State Rep. Billy Montgomery switched from Democrat to Republican because he believed it would be “easier” to win state Senate District 37 next year. It’s a gamble that easily could backfire.
Montgomery has represented District 9 since 1987 but runs up against term limits in 2007. In a bid to keep his political career alive, he hopes to move into (literally, having declared a new residence there only at the beginning of October) District 37 to take over from another term-limited politician, Republican Max Malone. Obviously, Montgomery’s views haven’t changed from one day to the next; his rationale for switching now, about a year out, appears to be a bid to intimidate potential Republican candidates from pursuing this spot, representing perhaps the most conservative district in the state.
Supposing that was his objective it’s almost certain to fail, and makes him more vulnerable than ever. Many longer-standing Republicans in both Caddo and Bossier Parishes (the district straddles both) have asserted there will be a conservative challenger to the liberal (but moderating in the past year) Montgomery. In fact, already two such candidates have expressed interest, one having run for state office before, the other having served in local office. Republican activists hope all can unite around one quality candidate, which would decisively defeat the goal of Montgomery’s tactic to switch and to do it at this time.
If a quality, well-funded conservative challenger enters the race, Montgomery does have serious problems, because his only advantage in that instance, money (at the end of 2005 he had nearly $100,000 on hand after raising over $100,000 that year), can be countered. For one thing, this new district he likely seeks is precisely that, new to him. The boundaries of District 9 and it overlap just barely, with just four precincts shared between the two, representing only 9 percent of the Senate district and less than 23 percent of his old district.
Further, not only is he a stranger to the new district, in many ways he’s a stranger to his current one. Montgomery has not had to campaign against an opponent since 1991; a lot of water has passed under the bridge since and the area he wishes to represent, not so much on the Caddo side (with about 52 percent of the voters) but very much the Bossier side, has changed dramatically, and so has the nature of campaigning.
In addition, even as Montgomery has started to moderate his voting record in the House, plenty of recent votes of his would make conservative voters scratch their heads wondering why he calls himself Republican. As a point of reference, most of House District 6 is part of the Senate district, which is itself perhaps the most conservative House district in the state, represented by probably the most conservative member of the House, Mike Powell. On 10 key votes in the past two years, from taxes to perks for legislators to wasteful spending on reservoirs to raising the minimum wage to government regulation of gasoline sales, Powell and Montgomery have been on opposite sides 9 of those times. (And, to state the obvious, it was Montgomery in favor of the tax hike, the perks, raising the minimum wage, regulating gas prices, and wasteful spending, among other things.)
To be sure, Montgomery’s record for those two years and many more will be highlighted by a quality candidate. As well, a number of others promise to highlight Montgomery’s record (such as the invaluable http://www.votetherecord.com/, fast becoming the spot for information about how Bossier Parish politicians vote on important issues).
Where this move really can backfire is Montgomery now has opened up the opportunity for a Democrat challenger. Had he remained a Democrat, no serious candidate of that label would have entered the contest. Should one do so, he will get squeezed by this candidate and a conservative Republican. The switch made sense only if he knew no quality GOP candidate would emerge, but the way things are going, it looks as if he miscalculated on that account.
Montgomery made many good decisions roaming the hardwood as a basketball coach, a career he voluntarily left. This decision well might cause his involuntary departure from political office.
1.11.06
Jones exposes Glover record, gets blamed
A tremendous amount of misunderstanding has occurred relative to Shreveport Republican mayoral candidate Jerry Jones and his ads highlighting the voting record of, policy preferences of, and performance of his opponent Democrat state Rep. Cedric Glover in the mayor’s race. (I’ll leave aside analyzing the somewhat curious choice the Shreveport Times made in running the original story, and then the absolutely bizarre choice of doing a story on the story – almost as if it felt it needed to justify the original story.)
Some subscribe to the ridiculous notion that these ads somehow signify that Jones is campaigning in a mean or undesirable way. Jones, the former city attorney, himself described perfectly why they are not: he is relaying information to potential voters, information that is a matter of public record, and trying to persuade consumers of it that the inferences he draws about the lesser capability of Glover to govern as well as Jones asserts he can are valid. After all, Glover is not going to volunteer these interpretations, so Jones does the audience a service by informing them of these.
It’s smart politics, too. One recent opinion writer argued that the candidates had not done enough to distinguish themselves on the basis of issue preferences. Jones’ ads certainly draw contrasts between himself and Glover, which will win some votes for Jones not because they criticized Glover’s record, but because they showed that Jones did not mirror Glover’s record which likely a minority of voters would find appealing.
In his reaction, Glover showed little understanding of these nuances, saying he won't use “attacks” in the final week heading into next Tuesday's elections but instead will keep his campaign focused on the “issues.” Nothing in Jones’ ads did not focus on issues, and Glover shows an unintentional self-revelation by terming an “attack” an ad highlighting his record – meaning Glover himself believes his record is worth hiding because someone else revealing it he terms a provocative act.
(Jones’ approach is unlike that of some state Democrats who ran ads against Jones shortly before the primary which were full of innuendo and false information accusing Jones of favoritism. To equate that to Jones’ approach that utilized verified, public information simply is asinine. Just as asinine is the uninformed assertion that these ads were not truthful and therefore cast aspersions on Jones himself; again, everything in those ads was public knowledge and verifiable, unlike the September attacks against Jones.)
By telling the public what he does not support, Jones also has used this opportunity to claim a mandate if he wins next week. He can claim a vote for him is comparable to rejecting a vote for higher taxes, more spending, more debt and that he would pursue a different philosophy to revitalize the city economically. It may prove to be a valuable resource to persuade a City Council certain to have a Democrat majority.
Glover largely cannot cope with the ad campaign. To attempt to address it would call attention to actions that, again, he seems uncomfortable publicizing on his own. So all he can do is mouth some kind of mantra about taking the high road. It’s not the kind of debate to which voters to whom ideas matter will respond favorably. It’s another reason why Jones looks to win.
Some subscribe to the ridiculous notion that these ads somehow signify that Jones is campaigning in a mean or undesirable way. Jones, the former city attorney, himself described perfectly why they are not: he is relaying information to potential voters, information that is a matter of public record, and trying to persuade consumers of it that the inferences he draws about the lesser capability of Glover to govern as well as Jones asserts he can are valid. After all, Glover is not going to volunteer these interpretations, so Jones does the audience a service by informing them of these.
It’s smart politics, too. One recent opinion writer argued that the candidates had not done enough to distinguish themselves on the basis of issue preferences. Jones’ ads certainly draw contrasts between himself and Glover, which will win some votes for Jones not because they criticized Glover’s record, but because they showed that Jones did not mirror Glover’s record which likely a minority of voters would find appealing.
In his reaction, Glover showed little understanding of these nuances, saying he won't use “attacks” in the final week heading into next Tuesday's elections but instead will keep his campaign focused on the “issues.” Nothing in Jones’ ads did not focus on issues, and Glover shows an unintentional self-revelation by terming an “attack” an ad highlighting his record – meaning Glover himself believes his record is worth hiding because someone else revealing it he terms a provocative act.
(Jones’ approach is unlike that of some state Democrats who ran ads against Jones shortly before the primary which were full of innuendo and false information accusing Jones of favoritism. To equate that to Jones’ approach that utilized verified, public information simply is asinine. Just as asinine is the uninformed assertion that these ads were not truthful and therefore cast aspersions on Jones himself; again, everything in those ads was public knowledge and verifiable, unlike the September attacks against Jones.)
By telling the public what he does not support, Jones also has used this opportunity to claim a mandate if he wins next week. He can claim a vote for him is comparable to rejecting a vote for higher taxes, more spending, more debt and that he would pursue a different philosophy to revitalize the city economically. It may prove to be a valuable resource to persuade a City Council certain to have a Democrat majority.
Glover largely cannot cope with the ad campaign. To attempt to address it would call attention to actions that, again, he seems uncomfortable publicizing on his own. So all he can do is mouth some kind of mantra about taking the high road. It’s not the kind of debate to which voters to whom ideas matter will respond favorably. It’s another reason why Jones looks to win.
31.10.06
Ameliorate claims payment woes and bigger government
An idea floated by (relatively new) Republican state Rep. Blade Morrish has potential to benefit the state as well as his political career, but he and others have to see it through to its logical conclusion to make it a real service to Louisianans.
Morrish wants to help pay down the debt owed by Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the state-owned insurer of last resort, as a result of horrific claims filed after the 2005 hurricane disasters by diverting the tax currently paid by homeowners on insurance premium to this purpose. Currently, this estimated $124 million a year goes right into the black hole of the budget known as the general fund where it can be spent potentially on things like unaccountable nonprofit agencies. This would obviate the need for special assessments in addition to the tax being paid by policyholders.
This elegant proposal would match the origin of the tax with a purpose related to its origin, insurance. It’s a fine first step, so good that even the hardheaded Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco administration recognizes that (after it had to get dragged kicking and screaming to the whole idea of doing something to eliminate or reduce the assessments in the first place). It also helps Morrish politically, as he pursues a post-term-limited House career by running for the state Senate next year.
But it becomes a great idea completely executed only if Morrish and others take the next step, and that would be not to find another $124 million in revenue to supplant it, but to cut that spending entirely. Any surplus then could go to pressing matters such as debt reduction, overdue highway construction, or shoring up unfunded accrued liabilities in retirement plans. And the final step would be, when the bonds are paid off, to eliminate this tax in its entirety.
Anything less ends up being just an exercise in shuffling money around, in effect creating a special assessment by other means. Fairness and fiscal discipline argue this total solution must be part of any upcoming special session; let’s just hope Louisiana’s politicians have the courage to do so.
Morrish wants to help pay down the debt owed by Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the state-owned insurer of last resort, as a result of horrific claims filed after the 2005 hurricane disasters by diverting the tax currently paid by homeowners on insurance premium to this purpose. Currently, this estimated $124 million a year goes right into the black hole of the budget known as the general fund where it can be spent potentially on things like unaccountable nonprofit agencies. This would obviate the need for special assessments in addition to the tax being paid by policyholders.
This elegant proposal would match the origin of the tax with a purpose related to its origin, insurance. It’s a fine first step, so good that even the hardheaded Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco administration recognizes that (after it had to get dragged kicking and screaming to the whole idea of doing something to eliminate or reduce the assessments in the first place). It also helps Morrish politically, as he pursues a post-term-limited House career by running for the state Senate next year.
But it becomes a great idea completely executed only if Morrish and others take the next step, and that would be not to find another $124 million in revenue to supplant it, but to cut that spending entirely. Any surplus then could go to pressing matters such as debt reduction, overdue highway construction, or shoring up unfunded accrued liabilities in retirement plans. And the final step would be, when the bonds are paid off, to eliminate this tax in its entirety.
Anything less ends up being just an exercise in shuffling money around, in effect creating a special assessment by other means. Fairness and fiscal discipline argue this total solution must be part of any upcoming special session; let’s just hope Louisiana’s politicians have the courage to do so.
30.10.06
Fault, Olivier, lies not in media but in yourself
In the world according to Louisiana Economic Development Secretary Mike Olivier, the reason why Louisiana has a hard time attracting business is not because of the state’s good-old-boy political system that rewards more who you now than what you do. It’s also not because the state is overtaxed, nor is it because its big government regulates business too much.
No; according to Olivier, Louisiana has a hard time getting businesses here because the state has a free press. In remarks made during the fall meeting of the Livingston Economic Development Council, he congratulated the effort to attract a Bass Pro Shops outlet to Denham Springs by using tax increment financing (in other words, public support of a private firm), only days earlier this having been permitted by the Louisiana Supreme Court and, in doing so, offered the following words of wisdom:
“You've been very team oriented,” Olivier said. “I wish we could take you guys as a model to show people in the other parts of the state. You do show a team spirit that is not necessarily shared in other parts of the state.”
Then he got more specific:
Olivier also wishes the New Orleans Time-Picayune would be a team player. Holding up a front page story in the newspaper from two days earlier, the state's highest paid non-coach employee said the article was irresponsible.
The article centered on a junket by Olivier and other state officials to Germany to lure a steel plant to St. James Parish in competition with three other states.
“This article serves to do only one thing: Tell our competitors in Alabama and Arkansas what we are doing,” Olivier said, “It probably has lost the deal for us.”
He argued that journalists in Louisiana have a responsibility to help the state, particularly after the devastation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
“This kind of help we don't need,” Olivier said. “Are they trying to tell people the news or are they trying to queer the deal. It's debilitating is what it is.”
Even stranger than Olivier’s disdain for publicity of his activities was the fact that, in the article he questioned, his remarks appear in it, as well as in several articles prior to that one about the same deal – a deal heavily publicized by his boss, Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who asserted she’s like to devote part of a legislative special session to the deal … a deal the company announced its intentions about in August. In other words, not only did the whole world know about this, but his employer was the one shouting from the rooftops about it. What secrecy was so vital here to make the deal?
Unless, of course, his complaint was a smokescreen to hide his real sense of injury over the publicity – the exposure of his participation in a “junket” to Germany. (Oh, and he’s going on another one, to Asia, this week with Blanco). All of which sums up the Olivier philosophy of economic development (apparently carried over from his days as chief of economic development in Harrison County, MS) – live high off the hog at taxpayers’ expense and justify doing so by occasionally landing a decent-sized commitment of new jobs.
Olivier likes to argue his efforts have brought about around 80 projects worth over $5 billion that have produced 17,000 new jobs. What we don’t hear him talking about is how, just in Monroe during his watch, thousands of jobs have been lost. (Ironically, during his speech Olivier said Monroe should follow Denham Spring’s lead, which I guess means get public dollars to finance private ventures – is this guy for real?) And, even if statistics concerning the state’s job picture have been skewed by the hurricane disasters of 2005, chances are without them, the state still would have been a next exporter of jobs with Olivier at the helm.
This is because Olivier’s inadequate strategy is reminiscent of a fisherman who drops his net and then pulls in his catch. Only this guy goes picking through the haul looking for the biggest fishes to show off as trophies, in the meantime letting a bunch of little ones flop their way back into the water. So it goes with Olivier – he’d rather pursue and talk up the big ones than get down in the trenches and try to keep as many of the little ones around as possible.
Because if Olivier really were serious about economic development in this state, he’d be spending a good deal of his time jawboning his boss and every legislator about how taxes have to be cut to make it easier for business to survive, about how regulation must be slashed to do the same, about how ethics laws for politicians have to be tightened to give business greater confidence in the state’s business climate, and other things which all add up to move Louisiana away from its current business-unfriendly status. It might not be glamorous and it might not make it popular. But it might convince enough lawmakers to make these changes that are the only long-term, effective economic development strategy.
But I suppose that gets in the way of jetting about and dining on lobster. And no doubt if he ever discovers this posting, he’ll consider this just another mutinous distraction making his job harder, in living the high life while ignoring the policy pathologies that are the real causes of his failures.
No; according to Olivier, Louisiana has a hard time getting businesses here because the state has a free press. In remarks made during the fall meeting of the Livingston Economic Development Council, he congratulated the effort to attract a Bass Pro Shops outlet to Denham Springs by using tax increment financing (in other words, public support of a private firm), only days earlier this having been permitted by the Louisiana Supreme Court and, in doing so, offered the following words of wisdom:
“You've been very team oriented,” Olivier said. “I wish we could take you guys as a model to show people in the other parts of the state. You do show a team spirit that is not necessarily shared in other parts of the state.”
Then he got more specific:
Olivier also wishes the New Orleans Time-Picayune would be a team player. Holding up a front page story in the newspaper from two days earlier, the state's highest paid non-coach employee said the article was irresponsible.
The article centered on a junket by Olivier and other state officials to Germany to lure a steel plant to St. James Parish in competition with three other states.
“This article serves to do only one thing: Tell our competitors in Alabama and Arkansas what we are doing,” Olivier said, “It probably has lost the deal for us.”
He argued that journalists in Louisiana have a responsibility to help the state, particularly after the devastation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
“This kind of help we don't need,” Olivier said. “Are they trying to tell people the news or are they trying to queer the deal. It's debilitating is what it is.”
Even stranger than Olivier’s disdain for publicity of his activities was the fact that, in the article he questioned, his remarks appear in it, as well as in several articles prior to that one about the same deal – a deal heavily publicized by his boss, Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who asserted she’s like to devote part of a legislative special session to the deal … a deal the company announced its intentions about in August. In other words, not only did the whole world know about this, but his employer was the one shouting from the rooftops about it. What secrecy was so vital here to make the deal?
Unless, of course, his complaint was a smokescreen to hide his real sense of injury over the publicity – the exposure of his participation in a “junket” to Germany. (Oh, and he’s going on another one, to Asia, this week with Blanco). All of which sums up the Olivier philosophy of economic development (apparently carried over from his days as chief of economic development in Harrison County, MS) – live high off the hog at taxpayers’ expense and justify doing so by occasionally landing a decent-sized commitment of new jobs.
Olivier likes to argue his efforts have brought about around 80 projects worth over $5 billion that have produced 17,000 new jobs. What we don’t hear him talking about is how, just in Monroe during his watch, thousands of jobs have been lost. (Ironically, during his speech Olivier said Monroe should follow Denham Spring’s lead, which I guess means get public dollars to finance private ventures – is this guy for real?) And, even if statistics concerning the state’s job picture have been skewed by the hurricane disasters of 2005, chances are without them, the state still would have been a next exporter of jobs with Olivier at the helm.
This is because Olivier’s inadequate strategy is reminiscent of a fisherman who drops his net and then pulls in his catch. Only this guy goes picking through the haul looking for the biggest fishes to show off as trophies, in the meantime letting a bunch of little ones flop their way back into the water. So it goes with Olivier – he’d rather pursue and talk up the big ones than get down in the trenches and try to keep as many of the little ones around as possible.
Because if Olivier really were serious about economic development in this state, he’d be spending a good deal of his time jawboning his boss and every legislator about how taxes have to be cut to make it easier for business to survive, about how regulation must be slashed to do the same, about how ethics laws for politicians have to be tightened to give business greater confidence in the state’s business climate, and other things which all add up to move Louisiana away from its current business-unfriendly status. It might not be glamorous and it might not make it popular. But it might convince enough lawmakers to make these changes that are the only long-term, effective economic development strategy.
But I suppose that gets in the way of jetting about and dining on lobster. And no doubt if he ever discovers this posting, he’ll consider this just another mutinous distraction making his job harder, in living the high life while ignoring the policy pathologies that are the real causes of his failures.
28.10.06
Arguments against health care redesign lack any merit
Forces of regressivity, paying more attention to the desires on entrenched interests than those of taxpayers and of the health care uninsured in Louisiana, continue to moan about health care redesign in the state.
Recently, the state forwarded to the federal government a plan that would encourage the shifting away of federal health care funds from Louisiana’s anachronistic charity hospital system and give the individuals receiving the increased options outside of that system to use these dollars. This is the model the rest of the nation is adopting, moving even further away from Louisiana’s vintage 1930s strategy of running several large hospitals and inviting the uninsured to use them – the only such system in the U.S.
However, the state did not show a lot of enthusiasm for this plan, even though the federal government said it would pay potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in transition costs. The reason, of course, is because a big bureaucracy has been created around the operation of these 11 hospitals (nine run by a state agency, the other two by LSU) and, if there’s one thing the good-old-boy-and-girl network loves in Louisiana, it is big government. By having money following the person rather than the state, this regime threatens to downsize the state’s inefficient system, and overall size of government.
26.10.06
Web poses problems for traditional media and politicians
If you’re reading this posting, you probably already have joined the ranks of those who prefer information about current events (in this case, Louisiana state and local politics) because of two advantages it has over the traditional media – which some politicians would prefer you not have.
One, you may be here because you like the immediacy. This column is based upon stories appearing from traditional media outlets. The problem they face is they can disseminate information in traditional forms only a limited number of times a day. Take a television or radio outlet. The former might be able to broadcast news four times a day and the other maybe once an hour except at night, for a very limited number of stories. That’s the broadcast media; as far as the print media, they get one shot a day. A lot can happen in 24 hours.
As a result, these traditional media are establishing web presences. Still, their information provision remains quite limited. A newspaper or TV station might be able to provide five current stories a day, while the wire services can do somewhat more on the web. That helps are far as information provision – as long as the consumer has the desire to gather information that way. But practically no analysis occurs on a real-time basis from these traditional outlets. Which is why you may be here – not only do you get a news item probably more quickly than you get it from turning on a media outlet, or picking up a print publication, but you get analysis of it – often well before you would see it broadcast or printed – in context with other things going on. And you get it according to your schedule, not theirs.
(Note: some days I wake up and, after other duties are done, troll news stories for an interesting topic that I think people would want commentary on, and deliver. Other days, I have an idea of something brewing and will wait for it to come to fruition, then write a column about it – like a press conference, court ruling, legislative decision, etc. Especially in the second case, I’m likely to comment on it hours, even days, before the traditional media do, as perhaps some of you have noticed by now.)
The other reason you could be here is that you have found this to be a reliable marker for news and analysis you might not otherwise find on your own. It is not so much speed but coverage which really rankles some politicians, because they are coming to grips with the fact it is much harder for them now to be themselves without the public finding out who they really are and what they really believe.
The reaction to the latest media article in the state on the topic of independent, non-career journalists providing news and commentary encapsulates perfectly this elitist, arrogant attitude. (Note to the author of this article, who had tried to contact me about it: too bad we couldn’t connect, because I could have told him some good stories about local politicians’ reactions to this space.) One politician quoted, state Sen. Rob Marionneaux, basically argues that he gets to say anything he wants, no matter how asinine (and he’s among the prolific producers of ridiculous comments on the floor of the state Senate) as a legislator, yet people like a lawyer and former legislative employee, a doctoral communications student, and a political science professor are a problem because they provide factual information about him and “editorialize” in their online postings.
Their fear, of course, is that new media of this type is disproportionately consumed by politically interested and active people who, in a two-step process, convey the information to the public as a whole. These new media comprise a multiplicity of gatekeepers that politicians cannot control, unlike the traditional media. Because the traditional media rely upon these politicians for information that grabs readers that creates ad revenue, they must have access to these politicians or they suffer. But new media, who base their products more on commentary and less on production of news stories, have no such constraint and essentially lay outside the grasp of any politician.
Louisiana typically rides behind the curve on innovation, including the use of the web for gathering news and commentary, but it is catching up, and those politicians who have built their careers on controlling information disseminated about them are having to adjust to this new reality. And they don’t like it because they know, just like the dinosaurs, that the new reality threatens the extinction of their political careers.
One, you may be here because you like the immediacy. This column is based upon stories appearing from traditional media outlets. The problem they face is they can disseminate information in traditional forms only a limited number of times a day. Take a television or radio outlet. The former might be able to broadcast news four times a day and the other maybe once an hour except at night, for a very limited number of stories. That’s the broadcast media; as far as the print media, they get one shot a day. A lot can happen in 24 hours.
As a result, these traditional media are establishing web presences. Still, their information provision remains quite limited. A newspaper or TV station might be able to provide five current stories a day, while the wire services can do somewhat more on the web. That helps are far as information provision – as long as the consumer has the desire to gather information that way. But practically no analysis occurs on a real-time basis from these traditional outlets. Which is why you may be here – not only do you get a news item probably more quickly than you get it from turning on a media outlet, or picking up a print publication, but you get analysis of it – often well before you would see it broadcast or printed – in context with other things going on. And you get it according to your schedule, not theirs.
(Note: some days I wake up and, after other duties are done, troll news stories for an interesting topic that I think people would want commentary on, and deliver. Other days, I have an idea of something brewing and will wait for it to come to fruition, then write a column about it – like a press conference, court ruling, legislative decision, etc. Especially in the second case, I’m likely to comment on it hours, even days, before the traditional media do, as perhaps some of you have noticed by now.)
The other reason you could be here is that you have found this to be a reliable marker for news and analysis you might not otherwise find on your own. It is not so much speed but coverage which really rankles some politicians, because they are coming to grips with the fact it is much harder for them now to be themselves without the public finding out who they really are and what they really believe.
The reaction to the latest media article in the state on the topic of independent, non-career journalists providing news and commentary encapsulates perfectly this elitist, arrogant attitude. (Note to the author of this article, who had tried to contact me about it: too bad we couldn’t connect, because I could have told him some good stories about local politicians’ reactions to this space.) One politician quoted, state Sen. Rob Marionneaux, basically argues that he gets to say anything he wants, no matter how asinine (and he’s among the prolific producers of ridiculous comments on the floor of the state Senate) as a legislator, yet people like a lawyer and former legislative employee, a doctoral communications student, and a political science professor are a problem because they provide factual information about him and “editorialize” in their online postings.
Their fear, of course, is that new media of this type is disproportionately consumed by politically interested and active people who, in a two-step process, convey the information to the public as a whole. These new media comprise a multiplicity of gatekeepers that politicians cannot control, unlike the traditional media. Because the traditional media rely upon these politicians for information that grabs readers that creates ad revenue, they must have access to these politicians or they suffer. But new media, who base their products more on commentary and less on production of news stories, have no such constraint and essentially lay outside the grasp of any politician.
Louisiana typically rides behind the curve on innovation, including the use of the web for gathering news and commentary, but it is catching up, and those politicians who have built their careers on controlling information disseminated about them are having to adjust to this new reality. And they don’t like it because they know, just like the dinosaurs, that the new reality threatens the extinction of their political careers.
25.10.06
Blanco wins insignificant, even pyrrhic, victory on suit
A win’s a win for Gov. Kathleen Blanco, even if it is insignificant and may actually help her political opponents more than she.
Louisiana reached a settlement with the U.S. Minerals Management Service over leases of tracts in the Gulf of Mexico for oil extraction purposes. The state had sued, claiming the federal government did not adequately take into account the environmental impact of the hurricane disasters of 2005 when it approved the sales, over Blanco’s objection. Federal law allows a governor to object over the sales, triggering an agency review which must come back as positive before the lease sales can occur.
Months ago when the state sued, Blanco tried to create the impression that this action of hers was a vital step to getting a greater share of royalties from production on these leases into state coffers. The reality, of course, which she appeared to acknowledge during the announcement of the deal, is that it has nothing to do with any such efforts. Rather, increasing Louisiana’s take is up to the majoritarian branches of the federal government.
The leading House of Representatives proponent of getting a law passed to allow Gulf states to get a larger piece of the pie is none other Rep. Bobby Jindal who, if one can trust polls a year ahead of an election, would swamp Blanco out of office faster and more powerfully than a levee breach can offload a ship into New Orleans East. It’s almost certain this legislation will pass before the 2007 election, perhaps by as early as the end of this year. If so, Jindal (along with Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter), can take most of the credit for sending the state billions of dollars.
Blanco, on the other hand, can be credited for delaying lease sales which could have brought more money to various government treasuries (including Louisiana’s) and will keep gas prices higher than they should be by postponing supply increases down the road. All she succeeded in doing was to get the federal government to re-study the environmental impact question. Nobody seriously suggests that any such study would conclude that lease sales must stop to preserve Louisiana. Blanco’s move was just a tantrum masquerading as a consequential policy option.
(The state is trying to argue that some funds might come Louisiana’s way as a result of this settlement, that, in their words, an “honest” assessment would produce funds for “mitigation” of environmental problems. This is wishful thinking: activities occurring as many as a couple of hundred miles have had and are going to have no impact on Louisiana’s land. Actions taken by companies on Louisiana soil are just that, not as a direct result of drilling and, in any event, the companies would be responsible for compensating the state, not the federal government which only leased the tracts.)
Jindal (or others) can remind the electorate of this next year during the gubernatorial campaign, that while he (or others) did some something constructive on this issue, if anything, Blanco acted destructively. All in all, the episode turns out to be another demonstration of Blanco’s inabilities to provide leadership or sensible policy prescriptions, and helps to explain the low esteem with which she is held by the citizenry.
Louisiana reached a settlement with the U.S. Minerals Management Service over leases of tracts in the Gulf of Mexico for oil extraction purposes. The state had sued, claiming the federal government did not adequately take into account the environmental impact of the hurricane disasters of 2005 when it approved the sales, over Blanco’s objection. Federal law allows a governor to object over the sales, triggering an agency review which must come back as positive before the lease sales can occur.
Months ago when the state sued, Blanco tried to create the impression that this action of hers was a vital step to getting a greater share of royalties from production on these leases into state coffers. The reality, of course, which she appeared to acknowledge during the announcement of the deal, is that it has nothing to do with any such efforts. Rather, increasing Louisiana’s take is up to the majoritarian branches of the federal government.
The leading House of Representatives proponent of getting a law passed to allow Gulf states to get a larger piece of the pie is none other Rep. Bobby Jindal who, if one can trust polls a year ahead of an election, would swamp Blanco out of office faster and more powerfully than a levee breach can offload a ship into New Orleans East. It’s almost certain this legislation will pass before the 2007 election, perhaps by as early as the end of this year. If so, Jindal (along with Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter), can take most of the credit for sending the state billions of dollars.
Blanco, on the other hand, can be credited for delaying lease sales which could have brought more money to various government treasuries (including Louisiana’s) and will keep gas prices higher than they should be by postponing supply increases down the road. All she succeeded in doing was to get the federal government to re-study the environmental impact question. Nobody seriously suggests that any such study would conclude that lease sales must stop to preserve Louisiana. Blanco’s move was just a tantrum masquerading as a consequential policy option.
(The state is trying to argue that some funds might come Louisiana’s way as a result of this settlement, that, in their words, an “honest” assessment would produce funds for “mitigation” of environmental problems. This is wishful thinking: activities occurring as many as a couple of hundred miles have had and are going to have no impact on Louisiana’s land. Actions taken by companies on Louisiana soil are just that, not as a direct result of drilling and, in any event, the companies would be responsible for compensating the state, not the federal government which only leased the tracts.)
Jindal (or others) can remind the electorate of this next year during the gubernatorial campaign, that while he (or others) did some something constructive on this issue, if anything, Blanco acted destructively. All in all, the episode turns out to be another demonstration of Blanco’s inabilities to provide leadership or sensible policy prescriptions, and helps to explain the low esteem with which she is held by the citizenry.
24.10.06
Landrieu, Melancon should be very afraid of Boasso
All that we learned from the trumpeted press conference given Monday by state Sen. Walter Boasso is that he’s running for office. Which one, we don’t know.
Boasso used the opportunity to stump for a website he’s created and backs that purports to induce positive change in Louisiana, which doesn’t really have any information on it one couldn’t get from elsewhere. Its whole tenor and tone suggests it’s building money for a war chest and publicity for a political campaign in the indeterminate future.
A number of observers speculated Boasso would use the occasion to announce for a specific office, governor. Ordinarily, with Boasso’s deep pockets (owning a substantial shipping firm), his coming to the forefront of fiscal and governmental reform issues, and being a Republican with a Democrat governor under heavy criticism, one might expect that the Governor’s Mansion would be his target.
His main problem is that he’s three years too late. At the same time the political novice Boasso made his run for the state Senate, then-novice, now U.S. Rep. and fellow Republican Bobby Jindal made a run for governor and came up just short. Since then, Jindal has collected large sums of campaign dollars and a huge surge of popularity that threatens to swamp any other candidate in the quest for the fourth floor in 2007. It also doesn’t help Boasso that he and Jindal roughly come from the same part of the state.
If Jindal, as it very likely, chooses to run for governor, Boasso must know he would have an incredibly uphill battle to fight. It’s a measure of the rock-bottom fortunes of current Gov. Kathleen Blanco that some observers talk of a Boasso candidacy that would assist her fortunes. What they should understand is that not only would Boasso be as likely to peel votes from Blanco as from Jindal, but also the Republicans probably could ace Blanco out of the general election runoff.
But given the chances of having to beat at least one of Blanco and Jindal to the runoff post, there are easier, and very prestigious offices that Boasso could chase besides governor. In 2007, Boasso could do as Jindal is treating 2006 – a warmup election where Boasso next year, like Jindal this year, could draw token opposition and use the chance to start campaigning for higher office earlier, while not having to vacate his current office (and surely Boasso knows that just four years in state government without ever having run for statewide office makes him a little green for such a big-time campaign as for governor).
The next year could be Boasso’s real opportunity. The Third Congressional District could be his target which this year leans towards incumbent Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon. (This is in large part because his main challenger, state Sen. Craig Romero, burned a lot of bridges among faithful GOP voters when he indirectly aided Melancon in the 2004 runoff against Republican Billy Tauizn III.) Boasso has the resources and the record that could bring this Republican district back in line, especially if the top of the Democrat ticket produces a big Republican year.
However, his ambition may be loftier than that. Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu also must run for reelection in 2008, and no prominent Republican candidate has come forward. With roughly 78,500 more votes gone as of now for her from the state, Boasso would be a good bet to have the state deliver both of its Senate seats into Republican hands. She, and Melancon, should be very worried about Boasso’s increasing profile.
Boasso used the opportunity to stump for a website he’s created and backs that purports to induce positive change in Louisiana, which doesn’t really have any information on it one couldn’t get from elsewhere. Its whole tenor and tone suggests it’s building money for a war chest and publicity for a political campaign in the indeterminate future.
A number of observers speculated Boasso would use the occasion to announce for a specific office, governor. Ordinarily, with Boasso’s deep pockets (owning a substantial shipping firm), his coming to the forefront of fiscal and governmental reform issues, and being a Republican with a Democrat governor under heavy criticism, one might expect that the Governor’s Mansion would be his target.
His main problem is that he’s three years too late. At the same time the political novice Boasso made his run for the state Senate, then-novice, now U.S. Rep. and fellow Republican Bobby Jindal made a run for governor and came up just short. Since then, Jindal has collected large sums of campaign dollars and a huge surge of popularity that threatens to swamp any other candidate in the quest for the fourth floor in 2007. It also doesn’t help Boasso that he and Jindal roughly come from the same part of the state.
If Jindal, as it very likely, chooses to run for governor, Boasso must know he would have an incredibly uphill battle to fight. It’s a measure of the rock-bottom fortunes of current Gov. Kathleen Blanco that some observers talk of a Boasso candidacy that would assist her fortunes. What they should understand is that not only would Boasso be as likely to peel votes from Blanco as from Jindal, but also the Republicans probably could ace Blanco out of the general election runoff.
But given the chances of having to beat at least one of Blanco and Jindal to the runoff post, there are easier, and very prestigious offices that Boasso could chase besides governor. In 2007, Boasso could do as Jindal is treating 2006 – a warmup election where Boasso next year, like Jindal this year, could draw token opposition and use the chance to start campaigning for higher office earlier, while not having to vacate his current office (and surely Boasso knows that just four years in state government without ever having run for statewide office makes him a little green for such a big-time campaign as for governor).
The next year could be Boasso’s real opportunity. The Third Congressional District could be his target which this year leans towards incumbent Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon. (This is in large part because his main challenger, state Sen. Craig Romero, burned a lot of bridges among faithful GOP voters when he indirectly aided Melancon in the 2004 runoff against Republican Billy Tauizn III.) Boasso has the resources and the record that could bring this Republican district back in line, especially if the top of the Democrat ticket produces a big Republican year.
However, his ambition may be loftier than that. Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu also must run for reelection in 2008, and no prominent Republican candidate has come forward. With roughly 78,500 more votes gone as of now for her from the state, Boasso would be a good bet to have the state deliver both of its Senate seats into Republican hands. She, and Melancon, should be very worried about Boasso’s increasing profile.
23.10.06
Does "Superintendent of the Year" mean anything?
Just a few days after it was announced that Caddo Parish school superintendent Ollie Tyler was named as the state’s representative for a national school administrator’s award, the state issued school and district accountability scores – leading one to wonder how Tyler deserved the award and, even more importantly, whether it meant anything.
First, note that the Superintendent of the Year award is doled out by the American Association of School Administrators. Not only does this organization spout the usual trendy leftist drivel all too common in the area of education (for example, see its thoughts on school vouchers), observe the qualification to merit the award: applicants must demonstrate leadership, communication, professionalism and community involvement. Does everybody see the glaring omission in here? In fact, really the only criterion that should matter isn’t on its list: results.
You can provide leadership that makes Winston Churchill seem like a soapbox agitator in Hyde Park. You can communicate in a way that makes Ronald Reagan seem mute. You can redefine professional, and you can attend every PTA meeting everywhere. None of that matters if the children don’t learn, whether you define that strictly as achieving to exceed a demanding certain level or, more generously, as making progress towards meeting that level. Reviewing Caddo Parish schools’ records over the past year, there’s serious doubt whether Tyler (or, reviewing other district’s results, many superintendents) would qualify on this account.
From 2005 to 2006, the year of Tyler’s presumed excellence, of the 69 schools tested in Caddo Parish, only 26 met the (minimal) criteria for progress (and just one of the 11 high schools). This proportion was below the statewide proportion of 40 percent. Further, the state baseline average was at 85.1, of which only 24 schools (including three high schools) met this criterion. (Keep in mind the state’s real goal was to be at least 100 this years, of which only 15 were this year, including two high schools).
(Just for comparison’s sake, next door in Bossier Parish 13 of 29 schools, 45 percent, met progress criteria, 20 exceeded the baseline, and nine got the desired target or better. This seems at the very least to meet, if not exceed, Caddo Parish’s standards, but Bossier superintendent Ken Kruithof didn’t win anything.)
This is not to denigrate Tyler’s accomplishment; I’m sure she is a great speaker and motivator who gets along famously with most of the community. But what Louisiana needs are superintendents that get students adequately educated and, from test results, they seem to be in short supply. Maybe because too many of them buy into an education establishment that strives more to make its members feel good rather than pursue policies that fulfill children’s needs for student achievement.
First, note that the Superintendent of the Year award is doled out by the American Association of School Administrators. Not only does this organization spout the usual trendy leftist drivel all too common in the area of education (for example, see its thoughts on school vouchers), observe the qualification to merit the award: applicants must demonstrate leadership, communication, professionalism and community involvement. Does everybody see the glaring omission in here? In fact, really the only criterion that should matter isn’t on its list: results.
You can provide leadership that makes Winston Churchill seem like a soapbox agitator in Hyde Park. You can communicate in a way that makes Ronald Reagan seem mute. You can redefine professional, and you can attend every PTA meeting everywhere. None of that matters if the children don’t learn, whether you define that strictly as achieving to exceed a demanding certain level or, more generously, as making progress towards meeting that level. Reviewing Caddo Parish schools’ records over the past year, there’s serious doubt whether Tyler (or, reviewing other district’s results, many superintendents) would qualify on this account.
From 2005 to 2006, the year of Tyler’s presumed excellence, of the 69 schools tested in Caddo Parish, only 26 met the (minimal) criteria for progress (and just one of the 11 high schools). This proportion was below the statewide proportion of 40 percent. Further, the state baseline average was at 85.1, of which only 24 schools (including three high schools) met this criterion. (Keep in mind the state’s real goal was to be at least 100 this years, of which only 15 were this year, including two high schools).
(Just for comparison’s sake, next door in Bossier Parish 13 of 29 schools, 45 percent, met progress criteria, 20 exceeded the baseline, and nine got the desired target or better. This seems at the very least to meet, if not exceed, Caddo Parish’s standards, but Bossier superintendent Ken Kruithof didn’t win anything.)
This is not to denigrate Tyler’s accomplishment; I’m sure she is a great speaker and motivator who gets along famously with most of the community. But what Louisiana needs are superintendents that get students adequately educated and, from test results, they seem to be in short supply. Maybe because too many of them buy into an education establishment that strives more to make its members feel good rather than pursue policies that fulfill children’s needs for student achievement.
22.10.06
Zaitoon attracted protesters; bad sign for incumbents
I was intrigued by a comment somebody else that had been in the political science profession made about the special elections for insurance commissioner, that the reason Libertarian S.B.A. Zaitoon racked up 11 percent in the insurance commissioners’ race was because Democrats had no place to turn with two major Republican candidates in the contest. It echoed a comment made by a campaign operative of one of those GOP candidates on television Saturday night.
On the surface, it seems ridiculous. Ideologically, libertarians are much closer to conservatives, which ideology is the hallmark of Republican, not liberal Democrat, candidates. To me (as I announced on Shreveport’s KSLA-TV during election night and in a subsequent posting), it sounded like these voters were protest votes against the two Republicans, both incumbent officeholders.
Still, the claim deserved some investigation, so I got parish voter registration statistics and Zaitoon’s vote in each, and computed a linear regression of the vote percentage on the percentages of white Democrats, black Democrats, Republicans, and other party registrants. This technique can determine which factor has an impact on the vote, and the strength of that factor, relative to all factors.
If this claim were true, we would expect to see several things: (1) the higher the percentage of black Democrats in a parish, the higher the percentage of the vote for Zaitoon, (2) the higher the percentage of white Democrats in a parish, the higher the percentage of the vote for Zaitoon, and (3) the higher the percentage of Republicans in a parish, the lower the percentage of the vote for Zaitoon (we also should expect to see the higher the percentage of other party registrants in a parish, the higher the percentage of the vote for Zaitoon, but that is unrelated to the question posed).
Upon performing the regression, it seems there is a kind of truth to the assertion, because the strongest determinant of the vote for Zaitoon was percentage of black Democrats in a parish – twice as strong as the only other significant factor, other party registrants. In both cases the higher the percentages, the higher the vote percentage for Zaitoon in a parish. But, both white Democrats and Republicans were missing from the equation; neither group’s numbers were shown to be related to Zaitoon’s percentage won.
This tells us a two things; firstly, that Democrats as a whole did not view Zaitoon, absent a Democrat, as the non-Republican to vote for, but black Democrats seemed so against the idea of voting for anybody listed as a Republican that they voted for a Libertarian, and, secondly, since the negative relationship was not present for Republicans (because their percentages should have varied positively with the combined total of the two Republican candidates), this says to us that a significant portion of Republicans defected and voted for Zaitoon, out of protest.
So, in reality, the vote for Zaitoon was a double-protest vote: some blacks because they didn’t want to vote for a Republican, and some Republicans because they didn’t want to vote for an existing officeholder even of their own party. It wasn’t Democrats generally because those who were white were no more likely to vote for him than either of the other two major candidates. Race and Republicanism really mattered here, reaffirming that a groundswell is brewing against long-time incumbents who will try to run in state contests in 2007.
On the surface, it seems ridiculous. Ideologically, libertarians are much closer to conservatives, which ideology is the hallmark of Republican, not liberal Democrat, candidates. To me (as I announced on Shreveport’s KSLA-TV during election night and in a subsequent posting), it sounded like these voters were protest votes against the two Republicans, both incumbent officeholders.
Still, the claim deserved some investigation, so I got parish voter registration statistics and Zaitoon’s vote in each, and computed a linear regression of the vote percentage on the percentages of white Democrats, black Democrats, Republicans, and other party registrants. This technique can determine which factor has an impact on the vote, and the strength of that factor, relative to all factors.
If this claim were true, we would expect to see several things: (1) the higher the percentage of black Democrats in a parish, the higher the percentage of the vote for Zaitoon, (2) the higher the percentage of white Democrats in a parish, the higher the percentage of the vote for Zaitoon, and (3) the higher the percentage of Republicans in a parish, the lower the percentage of the vote for Zaitoon (we also should expect to see the higher the percentage of other party registrants in a parish, the higher the percentage of the vote for Zaitoon, but that is unrelated to the question posed).
Upon performing the regression, it seems there is a kind of truth to the assertion, because the strongest determinant of the vote for Zaitoon was percentage of black Democrats in a parish – twice as strong as the only other significant factor, other party registrants. In both cases the higher the percentages, the higher the vote percentage for Zaitoon in a parish. But, both white Democrats and Republicans were missing from the equation; neither group’s numbers were shown to be related to Zaitoon’s percentage won.
This tells us a two things; firstly, that Democrats as a whole did not view Zaitoon, absent a Democrat, as the non-Republican to vote for, but black Democrats seemed so against the idea of voting for anybody listed as a Republican that they voted for a Libertarian, and, secondly, since the negative relationship was not present for Republicans (because their percentages should have varied positively with the combined total of the two Republican candidates), this says to us that a significant portion of Republicans defected and voted for Zaitoon, out of protest.
So, in reality, the vote for Zaitoon was a double-protest vote: some blacks because they didn’t want to vote for a Republican, and some Republicans because they didn’t want to vote for an existing officeholder even of their own party. It wasn’t Democrats generally because those who were white were no more likely to vote for him than either of the other two major candidates. Race and Republicanism really mattered here, reaffirming that a groundswell is brewing against long-time incumbents who will try to run in state contests in 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)