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.
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.
1.2.08
Jindal ethics plan good enough to encounter some trouble
Much anticipated, the call for the special session promised for months by Gov. Bobby Jindal is here and, as he had argued he wanted a “gold standard” of ethics laws, that’s what he produced, and he may get it out of the Legislature.
However, he didn’t ask for a titanium standard. That would have meant an outright ban on lobbyist gifts to and elected or appointed policy-maker and applying financial disclosure requirements to all without exclusions for jurisdictions of fewer than 5,000 (who under Jindal’s request will file general affidavits of fidelity). Still, gold is very good and denotes the top rank in things as varied as the Olympics and beer-tasting competitions.
The question now shifts to how much of it will find it way into law. Jindal set the session at three weeks – realistically 15 days given weekends unless that last Saturday gets requisitioned – which shows there’s a lot to do and there will be some controversy. Some items have come up before with varying degrees of progress – a ban on free tickets to events involving sports (in the past almost all) and culture (and barely any instances), offering a constitutional amendment to have forfeited taxpayer-paid portions of pensions if an official is convicted of a crime related to public service, and prohibition of legislators from changing votes made on the floor after disposition of a bill (still practiced in the House of Representatives). Of course, none ever succeeded in getting made into law or rule.
Now, these all ought to go through. Of the first two, with so many new legislators in the House having no exposure to the benefits of free tickets and (most of them) not having acquired any vesting towards a state pension, House majorities on these should be sufficient to put too much pressure on the more-veteran senators who will be more resistant. As for the third, the veteran nature of the Senate probably would lead to its defeat – except the rule already is present in the Senate, and the many new House members never having taken advantage of a switch have little loyalty to the existing rule allowing them to do that.
Also expect the request to extend reporting requirements to candidates for office to get enacted. These legislators will take the attitude that if they have to follow more stringent requirements as elected officials, so ought their future opponents – maybe discouraging some quality challengers to them. And they’ll fall over themselves trying to put into law the item preventing all statewide and legislative candidates, not just those presently in those offices as is current law, from conducting fundraising during legislative sessions.
Where Jindal might find his requests the most endangered are those dealing with the ability of legislators, spouses, siblings, parents, and companies in which they have any “interest” (what portion of ownership of an entity is an “interest” is left undefined, but Jindal may mean any ownership whatsoever) for any retail contract over $2,500. This has been a gravy train for some legislators (does state Sen. Francis and brother Michael Thompson ring a bell here?) as has legislators acting as “consultants,” another item set to stop this, so these could be fought tooth-and-nail especially in the veteran Senate. Also in this category would be the requiring of nongovernmental who get money grooved to them by legislators to turn in for public inspection details about them; such earmarks have been popular with a significant number of legislators.
Of course, the success of the package will depend upon details, like what is an “interest” in an entity, or what details are requested of the entities that get earmarks, or what and how many ranges are used with the disclosure forms. If Jindal can get all of this passed without much watering-down in these details, Louisiana will have a very good ethics code and Jindal will have delivered successfully on a major campaign promise.
However, he didn’t ask for a titanium standard. That would have meant an outright ban on lobbyist gifts to and elected or appointed policy-maker and applying financial disclosure requirements to all without exclusions for jurisdictions of fewer than 5,000 (who under Jindal’s request will file general affidavits of fidelity). Still, gold is very good and denotes the top rank in things as varied as the Olympics and beer-tasting competitions.
The question now shifts to how much of it will find it way into law. Jindal set the session at three weeks – realistically 15 days given weekends unless that last Saturday gets requisitioned – which shows there’s a lot to do and there will be some controversy. Some items have come up before with varying degrees of progress – a ban on free tickets to events involving sports (in the past almost all) and culture (and barely any instances), offering a constitutional amendment to have forfeited taxpayer-paid portions of pensions if an official is convicted of a crime related to public service, and prohibition of legislators from changing votes made on the floor after disposition of a bill (still practiced in the House of Representatives). Of course, none ever succeeded in getting made into law or rule.
Now, these all ought to go through. Of the first two, with so many new legislators in the House having no exposure to the benefits of free tickets and (most of them) not having acquired any vesting towards a state pension, House majorities on these should be sufficient to put too much pressure on the more-veteran senators who will be more resistant. As for the third, the veteran nature of the Senate probably would lead to its defeat – except the rule already is present in the Senate, and the many new House members never having taken advantage of a switch have little loyalty to the existing rule allowing them to do that.
Also expect the request to extend reporting requirements to candidates for office to get enacted. These legislators will take the attitude that if they have to follow more stringent requirements as elected officials, so ought their future opponents – maybe discouraging some quality challengers to them. And they’ll fall over themselves trying to put into law the item preventing all statewide and legislative candidates, not just those presently in those offices as is current law, from conducting fundraising during legislative sessions.
Where Jindal might find his requests the most endangered are those dealing with the ability of legislators, spouses, siblings, parents, and companies in which they have any “interest” (what portion of ownership of an entity is an “interest” is left undefined, but Jindal may mean any ownership whatsoever) for any retail contract over $2,500. This has been a gravy train for some legislators (does state Sen. Francis and brother Michael Thompson ring a bell here?) as has legislators acting as “consultants,” another item set to stop this, so these could be fought tooth-and-nail especially in the veteran Senate. Also in this category would be the requiring of nongovernmental who get money grooved to them by legislators to turn in for public inspection details about them; such earmarks have been popular with a significant number of legislators.
Of course, the success of the package will depend upon details, like what is an “interest” in an entity, or what details are requested of the entities that get earmarks, or what and how many ranges are used with the disclosure forms. If Jindal can get all of this passed without much watering-down in these details, Louisiana will have a very good ethics code and Jindal will have delivered successfully on a major campaign promise.
31.1.08
GOP favorite to retain special election House seats
Qualifying for the two special elections for U.S. House in Louisiana are over, and conservative Republicans are immediate favorites to take both seats.
That’s not such a bold statement concerning the First District. Vacated by Gov. Bobby Jindal who won overwhelmingly both times out, the winner of the Republican primary in March or April would have to become incapacitated prior to the April or May general election in order for a Democrat to win. The three major Republicans – state Sen. Steve Scalise, state Rep. Tim Burns, and Slidell Mayor Ben Morris – are very likely to pursue conservative policies in the House.
Scalise would be favored among the three. Not only has he served in elective office longest but he has been the most high profile of the three and has picked up some heavyweight endorsements. Further aiding him is that Burns and Morris are northshore candidates, splitting that vote potentially and leaving the southshore entirely to Scalise. It’s not likely Scalise can win without a runoff with Burns being the more likely opponent, but he should be able to get past his former state House colleague in April.
The Sixth District in contrast might have been more competitive but the dynamics in the Democrat primary may hand the election to the Republicans. Louis “Woody” Jenkins would be the favorite on the GOP side because of much more name recognition and past campaign acumen. Many still recall how he beat more prominent Republicans to come within a few thousand votes of winning the U.S. Senate seat still held by Mary Landrieu (and most won’t remember how he waged a futile protracted battle to overturn the decision which cost him support in his failed run to win the old elections commissioner job in 1999.)
It will be difficult for his two other major opponents to outdistance a longtime fixture on the Baton Rouge and state media and politics scenes with an impeccably conservative reputation. Jenkins could win without a runoff.
Despite knowing that demographics make it impossible for a non-conservative black candidate to win this district, two quality black candidates signed up to run on the Democrat side of the ledger along with two major white candidates. Jason Decuir came within double digits in votes of knocking off prominent former state House member state Sen. Yvonne Dorsey last fall, an impressive showing for a first-timer despite that power broker former state Sen. Cleo Fields supported Dorsey. The other black Democrat isn’t chopped liver, state Rep. Michael Jackson, but whether he can beat DeCuir depends upon how much animus Fields and his political machine feels towards DeCuir and whether that means Fields will actively support Jackson.
Major white candidates are state Rep. Don Cazayoux and former government official under the previous two governors Andy Kopplin. Between these two, Cazayoux has the edge because of his lengthy and relatively uncontroversial legislative service while Kopplin will be associated with the negatives of both the Kathleen Blanco and Mike Foster Administrations which will outweigh any praise from his work on recovery issues, even if he can more easily draw upon votes from the urban parts of the district than Cazayoux from New Roads.
But since all four are running together, really interesting dynamics could occur. Given extant campaign organizations, the propensity for whites to cross over racially to vote for black candidates at higher rates than blacks for whites, and that many white Democrats will not vote because they would prefer to vote in the Republican primary but cannot, it is not inconceivable that both black candidates will make the runoff, retaining the district for sure for the GOP. Even if a white candidate emerges to contest the general election, the ferocity and drain of resources of his getting there might preclude him from winning. This is the kind of district where everything has to go right for a Democrat to win, and the candidate lineup doesn’t make it look like that will happen.
These are early speculations, mind you, and much still can happen. But the most likely scenario is two GOP retentions.
That’s not such a bold statement concerning the First District. Vacated by Gov. Bobby Jindal who won overwhelmingly both times out, the winner of the Republican primary in March or April would have to become incapacitated prior to the April or May general election in order for a Democrat to win. The three major Republicans – state Sen. Steve Scalise, state Rep. Tim Burns, and Slidell Mayor Ben Morris – are very likely to pursue conservative policies in the House.
Scalise would be favored among the three. Not only has he served in elective office longest but he has been the most high profile of the three and has picked up some heavyweight endorsements. Further aiding him is that Burns and Morris are northshore candidates, splitting that vote potentially and leaving the southshore entirely to Scalise. It’s not likely Scalise can win without a runoff with Burns being the more likely opponent, but he should be able to get past his former state House colleague in April.
The Sixth District in contrast might have been more competitive but the dynamics in the Democrat primary may hand the election to the Republicans. Louis “Woody” Jenkins would be the favorite on the GOP side because of much more name recognition and past campaign acumen. Many still recall how he beat more prominent Republicans to come within a few thousand votes of winning the U.S. Senate seat still held by Mary Landrieu (and most won’t remember how he waged a futile protracted battle to overturn the decision which cost him support in his failed run to win the old elections commissioner job in 1999.)
It will be difficult for his two other major opponents to outdistance a longtime fixture on the Baton Rouge and state media and politics scenes with an impeccably conservative reputation. Jenkins could win without a runoff.
Despite knowing that demographics make it impossible for a non-conservative black candidate to win this district, two quality black candidates signed up to run on the Democrat side of the ledger along with two major white candidates. Jason Decuir came within double digits in votes of knocking off prominent former state House member state Sen. Yvonne Dorsey last fall, an impressive showing for a first-timer despite that power broker former state Sen. Cleo Fields supported Dorsey. The other black Democrat isn’t chopped liver, state Rep. Michael Jackson, but whether he can beat DeCuir depends upon how much animus Fields and his political machine feels towards DeCuir and whether that means Fields will actively support Jackson.
Major white candidates are state Rep. Don Cazayoux and former government official under the previous two governors Andy Kopplin. Between these two, Cazayoux has the edge because of his lengthy and relatively uncontroversial legislative service while Kopplin will be associated with the negatives of both the Kathleen Blanco and Mike Foster Administrations which will outweigh any praise from his work on recovery issues, even if he can more easily draw upon votes from the urban parts of the district than Cazayoux from New Roads.
But since all four are running together, really interesting dynamics could occur. Given extant campaign organizations, the propensity for whites to cross over racially to vote for black candidates at higher rates than blacks for whites, and that many white Democrats will not vote because they would prefer to vote in the Republican primary but cannot, it is not inconceivable that both black candidates will make the runoff, retaining the district for sure for the GOP. Even if a white candidate emerges to contest the general election, the ferocity and drain of resources of his getting there might preclude him from winning. This is the kind of district where everything has to go right for a Democrat to win, and the candidate lineup doesn’t make it look like that will happen.
These are early speculations, mind you, and much still can happen. But the most likely scenario is two GOP retentions.
30.1.08
Savoie requests show resistance to Jindal agenda
Just what kind of game are Louisiana higher education systems playing in regard to the hiring freeze implemented by Gov. Bobby Jindal? The executive order mandates that state agencies obtain exemption to hire in any open position, since Jan. 15, from Commissioner of Administration Angèle Davis.
While the Louisiana State University system won approval for the one blanket exemption, to hire direct providers of health care in the charity hospital system that it runs, Davis has rejected two other requests from Commissioner of Higher Education (soon to parachute into the presidency of the University of Louisiana- Lafayette) Joseph Savoie, first a blanket exemption for any university hiring, then one adjudged by university heads not Davis just turned down by Davis.
While all of this jockeying from higher education has gone on, other agencies have been dutifully compiling the data and getting exemptions – one of them being Savoie’s employer, the Board of Regents itself. In the meantime, Savoie has been complaining about having universities do the same – and not always recounting his case for blanket exemptions in an accurate way.
In a letter to Davis the day after the inauguration, Savoie wrote “More importantly perhaps, it would send a signal throughout the entire academic community that Louisiana is not a state upon which faculty, researchers and top-flight administrators can depend for good faith recruitment efforts.” If he believes this, it shows that despite his dozen years in his position and almost two decades in higher education prior to that, Savoie hasn’t learned a whole lot about faculty hiring in higher education. Position freezes are not at all uncommon for job applicants to deal with and they are not seen as unusual nor automatic disqualifiers of a prospective employer precisely because they are so common.
Later, Savoie argued that the freeze would affect hiring for adjunct positions. Adjuncts instructors are hired on a course-by-course basis to fill in gaps not able to be covered by the full-time faculty members. But unless I have totally missed something in the wording of the order, the freeze doesn’t apply to adjunct positions because they are temporary and part-time.
We also have to understand to context of the complaints Savoie is making. Remember that Jindal knows full well how higher education works, having led the University of Louisiana system. He probably knows that, in fact, the process of re-justifying new faculty positions is probably easier than what most other agencies face. In academia, new faculty jobs are created at the behest of academic departments who provide evidence of the need of the position – burgeoning enrollments, for example – which then must be approved by a chain of command all the way to the system level before any hiring can begin. This means most of the work Davis is requesting already has been done.
In other words, if Savoie would just give the order to system presidents, universities could take out their old documentation, maybe update them slightly (if they would need to at all), and then send them up the chain eventually to Davis. It’s just not that difficult to do. And, while I’m at the very bottom of the academic food chain, I’ve heard nothing come from the Regents or the system level at my university to do this while Savoie pursues this quixotic quest. Why can’t both, blanket requests and specific requests, be done at once?
So why is Savoie digging in his heels so much? The answer comes from Jindal’s oft-stated goal of making universities in the state more outcome-oriented, focusing not so much on inputs (money, students attending, etc.) but on outputs (degrees awarded, graduation rates, and the like). The very first step in implementing this sea change in philosophy is to align human resources with desired outcomes – and Savoie, not just as outgoing leader of higher education but also as incoming university head, fears this larger agenda (as probably does his employer the Regents and the university system boards they oversee).
Davis has publicly stated that she would give great deference to university hiring, and I’m willing to predict that over 90 percent of such requests she’ll end up approving. However, she will make approvals with the realigning agenda in mind focusing on “critical” needs. And the university administrative culture, for the most part insulated in its own world, is such that it disdains any interference and resists change. The easiest way to accomplish this goal facing this crisis is to ask for a blanket exemption to help blunt realignment. So that’s why Savoie would rather throw up artificial barriers than get down to business like other state agencies have that would aid Jindal in his initial effort to imprint his agenda on Louisiana higher education.
While the Louisiana State University system won approval for the one blanket exemption, to hire direct providers of health care in the charity hospital system that it runs, Davis has rejected two other requests from Commissioner of Higher Education (soon to parachute into the presidency of the University of Louisiana- Lafayette) Joseph Savoie, first a blanket exemption for any university hiring, then one adjudged by university heads not Davis just turned down by Davis.
While all of this jockeying from higher education has gone on, other agencies have been dutifully compiling the data and getting exemptions – one of them being Savoie’s employer, the Board of Regents itself. In the meantime, Savoie has been complaining about having universities do the same – and not always recounting his case for blanket exemptions in an accurate way.
In a letter to Davis the day after the inauguration, Savoie wrote “More importantly perhaps, it would send a signal throughout the entire academic community that Louisiana is not a state upon which faculty, researchers and top-flight administrators can depend for good faith recruitment efforts.” If he believes this, it shows that despite his dozen years in his position and almost two decades in higher education prior to that, Savoie hasn’t learned a whole lot about faculty hiring in higher education. Position freezes are not at all uncommon for job applicants to deal with and they are not seen as unusual nor automatic disqualifiers of a prospective employer precisely because they are so common.
Later, Savoie argued that the freeze would affect hiring for adjunct positions. Adjuncts instructors are hired on a course-by-course basis to fill in gaps not able to be covered by the full-time faculty members. But unless I have totally missed something in the wording of the order, the freeze doesn’t apply to adjunct positions because they are temporary and part-time.
We also have to understand to context of the complaints Savoie is making. Remember that Jindal knows full well how higher education works, having led the University of Louisiana system. He probably knows that, in fact, the process of re-justifying new faculty positions is probably easier than what most other agencies face. In academia, new faculty jobs are created at the behest of academic departments who provide evidence of the need of the position – burgeoning enrollments, for example – which then must be approved by a chain of command all the way to the system level before any hiring can begin. This means most of the work Davis is requesting already has been done.
In other words, if Savoie would just give the order to system presidents, universities could take out their old documentation, maybe update them slightly (if they would need to at all), and then send them up the chain eventually to Davis. It’s just not that difficult to do. And, while I’m at the very bottom of the academic food chain, I’ve heard nothing come from the Regents or the system level at my university to do this while Savoie pursues this quixotic quest. Why can’t both, blanket requests and specific requests, be done at once?
So why is Savoie digging in his heels so much? The answer comes from Jindal’s oft-stated goal of making universities in the state more outcome-oriented, focusing not so much on inputs (money, students attending, etc.) but on outputs (degrees awarded, graduation rates, and the like). The very first step in implementing this sea change in philosophy is to align human resources with desired outcomes – and Savoie, not just as outgoing leader of higher education but also as incoming university head, fears this larger agenda (as probably does his employer the Regents and the university system boards they oversee).
Davis has publicly stated that she would give great deference to university hiring, and I’m willing to predict that over 90 percent of such requests she’ll end up approving. However, she will make approvals with the realigning agenda in mind focusing on “critical” needs. And the university administrative culture, for the most part insulated in its own world, is such that it disdains any interference and resists change. The easiest way to accomplish this goal facing this crisis is to ask for a blanket exemption to help blunt realignment. So that’s why Savoie would rather throw up artificial barriers than get down to business like other state agencies have that would aid Jindal in his initial effort to imprint his agenda on Louisiana higher education.
29.1.08
"Article VI" good to see before casting primary vote
An interesting addition to the political landscape that connects to politics in Louisiana is the documentary film “Article VI” co-directed by Bryan Hall and co-produced by former Shreveporter Reed Dickens the statewide premier of which occurred Monday at LSUS. It raises provocative questions that, among others around the country, Louisiana voters will have to grapple with over the upcoming days as votes are cast in the presidential preference primary.
Its timing and content contributes to the debate about the next occupant of the White House (the goal of the film, Hall and Dickens say, to make people think about how religious belief affects these choices) because the 2008 presidential election seems to be producing the most specific questioning of particular religious beliefs of candidates in recent memory. To be simplistic if not crass, major candidates include one whose religion just over a century ago practiced polygamy, another who has preached Bible inerrancy, a third who was in his youth educated in schools whose religious backers maintain the acceptability of holy war, and a fourth whose religious leaders forbid him to receive Communion.
Perhaps the central point made by the film through the vehicle of asking people, usually with some prominence in the political, academic, or religious sectors, about the intersection of religion and politics (its title refers to that section of the Constitution which states “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”) is that, while the Constitution does not demand a religious test, some people do supply one when they evaluate candidates. Related to this, it then begs the question whether a myopic view of the specific religious beliefs of individuals would, in the minds of some, disqualify candidates who in most every other respect would gain that particular person’s vote.
By way of example, Pres. Ronald Reagan was divorced (only the second president ever) and, until latter in life, only an occasional attendee of Presbyterian services (he seldom attended services during his presidency because of the public complications and distractions involved). Yet Reagan, who would describe himself as “born-again,” was well-known for forcefully championing a number of issue preferences that Christians, particularly evangelicals, liked and in his private life placed much emphasis on basing his own actions on religious belief.
In contrast, Pres. Bill and his wife, now presidential candidate and Sen. Hillary Clinton were regular attendees of (a very liberal) church in Washington (although they had attended a Baptist church in Arkansas). Yet many faithful questioned not only Clinton’s issue preferences that did not seem very Godly to them, but also acts in his personal life as president as well.
It’s this question about how voters consider the translation of the political beliefs of candidates into actual policy that looms as presidential party nominees are decided. To cite just one example, on issues that matter to Christians one prominent pro-evangelical organization gives high praise to former Gov. Mitt Romney even as it asserts Romney “admitted” his Mormonism was not a “Christian” religion – an inference the Romney campaign says is not accurate. Even if the organization appears to be reticent to appear as granting approval of Romney’s specific religious beliefs, it has no such hesitation concerning his campaign.
Especially for Republican voters in a state which on the one hand is a fertile ground for Protestant evangelical beliefs but on the other hand displays a fair degree of religious tolerance because of the presence of a substantial Catholic population, Louisiana will serve as one of the more interesting laboratories of how people’s perceptions of the prominence of a candidate’s specific religious beliefs play out in their vote decisions. In fact, on the GOP side it may make the difference in who wins the most delegates – especially if things work out so convention delegates a week after the primary end up making that apportionment. “Article VI” would make some good watching for them as they pondered that decision.
Its timing and content contributes to the debate about the next occupant of the White House (the goal of the film, Hall and Dickens say, to make people think about how religious belief affects these choices) because the 2008 presidential election seems to be producing the most specific questioning of particular religious beliefs of candidates in recent memory. To be simplistic if not crass, major candidates include one whose religion just over a century ago practiced polygamy, another who has preached Bible inerrancy, a third who was in his youth educated in schools whose religious backers maintain the acceptability of holy war, and a fourth whose religious leaders forbid him to receive Communion.
Perhaps the central point made by the film through the vehicle of asking people, usually with some prominence in the political, academic, or religious sectors, about the intersection of religion and politics (its title refers to that section of the Constitution which states “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”) is that, while the Constitution does not demand a religious test, some people do supply one when they evaluate candidates. Related to this, it then begs the question whether a myopic view of the specific religious beliefs of individuals would, in the minds of some, disqualify candidates who in most every other respect would gain that particular person’s vote.
By way of example, Pres. Ronald Reagan was divorced (only the second president ever) and, until latter in life, only an occasional attendee of Presbyterian services (he seldom attended services during his presidency because of the public complications and distractions involved). Yet Reagan, who would describe himself as “born-again,” was well-known for forcefully championing a number of issue preferences that Christians, particularly evangelicals, liked and in his private life placed much emphasis on basing his own actions on religious belief.
In contrast, Pres. Bill and his wife, now presidential candidate and Sen. Hillary Clinton were regular attendees of (a very liberal) church in Washington (although they had attended a Baptist church in Arkansas). Yet many faithful questioned not only Clinton’s issue preferences that did not seem very Godly to them, but also acts in his personal life as president as well.
It’s this question about how voters consider the translation of the political beliefs of candidates into actual policy that looms as presidential party nominees are decided. To cite just one example, on issues that matter to Christians one prominent pro-evangelical organization gives high praise to former Gov. Mitt Romney even as it asserts Romney “admitted” his Mormonism was not a “Christian” religion – an inference the Romney campaign says is not accurate. Even if the organization appears to be reticent to appear as granting approval of Romney’s specific religious beliefs, it has no such hesitation concerning his campaign.
Especially for Republican voters in a state which on the one hand is a fertile ground for Protestant evangelical beliefs but on the other hand displays a fair degree of religious tolerance because of the presence of a substantial Catholic population, Louisiana will serve as one of the more interesting laboratories of how people’s perceptions of the prominence of a candidate’s specific religious beliefs play out in their vote decisions. In fact, on the GOP side it may make the difference in who wins the most delegates – especially if things work out so convention delegates a week after the primary end up making that apportionment. “Article VI” would make some good watching for them as they pondered that decision.
28.1.08
Hypocritical BR Advocate chides Jindal for what it does
Lest one think the Shreveport Times has the only hypocritical editorialists of newspapers in the state, the Baton Rouge Advocate showed it doesn’t want to be left out when discussing media that says one thing and then does another.
The Advocate, joining the head of the state’s Democrats, took a shot at Gov. Bobby Jindal and his campaign staff that, by all accounts, made an inadvertent, incorrect entry on campaign finance documents. The state GOP spent money on the campaign’s behalf in June but campaign operatives overlooked to note it on the next filing due in June. In August, they were alerted to it and amended their previous form in September. However, this was too late to escape a fine which will be levied in the next few months.
Democrat Chairman Chris Whittington, with so little for his party to crow about last fall, took the opportunity to ask that Jindal’s chief of staff Timmy Teepell resign over the matter, prompting Jindal’s communications director Melissa Sellers to describe the request as “silly” and that the process that led to the complaint was a “political stunt.”
The Advocate, joining the head of the state’s Democrats, took a shot at Gov. Bobby Jindal and his campaign staff that, by all accounts, made an inadvertent, incorrect entry on campaign finance documents. The state GOP spent money on the campaign’s behalf in June but campaign operatives overlooked to note it on the next filing due in June. In August, they were alerted to it and amended their previous form in September. However, this was too late to escape a fine which will be levied in the next few months.
Democrat Chairman Chris Whittington, with so little for his party to crow about last fall, took the opportunity to ask that Jindal’s chief of staff Timmy Teepell resign over the matter, prompting Jindal’s communications director Melissa Sellers to describe the request as “silly” and that the process that led to the complaint was a “political stunt.”
26.1.08
Hiring freeze tactics align to larger strategic goals
Gov. Bobby Jindal has bent, slightly, in his order to freeze hiring of essentially all unfilled positions in state government. The move to allow a blanket waiver for all health care positions in direct contact with patients, after at first saying there would be no blanket waivers, represents only a small tactical shift in a larger strategy.
Some wondered when as one of his first official acts Jindal implemented the freeze by executive order. After all, promises of budget surpluses rung, on top of recent surpluses, so why was it that Jindal seemed so concerned about saving $25 million? There are three reasons why.
First, it was campaign promise of sorts. Jindal had long and loudly complained about an expanding government. Even if most of the recent increase came as a result of recovery monies from outside the state, there still was some government spending growth at a time the state actually had fewer people to service. On top of that, Jindal had expressed annoyance that the state not only continued to keep hundreds of jobs unfilled for years running, but that these open slots got pay raises in 2007. The freeze was a way to make good on this campaign issue.
Second, one of the great con jobs of last year by the Kathleen Blanco Administration and Democrat legislative leadership was the creation of programs and redistribution into them of monies coming from temporary sources (even if technically these funds were classified as eligible for spending on recurring items), as well as their ignoring of the false economy created by recovery spending which resulted in increased but in part temporary revenues. The Jindal Administration recognizes this fully as a ticking time bomb and one way to deal with it is cutting back basically unneeded personnel spending.
Third, the freeze helps Jindal in his quest to reform certain areas of government. For example, the current indigent care system rewards state institutions to be less efficient by dropping a sum of money in their laps rather than tying their rewards to performances on indicators – which is how the non-government sector must work compelled by market forces. Even if only a few million dollars can be pulled from the existing charity system, it reduces its size and frees the money to be used to implement a money-follows-the-person regime that eventually will force the charity system to perform more efficiently.
Jindal was correct that blanket exemptions as a whole would detract from the basic goal of his administration – hinging on another campaign promise – that is tied into the reform idea: it’s not the savings of money that is as important, but that agencies use the opportunity to justify its use as the first step towards a more performance-based attitude reigning in agency budgeting and operation. Jindal and Republicans like House Speaker Jim Tucker have insisted that fat still remains in the state’s spending habits: this exercise can initiate the process of agencies to get thinking in those terms as well.
Nonetheless, the Jindal Administration realized that on the direct provider issue that the nature of the service and the turnover in it made the exemption sensible; otherwise, Commissioner of Administration Angèle Davis would be spending far too much time reviewing exemption requests while agency heads would spend too much time writing them. It does not mean, for those reasons cited, that the Administration’s strategy will change anytime soon.
Some wondered when as one of his first official acts Jindal implemented the freeze by executive order. After all, promises of budget surpluses rung, on top of recent surpluses, so why was it that Jindal seemed so concerned about saving $25 million? There are three reasons why.
First, it was campaign promise of sorts. Jindal had long and loudly complained about an expanding government. Even if most of the recent increase came as a result of recovery monies from outside the state, there still was some government spending growth at a time the state actually had fewer people to service. On top of that, Jindal had expressed annoyance that the state not only continued to keep hundreds of jobs unfilled for years running, but that these open slots got pay raises in 2007. The freeze was a way to make good on this campaign issue.
Second, one of the great con jobs of last year by the Kathleen Blanco Administration and Democrat legislative leadership was the creation of programs and redistribution into them of monies coming from temporary sources (even if technically these funds were classified as eligible for spending on recurring items), as well as their ignoring of the false economy created by recovery spending which resulted in increased but in part temporary revenues. The Jindal Administration recognizes this fully as a ticking time bomb and one way to deal with it is cutting back basically unneeded personnel spending.
Third, the freeze helps Jindal in his quest to reform certain areas of government. For example, the current indigent care system rewards state institutions to be less efficient by dropping a sum of money in their laps rather than tying their rewards to performances on indicators – which is how the non-government sector must work compelled by market forces. Even if only a few million dollars can be pulled from the existing charity system, it reduces its size and frees the money to be used to implement a money-follows-the-person regime that eventually will force the charity system to perform more efficiently.
Jindal was correct that blanket exemptions as a whole would detract from the basic goal of his administration – hinging on another campaign promise – that is tied into the reform idea: it’s not the savings of money that is as important, but that agencies use the opportunity to justify its use as the first step towards a more performance-based attitude reigning in agency budgeting and operation. Jindal and Republicans like House Speaker Jim Tucker have insisted that fat still remains in the state’s spending habits: this exercise can initiate the process of agencies to get thinking in those terms as well.
Nonetheless, the Jindal Administration realized that on the direct provider issue that the nature of the service and the turnover in it made the exemption sensible; otherwise, Commissioner of Administration Angèle Davis would be spending far too much time reviewing exemption requests while agency heads would spend too much time writing them. It does not mean, for those reasons cited, that the Administration’s strategy will change anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)