At least the Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu campaign can, unlike its candidate, keep its attention focused on something for more than a sound bite. Its latest attack commercial on Republican opponent state Treasurer John Kennedy accuses him wanting to snatch old people’s “insurance” payouts, better known as Social Security, from them via privatization of the system, staying with the “confused” theme since Kennedy once opposed that. Perhaps this is to distract voters from the fact that Landrieu’s actions on this issue fit the theme of fiddling while Rome burns, if not throwing gasoline on the fire.
The idea that privatization of Social Security, proposed in 2005 on a voluntary basis to a small proportion of the assets “held” for investment, would threaten a general reduction of payout amounts not only is blather, but in fact would prevent a reduction of payout amounts. The system is going belly-up: in two years the annual surplus being taken into the system will start to decline; by 2018 that will become and annual deficit, and by 2041 the fund will be “exhausted.”
(Note: technically, the fund is exhausted now and has been for decades because Congress consistently has borrowed any yearly surplus and will have to pay trillions of dollars to put it back. That luxury stops in a decade and close to the end of the century the deficit will have grown to over $7 trillion. This borrowing occurs because while the system was supposed to be insurance – pay now to get it back later if you live long enough or become disabled – instead through history it has been treated as pay-as-you-go – current workers are paying for the benefits of current retirees. This is why there will be a funding crisis, as the proportion of retirees relative to workers increases over the next few decades.)
Serious research shows overall that allowing a small portion of a retiree’s contributions to the system to be invested in private markets can prevent underfunding of Social Security – as opposed to the solutions bantered around by which include a payroll tax hike of nearly 2 percent (or much more if applied only to higher-income earners), removing the ceiling of around $90,000 on taxing income (favored by Democrat candidate for President Sen. Barack Obama), or, yes, reductions in benefits (again, more drastic if limited to higher-income earners). Thus, Kennedy’s present issue preference, even if it involved a migration from the opposite view, is not just the best solution to the problem, but the most responsible.
This stands in stark contrast to Landrieu, who has offered nothing in the way of realistic solutions to the problem except tacit approval of higher taxes or reduced benefits, especially if done on the backs of the few who pay the vast majority into the system, the biggest contributors to economic growth that would be sapped with larger contributions resulting in an even bigger deficit. In essence, Landrieu’s latest salvo is to try to scare unknowledgeable people concerning Kennedy’s preference when in fact his approach solves the problem, while she herself has done nothing to try to solve it in a responsible way.
It’s better to have someone who flip-flops to the correct decision as has Kennedy rather than to have Landrieu who has been consistently wrong on this issue.
13.8.08
Report reaffirms LA ACLU agenda, its hypocrisy
If one looks for the home of hypocritical chutzpah, you need to look no further than the Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Perhaps best known for an anti-religious slant, the organization founded by communist interests is in the news in the state again by provoking in part again its recent favorite target, St. Tammany Parish where recently it won a partial victory against Slidell for what it claimed to be too much religious content to a display in its City Court. This time, it concerns presumed racial profiling occurring with parish law enforcement agencies, as well as in a few other areas around the state.
The charges, however, lack any serious basis or intellectual justification, even as they comport to the constipated cosmology that forms the ACLU’s worldview. Arrest records shows for many crimes blacks disproportionately are arrested. This should come as no surprise: as research amply shows, unfortunately blacks simply commit more crime, disproportionate to their proportion of the American population.
However, this inconvenient truth negates the ACLU’s view of the state’s corruptness. It believes some “power elite” exists (mainly composed of whites) which likes to spend part of its time harassing black folks. Therefore, a statistical discrepancy in this case causes them to discard the actual real-world explanation that it is produced by different attitudes and behavior in general among races, and instead inserts this artifice that racial profiling occurs.
Guided by this ideology, the report itself is designed to come to this conclusion. Just as a Shreveport Times investigation of citations, which less forcefully came to the same conclusion that racism was playing some role in making traffic stops, was marred by its failure to study the race of the citing officer, the ACLU effort fails to do the same unless it is willing to assume black officers also harbor some latent racism against members of their own race.
This whole stunt, however, lowers to the level of hypocrisy when considering the ACLU’s own defenses against charges that it is anti-religious. Note the causal chain here: significant differences in data denote a certain attitude among the authorities, specifically here that differences in arrest proportions to population proportions are a result of undesirable police attitudes (rather than those generally inherent to the populations themselves).
Yet when it comes to applying the same criteria to the ACLU’s actions to determine its real motives, it refuses to do so. The organization constantly argues that it is not anti-religious, among other things. But the statistical evidence is overwhelming in that a great many of its cases deal with questions like that of the Slidell City Court. Therefore, using the ACLU’s own logic, it is accurate to say that the ACLU is hostile to a religion, as well as to a number of civil liberties given the kinds of cases it almost always pursues (although it does throw in, very selectively, a few of the opposite kind here and there to try to inoculate itself against such charges).
Make no mistake that the ACLU has its own agenda countering the moral values implicit to the Constitution and the legitimate functions of government which it desperately tries to cloak through civil libertarian rhetoric. This latest action on its part merely provides more confirmation of this and reminds us of the hypocrisy inherent to the group.
Perhaps best known for an anti-religious slant, the organization founded by communist interests is in the news in the state again by provoking in part again its recent favorite target, St. Tammany Parish where recently it won a partial victory against Slidell for what it claimed to be too much religious content to a display in its City Court. This time, it concerns presumed racial profiling occurring with parish law enforcement agencies, as well as in a few other areas around the state.
The charges, however, lack any serious basis or intellectual justification, even as they comport to the constipated cosmology that forms the ACLU’s worldview. Arrest records shows for many crimes blacks disproportionately are arrested. This should come as no surprise: as research amply shows, unfortunately blacks simply commit more crime, disproportionate to their proportion of the American population.
However, this inconvenient truth negates the ACLU’s view of the state’s corruptness. It believes some “power elite” exists (mainly composed of whites) which likes to spend part of its time harassing black folks. Therefore, a statistical discrepancy in this case causes them to discard the actual real-world explanation that it is produced by different attitudes and behavior in general among races, and instead inserts this artifice that racial profiling occurs.
Guided by this ideology, the report itself is designed to come to this conclusion. Just as a Shreveport Times investigation of citations, which less forcefully came to the same conclusion that racism was playing some role in making traffic stops, was marred by its failure to study the race of the citing officer, the ACLU effort fails to do the same unless it is willing to assume black officers also harbor some latent racism against members of their own race.
This whole stunt, however, lowers to the level of hypocrisy when considering the ACLU’s own defenses against charges that it is anti-religious. Note the causal chain here: significant differences in data denote a certain attitude among the authorities, specifically here that differences in arrest proportions to population proportions are a result of undesirable police attitudes (rather than those generally inherent to the populations themselves).
Yet when it comes to applying the same criteria to the ACLU’s actions to determine its real motives, it refuses to do so. The organization constantly argues that it is not anti-religious, among other things. But the statistical evidence is overwhelming in that a great many of its cases deal with questions like that of the Slidell City Court. Therefore, using the ACLU’s own logic, it is accurate to say that the ACLU is hostile to a religion, as well as to a number of civil liberties given the kinds of cases it almost always pursues (although it does throw in, very selectively, a few of the opposite kind here and there to try to inoculate itself against such charges).
Make no mistake that the ACLU has its own agenda countering the moral values implicit to the Constitution and the legitimate functions of government which it desperately tries to cloak through civil libertarian rhetoric. This latest action on its part merely provides more confirmation of this and reminds us of the hypocrisy inherent to the group.
12.8.08
Expect wild ride to settle LA Fourth U.S. District
After a dull previous 14 years, denizens of Louisiana’s Fourth Congressional District can be excused if they become heart attack candidates experiencing what could be a wildly unpredictable contest for this office that looked nothing like it was projected before the beginning of the year.
Conventional wisdom had it that, before Republican Rep. Jim McCrery announced his retirement, front-running candidates would include, among Republicans, former state Rep. Mike Powell and Caddo Sheriff Steve Prator, and, among Democrats, former Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower and state Sen. Lydia Jackson, vying for their parties’ closed primary nominations.
Instead, Powell retired from elective politics, Prator preferred his current job, and Hightower deferred entering after the only known political quantity who announced, Caddo District Attorney Paul Carmouche said he would retire from that position and seek the Democrat nomination. (Previous Democrat candidates attorney John Milkovich and minister Artis Cash are running, but appear noncompetitive.)
Carmouche is a serious candidate both by background and in demonstrated fund-raising. His law-and-order image has a better chance than most of his party to hold onto at least some white Democrats who traditionally have crossed over in droves for Republicans in national contests. At the same time, he has not had to run in a serious contest in 30 years and must broaden the scope of issue discussion into areas in which either he may not be particularly well-suited or may come under fire being linked to the liberal national Democrats. Questions also linger about decisions he made concerning what cases to pursue and that he chose to retain a private law practice interest even while serving as district attorney (prompting one aspirant to succeed him to proclaim he would be a "full-time" prosecutor).
On the GOP side, it is not so much issue preferences as it is backgrounds that have distinguished the three political newcomers. Early entrant physician Dr. John Fleming has solid conservative issue preferences but almost exclusively self-funded campaigns such as his to this point are tough to win and he operates from the smaller political base of Webster Parish. His self-made background appears to be a major point distinguishing him from his competitors, however.
Trucking executive Chris Gorman has a larger base from which to draw, emanating from west Shreveport. However, doubts circulate about the company he keeps, however, being endorsed by the likes of liberal state Sen. Robert Adley, a recent convert of convenience from the Democrats who defended legislators' attempt to raise their pay which would seem to contradict Gorman's stated conservatism. Gorman's past isn't a big draw to conservative voters as well: largely undistinguished, he was plucked from obscurity by his family to help run its trucking firm.
The last entrant burst on the scene in the most surprising manner, Bossier attorney Jeff Thompson (who, ironically, worked at Carmouche’s firm a decade ago), making his candidacy known through an endorsement by McCrery. Thompson’s Bossier Chamber of Commerce positions and work on behalf of other area candidates added to McCrery’ stamp of approval and fundraising doors have made him the biggest non-self fundraiser of three, a fact of which he reminds the electorate when possible. But McCrery’s support may not prove as hefty as imagined. It’s hard to ignore that, against no-name opponents one of whom was a Republican (under the old blanket primary system), McCrery did not even get 58 percent of the vote in 2006 and no doubt this factored into his decision to retire. Also having practiced in part as a trial lawyer, Thompson's also is a tough background for some conservative voters to swallow.
With reduced competition, Carmouche may be able to conserve resources while the others slug it out. Still, the eventual GOP nominee will emerge the favorite if two things happen: they run a civil campaign among themselves for the nomination, and then the winner in part runs a negative campaign highlighting Carmouche's faults serving as D.A. Otherwise, the nominee will have trouble gaining positive name recognition while leaving uncontested the largely issueless (according to the Democrat playbook) campaign Carmouche will try to run attempting to capitalize on his name recognition.
Despite a poll done for Fleming by an respected outside agency showing him with a big lead over fellow Republicans (which his opponents claim is suspect), and an internal poll done by Carmouche claiming he leads the entire field substantially (which is particularly suspect), any of the four still could win this race. This may provide more excitement than some would like in the Fourth District.
Conventional wisdom had it that, before Republican Rep. Jim McCrery announced his retirement, front-running candidates would include, among Republicans, former state Rep. Mike Powell and Caddo Sheriff Steve Prator, and, among Democrats, former Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower and state Sen. Lydia Jackson, vying for their parties’ closed primary nominations.
Instead, Powell retired from elective politics, Prator preferred his current job, and Hightower deferred entering after the only known political quantity who announced, Caddo District Attorney Paul Carmouche said he would retire from that position and seek the Democrat nomination. (Previous Democrat candidates attorney John Milkovich and minister Artis Cash are running, but appear noncompetitive.)
Carmouche is a serious candidate both by background and in demonstrated fund-raising. His law-and-order image has a better chance than most of his party to hold onto at least some white Democrats who traditionally have crossed over in droves for Republicans in national contests. At the same time, he has not had to run in a serious contest in 30 years and must broaden the scope of issue discussion into areas in which either he may not be particularly well-suited or may come under fire being linked to the liberal national Democrats. Questions also linger about decisions he made concerning what cases to pursue and that he chose to retain a private law practice interest even while serving as district attorney (prompting one aspirant to succeed him to proclaim he would be a "full-time" prosecutor).
On the GOP side, it is not so much issue preferences as it is backgrounds that have distinguished the three political newcomers. Early entrant physician Dr. John Fleming has solid conservative issue preferences but almost exclusively self-funded campaigns such as his to this point are tough to win and he operates from the smaller political base of Webster Parish. His self-made background appears to be a major point distinguishing him from his competitors, however.
Trucking executive Chris Gorman has a larger base from which to draw, emanating from west Shreveport. However, doubts circulate about the company he keeps, however, being endorsed by the likes of liberal state Sen. Robert Adley, a recent convert of convenience from the Democrats who defended legislators' attempt to raise their pay which would seem to contradict Gorman's stated conservatism. Gorman's past isn't a big draw to conservative voters as well: largely undistinguished, he was plucked from obscurity by his family to help run its trucking firm.
The last entrant burst on the scene in the most surprising manner, Bossier attorney Jeff Thompson (who, ironically, worked at Carmouche’s firm a decade ago), making his candidacy known through an endorsement by McCrery. Thompson’s Bossier Chamber of Commerce positions and work on behalf of other area candidates added to McCrery’ stamp of approval and fundraising doors have made him the biggest non-self fundraiser of three, a fact of which he reminds the electorate when possible. But McCrery’s support may not prove as hefty as imagined. It’s hard to ignore that, against no-name opponents one of whom was a Republican (under the old blanket primary system), McCrery did not even get 58 percent of the vote in 2006 and no doubt this factored into his decision to retire. Also having practiced in part as a trial lawyer, Thompson's also is a tough background for some conservative voters to swallow.
With reduced competition, Carmouche may be able to conserve resources while the others slug it out. Still, the eventual GOP nominee will emerge the favorite if two things happen: they run a civil campaign among themselves for the nomination, and then the winner in part runs a negative campaign highlighting Carmouche's faults serving as D.A. Otherwise, the nominee will have trouble gaining positive name recognition while leaving uncontested the largely issueless (according to the Democrat playbook) campaign Carmouche will try to run attempting to capitalize on his name recognition.
Despite a poll done for Fleming by an respected outside agency showing him with a big lead over fellow Republicans (which his opponents claim is suspect), and an internal poll done by Carmouche claiming he leads the entire field substantially (which is particularly suspect), any of the four still could win this race. This may provide more excitement than some would like in the Fourth District.
11.8.08
Less obscure Landrieu record, less likely she wins
Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu is embarking on an uncommon campaign tactic for an incumbent U.S. senator – smear the challenger, in this case Republican state Treasurer John Kennedy – while trying to insulate herself from her greatest vulnerability. If Kennedy responds as expected, it will create an interesting situation in trying to persuade the casual voter.
Landrieu’s campaign has run an ad accusing Kennedy of flip-flopping on two accounts – in that he has been seeking higher office repeatedly and in his issue preferences. At the same time, it has been trying to float the idea that Landrieu is a “moderate” close to the preferences of Louisianans.
Nothing could be further from the truth regarding ideology: Landrieu, by virtue of scores like her 22 lifetime American Conservative Union (0 being a perfect liberal) tally and having voted with the liberal Democrat leadership of her party 84 percent of the time, is a “moderate,” as her commercials crassly proclaim, only compared to the rest of her party whose other senators vote severely to the left. Make no mistake: her liberal voting record puts her solidly at odds with the majority in Louisiana.
She desperately wishes to obscure this hence the spin trying to make her look “moderate” and attacks on Kennedy. One almost never sees an incumbent ripping into a challenger because they grant legitimacy to the challenger’s quest and make themselves appear vulnerable by association. Typically, it is the sign of a campaign that knows it’s in trouble, as her campaign’s reaction to recent polling data suggests.
Kennedy for his part has run a positive campaign so far but an old saw of campaigning is that serious attacks must be rebutted to prevent your opponent defining you, and a return of the favor can buttress that. Expect Kennedy to run something about how he recognizes mistakes and corrects them, while Landrieu won’t (using Landrieu’s extreme reluctance to admit any favorable attitude about presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, such as the quick removal of her name attached to a fundraiser for Obama which also shows she “flip-flops” as well by pledging support for somebody, then disappearing).
Kennedy also is likely to go straight after Landrieu’s voting record, not highlighting scorecards but instead key votes that demonstrates either her affinity to vote the agenda of the far left and/or not to buck the leftist national Democrats (her recent committee vote against oil shale drilling in the west to please a colleague Kennedy can exploit massively, just as one example). This will counter the “moderate” fiction her campaign her working overtime to propagate.
Landrieu can win this race only if she runs from her party and her record and successfully obscures them. If Kennedy reminds voters of them effectively, he wins. With the large majority of Louisiana voters only casually attentive to the contest, whoever succeeds in their task with these voters will be victorious.
Landrieu’s campaign has run an ad accusing Kennedy of flip-flopping on two accounts – in that he has been seeking higher office repeatedly and in his issue preferences. At the same time, it has been trying to float the idea that Landrieu is a “moderate” close to the preferences of Louisianans.
Nothing could be further from the truth regarding ideology: Landrieu, by virtue of scores like her 22 lifetime American Conservative Union (0 being a perfect liberal) tally and having voted with the liberal Democrat leadership of her party 84 percent of the time, is a “moderate,” as her commercials crassly proclaim, only compared to the rest of her party whose other senators vote severely to the left. Make no mistake: her liberal voting record puts her solidly at odds with the majority in Louisiana.
She desperately wishes to obscure this hence the spin trying to make her look “moderate” and attacks on Kennedy. One almost never sees an incumbent ripping into a challenger because they grant legitimacy to the challenger’s quest and make themselves appear vulnerable by association. Typically, it is the sign of a campaign that knows it’s in trouble, as her campaign’s reaction to recent polling data suggests.
Kennedy for his part has run a positive campaign so far but an old saw of campaigning is that serious attacks must be rebutted to prevent your opponent defining you, and a return of the favor can buttress that. Expect Kennedy to run something about how he recognizes mistakes and corrects them, while Landrieu won’t (using Landrieu’s extreme reluctance to admit any favorable attitude about presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, such as the quick removal of her name attached to a fundraiser for Obama which also shows she “flip-flops” as well by pledging support for somebody, then disappearing).
Kennedy also is likely to go straight after Landrieu’s voting record, not highlighting scorecards but instead key votes that demonstrates either her affinity to vote the agenda of the far left and/or not to buck the leftist national Democrats (her recent committee vote against oil shale drilling in the west to please a colleague Kennedy can exploit massively, just as one example). This will counter the “moderate” fiction her campaign her working overtime to propagate.
Landrieu can win this race only if she runs from her party and her record and successfully obscures them. If Kennedy reminds voters of them effectively, he wins. With the large majority of Louisiana voters only casually attentive to the contest, whoever succeeds in their task with these voters will be victorious.
8.8.08
Fleming becoming formidable 4th District candidate
The 4th Congressional District contest has taken another turn with a front-runner emerging among the competitive Republicans, and the reason why could make him the favorite come the general election.
A new poll commissioned by Republican Dr. John Fleming shows him pulling away from the other two GOP candidates, Chris Gorman and Jeff Thompson. The respected Southern Media and Opinion Research group puts him at 43 percent of Republican voters, while Gorman checks in at 17 percent and Thompson at 15 (the remainder of the sample of 350 don’t know or wouldn’t say). More remarkable is that fundraising totals would have predicted the opposite order.
Of these candidates, Fleming and Gorman had raised substantially the same money, significantly ahead of Thompson; however, the majority in both cases was from their own funds. Thompson has tossed in only $50,000 of his own but independently raised more than either. Most interesting is that Gorman has independently raised almost three times as much as Fleming.
Often a good indicator of candidate success comes from donations. Giving to a candidate not only signals a very high likelihood of the donor voting for the candidate (unless multiple candidates in that race are so blessed by that individual), but also usually means that donor will pull in friends and family to do so accordingly. There’s no bigger booster of a candidate than somebody who already put his money down on him.
By that metric, Thompson ought to be doing best, followed by Gorman and Fleming. Historically, heavy and sufficient (i.e. a few hundred thousand dollars) self-financing of a campaign will make you competitive but far from guarantees a win. The success of Fleming, with about 80 percent of his campaign self-financed, also is all the more remarkable given his strategic base of Minden is much smaller than the Shreveport (Gorman)-Bossier (Thompson) metropolitan population.
This means Fleming’s success must be due to a convincing message well delivered. Such an explanation also is consistent with the results of a poll announced in mid-June by Gorman which, while short on details, appeared to read that while a majority of voters had yet to state a preference, the plurality that did chose Gorman. Only he at that time had cranked up major campaign efforts. Since then, Fleming and Thompson have joined him and it would appear Fleming is sweeping up the majority of more recent deciders.
On issue preferences, there actually is not a lot of difference among the three, all mainstream conservatives dissatisfied with business as usual in Washington, but what seems to set Fleming apart is while the other two’s backgrounds show they took advantage of opportunity, Fleming made his own breaks. For example, while Thompson (after experience in, of all places, almost certain Democrat nominee former Caddo District Attorney Paul Carmouche’s law practice) eventually established his own law practice and headed the Bossier Chamber of Commerce, and Gorman came into his family’s trucking business Tango Transport, Fleming not only built a practice from the bottom up with nothing, he then diversified into doing the same with Subway and UPS franchises probably creating more jobs than the Bossier Chamber or Tango.
This shows initiative appealing to the conservative Republican base in northwest Louisiana, and that may be what could give the edge to Fleming over the very politically experienced Carmouche in the general electorate. While he may have the job of a prosecutor down pat, to date he has appeared very unsteady to run the Democrats’ Southern playbook of enunciating vaguely broad, popular platitudes, giving a conservative line on God and guns, and deflecting any other inquiries highlighting the liberal Democrat agenda supported by the party leadership on which he will be required to vote (if not willingly) its way most of the time if elected.
Worse, he seems to have little grasp about other, important issues or, in his haste to obscure his and/or his party’s preference, tries to talk around them (his obscurant, rambling non-answer to a question about the Employee Free Choice Act which would permit union intimidation of workers on YouTube is becoming legendary in the district). Fleming’s no-nonsense, straightforward approach – a good example being how his criticism of the Louisiana Legislature’s attempted pay raise well before its veto distinguished him as one of the “common men” disgusted with career politicians – would provide an effective counter to Carmouche’s evasiveness that reinforces the stereotype of the Democrat as a career politician.
Local Republicans have been hoping a leader would emerge among their three candidates so as to concentrate fire on Carmouche as early as possible. Despite the odds, Fleming may prove to be the answer.
A new poll commissioned by Republican Dr. John Fleming shows him pulling away from the other two GOP candidates, Chris Gorman and Jeff Thompson. The respected Southern Media and Opinion Research group puts him at 43 percent of Republican voters, while Gorman checks in at 17 percent and Thompson at 15 (the remainder of the sample of 350 don’t know or wouldn’t say). More remarkable is that fundraising totals would have predicted the opposite order.
Of these candidates, Fleming and Gorman had raised substantially the same money, significantly ahead of Thompson; however, the majority in both cases was from their own funds. Thompson has tossed in only $50,000 of his own but independently raised more than either. Most interesting is that Gorman has independently raised almost three times as much as Fleming.
Often a good indicator of candidate success comes from donations. Giving to a candidate not only signals a very high likelihood of the donor voting for the candidate (unless multiple candidates in that race are so blessed by that individual), but also usually means that donor will pull in friends and family to do so accordingly. There’s no bigger booster of a candidate than somebody who already put his money down on him.
By that metric, Thompson ought to be doing best, followed by Gorman and Fleming. Historically, heavy and sufficient (i.e. a few hundred thousand dollars) self-financing of a campaign will make you competitive but far from guarantees a win. The success of Fleming, with about 80 percent of his campaign self-financed, also is all the more remarkable given his strategic base of Minden is much smaller than the Shreveport (Gorman)-Bossier (Thompson) metropolitan population.
This means Fleming’s success must be due to a convincing message well delivered. Such an explanation also is consistent with the results of a poll announced in mid-June by Gorman which, while short on details, appeared to read that while a majority of voters had yet to state a preference, the plurality that did chose Gorman. Only he at that time had cranked up major campaign efforts. Since then, Fleming and Thompson have joined him and it would appear Fleming is sweeping up the majority of more recent deciders.
On issue preferences, there actually is not a lot of difference among the three, all mainstream conservatives dissatisfied with business as usual in Washington, but what seems to set Fleming apart is while the other two’s backgrounds show they took advantage of opportunity, Fleming made his own breaks. For example, while Thompson (after experience in, of all places, almost certain Democrat nominee former Caddo District Attorney Paul Carmouche’s law practice) eventually established his own law practice and headed the Bossier Chamber of Commerce, and Gorman came into his family’s trucking business Tango Transport, Fleming not only built a practice from the bottom up with nothing, he then diversified into doing the same with Subway and UPS franchises probably creating more jobs than the Bossier Chamber or Tango.
This shows initiative appealing to the conservative Republican base in northwest Louisiana, and that may be what could give the edge to Fleming over the very politically experienced Carmouche in the general electorate. While he may have the job of a prosecutor down pat, to date he has appeared very unsteady to run the Democrats’ Southern playbook of enunciating vaguely broad, popular platitudes, giving a conservative line on God and guns, and deflecting any other inquiries highlighting the liberal Democrat agenda supported by the party leadership on which he will be required to vote (if not willingly) its way most of the time if elected.
Worse, he seems to have little grasp about other, important issues or, in his haste to obscure his and/or his party’s preference, tries to talk around them (his obscurant, rambling non-answer to a question about the Employee Free Choice Act which would permit union intimidation of workers on YouTube is becoming legendary in the district). Fleming’s no-nonsense, straightforward approach – a good example being how his criticism of the Louisiana Legislature’s attempted pay raise well before its veto distinguished him as one of the “common men” disgusted with career politicians – would provide an effective counter to Carmouche’s evasiveness that reinforces the stereotype of the Democrat as a career politician.
Local Republicans have been hoping a leader would emerge among their three candidates so as to concentrate fire on Carmouche as early as possible. Despite the odds, Fleming may prove to be the answer.
7.8.08
Jindal, "closest thing to a minority," may perturb liberals
As it appears Gov. Bobby Jindal is getting the prime speaking slot at the Republican national convention, of course this causes no end of consternation for liberals.
Perhaps a little luster is off Jindal’s shine courtesy of tax-cutting and absurdly high legislator pay raise waffling, but if Jindal aspires to higher office, he’s got a few years to regain it and polish it with a solid conservative agenda and record. Making the keynote speech at a convention offers a prime opportunity to continue this process, and history shows it can be an important stepping-stone for a party politician with national ambitions.
This is not a welcome development for liberals, who regard Jindal as one of the most dangerous conservatives around to tear down their playhouse of governing. His unabashed, thoughtful argumentation for conservatism is damaging enough to expose the bankruptcy of liberalism, but worse is he’s the “closest thing to a minority” on the GOP side.
At least that seems to be the line now coming from one prominent Democrat, former Gov. Kathleen Blanco operative Bob Mann who bailed out of that job into a cushy academic sinecure. The change in profession doesn’t seem to have sharpened Mann’s demographic and/or reasoning skills: 2006 estimates of a U.S. population of just under 300 million show that 19 million call themselves other than white, black, Hispanic, Asian, or native Indian, which includes southeast Asian Indians of the same ethnic stock as Jindal. By any real definition southeast Asian Indians like Jindal are not “close” to being an ethnic minority in America, they are.
But liberals like Mann can’t allow themselves to think that way because to them a “minority” is a group who is “disadvantaged” in an economic sense and, frankly, Asians of almost any ethnicity do decently in America. No, to them a “minority” is “disadvantaged” because they are being “oppressed” in some way, by virtue of race, gender, class, or whatever suspect category and thus deserve some kind of preferential treatment. (Why Asians escape “racism” to allow them to prosper, liberals never can say.)
Naturally, Jindal subscribes to none of this nonsense, realizing the locus of success or failure economically resides in the individual, not from “racism” institutionalized in our societal institutions (any impulses of which are suppressed by law), or any other aspect of the economic system. Liberals cannot allow this to be understood because their whole hustle is on the idea that only they and their policies can empower people, whereas Jindal believes accurately that individuals empower themselves – if government stays out of their way and lets them.
So maybe Jindal will get a chance on the big stage and, if so, liberals are just going to have to hope he bombs it – although even that doesn’t guarantee stopping a future president. A stinker of a keynote speech was delivered in 1988, leaving those seeing and hearing it wondering what all the fuss was about this guy – future Pres. Bill Clinton.
Perhaps a little luster is off Jindal’s shine courtesy of tax-cutting and absurdly high legislator pay raise waffling, but if Jindal aspires to higher office, he’s got a few years to regain it and polish it with a solid conservative agenda and record. Making the keynote speech at a convention offers a prime opportunity to continue this process, and history shows it can be an important stepping-stone for a party politician with national ambitions.
This is not a welcome development for liberals, who regard Jindal as one of the most dangerous conservatives around to tear down their playhouse of governing. His unabashed, thoughtful argumentation for conservatism is damaging enough to expose the bankruptcy of liberalism, but worse is he’s the “closest thing to a minority” on the GOP side.
At least that seems to be the line now coming from one prominent Democrat, former Gov. Kathleen Blanco operative Bob Mann who bailed out of that job into a cushy academic sinecure. The change in profession doesn’t seem to have sharpened Mann’s demographic and/or reasoning skills: 2006 estimates of a U.S. population of just under 300 million show that 19 million call themselves other than white, black, Hispanic, Asian, or native Indian, which includes southeast Asian Indians of the same ethnic stock as Jindal. By any real definition southeast Asian Indians like Jindal are not “close” to being an ethnic minority in America, they are.
But liberals like Mann can’t allow themselves to think that way because to them a “minority” is a group who is “disadvantaged” in an economic sense and, frankly, Asians of almost any ethnicity do decently in America. No, to them a “minority” is “disadvantaged” because they are being “oppressed” in some way, by virtue of race, gender, class, or whatever suspect category and thus deserve some kind of preferential treatment. (Why Asians escape “racism” to allow them to prosper, liberals never can say.)
Naturally, Jindal subscribes to none of this nonsense, realizing the locus of success or failure economically resides in the individual, not from “racism” institutionalized in our societal institutions (any impulses of which are suppressed by law), or any other aspect of the economic system. Liberals cannot allow this to be understood because their whole hustle is on the idea that only they and their policies can empower people, whereas Jindal believes accurately that individuals empower themselves – if government stays out of their way and lets them.
So maybe Jindal will get a chance on the big stage and, if so, liberals are just going to have to hope he bombs it – although even that doesn’t guarantee stopping a future president. A stinker of a keynote speech was delivered in 1988, leaving those seeing and hearing it wondering what all the fuss was about this guy – future Pres. Bill Clinton.
6.8.08
LA Democrats' fraudulence explained by TV series
All one needs to know to understand how Democrats campaign for office can be learned from watching Star Trek, at least its The Next Generation spinoff, as recent actions on the issue of energy concerning Louisiana’s Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. Don Cazayoux demonstrate.
First, let’s review a primer of Democrat strategy, and then the important concepts to be learned from ST:TNG. The most basic principle of today’s American political world is that if Democrats and/or liberals display and behave who they really are, they cannot win national elections thus power. Their beliefs and desires are so at odds with the majority’s views in America, as well as what is best for Americans as a whole, that (as long as their opponents express principled conservatism and don’t merely echo the bankrupt liberalism of the Democrats) an informed, thinking electorate will deny them the White House and a majority in Congress.
Therefore, Democrats must present a chimera of what they really are to win. Here is where concepts from ST:TNG can be useful and used. In the science-fiction television series set in the 24th century, science has created holographic imaging that is virtually indistinguishable from reality. Democrats seek to create the same: they want the public to see the holographic images they choose to represent their candidates which will appear to be much closer to the median voter than in reality, not their candidates as they really are.
First, let’s review a primer of Democrat strategy, and then the important concepts to be learned from ST:TNG. The most basic principle of today’s American political world is that if Democrats and/or liberals display and behave who they really are, they cannot win national elections thus power. Their beliefs and desires are so at odds with the majority’s views in America, as well as what is best for Americans as a whole, that (as long as their opponents express principled conservatism and don’t merely echo the bankrupt liberalism of the Democrats) an informed, thinking electorate will deny them the White House and a majority in Congress.
Therefore, Democrats must present a chimera of what they really are to win. Here is where concepts from ST:TNG can be useful and used. In the science-fiction television series set in the 24th century, science has created holographic imaging that is virtually indistinguishable from reality. Democrats seek to create the same: they want the public to see the holographic images they choose to represent their candidates which will appear to be much closer to the median voter than in reality, not their candidates as they really are.
5.8.08
National Democrat brand avoided by Southern candidates
One needs to go beyond surface impressions to understand why southern Democrat candidates for Congress – even the ones bestowed with party leadership status and made delegates – seem reluctant to attend their own party convention.
All those named in this category are participating in competitive contests, just as are some Republican seatholders skipping the GOP version. However, a notable difference is that the latter are veteran lawmakers fighting in tossup battles, while many of the Democrats either seek to win initially or won very recent special elections. In other words, the GOP absentees clearly are identified with the GOP and will sacrifice that for more campaigning opportunities, while the Democrats planning on playing hooky have but a tenuous connection in people’s minds with that party and seem disinterested in strengthening that.
Or to put it more bluntly, Republicans are trading away reinforcement of positive identification for more campaign time, while Democrats are avoiding any identification to better mold an image at odds with what Democrats are all about. This is because the districts they are trying to win, or win again after just a few months, contain majorities that oppose the bulk of what Democrats believe.
One analyst argues that this avoidance deals with racial attitudes connected to the party’s presumptive presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama. That’s a bit too simplistic: while some voters in these districts will react negatively to Obama’s being black, many will object to him because he, the most liberal senator in that body, represents all too well everything that modern Democrats stand for – pro-abortion, gun control, higher taxes, bigger government, drill never, blame America, global tests, and withdraw now (even as he tries to move away from several of these).
Another observer notes this but wonders whether these candidates have misjudged Obama’s top-down appeal on the ticket and could later try to create a stronger link between them. That itself misjudges the real situation: any Democrat in the South who wants to win a national seat must avoid always insinuations of attachment to Obama’s liberalism and the growing sense that his flip-flops on issues (which he denies are precisely that because he is supposed to be the candidate of principled change) to obfuscate that liberalism make 2004 Democrat nominees Sen. John Kerry look stable. Until Nov. 4, almost always these candidates will avoid Obama like the plague.
You can’t ignore the Democrat playbook in the South – support God and guns, avoid and obscure almost every other issue – that produces the only way such a candidate can win. It takes no greater understanding to realize why Democrat congressional candidates will stay away from anything publicly having to do with national Democrats (out of view, they eagerly will associate with and kowtow to it) – until Nov. 5.
All those named in this category are participating in competitive contests, just as are some Republican seatholders skipping the GOP version. However, a notable difference is that the latter are veteran lawmakers fighting in tossup battles, while many of the Democrats either seek to win initially or won very recent special elections. In other words, the GOP absentees clearly are identified with the GOP and will sacrifice that for more campaigning opportunities, while the Democrats planning on playing hooky have but a tenuous connection in people’s minds with that party and seem disinterested in strengthening that.
Or to put it more bluntly, Republicans are trading away reinforcement of positive identification for more campaign time, while Democrats are avoiding any identification to better mold an image at odds with what Democrats are all about. This is because the districts they are trying to win, or win again after just a few months, contain majorities that oppose the bulk of what Democrats believe.
One analyst argues that this avoidance deals with racial attitudes connected to the party’s presumptive presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama. That’s a bit too simplistic: while some voters in these districts will react negatively to Obama’s being black, many will object to him because he, the most liberal senator in that body, represents all too well everything that modern Democrats stand for – pro-abortion, gun control, higher taxes, bigger government, drill never, blame America, global tests, and withdraw now (even as he tries to move away from several of these).
Another observer notes this but wonders whether these candidates have misjudged Obama’s top-down appeal on the ticket and could later try to create a stronger link between them. That itself misjudges the real situation: any Democrat in the South who wants to win a national seat must avoid always insinuations of attachment to Obama’s liberalism and the growing sense that his flip-flops on issues (which he denies are precisely that because he is supposed to be the candidate of principled change) to obfuscate that liberalism make 2004 Democrat nominees Sen. John Kerry look stable. Until Nov. 4, almost always these candidates will avoid Obama like the plague.
You can’t ignore the Democrat playbook in the South – support God and guns, avoid and obscure almost every other issue – that produces the only way such a candidate can win. It takes no greater understanding to realize why Democrat congressional candidates will stay away from anything publicly having to do with national Democrats (out of view, they eagerly will associate with and kowtow to it) – until Nov. 5.
4.8.08
Impotent Cazayoux fails constituents a different way
The Democrat playbook for the South – support God and guns, avoid and obscure almost every other issue – it’s getting a mite hard for Rep. Don Cazayoux to handle because the political party to which he pledges his fealty keeps reminding Louisiana voters it does not reflect their views and, as a consequence, neither can Cazayoux.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to schedule activity that could lead to increasing drilling for offshore oil, an activity with little environmental consequence that will send prices down in the short term through knowledge that future supply will be less constricted, and with that supply coming will keep prices down permanently. Understand the ideological imperative why Democrats back Pelosi on this – under the guise of environmentalism, they wish to provoke antipathy towards the private sector because of high fuel prices and to channel frustration into greater acceptance of government intervention. This suits their long term objective of empowering themselves by getting control of government and having government take control more and more of the people’s lives and their resources.
So Pelosi won’t back down, which supposedly disturbs Cazayoux so much that he fires off a letter criticizing the leadership for its varied phantom solutions to a simple regulatory/marketplace problem. And it provide another demonstration of Cazayoux’s strategy to retain power – provide cheap talk but being unable or unwilling to follow through for his constituents.
Simply, Cazayoux cannot overcome the internal contradictions of what put him into office. He says one thing and does another, or complains about the very people he continues to allow to stay in power – both which highlight the fact that his talk is cheap and his constituents deserve far better than what he delivers. The impact of the letter doesn’t so much convey he’s fighting for his constituents but that he’s impotent in doing so – by his own free will.
An intellectually honest lawmaker, rather than talk about, would try to act on his principles, in this instance either trying to oust Pelosi, or to switch parties. But Cazayoux won’t because he agrees with most of what Pelosi and liberal Democrats believe which is the opposite of his district’s ideology. This letter merely tries to deflect people from thinking otherwise and even for those who believe Cazayoux can be two incompatible things at once, it’s clear that he has no influence in the party with this useless effort so what’s the point in having a zero representing you?
The deception works only if the public is not alerted to it. That’s unlikely to occur with a strong Republican candidate, state Sen. Bill Cassidy, facing Cazayoux in fall elections, ready to point our each and every inconsistency. (And, for good measure, Democrat-turned-independent state Rep. Michael Jackson will contribute here as well.) Cazayoux’s high-wire act looks increasingly likely to produce a fall.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to schedule activity that could lead to increasing drilling for offshore oil, an activity with little environmental consequence that will send prices down in the short term through knowledge that future supply will be less constricted, and with that supply coming will keep prices down permanently. Understand the ideological imperative why Democrats back Pelosi on this – under the guise of environmentalism, they wish to provoke antipathy towards the private sector because of high fuel prices and to channel frustration into greater acceptance of government intervention. This suits their long term objective of empowering themselves by getting control of government and having government take control more and more of the people’s lives and their resources.
So Pelosi won’t back down, which supposedly disturbs Cazayoux so much that he fires off a letter criticizing the leadership for its varied phantom solutions to a simple regulatory/marketplace problem. And it provide another demonstration of Cazayoux’s strategy to retain power – provide cheap talk but being unable or unwilling to follow through for his constituents.
Simply, Cazayoux cannot overcome the internal contradictions of what put him into office. He says one thing and does another, or complains about the very people he continues to allow to stay in power – both which highlight the fact that his talk is cheap and his constituents deserve far better than what he delivers. The impact of the letter doesn’t so much convey he’s fighting for his constituents but that he’s impotent in doing so – by his own free will.
An intellectually honest lawmaker, rather than talk about, would try to act on his principles, in this instance either trying to oust Pelosi, or to switch parties. But Cazayoux won’t because he agrees with most of what Pelosi and liberal Democrats believe which is the opposite of his district’s ideology. This letter merely tries to deflect people from thinking otherwise and even for those who believe Cazayoux can be two incompatible things at once, it’s clear that he has no influence in the party with this useless effort so what’s the point in having a zero representing you?
The deception works only if the public is not alerted to it. That’s unlikely to occur with a strong Republican candidate, state Sen. Bill Cassidy, facing Cazayoux in fall elections, ready to point our each and every inconsistency. (And, for good measure, Democrat-turned-independent state Rep. Michael Jackson will contribute here as well.) Cazayoux’s high-wire act looks increasingly likely to produce a fall.
3.8.08
Overdue changes finally coming to EDA waiver program
Louisiana never has been good at making good health care spending choices with public money. The first signs that this may be changing perhaps are appearing.
For decades the prevailing philosophy was to take anybody considered low income with more than a mild long-term disability (through misfortune or aged infirmity) and to warehouse them in institutions either run by the state or private sector. The lobby that built up around nursing homes to keep the gravy train rolling eventually would exacerbate this trend and send costs (compared to other states on a per capita basis) sky high and force many who could have remained productive citizens in the community into shut-in situations.
But the backlash finally came through the Barthelemy case (which technically remains active since a settlement is being played out) where the state agreed it was not doing enough to provide elderly and disabled care in the least restrictive environment. This brought forth a Medicaid waiver program that would pay for home- and community-based care – but with an important indicator that it should do so only where the expense would be reduced as compared to institutionalization.
Unfortunately, spiraling costs of the state’s Elderly and Disabled waiver are casting doubt on the program’s effectiveness as well as stressing taxpayers. Fortunately, a solution is at hand.
The major flaw in the program is that from the start it has been first-come, first-serve. If one met a certain level of disability, one qualified, with no distinctions made in degree of disability. Further, when entering the waiting list (which has never come into the 90-day target of the settlement and in fact now stretches for years) it’s strictly done on chronological basis. Therefore, you have some people with severe disability waiting for years to get any services, while there are other only mildly disabled who have had services for years, and others like that who will get them prior to those worse off.
This makes no sense and a major change floating around the state’s Department of Health and Hospitals is to adjust service levels to the degree of disability and to create priorities on the waiting list along the same criterion. If implemented, these changes will send dollars where they really are needed and better accomplish the original goal of the program.
(It should be noted that this program is a Medicaid waiver, meaning to qualify the household must be near the poverty level. State policy for the infirm and disabled for those households lower middle class and above in income and/or assets is simple if immoral – they get no help from this kind of program. Or, to be more blunt, if you are poor, you get everything paid for, and if you’re not, you are to spend away all your assets in the care of the disabled person until you then become poor and qualify, or you detach that person from the family – often by divorce and breaking up a family – to put him or her into poverty and thus qualifying. The incredible inanity of this is another matter ripe for reform.)
By the end of September these reforms should be rolled out, to the relief of the truly needy disabled and taxpayers.
For decades the prevailing philosophy was to take anybody considered low income with more than a mild long-term disability (through misfortune or aged infirmity) and to warehouse them in institutions either run by the state or private sector. The lobby that built up around nursing homes to keep the gravy train rolling eventually would exacerbate this trend and send costs (compared to other states on a per capita basis) sky high and force many who could have remained productive citizens in the community into shut-in situations.
But the backlash finally came through the Barthelemy case (which technically remains active since a settlement is being played out) where the state agreed it was not doing enough to provide elderly and disabled care in the least restrictive environment. This brought forth a Medicaid waiver program that would pay for home- and community-based care – but with an important indicator that it should do so only where the expense would be reduced as compared to institutionalization.
Unfortunately, spiraling costs of the state’s Elderly and Disabled waiver are casting doubt on the program’s effectiveness as well as stressing taxpayers. Fortunately, a solution is at hand.
The major flaw in the program is that from the start it has been first-come, first-serve. If one met a certain level of disability, one qualified, with no distinctions made in degree of disability. Further, when entering the waiting list (which has never come into the 90-day target of the settlement and in fact now stretches for years) it’s strictly done on chronological basis. Therefore, you have some people with severe disability waiting for years to get any services, while there are other only mildly disabled who have had services for years, and others like that who will get them prior to those worse off.
This makes no sense and a major change floating around the state’s Department of Health and Hospitals is to adjust service levels to the degree of disability and to create priorities on the waiting list along the same criterion. If implemented, these changes will send dollars where they really are needed and better accomplish the original goal of the program.
(It should be noted that this program is a Medicaid waiver, meaning to qualify the household must be near the poverty level. State policy for the infirm and disabled for those households lower middle class and above in income and/or assets is simple if immoral – they get no help from this kind of program. Or, to be more blunt, if you are poor, you get everything paid for, and if you’re not, you are to spend away all your assets in the care of the disabled person until you then become poor and qualify, or you detach that person from the family – often by divorce and breaking up a family – to put him or her into poverty and thus qualifying. The incredible inanity of this is another matter ripe for reform.)
By the end of September these reforms should be rolled out, to the relief of the truly needy disabled and taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)