At a certain point in a game,
when a team has a lead on another, it no longer must resort to an aggressive,
potential risky style of play that could result in unwise shot selection or
turnovers. Instead, it merely must counter moves by the opposition, where the
opposition in fact must embark on this style of play in order to make up ground
on the leader. And this situation as it pertains to the 2014 Senate election in
Louisiana was reiterated in the denouement
of changes to flood insurance legislation widely criticized particularly in the
southern part of the state.
The recently-changed law,
garnering votes of both Landrieu (even though she publicly admitted it would
increase some rates dramatically) and Cassidy, set up stark and immediate rate
increases for some policyholders, and potentially for buyers of property. To
review, Landrieu sponsored a bill to offer some rate relief, only to have
her co-partisan Pres. Barack Obama
initially cut her down when his staff said the bill would draw a veto because
it increased taxpayer costs. Then Cassidy got attached to the successful budget
bill a measure to delay implementation of the then-law. This made him appear
more effective than Landrieu.
However, the quest
more alterations continued. Despite her party controlling the Senate,
Landrieu got no traction in the chamber with an idea to string out the delay
further. But in the House, after batting down a version like Landrieu’s the
minority Democrats tried repeatedly to offer, the majority Republicans got
together, with Cassidy among the leaders, to come up with the permanent fix
that would slow the rates of increases over a longer period of time and
grandfather in rates on homestead properties bought then in compliance with
existing flood protection that then subsequently are sold even if classifications
had changed. Cassidy and a few others shepherded it through the House, despite
initial leadership objections.
Some Senate Republicans still had
reservations about it, and with the greater power afforded to individual
senators, could have blocked the bill. But Republican Sen. David Vitter and one other from
the GOP took the lead in overcoming the objections and it got through. With a
financing mechanism now in place that essentially increases costs for low-risk
policyholders to offset reductions in premiums coming from high-risk
ratepayers, the White House said it would go along, as Obama verbally committed
to Landrieu. He should sign it into law sometime this week.
This issue, had it remained an
issue, could have become the second-biggest of the campaign in a state with only
1.5 percent of the nation’s population yet whose residents hold 9 percent of National
Flood Insurance Program policies. And it’s one that Landrieu could have used to
improve a position that at best could be described as being in a tossup. Her
numbers continue to reflect dismal reelection prospects: an inability
to get more than 45 percent of the intended vote even with polling
that reflects a less-likely and favorable scenario for her, majorities
unwilling to reelect her or approve of her job performance, and continuing
to suffer from her deciding vote status on the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act that even has caused true
believers from the Angry Left in spite of themselves to downplay her chances at
victory.
Yet that issue got taken off the
table, and in a way, if any argument can be made on it, that Cassidy proved
more able and effective in causing that. (Even Vitter seemed to be more instrumental
in its passage, which can’t hurt his nascent 2015 gubernatorial bid.) And
surveying the electoral landscape, any such defining issues that could
differentiate Cassidy from her favorably in her direction seem perhaps barren. Obama
continues to negate her argument that she is “indispensable” because of her
effectiveness by having his minions slow-walk any potential approval of the
Keystone XL pipeline, but even if his administration approves it in the coming
months, all the while Landrieu’s flailing about to get his approval, it will be
clear it was nothing she did and Cassidy supports it, too – but at least he was
not put into a position by a president of his own party to be made to look
ineffective.
Worse, with whatever relatively
low-salience issues that remain out there that could provide differentiation Landrieu
keeps turning the ball over rather than scoring. The latest
was an absolutely unforced error in voting for a top Justice Department nominee
who defended both in court and publicly convicted police murderer Mumia
Abu-Jamal in an attempt to free him despite overwhelming
evidence against him. It has become a political litmus test on the left to
show support of these efforts, but for others rightly raises questions about the
judgment of anybody who does so. That Landrieu’s error in casting a vote that
could raise the ire of the law enforcement community passed this test was made
all the worse by its lack of necessity: enough Senate Democrats voted against
it that it failed anyway. This only plays into the hands of her opponents, like
Cassidy, who point out her unswerving
loyalty to Obama generally goes against the best interests and wishes of
Louisianans.
In short, Landrieu is behind and
cannot afford to trade baskets with Cassidy to win reelection. But, as the flood
insurance issue demonstrated, that seems to be the best she can do, and the
opportunities for finding the kind of issues through which she can make up
ground, if her
supporters’ behavior is any indication, seem far and few between. The clock
is ticking and, absent something popping up wholly novel and unanticipated
(which in seven months is not unthinkable), time is not on her side.
No comments:
Post a Comment