Some bills wending their ways through the legislative process give us insight into the agendas of the good-old-boys and others who try to smile through clenched teeth at the efforts of reformers led by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal to steer the state away from its populist/liberal past. Bills sponsored by one of those forcing a smile on his face, Democrat state Sen. Ben Nevers, are instructive in this regard.
In practice, his SB 19 is great. It goes beyond already-approved legislation that would allow $50 only per consumption opportunity for legislators by setting it to zero (which is the standard in several states). He’s right when he argues its better than the $50 limit in that it would reduce paperwork with no necessity to report expenditures to show they were under the limit. And there’s no reason lobbyists can’t conduct business outside of a restaurant or bar.
But when viewing other legislation of his, one wonders whether he really means this bill as a poison pill – getting his bill passed out of the Senate instead of the other set to $50 and then give the House the chance to rebel against going from all to nothing thus by rejecting his leaving the standard at any amount goes. This is because other bills of his seem designed to get back at reformers in the name of reform while exacting a terrible price on political rights.
His SB 23 originally was to prevent anybody who contributed to a campaign of an elected official, of any amount, from being appointed to a position in government. This bill was bad enough, forcing people who wish to serve in government to abrogate their free speech rights. In various ways government is permitted to limit free speech rights such as by capping amounts of donations or by prohibiting them entirely if the entity of concern is in certain regulated enterprises, but there simply is no compelling governmental interest in putting such limitations on the exercise of peoples’ political rights.
(The uninformed try to argue that contributions “buy” an office, but in fact not only does research show that simply is not the case, but intuitively such an assertion is illogical – the vast majority of large donors don’t get appointments, and many non-donors do. This doesn’t mean donations can’t be factor, but that their influence is so modest to nonexistent that curtailment of free speech rights simply cannot be justified.)
However, amendments he permitted to it really show where his true interests lie. The most current version of the bill passed out of committee places the stricture only on donors (and their family members, and principles of corporations in which they have an interest except for those publicly traded) who give at least $2,500 in an election cycle.
So, that implies that if you give $2,499.99 or less somehow this doesn’t taint your donation, but add a cent and suddenly it means you’re trying to buy an appointment? It should be equally as “bad” whether it’s one cent or $5,000, if there’s any principle at all involved here. And note that by law this now restricts the officials to which it would apply – unless it is exactly $2,500, it would apply only to “major” offices, basically statewide elected officials and those elected to state boards.
This points to the real agenda of supporters of the bill – to get back at Jindal for making government less of a potential gravy train for public officials. And given the disingenuousness of the backers of SB 23, it then brings to question their motives about SB 19 if they, like obviously Nevers, back the bill, too. Hopefully, reformers will see what SB 23 really is and defeat it, while foiling the poison pill strategy by passing SB 19.
14.2.08
Process to, not nominee, shapes Landrieu's chances
It’s refreshing to see that the media and other interested political observers finally have caught on to what I observed many months ago – that Sen. Mary Landrieu’s reelection chances are going to be significantly reduced if Sen. Hillary Clinton gets the Democrats’ nomination for president.
Simply, given the dynamics of Louisiana’s political scene – and now especially since a serious challenger in the form of Republican state Treasurer John Kennedy has committed to the contest – Landrieu is on thin ice to get reelected with Clinton at the top of the ticket. When somebody has about half the American public not wanting to vote for her under any circumstances, it’s bound to trickle down and harm under-ballot candidates across the country.
Whether Sen. Barack Obama was the party’s nominee would help Landrieu is another matter, at best marginally. While Obama would do better than Clinton in a matchup against presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain because he is the “magic Negro” prepared to give some white voters a chance to assuage their “white guilt,” that also is unlikely to trickle down very much to assist her since that magic will be contained mostly to perceptions about him.
Still, the fact is that McCain on his own will not activate conservatives to show up at the polls to vote for him and for other Republican nominees. Obama won’t do much to activate them against himself no matter how well publicized his liberal voting record is, but Clinton could get them riled to vote against her. For that reason, Landrieu should prefer that Obama carry the flag for the party in November even if his extreme liberalism will not limit much the losses sustained compared to Clinton as the nominee.
While the hypothesis that black voters, a voting base for Landrieu, would be activated by an Obama candidacy, is credible it can be overstated. If Clinton wraps up the nomination prior to the convention, she will rack up a similar number of black voters in the fall as would have Obama. But if it turns into an open convention with a floor fight for the Democrat nomination, the bitterness of a potential Obama defeat might discourage black voters from going to the polls and once there supporting Landrieu in November. Otherwise, expect a similar black turnout for either candidate, which Landrieu hopes is as high as can be.
So while it’s too simplistic to argue that one or the other Democrat presidential nominee will hurt Landrieu’s chances more, more pertinent is that either nominee is going to hurt Landrieu’s chances, and how much damage done will depend upon how bitter the nomination struggle is for the Democrats’ nominee for the presidency.
Simply, given the dynamics of Louisiana’s political scene – and now especially since a serious challenger in the form of Republican state Treasurer John Kennedy has committed to the contest – Landrieu is on thin ice to get reelected with Clinton at the top of the ticket. When somebody has about half the American public not wanting to vote for her under any circumstances, it’s bound to trickle down and harm under-ballot candidates across the country.
Whether Sen. Barack Obama was the party’s nominee would help Landrieu is another matter, at best marginally. While Obama would do better than Clinton in a matchup against presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain because he is the “magic Negro” prepared to give some white voters a chance to assuage their “white guilt,” that also is unlikely to trickle down very much to assist her since that magic will be contained mostly to perceptions about him.
Still, the fact is that McCain on his own will not activate conservatives to show up at the polls to vote for him and for other Republican nominees. Obama won’t do much to activate them against himself no matter how well publicized his liberal voting record is, but Clinton could get them riled to vote against her. For that reason, Landrieu should prefer that Obama carry the flag for the party in November even if his extreme liberalism will not limit much the losses sustained compared to Clinton as the nominee.
While the hypothesis that black voters, a voting base for Landrieu, would be activated by an Obama candidacy, is credible it can be overstated. If Clinton wraps up the nomination prior to the convention, she will rack up a similar number of black voters in the fall as would have Obama. But if it turns into an open convention with a floor fight for the Democrat nomination, the bitterness of a potential Obama defeat might discourage black voters from going to the polls and once there supporting Landrieu in November. Otherwise, expect a similar black turnout for either candidate, which Landrieu hopes is as high as can be.
So while it’s too simplistic to argue that one or the other Democrat presidential nominee will hurt Landrieu’s chances more, more pertinent is that either nominee is going to hurt Landrieu’s chances, and how much damage done will depend upon how bitter the nomination struggle is for the Democrats’ nominee for the presidency.
13.2.08
Whining legislators remind of need for LA ethics reform
Just as some opponents of Gov. Bobby Jindal have been using scare tactics to try to paint the governor as a hypocrite on the issue of ethics reform, as the special session devoted to the issue moves along, some legislators are beginning to scare people to dilute the whole effort surrounding reform.
While some (careful) carping has come from obvious suspects, such as state Sen. Joe McPherson who earns much of his livelihood from government, other complaints have registered from lawmakers who typically have shown a much better grasp of what is the real purpose of government and the role of elected officials within it. For example, state Sen. Mike Walsworth rapidly seems to be earning a solid reputation of speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue thereby demonstrating he doesn’t seem very connected to the typical citizen.
In one venue, we hear Walsworth saying of the ethics package “I think most of what I've seen is common sense,” and “I think the elected officials want it, too. We want to get this monkey off our backs.” But when it comes to the actual debate over the package, Walsworth’s rhetoric has illustrated one of the secondary goals the package seeks to accomplish, bringing elected officials back to reality and in touch with the people.
We witness Walsworth whining that the proposal to eliminate free tickets for officials to anything will hurt his ability to be a legislator and “I don’t want to get so far into ethics that we can’t do our jobs.” Next, in what appears to be a poison pill strategy to water down provisions against legislators he laments that another proposal that would limit spending on a public employee to $50 an occasion will mean a “mom and dad couldn't take their child's teacher out to say 'thank you' if her bill comes to over $50,” no doubt knowing that there’s no way a workable law can be created that would impose that limit on some government employees and not on others.
My advice to Walsworth is that he just suck it up and learn to live like the rest of us, both those or are or are not employed by government in some capacity. Does Walsworth seriously think it’s part of his job to get offered free passes to every baseball game, car and boat show, boudin festival, and back-slapping, flesh-pressing event? You know, if he really wants to attend these, if they are really so crucial to his being a legislator, he could just buy a ticket like everybody else. And if that’s too much of a strain on his bank account (which is what he implies), I’d recommend he find another way to serve the public.
And is Walsworth so dense that he doesn’t understand you can show appreciation to a public servant without on the behalf of the celebrant ordering every course at Don’s, Ruth’s Chris, or Commander’s Palace? During testimony on that bill, Sen. Pres. Joel Chaisson put in their places Walsworth and those who think a $50 limit is an intolerable burden by which to limit government employees by remarking “Legislators were going out and buying $100 to $150 bottles of wine. Unlimited expense is simply not acceptable.”
While the ethics package will have the very obvious and salutary effect of reducing opportunities for corruption, it also will have the benefit of reminding officials that government service isn’t about getting perks. And that’s why we can expect to hear more trivial sniping about it from some legislators over the next couple of weeks.
While some (careful) carping has come from obvious suspects, such as state Sen. Joe McPherson who earns much of his livelihood from government, other complaints have registered from lawmakers who typically have shown a much better grasp of what is the real purpose of government and the role of elected officials within it. For example, state Sen. Mike Walsworth rapidly seems to be earning a solid reputation of speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue thereby demonstrating he doesn’t seem very connected to the typical citizen.
In one venue, we hear Walsworth saying of the ethics package “I think most of what I've seen is common sense,” and “I think the elected officials want it, too. We want to get this monkey off our backs.” But when it comes to the actual debate over the package, Walsworth’s rhetoric has illustrated one of the secondary goals the package seeks to accomplish, bringing elected officials back to reality and in touch with the people.
We witness Walsworth whining that the proposal to eliminate free tickets for officials to anything will hurt his ability to be a legislator and “I don’t want to get so far into ethics that we can’t do our jobs.” Next, in what appears to be a poison pill strategy to water down provisions against legislators he laments that another proposal that would limit spending on a public employee to $50 an occasion will mean a “mom and dad couldn't take their child's teacher out to say 'thank you' if her bill comes to over $50,” no doubt knowing that there’s no way a workable law can be created that would impose that limit on some government employees and not on others.
My advice to Walsworth is that he just suck it up and learn to live like the rest of us, both those or are or are not employed by government in some capacity. Does Walsworth seriously think it’s part of his job to get offered free passes to every baseball game, car and boat show, boudin festival, and back-slapping, flesh-pressing event? You know, if he really wants to attend these, if they are really so crucial to his being a legislator, he could just buy a ticket like everybody else. And if that’s too much of a strain on his bank account (which is what he implies), I’d recommend he find another way to serve the public.
And is Walsworth so dense that he doesn’t understand you can show appreciation to a public servant without on the behalf of the celebrant ordering every course at Don’s, Ruth’s Chris, or Commander’s Palace? During testimony on that bill, Sen. Pres. Joel Chaisson put in their places Walsworth and those who think a $50 limit is an intolerable burden by which to limit government employees by remarking “Legislators were going out and buying $100 to $150 bottles of wine. Unlimited expense is simply not acceptable.”
While the ethics package will have the very obvious and salutary effect of reducing opportunities for corruption, it also will have the benefit of reminding officials that government service isn’t about getting perks. And that’s why we can expect to hear more trivial sniping about it from some legislators over the next couple of weeks.
11.2.08
Ethics enforcement change criticism part of larger agenda
As the Louisiana Legislature dives into the ethics special session summoned by Gov. Bobby Jindal, a clever if not disingenuous sort of opposition has emerged against him piggybacked onto that very issue of ethics. It represents the opening salvo of anti-Jindal opponents attempting to diminish his political power.
Very overtly has been the issue of a campaign finance report oversight by Jindal’s campaign. Jindal’s adversaries in both the media and Democrat Party jumped on that in a rush to try to tarnish Jindal’s reputation on ethics. Mind you, the campaign received no assistance illegally, it just failed to report an expense on its behalf and corrected it but tardily, bending over backwards not to contest it and to pay the fine as quickly as possible. (And ironically, the Democrat who made the biggest fuss about it, Chairman Chris Whittington, a month later looks to be out of a job since he lost election to the party’s state central committee last weekend.)
More covertly has been criticism about one special session item call which would revamp the procedures involved in judging and enforcing ethics violations. This item would separate the investigatory and enforcement aspects, with the state’s Ethics Board essentially pressing charges, and then impartial administrative law judges hearing the case and deciding a sentence if guilt is established.
This is a fairer system, used already in 10 states. Not only would it put the eventual decision in the hands of individuals hired for their expertise through the merit-based civil service who cannot be pressured politically in their decision-making, but it takes it out of the hands of inexpert political appointees who act as investigator, judge, and jury. In short, it is an improvement over the current arrangement.
For example, a hearing may be conducted by somebody in a state civil service job who is appointed by merit and in all likelihood will possess a law degree (something in short supply on the current Ethics Board). Going up the administrative line (according to the relevant bill, HB 41 vesting the judges in the Department of State Civil Service’s Division of Administrative Law), this person’s boss would be a gubernatorial appointee (with Senate confirmation) of a fixed six-year term independent of the governor’s who cannot be fired by the governor. Part of the director’s job is to assign judges to cases. Overall, it is a system that promotes expertise and leaves little room for politics.
Yet in almost Orwellian fashion, some have gone on the record asserting the reform actually will make matters worse, regardless of the fact that it works elsewhere, that it increases expertise, and decreases politicization of the process. Amazingly – indicating either ignorance of the alternative or revealing their true motives are simply to oppose Jindal whenever and wherever on whatever – some of these critics have long lambasted the current Ethics Board yet when an obvious improvement in the ethics administration process comes about they somehow argue it is a step backwards. What’s it going to be, either political consideration plays too much of a role already, or it doesn’t and this change will?
As surrealistically, current chairman of the Ethics Board Hank Perret has joined in his criticism saying the DAL director, thus by extension the governor, can influence the process – as if the current board isn’t composed of political appointees such as himself who have much more influence over the current process with much less insulation from politics and personal agendas. Fear of loss of power and prestige, rather than a genuine desire to improve the process, seems a better explanation for his opinion.
As noted previously, much of the conflict that will occur during the ethics session outside issues of monetary and power enrichment by legislators will concern how the session’s outcomes will impact the power Jindal can use to fulfill an agenda which he promised would radically change the state’s philosophy regarding the size and priorities of government. Many opponents of that think that a little cut here trying to paint Jindal as insincere on ethics reform combined with other little cuts elsewhere will bring his overall overhaul efforts to a bloody halt. It is just the first of many tests Jindal can expect to receive.
Very overtly has been the issue of a campaign finance report oversight by Jindal’s campaign. Jindal’s adversaries in both the media and Democrat Party jumped on that in a rush to try to tarnish Jindal’s reputation on ethics. Mind you, the campaign received no assistance illegally, it just failed to report an expense on its behalf and corrected it but tardily, bending over backwards not to contest it and to pay the fine as quickly as possible. (And ironically, the Democrat who made the biggest fuss about it, Chairman Chris Whittington, a month later looks to be out of a job since he lost election to the party’s state central committee last weekend.)
More covertly has been criticism about one special session item call which would revamp the procedures involved in judging and enforcing ethics violations. This item would separate the investigatory and enforcement aspects, with the state’s Ethics Board essentially pressing charges, and then impartial administrative law judges hearing the case and deciding a sentence if guilt is established.
This is a fairer system, used already in 10 states. Not only would it put the eventual decision in the hands of individuals hired for their expertise through the merit-based civil service who cannot be pressured politically in their decision-making, but it takes it out of the hands of inexpert political appointees who act as investigator, judge, and jury. In short, it is an improvement over the current arrangement.
For example, a hearing may be conducted by somebody in a state civil service job who is appointed by merit and in all likelihood will possess a law degree (something in short supply on the current Ethics Board). Going up the administrative line (according to the relevant bill, HB 41 vesting the judges in the Department of State Civil Service’s Division of Administrative Law), this person’s boss would be a gubernatorial appointee (with Senate confirmation) of a fixed six-year term independent of the governor’s who cannot be fired by the governor. Part of the director’s job is to assign judges to cases. Overall, it is a system that promotes expertise and leaves little room for politics.
Yet in almost Orwellian fashion, some have gone on the record asserting the reform actually will make matters worse, regardless of the fact that it works elsewhere, that it increases expertise, and decreases politicization of the process. Amazingly – indicating either ignorance of the alternative or revealing their true motives are simply to oppose Jindal whenever and wherever on whatever – some of these critics have long lambasted the current Ethics Board yet when an obvious improvement in the ethics administration process comes about they somehow argue it is a step backwards. What’s it going to be, either political consideration plays too much of a role already, or it doesn’t and this change will?
As surrealistically, current chairman of the Ethics Board Hank Perret has joined in his criticism saying the DAL director, thus by extension the governor, can influence the process – as if the current board isn’t composed of political appointees such as himself who have much more influence over the current process with much less insulation from politics and personal agendas. Fear of loss of power and prestige, rather than a genuine desire to improve the process, seems a better explanation for his opinion.
As noted previously, much of the conflict that will occur during the ethics session outside issues of monetary and power enrichment by legislators will concern how the session’s outcomes will impact the power Jindal can use to fulfill an agenda which he promised would radically change the state’s philosophy regarding the size and priorities of government. Many opponents of that think that a little cut here trying to paint Jindal as insincere on ethics reform combined with other little cuts elsewhere will bring his overall overhaul efforts to a bloody halt. It is just the first of many tests Jindal can expect to receive.
10.2.08
More than ethics at stake for Jindal at special session
Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal gave a pep talk to the troops hankering for ethics reform as well as a plea, and challenge, to the legislators who have to make it happen at the opening of the 2008 First Extraordinary Session of the Legislature. Despite strong support from many quarters, meaningful ethics reform in politics is by no means a “slam dunk” for Jindal and its proponents because of two forces that don’t want to see much in the way of changes – those for whom the changes would cramp their style, and those who don’t want to see Jindal off to a good start.
While those who would not like tougher standards are far fewer than those who do, those who don’t have disproportionate power in the process, for the most part legislators themselves and special interests whose machinations are aided by reduced transparency. Some of what Jindal calls the “squealing hogs” merely voice code- and carefully worded opposition, while others take more active measures to try to make the attempt look farcical.
For a specific example for the former, when Democrat maiden state Rep. Rosalind Jones – whose father in the Legislature drew 11 ethics rebukes – complains that legislators who hold contractual relationships that could be outlawed under these reforms should be grandfathered in, it’s a veiled jab at the entire idea, but one she knows is probably too popular for her to defeat. For a general example, we can views Democrat state Sen. Joe McPherson’s whining that “It’s the oddest call I’ve ever seen as far as the specificity of it. This is another governor who says, ‘It’s my way or the highway’” – a sentiment directly contradicted by other legislators such as Republican House leader state Rep. Jane Smith who said the administration’s willingness to work with the Legislature is one reason she believes Jindal’s package will pass.
The latter group is represented by the likes of Democrat state Sen. Ben Nevers, who has offered legislation (SB 20) that would prevent elected officials from running from another elective office and another (SB 23) that would prohibit the governor from appointing anybody to anything who contributed to his campaign. The former serves absolutely no ethical purpose and the latter is a deliberate attempt to discourage exercise of free speech rights. These will go nowhere, and then some of the hogs will create a straw man criticism that governor either isn’t serious enough about reform, or that their extreme bills are the logical extensions of his ideas and that such extremism of ideas should be defeated.
Looking towards a global perspective, there are those who want to make sure Jindal politically gains little luster from the session because they want to reduce his power for the future. Strategically, Jindal’s move to have the session is crafty. He picked a subject area with widespread popular support as the first opportunity to legislate for many, especially in the House with rookies comprising over half of it, many of whom evoked ethics in their campaigns – and who have not seen the temptations that lax ethics standards could entice them into opposition. If Jindal can get at least half of the agenda the way he wants and the other half in a semblance of the way he wants, his power will magnify for the next contemplated special session on economics and the regular session, which will feature the slaughtering of a lot of sacred cows for which he’ll need all the power he can get.
So there will be a struggle only partially related to the specific content of the ethical reforms. By design, a larger conflict will play out with ethics as the battlefield – but the place of conflict chosen by Jindal, which will give him an advantage in the long term. As long as the majority of Jindal’s agenda is not defeated or is diluted into near-vapidity, he wins this battle and gains advantage in the larger conflicts ahead. Otherwise, he may have trouble living up to high expectations that have formed around his governorship.
While those who would not like tougher standards are far fewer than those who do, those who don’t have disproportionate power in the process, for the most part legislators themselves and special interests whose machinations are aided by reduced transparency. Some of what Jindal calls the “squealing hogs” merely voice code- and carefully worded opposition, while others take more active measures to try to make the attempt look farcical.
For a specific example for the former, when Democrat maiden state Rep. Rosalind Jones – whose father in the Legislature drew 11 ethics rebukes – complains that legislators who hold contractual relationships that could be outlawed under these reforms should be grandfathered in, it’s a veiled jab at the entire idea, but one she knows is probably too popular for her to defeat. For a general example, we can views Democrat state Sen. Joe McPherson’s whining that “It’s the oddest call I’ve ever seen as far as the specificity of it. This is another governor who says, ‘It’s my way or the highway’” – a sentiment directly contradicted by other legislators such as Republican House leader state Rep. Jane Smith who said the administration’s willingness to work with the Legislature is one reason she believes Jindal’s package will pass.
The latter group is represented by the likes of Democrat state Sen. Ben Nevers, who has offered legislation (SB 20) that would prevent elected officials from running from another elective office and another (SB 23) that would prohibit the governor from appointing anybody to anything who contributed to his campaign. The former serves absolutely no ethical purpose and the latter is a deliberate attempt to discourage exercise of free speech rights. These will go nowhere, and then some of the hogs will create a straw man criticism that governor either isn’t serious enough about reform, or that their extreme bills are the logical extensions of his ideas and that such extremism of ideas should be defeated.
Looking towards a global perspective, there are those who want to make sure Jindal politically gains little luster from the session because they want to reduce his power for the future. Strategically, Jindal’s move to have the session is crafty. He picked a subject area with widespread popular support as the first opportunity to legislate for many, especially in the House with rookies comprising over half of it, many of whom evoked ethics in their campaigns – and who have not seen the temptations that lax ethics standards could entice them into opposition. If Jindal can get at least half of the agenda the way he wants and the other half in a semblance of the way he wants, his power will magnify for the next contemplated special session on economics and the regular session, which will feature the slaughtering of a lot of sacred cows for which he’ll need all the power he can get.
So there will be a struggle only partially related to the specific content of the ethical reforms. By design, a larger conflict will play out with ethics as the battlefield – but the place of conflict chosen by Jindal, which will give him an advantage in the long term. As long as the majority of Jindal’s agenda is not defeated or is diluted into near-vapidity, he wins this battle and gains advantage in the larger conflicts ahead. Otherwise, he may have trouble living up to high expectations that have formed around his governorship.
9.2.08
LA primaries keep McCain rolling, Dems up in the air
The results of the Democrat primary in Louisiana yielded no surprise, but a mild upset almost emerged on the Republican side.
Sen. Barack Obama pulled in numbers pretty close to what I predicted a few days back and he will very likely then win the majority of popularly-elected delegates when the party state central committee meets May 3. But given that Sen. Hillary Clinton will get the nod of almost all of the “superdelegates,” at best Obama will win a narrow majority of the state’s delegates. This means overall at this juncture Clinton was the real winner, since the dynamics of future primaries plus the large advantage she will hold in superdelegates when the dust settles means Obama needed to put as much space as possible as he could between him and her and he got little.
For Republicans, the expectation was that the suspension of his campaign by former Gov. Mitt Romney would discourage enough people from voting for him that it could allow Sen. John McCain to claim the 50 percent plus one vote needed to ensure that elected Republican delegates become pledges to him, about half of the total to be decided next weekend. Instead, support in north Louisiana for former Gov. Mike Huckabee thrust him into the position of potentially eclipsing the absolute majority statewide needed to capture these delegates.
All night as votes were counted, Huckabee cruised in the upper forty percent of the vote, However, since several candidates unlike Romney had withdrawn rather than suspended their campaigns, their votes were thrown out of the calculations to compute a winner, with those candidates getting about 2 percent of the overall vote. Thus, Huckabee’s effective overall percentage need to get the delegates was only about 49 percent.
In the end, Romney’s decision not to withdraw may have led to Huckabee’s inability to crest over the magic mark. Assuming those voters would not have voted or of those who did at least half voted for Huckabee, the 6 percent Romney did pick up was enough to deny him. And a vote for many for Romney could have bee purely intentional, even knowing effectively he was out of the race – a show of defiance against McCain for lacking too many core conservative beliefs, against Huckabee for his desire to tax and spend, and against Rep. Ron Paul (who Romey still outdistanced) for his inability to understand optimal foreign policy. Thus, the actual distribution of delegates will be decided next Satruday.
So in the end, the Republican version had little meaning bearing on a McCain progression to the nomination, while the Democrat exercise helped keep the competition going between Clinton and Obama without any substantial advantage to either side.
Sen. Barack Obama pulled in numbers pretty close to what I predicted a few days back and he will very likely then win the majority of popularly-elected delegates when the party state central committee meets May 3. But given that Sen. Hillary Clinton will get the nod of almost all of the “superdelegates,” at best Obama will win a narrow majority of the state’s delegates. This means overall at this juncture Clinton was the real winner, since the dynamics of future primaries plus the large advantage she will hold in superdelegates when the dust settles means Obama needed to put as much space as possible as he could between him and her and he got little.
For Republicans, the expectation was that the suspension of his campaign by former Gov. Mitt Romney would discourage enough people from voting for him that it could allow Sen. John McCain to claim the 50 percent plus one vote needed to ensure that elected Republican delegates become pledges to him, about half of the total to be decided next weekend. Instead, support in north Louisiana for former Gov. Mike Huckabee thrust him into the position of potentially eclipsing the absolute majority statewide needed to capture these delegates.
All night as votes were counted, Huckabee cruised in the upper forty percent of the vote, However, since several candidates unlike Romney had withdrawn rather than suspended their campaigns, their votes were thrown out of the calculations to compute a winner, with those candidates getting about 2 percent of the overall vote. Thus, Huckabee’s effective overall percentage need to get the delegates was only about 49 percent.
In the end, Romney’s decision not to withdraw may have led to Huckabee’s inability to crest over the magic mark. Assuming those voters would not have voted or of those who did at least half voted for Huckabee, the 6 percent Romney did pick up was enough to deny him. And a vote for many for Romney could have bee purely intentional, even knowing effectively he was out of the race – a show of defiance against McCain for lacking too many core conservative beliefs, against Huckabee for his desire to tax and spend, and against Rep. Ron Paul (who Romey still outdistanced) for his inability to understand optimal foreign policy. Thus, the actual distribution of delegates will be decided next Satruday.
So in the end, the Republican version had little meaning bearing on a McCain progression to the nomination, while the Democrat exercise helped keep the competition going between Clinton and Obama without any substantial advantage to either side.
7.2.08
NW LA state seat up for grabs, for U.S. seat developing
The fun started when U.S. Rep. Jim McCrery announced his retirement at the end of 2008 but what really set things in motion was when then-state Rep. Mike Powell not only passed on this race, but also on his own seat. The resulting chaos points to 2008 being an interesting year for political watchers in northwest Louisiana.
Powell had long been considered one of the front runners for the Fourth District slot and his state post was as secure as could be, witnessed by only him qualifying for it last September. But by the end of the year he had resigned it and begged out completely, citing the need to feed the various mouths of his large family.
This has perturbed some who wondered why Powell simply didn’t run for reelection, arguing that the need to concentrate on a full-time career wasn’t one that appears suddenly, which would not have required the special election this Saturday for his seat. Regardless whether Powell is in office he has built a substantial political organization in east Shreveport and the efficiency for it to elect preferred candidates is maximized by controlling the timing of the election to replace him.
That candidate may be former city councilman Republican Thomas Carmody who many of Powell’s supporters backed in his two successful runs for the Council finishing his service there in 2006. That candidate probably is not Republican Barrow Peacock, who ran against Powell in 2003 and who just finished up a try for the state senate seat in this district.
Success in this election is crucial for Peacock, now making his third attempt for the state legislature in slightly more than four years. When somebody makes a couple of spirited if unsuccessful attempts for office, he’s often seen as persistent and eager to serve. But strike out three times and for subsequent attempts he’s often viewed as a crank who won’t give up even as the people’s verdict is clear.
While Peacock almost doubled his proportion of the vote in 2007 over 2003, the fact is he missed the general election runoff both times running campaigns that were a mile wide and an inch deep – leading one to wonder whether he has a license to print money as his largely self-financed, expensive campaigns both times have revealed not much support from the activist base of the Republican Party. And he did himself no favors last fall with this group by refusing to back publicly genuine conservative Republican B.L. “Buddy” Shaw in the Senate runoff against ex-Democrat state Rep. Billy Montgomery (especially as it is Montgomery donated to Carmody's campaign).
Peacock will benefit from his recent joust as the name recognition garnered from it will carry over into this contest barely three months removed from the last. But the dynamics differ dramatically in this special election held concurrently with presidential preference primaries because the lower turnout will make activists disproportionately more important – and they probably will favor Carmody.
Carmody by the end of his career was known as the most fiscally conservative member of Shreveport’s City Council and won convincingly two terms, but his exposure is limited in the Bossier Parish part of the district where about 15 percent of its registered voters live and a month is a short period of time to raise enough money to remind voters who you are. Still, unless there’s an unusually high turnout, Carmody should win.
While Saturday will settle that race, the fate of McCrery’s job now really lies in the hands of one individual. With Powell out, one prohibitive favorite has emerged who either preordains the matter by his announcement that he’s in, or leaves a wide-open field with his deferral.
If Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator wants the job, it’s his. Prator has been the most popular politician in the region given his almost-uncontested elections for the office and good reputation in discharging its duties. The only reason Prator might pass would be winning would remove his status as the closest thing the parish has to a chief executive in order to become one of the lowliest of 435 legislators. Having been a chief executive for over a decade in a small pond, being a (relatively) small fish in a bigger pond may not seem too attractive.
But heavy pressure is being brought to bear on him to make this transition by local Republicans because he’ll guarantee the party retains the seat. If he doesn’t run, all bets are off as to who could triumph, and possible victors would include Democrat former mayor of Shreveport Keith Hightower, likely the only of his party that could win. Prator will have to decide soon because if he does opt out, Republican candidates who are waiting on him (although one has started regardless) need to get campaigning as soon as possible to counter a likely Hightower bid.
Powell had long been considered one of the front runners for the Fourth District slot and his state post was as secure as could be, witnessed by only him qualifying for it last September. But by the end of the year he had resigned it and begged out completely, citing the need to feed the various mouths of his large family.
This has perturbed some who wondered why Powell simply didn’t run for reelection, arguing that the need to concentrate on a full-time career wasn’t one that appears suddenly, which would not have required the special election this Saturday for his seat. Regardless whether Powell is in office he has built a substantial political organization in east Shreveport and the efficiency for it to elect preferred candidates is maximized by controlling the timing of the election to replace him.
That candidate may be former city councilman Republican Thomas Carmody who many of Powell’s supporters backed in his two successful runs for the Council finishing his service there in 2006. That candidate probably is not Republican Barrow Peacock, who ran against Powell in 2003 and who just finished up a try for the state senate seat in this district.
Success in this election is crucial for Peacock, now making his third attempt for the state legislature in slightly more than four years. When somebody makes a couple of spirited if unsuccessful attempts for office, he’s often seen as persistent and eager to serve. But strike out three times and for subsequent attempts he’s often viewed as a crank who won’t give up even as the people’s verdict is clear.
While Peacock almost doubled his proportion of the vote in 2007 over 2003, the fact is he missed the general election runoff both times running campaigns that were a mile wide and an inch deep – leading one to wonder whether he has a license to print money as his largely self-financed, expensive campaigns both times have revealed not much support from the activist base of the Republican Party. And he did himself no favors last fall with this group by refusing to back publicly genuine conservative Republican B.L. “Buddy” Shaw in the Senate runoff against ex-Democrat state Rep. Billy Montgomery (especially as it is Montgomery donated to Carmody's campaign).
Peacock will benefit from his recent joust as the name recognition garnered from it will carry over into this contest barely three months removed from the last. But the dynamics differ dramatically in this special election held concurrently with presidential preference primaries because the lower turnout will make activists disproportionately more important – and they probably will favor Carmody.
Carmody by the end of his career was known as the most fiscally conservative member of Shreveport’s City Council and won convincingly two terms, but his exposure is limited in the Bossier Parish part of the district where about 15 percent of its registered voters live and a month is a short period of time to raise enough money to remind voters who you are. Still, unless there’s an unusually high turnout, Carmody should win.
While Saturday will settle that race, the fate of McCrery’s job now really lies in the hands of one individual. With Powell out, one prohibitive favorite has emerged who either preordains the matter by his announcement that he’s in, or leaves a wide-open field with his deferral.
If Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator wants the job, it’s his. Prator has been the most popular politician in the region given his almost-uncontested elections for the office and good reputation in discharging its duties. The only reason Prator might pass would be winning would remove his status as the closest thing the parish has to a chief executive in order to become one of the lowliest of 435 legislators. Having been a chief executive for over a decade in a small pond, being a (relatively) small fish in a bigger pond may not seem too attractive.
But heavy pressure is being brought to bear on him to make this transition by local Republicans because he’ll guarantee the party retains the seat. If he doesn’t run, all bets are off as to who could triumph, and possible victors would include Democrat former mayor of Shreveport Keith Hightower, likely the only of his party that could win. Prator will have to decide soon because if he does opt out, Republican candidates who are waiting on him (although one has started regardless) need to get campaigning as soon as possible to counter a likely Hightower bid.
6.2.08
Especially for Dems, LA primaries have relevancy
Many in the political class nationwide snickered when Louisiana placed the imperatives of Mardi Gras ahead of bumping up its presidential preference primaries four days as did almost half of American states and territories. Many predicted the irrelevancy of the primary. But given delegate results to date, unexpectedly the state will get plenty of attention over the next few days and already the increased importance of the event is rippling through the state’s political environment.
Where the state really will matter is on the Democrat side. Sen. Barack Obama will visit New Orleans tomorrow although Sen. Hillary Clinton at this point plans not visits. The latter may indicate that her campaign will write off the state courtesy of the dynamic in play starting with the South Carolina primary: black democrats overwhelmingly choose Obama, even as whites in large but lesser proportions choose Clinton. At present, of the state Democrat electorate 45 percent are black but it must be realized that a significant chunk of white Democrats regularly do not vote for Democrats and will not want to participate in Saturday’s primary, giving Obama the edge.
Still, complicated apportionment rules for Democrats don’t mean that Obama will come out ahead in Louisiana, even if in the delegates selected by popular vote. For one, only 37 of the 66 delegates will come from the popular vote, and Democrat rules are that these must be apportioned by congressional district with any candidate (or uncommitted slate) getting at least 15 percent of the vote to receive a delegate (other rules apply in no one does, but that won’t happen). Districts have delegates available on the basis of party performance in the 2007 elections where higher-supporting districts get more delegates.
Applying a rule of thumb that all black and 75 percent of white Democrats vote with 90 percent of blacks for Obama and 80 percent of whites for Clinton, the former would win 21 and the latter 16 delegates. Statewide, Obama would pick up 57 percent of the vote which also would give him the edge with the delegates to be selected at the state central committee meeting May 3 – 19 up for grabs and if the proportion is followed, Obama may get 11 of them giving him an 8 delegate overall edge.
But Clinton still could “tie” the state because of the 10 additional “super-delegates” to be selected at the meeting, only one, Rep. William Jefferson, may lean Obama’s way. And since Obama has to overcome an overall national deficit of delegates with Clinton, if she can hold his delegate haul from Louisiana near parity with hers, it’s practically speaking a win for her.
The GOP side is simpler to calculate but potentially even messier since apportionment of delegates actually will be made the weekend after the vote (unless one candidate gets at least half of the vote which is highly unlikely) at a convention of delegates picked last month. The dynamic also is different, with Sen. John McCain having a much bigger lead over his closest rival former Gov. Mitt Romney.
In the delegate election in January, an uncommitted slate won 86 of the 105 spots. Generally speaking, the policy preferences of that slate’s members indicated they would lean to Romney. But McCain supporters have been pressuring these uncommitted members to publicly acknowledge support of McCain to try to build an aura of inevitability around their candidate.
The state can expect little in the way of overt campaigning from the Republican side because the delegates have been selected and no one thinks extra effort will produce an absolute majority for a candidate on Saturday. Thus, the real relevancy of the primaries here will come on the Democrat side where anything but a big Obama win means Louisiana will have served as part of a firewall for Clinton as she heads towards a nomination much more laborious than she hoped or planned.
Where the state really will matter is on the Democrat side. Sen. Barack Obama will visit New Orleans tomorrow although Sen. Hillary Clinton at this point plans not visits. The latter may indicate that her campaign will write off the state courtesy of the dynamic in play starting with the South Carolina primary: black democrats overwhelmingly choose Obama, even as whites in large but lesser proportions choose Clinton. At present, of the state Democrat electorate 45 percent are black but it must be realized that a significant chunk of white Democrats regularly do not vote for Democrats and will not want to participate in Saturday’s primary, giving Obama the edge.
Still, complicated apportionment rules for Democrats don’t mean that Obama will come out ahead in Louisiana, even if in the delegates selected by popular vote. For one, only 37 of the 66 delegates will come from the popular vote, and Democrat rules are that these must be apportioned by congressional district with any candidate (or uncommitted slate) getting at least 15 percent of the vote to receive a delegate (other rules apply in no one does, but that won’t happen). Districts have delegates available on the basis of party performance in the 2007 elections where higher-supporting districts get more delegates.
Applying a rule of thumb that all black and 75 percent of white Democrats vote with 90 percent of blacks for Obama and 80 percent of whites for Clinton, the former would win 21 and the latter 16 delegates. Statewide, Obama would pick up 57 percent of the vote which also would give him the edge with the delegates to be selected at the state central committee meeting May 3 – 19 up for grabs and if the proportion is followed, Obama may get 11 of them giving him an 8 delegate overall edge.
But Clinton still could “tie” the state because of the 10 additional “super-delegates” to be selected at the meeting, only one, Rep. William Jefferson, may lean Obama’s way. And since Obama has to overcome an overall national deficit of delegates with Clinton, if she can hold his delegate haul from Louisiana near parity with hers, it’s practically speaking a win for her.
The GOP side is simpler to calculate but potentially even messier since apportionment of delegates actually will be made the weekend after the vote (unless one candidate gets at least half of the vote which is highly unlikely) at a convention of delegates picked last month. The dynamic also is different, with Sen. John McCain having a much bigger lead over his closest rival former Gov. Mitt Romney.
In the delegate election in January, an uncommitted slate won 86 of the 105 spots. Generally speaking, the policy preferences of that slate’s members indicated they would lean to Romney. But McCain supporters have been pressuring these uncommitted members to publicly acknowledge support of McCain to try to build an aura of inevitability around their candidate.
The state can expect little in the way of overt campaigning from the Republican side because the delegates have been selected and no one thinks extra effort will produce an absolute majority for a candidate on Saturday. Thus, the real relevancy of the primaries here will come on the Democrat side where anything but a big Obama win means Louisiana will have served as part of a firewall for Clinton as she heads towards a nomination much more laborious than she hoped or planned.
5.2.08
Expect rocky start between Jindal Administration, media
“Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel” is an aphorism attributed to someone who actually did buy his ink by the barrel, Benjamin Franklin – and one that perhaps Gov. Bobby Jindal will test, but with good reason.
Jeremy Alford – who’s an independent journalist who therefore has to contract out his stories without a set paycheck to rely upon – put into print frustration that other journalists no doubt have felt concerning Jindal and his administration’s tight control of information it will release about the inner workings of his governing. No doubt exacerbating Alford’s distress is by not being on some corporate payroll, he has less of a margin for error in what he can deliver and thereby becomes more dependent on getting information for stories. Without it, it’s harder for him to do the job the way he thinks it should be done.
Whether Jindal’s infant administration will end up being more closed-lipped about stuff than any others – we all too quickly have forgotten how reluctant the Kathleen Blanco Administration was to release documents about her handling of the hurricane disasters (never completely, and with, from her political perspective, good reason not to) – chances are even if it isn’t you will hear more grumbling out of the media about Jindal’s than those of past governors. But the reasons why really rest with the media itself.
Jeremy Alford – who’s an independent journalist who therefore has to contract out his stories without a set paycheck to rely upon – put into print frustration that other journalists no doubt have felt concerning Jindal and his administration’s tight control of information it will release about the inner workings of his governing. No doubt exacerbating Alford’s distress is by not being on some corporate payroll, he has less of a margin for error in what he can deliver and thereby becomes more dependent on getting information for stories. Without it, it’s harder for him to do the job the way he thinks it should be done.
Whether Jindal’s infant administration will end up being more closed-lipped about stuff than any others – we all too quickly have forgotten how reluctant the Kathleen Blanco Administration was to release documents about her handling of the hurricane disasters (never completely, and with, from her political perspective, good reason not to) – chances are even if it isn’t you will hear more grumbling out of the media about Jindal’s than those of past governors. But the reasons why really rest with the media itself.
4.2.08
Landrieu defends wasteful spending to defend her seat
Sen. Mary Landrieu is not going to go away without a struggle, as she indicated with her defense of “earmarks” in the face of a growing public revulsion about them. These are specific spending requests placed into appropriations bills during the committee phase of investigation, often by members on the special committees assigned to look at all appropriations bills, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Democrat Landrieu currently serves on the Senate’s and already is in hot water about a series of earmarks for funding schools nationwide (including in Louisiana in the first year) with a reading program mainly geared towards Washington, D.C. schools. Officials there claimed they didn’t really want the program and the timing of the earmark relative to campaign fundraisers staged for Landrieu have led many to charge Landrieu with exchanging her support for campaign donations (which followed on the heels of yet another incident of questionable fundraising.)
More generally, Landrieu argues for earmarks – using rhetoric stunningly myopic. For one, Landrieu seems to think the $17 billion currently set aside for these “is made to sound like a huge amount of money.” That’s only because it is a huge amount of money, as well as spent for the wrong reasons. It’s funny how Landrieu has whined on several occasions over far smaller sums of money, such as when the state and federal government were jockeying over whether the state should pay $800 million in matching funds for hurricane recovery (the federal government by now having pumped in perhaps 100 times that figure). To math teachers, a number’s value is its number and larger numbers are always larger than smaller ones. To Landrieu, it seems numbers and their relative placements are defined only by politics.
Myopia also extends to her philosophical defense of the practice. Along the lines of the argument that “worthy” projects may be stalled for years that earmarks promote, she said “There are actually some good ideas that don't come out of the federal bureaucracy.” Perhaps, but that does not then necessarily mean that an overtly political process is the only or even best way to create a priority list given that process creates tremendous incentives to place more priority on a legislator’s political career than on any objective criteria. While some argue that this process helps “good” projects along, they conveniently forget to admit that it equally elevates “bad” projects that otherwise never should see any funding.
An excellent example in the case of Landrieu concerns the occasions she used her political muscle to influence money to be spent for other dubious purposes that could have gone to flood protection prior to the 2005 hurricane disasters (on one, interfering with the evaluation process that qualified a marginal project). Generally speaking, Citizens Against Government Waste named her “Porker of the Month” for Sept., 2003 and gave her a special award for profligacy in 2006. Part of the latter spending another group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, has criticized her for what appears to be one of the biggest boondoggles floating around the federal government, replacing a lock on New Orleans’ Industrial Canal when little in the way of cost-effectiveness can justify spending nearly $800 million.
When it’s said that earmarks serve a need and are just a fraction of the budget, it’s like saying you should pardon a drug dealer caught selling only small amounts of controlled substances who says she did it to help supply a need and thus is less guilty than a greedy dealer of large quantities. Size and intent contingencies doesn’t make it right or good public policy. Of course, Landrieu doesn’t understand this because she is blinded by her belief that government is not there just to provide basic protection from uncontrollable misfortune or evil and otherwise not interfere in people’s lives, but rather that it’s there to redistribute resources to rectify presumed “unfairness” – and part of that redistribution to her is in using it to maintain her place in elective office.
It’s just one more reason why Landrieu’s time in the Senate need not be extended past the end of this year.
Democrat Landrieu currently serves on the Senate’s and already is in hot water about a series of earmarks for funding schools nationwide (including in Louisiana in the first year) with a reading program mainly geared towards Washington, D.C. schools. Officials there claimed they didn’t really want the program and the timing of the earmark relative to campaign fundraisers staged for Landrieu have led many to charge Landrieu with exchanging her support for campaign donations (which followed on the heels of yet another incident of questionable fundraising.)
More generally, Landrieu argues for earmarks – using rhetoric stunningly myopic. For one, Landrieu seems to think the $17 billion currently set aside for these “is made to sound like a huge amount of money.” That’s only because it is a huge amount of money, as well as spent for the wrong reasons. It’s funny how Landrieu has whined on several occasions over far smaller sums of money, such as when the state and federal government were jockeying over whether the state should pay $800 million in matching funds for hurricane recovery (the federal government by now having pumped in perhaps 100 times that figure). To math teachers, a number’s value is its number and larger numbers are always larger than smaller ones. To Landrieu, it seems numbers and their relative placements are defined only by politics.
Myopia also extends to her philosophical defense of the practice. Along the lines of the argument that “worthy” projects may be stalled for years that earmarks promote, she said “There are actually some good ideas that don't come out of the federal bureaucracy.” Perhaps, but that does not then necessarily mean that an overtly political process is the only or even best way to create a priority list given that process creates tremendous incentives to place more priority on a legislator’s political career than on any objective criteria. While some argue that this process helps “good” projects along, they conveniently forget to admit that it equally elevates “bad” projects that otherwise never should see any funding.
An excellent example in the case of Landrieu concerns the occasions she used her political muscle to influence money to be spent for other dubious purposes that could have gone to flood protection prior to the 2005 hurricane disasters (on one, interfering with the evaluation process that qualified a marginal project). Generally speaking, Citizens Against Government Waste named her “Porker of the Month” for Sept., 2003 and gave her a special award for profligacy in 2006. Part of the latter spending another group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, has criticized her for what appears to be one of the biggest boondoggles floating around the federal government, replacing a lock on New Orleans’ Industrial Canal when little in the way of cost-effectiveness can justify spending nearly $800 million.
When it’s said that earmarks serve a need and are just a fraction of the budget, it’s like saying you should pardon a drug dealer caught selling only small amounts of controlled substances who says she did it to help supply a need and thus is less guilty than a greedy dealer of large quantities. Size and intent contingencies doesn’t make it right or good public policy. Of course, Landrieu doesn’t understand this because she is blinded by her belief that government is not there just to provide basic protection from uncontrollable misfortune or evil and otherwise not interfere in people’s lives, but rather that it’s there to redistribute resources to rectify presumed “unfairness” – and part of that redistribution to her is in using it to maintain her place in elective office.
It’s just one more reason why Landrieu’s time in the Senate need not be extended past the end of this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)