campaign finance rules will be offered. This is a serious offer for a serious candidate who cares about the direction of her state and community and who is willing to accept the serious commitment of a state wide political campaign.
Please forward a resume or CV with contact information along with a 200 word description telling us who you are and why you think you are the ideal candidate to challenge David Vitter.
Location: Louisiana
Compensation: Reasonable under FEC regulations
OK to highlight this job opening for persons with disabilities
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster. Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
Well, Mr. Tidmore believes that there is a candidate based on the following Craigslist ad:
"Seeking Energetic Field Organizers for Senate Campaign (New Orleans)
After an exhaustive review process, we are announcing that we are no longer accepting applications for a female candidate with a history in the adult entertainment industry to challenge Senator Vitter. We want to thank all the talented candidates who applied and endured through our rigorous application process. We furthermore apologize for any inconveniences the applications or interviews may have caused. We are certain many of you will go on to achieve long and accomplished careers in public service, and wish you well in your future endeavors."
An announcement pertaining to the final results of our selection process is forthcoming. We are, however, now accepting applications for energetic and personable field organizers for our grassroots campaign. Past or current affiliation with a political party is unimportant, this is a bipartisan effort of civic minded citizens with a desire to change Louisiana and the nation."
Organizers should be at least 18 years old with two years of campaign experience, or put another way, WE HAVE FOUND OUR PORN STAR, AND SHE NEEDS A STAFF.
I am breathlessly awaiting whom it is ... but what we know is pretty exciting ... it's a woman, presumably with ties to Louisiana, and I assume it is a rather successful star in that sector of the film industry, as money is a necessary evil in modern-day politics.
