Stuck on stupid XIII: Chicken Little Ater validates aid concerns

Did I miss Secretary of State Al Ater changing his name to Chicken Little? Ever since the hurricane disasters struck Louisiana, he has been running around predicting all sorts of dire consequences to not allowing people who have never had to prove positively their identification for voting to vote without doing so. And at each step of the process, his claims have been proven without merit.

But he’s at it again as the Legislature prepares to convene in the first special session of 2006. Even though every time Ater has gotten all agitated about the federal government stepping into the Louisiana election process not only hasn’t it, but it has acted on the state’s requests much faster than he predicted, yet now he again raises an alarm, this time fingering U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle as a culprit, saying Lemelle’s “federal court [will] take over the election” if the Legislature does not pass a short-term exemption to allow these “voters’ to cast ballots.

Ater continually has missed the point that to do this opens the system to fraudulent voting. Further, he bases his latest cry that the sky is falling on a “feeling” that Lemelle, in a hearing a couple of weeks ago where he threatened to set election dates, would rule that to not allow these unverified “voters” to cast ballots would be in violation of federal law. (Although, curiously Ater didn’t mention any of this at the time – it would seem odd that he would not report this to the media if it was such a big deal.)

Given his previous history of judicial activism on the matter, anything is possible with Lemelle here, but even if he went off the deep end and did what Ater argues, no doubt much cooler and sensible heads at the Fifth Circuit would quickly overturn such a decision. It’s great to have an accessible voting process, but not at the expense of the integrity of elections, and there’s little reason the judiciary would see it otherwise.

Ater frets that he “could see the headlines across America right now. They’ll say it’s another thing that Louisiana can’t handle on its own.” No, when the rest of the country sees the state’s chief election official, who is supposed to protect the integrity of the process, encouraging the state to do the opposite, and especially if the Legislature took his cue, it’ll roll its eyes at yet another Louisiana political shenanigan and become more firmly resolved than ever that the state simply cannot be entrusted with resources for its own recovery.

And then there’ll be more whining from state officials about how Louisiana is being shortchanged, etc., ad naseum. Are those in power in this state that stuck on stupid?

Predictably, special session call contains risky items

Following the pattern in her first special session call last year, once again Gov. Kathleen Blanco has issued items where government could perpetrate some profound mischief on Louisiana’s citizenry.

The clearest danger comes from #19, which invites fraud and abuse in elections for years, even decades, to come. It allows for people whose identities never have been verified to vote in an election. No date is given, so presumably the Democrat-led Legislature with the Governor could come up with a bill that would apply to so-called first-time voters during the rescheduled New Orleans elections, or for that to fill the slot of Secretary of State (maybe Lieutenant Governor, too?), or in congressional elections after that, even the 2008 elections including that for president, so long as it is the “first” election that person votes in. Separately, #20 also contains abuse potential, because it would allow for people to vote outside of their parishes, unless accurate rolls are made available in these alternative places from the other parishes. Together, #19 and #20 could wreak tremendous havoc on Louisiana’s democracy.

Items #5 and #17 together also could have a tremendous deleterious impact on the state. These could be used by the majoritarian branches to force insurance companies to pay out for policies unwritten or for purposes for which the policies weren’t written, i.e. force them to pay off for flood claims when policies didn’t cover them. That would send rates for everybody in the state through the ceiling (if making up for the state insurance company’s losses doesn’t already), if insurance companies would write any such policies at all after such a bait-and-switch.

Landrieus' decisions take political risks

The end of January proved interesting for the Landrieu clan as its two major political figures, Sen. Mary Landrieu and little brother Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, took some political gambles.

Sen. Landrieu finally made her up mind and cast a vote against the confirmation of Associate Justice Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. That’s all we really can conclude from this because in her remarks concerning her vote (which have yet to appear on her Senate website) constituted a bizarre, if not totally at odds with reality, explanation:

I want my vote against confirmation to help send a signal to all who care that the Supreme Court nomination process has become far too political and far too removed from the original purposes set forth by the framers of the Constitution. It is time for all of us, Republicans and Democrats, of every possible philosophical persuasion, to stand up against a process that so poorly serves the people of the states we represent in this great body.

It’s hard to square Landrieu’s stated desire to “send a signal” against a process that has become “far too political” when in fact her vote was purely political itself. Alito was about as nonpolitical of a nominee as one could imagine: all he promised was to decide cases within the parameters of the Constitution using its text and what it actually said. She voted against him entirely for political reasons, because he did support her goal to implement her agenda by judicial fiat since she could not get it implemented through the ballot box. Therefore, it’s doubly astounding that she could claim the process now is “far too removed from the original purposes set forth by the [F]ramers” because Alito himself epitomizes the kind of judge that would follow the original intent of the Framers.

And what was so deviant from the intent of the Framers, so wrong about the process that she claims “poorly serves the people of the states we represent?” They had a vote and he was confirmed, all according to the Constitution. What deviance or disservice is there? Or even more to the point, with this kind of rationale, can Landrieu even hold a coherent thought in her head?

Her brother, by contrast, did a much better job using logic in his unannounced decision to run for mayor of New Orleans. Certainly it pales in comparison to the Governor’s Mansion, and he was well-placed to go after that in 2007.

But such a run would have gone against sitting Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco who will quixotically seek reelection and against either, both, or even more than, two powerful Republicans (Sen. David Vitter and/or Rep. Bobby Jindal). His dividing the party and with heavyweight partisanship opposition facing hin in a gubernatorial run, mayor is smaller potatoes but more winnable, with a crossover appeal that makes Lt. Gov. Landrieu the early favorite. He just has to hope he can win and the job he does in a difficult environment will not detract from any higher ambitions he might have.

His sister’s vote probably will hurt her more than help, but it could end up being the better option. She benefits from it for a reelection run in 2008 only if the GOP comes up with a fairly conservative candidate because any voters on the right she could have picked off from a moderate Republican by herself appearing more moderate with a vote for confirmation will be held firmly by a conservative challenger. This vote under this scenario helps her activate the kook base of her party with little or no penalty. However, a moderate challenger claiming he would have supported Alito makes her appear further to the left (and even moreso when paired at the top of the ticket with the likely Democrat presidential nominee), which in Louisiana is where the votes to win aren’t.

New Louisiana Democrat leader shows party still doesn't get it

The next person to preside over the long-term decline of Louisiana’s Democrat Party is party insider Chris Whittington, its legal counsel. His ascendancy and rhetoric demonstrate why he will be unable to improve the party’s fortunes.

Long ago the Democrats nationwide forfeited the battle of ideas to the conservatism largely embraced now by their Republican opponents. The liberalism echoed by the Democrats, and (particularly in this state) its cheap knockoff populism, has been thoroughly discredited through logic and fact, so the party has become reduced to name-calling, emoting rather than thinking, and to an exercise in trying to fool voters into misperceiving reality.

Whittington’s comments at his election of state party chairman shows he remains enthralled in this political retardation. Instead of trying to provide intellectual arguments to support the party’s positions that those who contribute more to society must have more taken from them than ever before, that it is moral to murder the unborn, that your characteristics matter more than you as a person in determining who gets what rewards from government, etc., instead we get this:

We have let the Republicans define us as something we are not…. We love our families. We stand for the proposition you should love the God of your choosing. You should be able to speak freely without fear.

I challenge Whittington to name one Republican officeholder or elected official who has said any of (1) Democrats do not love their families, or (2) Democrats do not support loving the God of peoples’ own choosings, and/or (3) that people in this country should fear speaking freely (unless the First Amendment and laws supported by it are violated in the process). If he can’t do that, then what he said has no connection to reality but instead is yet another emotional pandering designed to stop people from thinking about the issues.

That’s because he knows Democrats lose on the issues, and, given his backers, that is especially true. Significant in this leadership battle was that the liberal-in-conservative-clothing wing of the party, comprised of Gov. Kathleen Blanco, Sen. Mary Landrieu, her brother Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, Rep. Charlie Melancon, and others, lost to Whittington who was backed by the good-old-boy populist wing of Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom, Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, and others, joined by the unrepentant liberal wing fronted by state Sen. Cleo Fields.

Whittington lives in delusion if he believes the reasons state Democrats increasingly lose is because they don’t define themselves to their own liking. Just the opposite; they define themselves all too well as the party that believes in property as theft, that government knows best how to spend resources that people earn, in death to the most vulnerable in our society, that irresponsible behavior is to be rewarded, and so on. Ideas better than these, not improved public relations, is the only hope the Democrats have of reversing their sliding fortunes in Louisiana, and Whittington looks like the next victim ready to learn this the hard way at the ballot box.

State Democrats want handout rather than hand up

As usual, Louisiana politicians have commenced their whining and moaning upon being informed that the gift they are getting from the generosity of the American people to alleviate a problem in part caused by Louisianans’ own doing just isn’t big enough. It crosses partisan lines and, for the most part, resembles the reaction of a spoiled child being told by a parent to grow up and to be more responsible.

Two separate developments triggered the latest tantrum. First, the federal government restricted the use community development block grants totaling $6.2 billion for use only to compensate homeowners flooded in non-floodplains, about 20,000, leaving out another 185,000 who could have had flood insurance (and perhaps half did) and about $5.8 billion estimated to cover all. Second, the White House signaled that it would not support the bill by Rep. Richard Baker that would have created a federal corporation to buy up distressed property from victimized homeowners at 60 percent value, mortgages paid if any, in the hopes of redeveloping and reselling it.

When added to this Pres. George W. Bush’s comments that he didn’t see any plan from Louisiana for recovery, these prompted the biggest crybaby of the past several months, Gov. Kathleen Blanco, to squeal long and loud about the unfairness of it all and that she really did have a plan – Baker’s bill. Of course, because it typifies the primary plank of her recovery platform which has been to stick out her hand in expectation that the federal government would stuff unimaginably-large amounts of cash into it, which Bush correctly identified as no plan at all.
Thus she gets annoyed at the conditions attached to the grants. At least Baker’s bill had the good sense to keep recovery resources out of the hands of state politicians who have yet to prove they can spend money prudently, but even his idea has potential problems. Besides the obvious identified by the White House (creation of a new, huge federal bureaucracy that would be around a very long time), it’s not at all certain Baker’s plan could have worked as well as he intended, also noted in the White House objection.

Baker hoped that a good portion of the properties bought could be resold, perhaps after some kind of development. But chances are good that the vast majority never would be as valuable as they were prior to Hurricane Katrina’s reality check, and so if the government ever could even sell them, it might get far less than its compensation costs. Again, that meant a hit of tens of billions of dollars to the American taxpayer and would make the federal government the largest landholder in Orleans Parish for decades to come.

Louisiana’s congressional Republicans have smartly vowed to keep working on it, but they must realize they cannot win with Baker’s bill in its present form. Indeed, what they should do is work to loosen up the grant requirements, as a quick overview of the numbers shows.

Even if it sensationalizes its conclusions, this research more soberly indicates the potential extent of the damage done by Katrina. If you take 2000 census data (median value per parish of owner-occupied houses which probably is too high for Orleans damage but maybe lower for other parishes given the actual distribution of the damage), assuming all housing is totally damaged the amount comes to about $20 billion and almost 226,000 units.

But the median value of such housing, assuming non-floodplain houses equally are distributed, is only about $88,500. If the state estimates that’s about 20,000 houses, that’s only about $1.77 billion spent (surely overhead wouldn’t be almost 70 percent of the total?), leaving almost $4.4 billion that could be distributed. If Congress would go in and loosen up the grant requirements to encompass owners who had flood insurance but cannot get the full value of their property back even with it (up to the grant stricture of $150,000 each), this probably could bring tens of thousands, maybe even 100,000, houses, into eligibility.

As for perhaps the other hundred thousand homeowners who lived in floodplains but did not exercise common sense in insuring their properties against flooding, what’s stopping Louisiana from having its own version of the Baker bill? The state could sell $9 billion worth of bonds by amending the Constitution (it went down this road before for far more trivial reasons) to create a state authority to issue that amount of debt (without additional taxes). If the buy low/sell high theory of the bill works, the state would get a good chunk of its money back, and it could be backed by some capital outlay funds (instead of wasting them on trivialities) or maybe even the federal government itself will buy some of the bonds and/or pay the interest on them. It may even donate some money for the purpose, if the state shows the money will be well-managed.

There are plenty of options, but if you listened to the complaining of Democrat politicians like Sen. Mary Landrieu on the matter, you’d think the world had ended. That’s because their political world is based upon taking from others for themselves and their allies, not upon providing fresh ideas and leadership. Blanco, Landrieu and others need to understand from the federal government Louisiana can expect a hand up to pull the state out of this situation, not a handout.

Repopulating Orleans story focuses on sensational

In academia, there are those who often seem more interested in calling attention to themselves than just doing their jobs of teaching and providing useful research. The self-promotion efforts of athletes, entertainers, reality-show participants, and politicians pale in comparison to some of the things I see regularly in my profession. But they need accomplices to pull off this showmanship, so when their “discoveries” comport with the media’s agenda and ideology (see an example here) and its need to follow them, both can fulfill their desires.

It’s not always intentional; sometimes the media will take some research out of context, and other times (quite frankly) since few journalists have anything more than a surface understanding of the topics they cover, the media will swallow whole what is fed to them by some in academia. I don’t know if either holds true in this case, but certainly it was not at all responsible for the media to report and for the researchers to allow them to promote

… if the post-Katrina city were limited to the population previously living in areas that were undamaged by the storm – that is, if nobody were able to return to damaged neighborhoods – New Orleans is at risk of losing more than 80% of its black population …. if the future city were limited to the population previously living in zones undamaged by Katrina it would risk losing about 50% of its white residents but more than 80% of its black population.

Were this written in September, 2005, it might have been interesting speculation. But it’s now about five months later, and the numbers they use are wholly unrealistic as proven by subsequent events. To begin, let’s review the population as best known in New Orleans when Katrina hit, from the Jul. 1, 2004 estimates from the Census Bureau (oddly, the researchers ignore these and use the 2000 actual census – usually not a bad strategy, but it’s not good in this case because New Orleans lost about 5 percent of its population just in those four years).

According to it, New Orleans (Orleans Parish) had 462,269 people, of which 313,402 were black, 132,314 white, and 16,553 of “other” races. Taking these researchers’ claims, this means that New Orleans could wind up with just 62,681 blacks and 66,157 whites (and that’s putting the black total at 80 percent, not “more than”).

But then consider first a Congressional Research Service report they used, which says that 272,000 blacks and 101,000 non-blacks evacuated. Doing the math tells you that meant 41,402 blacks and (assuming the ratio of 8:1 whites/others prior to the storm holds) 42,548 whites remained (and with other races a city total of 89,269). With these numbers not far from their initial guesses, this should have alerted these researchers immediately to a fundamental problem in their study – that their 80/50 assumption is that all parts of all “damaged” neighborhoods would not be rebuilt was way overboard.

Now consider estimates provided by Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals, that at least by December the city had 136,681 people. Without going into the methodology here (part of a future academic presentation I’ll be making at a professional meeting which will predict the number of registered voters in Orleans come the rescheduled election days, who they are, and how they likely will vote), that figure can be decomposed into an estimate of 67,691 blacks and 62,699 whites. In other words, before the end of the year was out, already these researchers’ numbers were quite shaky.

Now about two months later, people continue to flow into Orleans. And what these guys fail to appreciate is the details of the plan considered by the Bring New Orleans Back Commission which do not at all imply that nothing in the damaged areas will be rebuilt, and also that more housing will be constructed in higher ground in other areas. (This is not the wisest plan, but it seems to be the one that will be pursued.) In short, other estimates that argue New Orleans will approach or even exceed a quarter million people in the next couple of years seem much more valid.

Were these researchers more cautious and mindful in drawing conclusions, and the media less focused on trying to make for a “bigger” story, more temperate estimates with more conditions attached to them would have been reported. (At least this news story added a dose of realism in recognizing the conclusions as improbable; some didn’t. This one even downplays the sensational claims in favor of analyzing other aspects.) And that would mean watchdogs like myself would have written on a different subject today, and gladly so.

Louisiana sees through LeBlanc's dishonest history rewrite

One reason why Gov. Kathleen Blanco will not be reelected – and cannot seem to understand that – is, by the communications of her administration, that it seems to think that the Louisiana public is comprised of sheep that cannot think for themselves.

There may be some truth to that belief – witness the fact that Democrats/liberals/populists keep getting elected to office, Blanco included – but, by and large, the hurricane disasters of 2005 have startled many out of their somnambulant conditions regarding state government. The magnitude of the impacts of the disasters on peoples’ personal lives has re-engaged the critical faculties of many.

So when Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc tries to paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra in a letter reprinted in the Louisiana press, we can see the paint. In the letter, LeBlanc proclaims that the failed response of Blanco to Katrina’s invasion wasn’t really that because she couldn’t be held responsible for government’s actions or inactions because former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Michael Brown said dealing with Katrina’s impact “was beyond the capacity of the state and local government.”

Very true, but LeBlanc here uses a strange logic that tries to deflect us from the truth. He wants us to believe that we should interpret Brown’s comments to mean “beyond the capacity of any state and local government” which then would, as LeBlanc writes, mean that what Brown “told a congressional committee in Washington last September that the blame lay on the doorsteps of the governor are now proven to be untrue.”

Uh, not quite; not even. With his mode of thinking displayed here, I wouldn’t mind being an alcoholic panhandling outside of LeBlanc’s office, because I could be assured that he reliably would hand me more money to drink away, telling me, “It’s not your fault, it’s beyond your capacity to sober up, I don’t blame you,” when, in fact, the right attitude and willpower can be provided by the responsible person to help himself out of this unfortunate condition.

What LeBlanc doesn’t understand that Brown’s remark really meant that Katrina was “beyond the capacity of Louisiana state and New Orleans local government,” not any or all state and local governments. And what LeBlanc won’t admit to us is the reason why it was “beyond capacity” was because Louisiana state and local governments by their own inept actions stunted their capacities to respond adequately.

Documentation is extensive about how state and local emergency plans were a joke, how Blanco seemed unable to issue the correct orders even though she had had a chance to learn the ropes a year previously, and how she seemed confused and paralyzed by the crisis. In fact, LeBlanc even authors an outright falsehood, that Blanco’s “pleas for massive outside help went unheeded” since she dallied and ultimately turned down Pres. George W. Bush’s offer to send in troops under federal control.

(Ironically, as LeBlanc’s letter was being reprinted across the state, more egg got thrown on the Blanco Administration’s face as more details about the “Hurricane Pam” exercise became available that directly impugned his argument. The report pointed out the inadequacies of the state’s then-planned response – a full year before it really happened with Katrina during which time Blanco did little to correct the clearly-identified shortcomings that she could.)

To summarize, LeBlanc seems unable to grasp that just because Brown said he bore much blame for inadequate response that this does not automatically absolve Blanco of blame herself. Her actions are a matter of public record, and they are decidedly unflattering. By all means, let’s heed LeBlanc’s advice to not “make political gains in the middle of this tragedy” – starting with LeBlanc himself by his disavowing his attempts to rewrite history.

Closing, LeBlanc asks that observers of the situation move along from assigning blame. Agreed, but this does not give him license to distort the record. Because before they can be effective leaders in the state’s recovery, LeBlanc and Blanco need to be honest with themselves and with the Louisiana public, who can see through all of this chicanery.

Electoral considerations likely to land Alito Landrieu's vote

The upcoming vote on the confirmation of U.S. Appellate Court Judge Samuel Alito presents a hard choice for Sen. Mary Landrieu, and either option could spell her political doom.

Landrieu must realize that Alito will be confirmed. Senate Democrats should understand the magnanimity of moderate Republican senators has run out on this Supreme Court nominee and any attempted filibuster would send the GOP centrists to support a rule change that would disallow filibusters of judicial nominees. In addition, at least one Senate Democrat moderate has pledged to cross up Democrat leadership and to support Alito.

Therefore, Landrieu’s vote has become merely symbolic, with costs and benefits going both ways. Pre-hurricanes, she showed a selective, maybe even nuanced, behavior towards controversial nominees. She voted against U.S. Appellate Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown, perhaps figuring that black Democrat leaders could not countenance a favorable vote even if whites largely supported her as did a significant portion of blacks, since she needs those leaders’ political machines in the state. She voted against U.S. Appellate Court Judge William Pryor as well, but voted for U.S. Appellate Court Judge Priscilla Owen, perhaps as Owen was more “local” (from Texas, even if Pryor was from the South), less demonized by black Democrats, and female, to give Landrieu some ammunition to garner more conservative support in the state since it was clear Owen’s would go through (after all, 1 out of 3 often wins you a batting championship in the major leagues). And she did vote for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

She likely will apply the same logic to the Alito vote, mindful of the changed election dynamics in the state. By 2008, her base still may be disproportionately eroded courtesy of the hurricane disasters, and the ultra-liberal (even as she tries to disguise it) probable top of the Democrat ticket also may cost her votes. At the same time, she cannot compete against a quality, genuine conservative GOP challenger by deliberately throwing an Alito confirmation vote the way of the majority conservative voters in the state.

At this point, the Senate Democrats’ leaders only reason to try to get as many votes against Alito would be as a campaign issue, precisely the motivation for Landrieu. As evidenced by the pontificating tone and irrelevant comments of Democrats on and the exact split down party lines in the committee vote, they place great store in trying to preserve as close to unanimity as possible their opposition. At the same time, Democrat leaders have released party members from the obligation of voting with it, meaning no sanctions will be levied on members who vote to confirm.

With the GOP bullpen of viable statewide genuine conservative candidates for Senate for the moment sparse (its strongest pick by far interested in the Governor’s Mansion) and with the Democrat presidential stakes trending towards the opposite ideology, Landrieu probably can be assured to hold onto much of her liberal base while trying to demonstrate moderate tendencies by tossing a vote Alito’s way. But this may backfire if the state Republicans find a quality conservative to challenge her in 2008 and somehow in a rare moment of Democrat lucidity somebody less liberal snares the presidential nomination, for Landrieu’s solid liberal credentials, out of touch with the state’s majority’s interests, will appear more obvious than ever.

Louisiana leaders long on whining, short on leadership

Some pundits have pointed out that Louisiana complaints about the distribution of relief monies for the hurricane disasters, as well as federal reticence to do things such as pass homeowner insurance relief or commit to construct Category 5 capable levees for the state risk making the state’s politicians appear to be ingrates, if not crybabies. What most miss, however, are all the reasons why and a thorough explication of what is to come.

Elsewhere I have explained one cause is the general entitlement attitude concerning other peoples’ money often expressed by some of the states’ residents and many of its top politicians, married with a perceived lack of responsibility. Complaints emanating from its denizens thus make the state look petty, ungrateful, and irresponsible to the rest of the country, hardly a triumvirate of qualities to induce maximal aid giving.

Pettiness comes through when drawing comparisons with the how Mississippi seems to get more aid per capita adjusted for amount of destruction. These folks would do well to remember Matthew 20 and not question the generosity of the federal government to others. Even if the American people are the masters of the master, its Louisiana contingent comprises less than 3 percent of all Americans. Obviously, the state also appears as a bunch of ingrates when complaining about not getting enough when already having received tens of billions of dollars from the rest of the country’s taxpayers.

But what really damages the state’s case is this whining occurs within the context of downplaying the unfortunate fact that with many individuals and with the state as a whole that it did not do enough to prevent the widespread damage from occurring. Collectively, through state and local government’s failure to plan well, to follow plans, and to spend money wisely (throwing in here its representatives to national office) set up the New Orleans area for this catastrophe. (Even if the Army Corps of Engineers fell down on the job in some respects, that does not absolve state culpability.) Individually, people’s lack of common sense in having flood insurance also contributes.

Bluntly, had not human errors, many traceable back to state and local government, not occurred, the scale of destruction in Louisiana would have been much less than in Mississippi. We cannot forget that normal life in southern Mississippi did not involve living below sea level. To repeat (and restating this fact will hurt some feelings of some people in bad spots), common sense dictates that if you live below sea level, you buy flood insurance (even if the government tells you that you don’t have to; in that case, it should have been pretty cheap). To fail to do so and then to criticize the federal government for not doing enough to help those who failed to plan on this account defines chutzpah.

I also have noted previously that perceptions of the state leaders’ past performance in managing fiscal resources also has contributed to federal government wariness. The question about who actually is more corrupt, Louisiana, New Jersey, or some other place, is academic because the question isn’t who is worst, but whether Louisiana is bad enough. And nobody with a straight face can assert that Louisiana isn’t.

Finally, both of these factors play into the fact that a Republican-led federal government always will look askance a Democrat-run state. It’s not really partisanship but instead stems from ideological differences. Simply, because the liberalism on which the Democrats draw sustenance is so spectacularly wrong in understanding human beings and their natures, more responsible conservatives that comprise the Republican Party are less likely to trust that giving money with few or no strings to Democrat state leaders. They accurately fear that the inherent liberalism of these politicians will divert the money to uses that provide no real gains or solutions to the public policy problem, as liberals have demonstrated time and again. With its past populist attitudes, increased tolerance for corruption, intact good-old-boy political structure, and continued carping from some about the “unfairness” of aid allocation, Louisiana with its Democrat leadership provides little in the way of reassurance that will calm these fears.

This complex of attitudes argues that the optimal strategy for state politicians to grab larger handouts is not by whining, but by pledging not to repeat past sins, to change institutions to facilitate this, and to emphasize that an economically-vibrant Louisiana serves the interests of the entire nation. Of course, this means admissions of failure by these same people doing the whining in order to make the pledges of improvement credible. But humbling oneself comes as naturally to most Louisiana politicians as rooting for Ole Miss on the gridiron.

While doing so would provide the best chance to secure the most reconstruction dollars, it also would further erode the tenuous reelection chances of many of these individuals such as Gov. Kathleen Blanco who continues to deny her culpability while foisting blame onto others. Nonetheless, true public service does not constitute in doing what it takes to get reelected, but to improve the polity, and it disserves the state to act otherwise. Many of Louisiana’s “leaders” must come to understand that, on this issue, the more they whine, the less they lead.

Hightower shows hand; local GOP needs to respond

If you believe that the “image-building” ads being run on television in the Shreveport media market touting the accomplishments of Mayor Keith Hightower are only that, then I’ve got some prime real estate in New Orleans’ Ninth Ward to sell you.

Democrat Hightower doesn’t confirm that he is running for another office when he leaves the mayor’s job at the end of November, 2006, but neither does he disconfirm it. And there seems to be little point to spend $100,000 on feel-good ads about him and having a huge campaign war chest all ready to splurge unless he has something else in mind.

Given the timing of his leaving the mayor’s job, Hightower could be aiming for one of three jobs. First, it’s possible that he could try to set up a run for the House of Representatives later this year. This would be a longshot because of current Republican Rep. Jim McCrery’s high popularity even with his recent donation of contributions from activities organized by tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Plus, Hightower would not want to pursue a campaign so soon after his own controversial special interest connections (sludge contracts, real estate, city lending) alleged to influence his governing decisions and his controversial successful push to get Shreveport into a likely money-losing public lodging business.

Hightower would not be signaling that he wants to bide time and run in 2008, in order for time to lapse for the public to “forget” about these things, by running these ads now because in two years the public will forget any impact these ads had, too. They’ll also forget somewhat about Hightower in the meantime and the 2008 electoral landscape for Democrats in Louisiana probably would be even less favorable than in 2006 with a likely fairly liberal presidential candidate at the top of the ticket.

Second, Hightower could be angling for a statewide office. But the 2007 electoral environment for Democrats statewide probably will even be worse still, with a predicted state fiscal crisis ready to remind the public which party controlled the Legislature and held all the statewide offices before and right after the hurricane disasters (Democrats) and that the performance of state Democrats during that interval was, to be charitable, inadequate. Add to that the reduction of the reliably Democrat voting bloc around New Orleans and Hightower should want no part of an election cycle which may well end with a GOP majority of statewide offices.

Of course, Hightower could be jockeying for the special election later this year to fill the unexpired term of Secretary of State. But he is just a regional Democrat candidate without that large of a financial cushion that could get steamrolled by Mike Francis’ campaign, and the entrance into the contest of a black Democrat would make any such run a waste of Hightower’s resources.

Most likely, Hightower is angling for the open state Senate District 37 seat when (Louisiana’s best state) Sen. Max Malone is retired through term limits at the end of 2007. With current state Rep. Billy Montgomery (also facing term limits in his present post) likely to join the trend of legislators switching from Republican to Democrat and no genuine, competitive, quality Republican having emerged to run at this point, Hightower would like his chances against the big government advocate Montgomery. This also would explain the local range of the Hightower ads.

This cue ought to have metropolitan area Republicans starting an intense search to find a true conservative to challenge for the seat, one with a proven record of restrained government spending, accountability in that spending, and a commitment to honesty in government, among other true conservative principles. Hightower’s ad campaign belies his thinking at this point, a gauntlet thrown down that the GOP needs to take up now before all that’s left for District 37 come 2007 is an echo rather than a true choice with a superior option.