Melancon's Loss Shows Democrats Need to Offer a Choice, Not an Echo

Louisiana Democrats pondering the drubbing we've been taking in federal elections lately (with a few prominent exceptions) should read conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly's 1964 book "A Choice, Not an Echo."

In that book, written as an endorsement of Barry Goldwater's bid to win the Republican nomination for the presidency that year, Schlafly called on her party to return to its conservative roots and declared that the party would find electoral success would only come if it embraced a separate identity from Democrats. Republicans, she said, needed to stop being the 'me, too' party.

Charlie Melancon's crushing defeat on November 2 should send a clear message to Louisiana Democrats. The message is not, as Republican mouthpieces would have us believe, 'drop dead.' It is not that the party and our candidates have no future in Louisiana politics.

The message is that Democrats will not win elections again in Louisiana unless and until our candidates stop runing as though we are the "me, too" party of Louisiana, The road to electoral success for Louisiana Democrats will open up when Louisiana Democrats stop trying to sell ourselves as Republican Lite.

The message from last week's election was clear. Republicans know who their candidates are and they are not going to settle for anything less than the 'real thing' — even when that 'real thing' has a personal history that flies in the face of much of what that party once stood for as David Vitter's personal history and the way he's managed his Senate office do. Republicans know they want that real thing. Only some Democrats (and their consultants) think Republicans are willing to accept imitations.

Charlie Melancon is a good man. He is, in fact, many of the things David Vitter once claimed to be — particularly the part about being a devoted family man. But, Charlie  who ran as a Democrat, did everything he could to distance himself from his party and its core constituents of African-Americans and activists who have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness — make that an eagerness — to work on behalf of Democratic candidates who will at least make a modicum of effort to align themselves with the party.

That record speaks for itself in presidential election years where, since 1996, no national Democratic ticket has spent significant money in Louisiana after the nominating convention and yet those activists somehow manage to produce vote totals of 40% and upward. Melancon got 38% of the vote against Vitter. He lost core Democratic voters by running against the party and away from its activist base.

Charlie's campaign never reached out to the party's base in any meaningful way. In fact, his campaign insisted on running away from his president, his party and our signature issue of health care reform via the Affordable Care Act. Those actions were at the core of his defeat. Anyone who paid any attention to the campaign knows that Vitter's campaign focused on tying Melancon to the very things he sought to distance himself from, all of which were things that made Charlie look like a Democrat.

It Started With The Affordable Care Act

Charlie's problems started with healthcare reform, which President Obama signed into law in March of this year as the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Melancon wanted nothing to do with it. He stayed away from it as much as possible. He avoided opportunities to speak in support of the issue in 2009, when they bill was being shaped and the opposition to the bill in the form of the Tea Party shouting matches erupted.

There was an opportunity then for leadership in helping define the issue. Senator Mary Landrieu did some work on that then, taking part in a televised forum on healthcare reform organized by the Lafayette Parish Democratic Executive Committee that ran in three markets (Shreveport, Lafayette and Lake Charles). Melancon was invited to participate. He refused.

Senator Landrieu made clear that she opposed the public option that was then still part of the discussion, but spoke in support of other aspects of the legislation such as health insurance exchanges, expansion of Medicaid, and tax credits for small businesses.

Charlie's refusal to engage on the issue was apparent to friends and foes alike. His silence cost him dearly in credibility but the vacuum his silence left was filled by the anti-reform rhetoric of the Tea Partiers that not only distorted the debate, but their disinformation helped radicalize voters and made the streets safe for David Vitter to appear in public — even as troubles related to the management of his Senate office appeared to re-enforce his problems with women.

Once the grandstanding ends and more provisions of the ACA kick in, Louisiana families and businesses (as well as the healthcare provider community) are going to find that there is a lot to like in this law. As this happens, Democrats should be pointing to those positives and reminding people who was feeding the distortions.

The Moratorium Hoax

Like most public officials in Louisiana, Charlie and his campaign tried to find a way to take the Republican position on the deep water drilling moratorium. That the claims about the economic impact of the moratorium were a hoax never crossed his mind. He was intent on trying to win over the oilfield service industry that had at one time supported his runs for Congress. It was never going to happen.

Opposition to the moratorium was immediately political because it threatened the pockets of stalwart Republican financial backers, primarily Donal Bollinger and Gary Chouest and their families and networks of limited liability corporations.

To anyone without direct financial ties to the offshore oil industry, the moratorium (issued a month after the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout occurred and while thousands of barrels of oil were gushing uncontrolled into the Gulf of Mexico) not only made sense, it was the prudent thing to do during what was predicted to be an active hurricane season.

Instead of showing some leadership and defining the issue, Charlie again opted to pursue the GOP Lite position of passing a resolution calling for the end of the moratorium. It did not work as oil service money flowed into Vitter's coffers almost as freely as BP's oil gushed into the Gulf.

Again, Melancon's intended audience was not falling for the 'lite' take on the issue and he missed an opportunity to display leadership and give Democrats a reason to rally to his banner.

Adding insult to injury, Melancon's campaign then trumpeted his opposition to President Obama on both healthcare and the moratorium in television spots in the campaign's final weeks.

Historical Perspective

As a rule, Democrats are not going to have more money than Republicans in campaigns. When we win races, though, it is through organization, mobilization and focus. All campaigns rely to some extent on volunteers, but Democratic candidates need them more to help offset the financial edge that Republicans tend to have (it is not always the case, as when an incumbent Democrat seeks re-election as Mary Landrieu did in 2008).

But volunteers have to be motivated. They have to be given reasons to believe that the donation of their time and effort is worthwhile. The prospect of victory can be one of those things, but clearly the record of volunteerism in the presidential campaigns demonstrates that is not the prime motivation.

The prime motivation is that the candidate that these volunteers work for reflects their values and will stand up for those values on the campaign trail and fight for them once elected.

Democratic candidates who position themselves as Republican Lite candidates automatically put up a wall between that volunteer base and their campaigns. It is like restricting the oxygen supply to an athlete or to an engine. It will ultimately diminish performance. This is particularly true when a Democrat is challenging an incumbent Republican.

Volunteers make those commitments because they feel (and want to feel) that they can make a difference. They bring a passion and energy to campaigns that cannot be otherwise obtained.

Democrats who cut themselves off from this volunteer base do so at their own peril.

Yes, President Obama is not popular in Louisiana. But, trying to distance himself from the president and his party did not help Charlie Melancon. It did, though, cut him off from the people who might have made a difference in his campaign.

Could they have won it for him, probably not considering the elements in this election cycle. But, in a low turnout campaign (only 43.1% of Louisiana voters bothered to go to the polls last week), an enthusiastic base could have boosted turnout and might have made for at least a more respectable showing. Go to the Secretary of State's Election Results page and use the graphical election results option to get turnout percentages across the state.

Conservative Republicans took Phyllis Schafly's advice to heart in 1964 and began building a conservative movement within their party that produced Ronald Reagan and the conservatism that has ruled that party in recent decades. She said Republicans could succeed only if they offered voters "A Choice, Not an Echo."

Louisiana Democrats can resume winning state elections if we take that message to heart and embrace our party's base and philosophy. The Republicans have their candidates.

With statewide elections looming next year and the Jindal administration promising to continue relentless cuts to healthcare and higher education, Louisiana Democrats need to start looking for candidates who are truly ours.

Voters might actually embrace a choice that would take us off of the current path to disaster.

Charlie Melancon for Senate. Could You Let Your Daughter Work for Vitter?

David Vitter's ads remind me that Charlie Melancon is a Democrat and because of that (and the fact that Melancon is not Vitter) I will vote for Charlie on Tuesday.

David Vitter by his action and inaction has demonstrated that he is not fit to serve in public office. Hell, he's not fit to work in the private sector. Maybe one of his wealthy right-wing benefactors could find him a slot in a so-called 'think tank.' Of course, they'd have to keep a sharp eye on his expense accounts for, you know, extra curricular activities.

If Vitter and his wife have worked things out regarding his use of prostitutes, who are any of us to object. But, Vitter's refusal to account for those acts committed while a public service, using tax payer dollars and a government supplied phone make him unfit to represent this state anywhere, much less in the United States Senate.

Vitter attitude towards women and the men who commit violent acts against them place him outside the bounds of publicly acceptable business behavior.

Vitter's handling of the case of his aide who stabbed a woman and held her against her will clearly demonstrates that the state's junior Senator has fostered or tolerated the development of a hostile atmosphere towards women in his Washington office. Vitter not only let the staffer keep his job, he used taxpayer dollars to transport the man to court dates in Louisiana.

Consider the implications for a private company if Vitter was an office manager or supervisor and had taken a similar approach to crimes committed by a person working in that office. Could a responsible owner allow Vitter to remain on the job? What kind of liability would the company be exposed to as a result of the climate and atmosphere that would exist by allowing an abuser of women to remain on the company payroll and for the company to pay for the guy's transportation to his court dates?

Again, could a responsible owner allow someone like Vitter to remain in a position of authority in view of his handling of the crimes against women committed by his aide?

Could any responsible parent allow their daughter to work in Vitter's DC office? What if a male staffer attacked your daughter? Who could she turn to for help? Vitter?

Not too long ago Vitter, his wife and other Republicans angrily insisted that "character matters." Their words were meant as an indictment of Bill Clinton and, of course, they meant to only apply that rule to Democrats. As we now know, it was pure hypocrisy on Vitter's part and empty rhetoric on the part of his wife and the other Republicans.

Vitter's career in the Senate proves that character does matter. That's why he's proven so ineffective. Who will work with him, other than fellow scandal-plagued Republicans? Vitter has grown more partisan since his prostitution scandals as he has sought to hold on to the Senate seat once held by John Breaux and Russell Long.

Charlie Melancon has character. He's an honorable man. He's worked for a living. He's had a life outside of politics. He's made a payroll. He headed the American Sugar Cane League.

At times, he might not be as strong a Democrat as I would like, but that only makes him ideally suited to represent Louisiana in the Senate. Like Mary Landrieu, Charlie has shown a willingness and ability to work with anyone and everyone to advance the interests of this state.

Louisiana and the country badly need that kind of non-partisan leadership in the Senate. He is the antidote to the poisonous atmosphere that people like Vitter have produced which plagues Washington and hinders our national progress.

As David Vitter's term in the Senate demonstrates, Louisiana can do a lot worse than electing Charlie Melancon to the Senate. It will do much worse if it re-elects this petty narcissist to another term in Washington.

Voter for Charlie Melancon for the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.

Traylor Vs. Vitter: The Republicans' Summer of Slime

Louisiana Republicans have a stark choice to make in next month's party primary election for one of the state's U.S. Senate seats. They can vote to elect the candidate who has a long string of allegations of his involvement with prostitutes; or, they can vote to elect the candidate who has been a one-man wrecking crew of marriages in one prominent northeast Louisiana political family.

And that's just what the mainstream press is reporting about the two GOP front runners — Senator David Vitter and former Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor!

Welcome to the Louisiana Republican Party's Summer of Slime, Family Values in the Senate primary edition!

As we all know, Vitter has been accused of using prostitutes throughout his service in public office — from Baton Rouge to New Orleans to DC, from his days in the Louisiana Legislature, to his stint representing Louisiana's First District in Congress. His phone number showed up in the phone records of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam" in a scandal that erupted in the summer of 2007. The operator of a Canal Street Brothel in New Orleans said Vitter was a customer. Then, a woman who worked as a prostitute under the alias of "Wendy Cortez" said Vitter was a client of hers as well.

Just when it appeared that Vitter might have at least cleared the political damage resulting from those revelations and allegations, along came the Brent Furer matter. In that case, Vitter (six months after his prostitution eruptions peaked) decided to keep on his staff a man who had held a woman in an apartment against her will and stabbed her. Vitter then made that man Furer his staff member responsible for women's issues. That percolated in the background for a couple of years until word broke that Furer had other issues with women that involved alcohol, drugs and violence, or various combinations thereof.

Vitter has a long history of opportunism that has created an equally long list of enemies in both parties. The list of people who might have an interest in damaging his prospects in this election is long. There is no telling where the leak about Furer came from or if there are others out there with damaging information about the senator.

The Concordia Sentinel, in its endorsement of Chet Traylor in the GOP primary, suggested this week that more scandals involving Vitter could be coming to public view in the near future: "We will not engage in a rumor mongering campaign either by repeating allegations that another 'scandal' involving Vitter's personal life will surface soon."

No, they won't engage in rumor mongering. They will just mention that someone might be doing that now and, gawd forbid, it might make its way into the public discourse. But, it will not appear first in their pages. Vitter must be thankful.

Vitter's well-oiled slime machine (his political role model appears to be ex-Texas Congressman and roach killer Tom De Lay), has had a busy two weeks. They have filled the mainstream media with stories about how Traylor allegedly wrecked the marriage of perennial Democratic officeholder Noble Ellington and the marriage of one of Ellington's sons.

Traylor trail through the Ellingtons goes something like this: he married Noble Ellington's wife Peggy after (Ellington says) the affair the two were having broke up the Ellingtons' marriage; Peggy Traylor died some years later. According to the Monroe News Star, "Traylor is also currently involved in a romantic relationship with Denise Lively, the estranged wife of his stepson, Ryan Ellington, the son of Noble Ellington."

Topping it off is a lawsuit, uh, well, better let the News Star explain it:

Ryan and Noble Ellington III, both of Winnsboro, filed a lawsuit against Traylor last month in Fifth Judicial District Court stating that in the months since the death of their mother, Peggy McDowell Traylor, in August 2009, Traylor has resisted efforts by the sons to collect information on their mother’s estate and to take possession of some of her property.

Noble Ellington III and Ryan Ellington’s lawsuit asks the court to compel Traylor to turn over bank records, their mother’s property and other relevant financial records.

Peggy McDowell Traylor died without a will.

The wife of a Supreme Court justice died without a will. The man in charge of women's issues for a United States Senator with women's issues of his own had serious women's issues of his own.

The fun will not necessarily end there.

If Vitter gets really desperate, he'll probably zero in on Traylor's campaign manager Lev Dawson and his family. Dawson is a former founder of Valence Technology, a company that started out as a research and development company that has found an apparently prosperous niche for itself in the field of lithium battery technology. According to his website, Dawson is still active in technology, serving on the board of directors of Network Foundation Technologies, LLC, "whose NiFTyTV product promises to revolutionize online broadcasting by dramatically reducing the costs associated with large-scale live webcasting." According to the Louisiana Secretary of State, Network Foundation Technologies, LLC, is domiciled in Beverly Hills, CA, with its main office in Ruston, LA.

Dawson heads up Richland Parish's Dawson Farms, the largest sweet potato farm in Louisiana and one of the largest in the United States. Dawson used his connections to land at least $32 million in financial support from Governor Bobby Jindal's Louisiana Economic Development Department to help land a ConAgra sweet potato processing facility in 2009. Jindal, as has been frequently noted, knows how to take care of his supporters and the Dawson's were heavy hitters in his 2007 gubernatorial campaign.

Dawson Farms, LLC, also contributed $25,000 to the Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority (the organization that Vitter and his wife Wendy founded) in 2007, but that was prior to Vitter's involvement in the DC Madam scandal became public.

Lev Dawson's son Seth at one time helped run Dawson Farms and, if Vitter goes after Dawson as a means to further tar Traylor, it will be the son that provides the opening.

Seth Dawson was arrested in Harrah's Casino in New Orleans on May 12 when he pulled a gun on an off-duty Orleans Parish Sheriff Deputy working security there. Dawson, in addition to helping run the family farm, was also a member of the Louisiana State Police Commission, the body that oversees the operation of the Louisiana State Police. Governor Jindal appointed him to the panel in 2008 based on a recommendation from Tulane University, according to New Orleans television station WDSU. He was also a reserve officer for the Richland Parish Sheriff's Department.

 According to the station, Dawson was booked on a number of charges:

A booking sheet from the parish jail shows Dawson was charged with illegal carrying of a weapon, violence toward an officer (resisting arrest), simple battery, disturbing the peace (public drunkenness) and remaining in place after being ordered to leave in addition to the felony count of aggravated assault on an officer.

Shortly after his son's arrest, Lev Dawson said his son suffered from a form of post traumatic stress disorder.

A desperate Vitter might pursue that line of attack but it would risk dragging Jindal closer to the race than he already is, as the ties between the Governor and the Dawson's would be a key part of attempts to discredit the entire Traylor/Dawson alliance.

People get arrested all the time. Some of them get arrested at casinos. A few of them get arrested for being drunk at casinos. A smaller number get arrested for being drunk at a casino and pulling a gun on security guards. A very small number (one?) get arrested for being drunk at a casino, pulling a gun on security guards while being a sitting member on a state commission responsible for overseeing the organization that regulates at least a part of the casino's operation (in this case the Louisiana State Police). The fact that the person arrested is the son of Vitter's opponent's campaign manager and was appointed to his commission post by the same Governor who has, thus far, refused to endorse the incumbent Republican senator.

Things can only get more interesting between now and the August 28th primary. One possible beneficiary of the rising tide of slime engulfing Traylor and Vitter is Franklin orthopedic surgeon and Republican challenger Nick Accardo. If there are still such things as Republicans who actually value "Family Values" Accardo is the only choice on the ballot for them. If the slime throwing gets too intense, it could deny any of the candidates a clear victory in the primary, forcing a run-off election on October 2.

Meanwhile, Charlie Melancon has positioned himself to take advantage of Vitter's weakness or whatever character-deficient Republican he ends up facing in the November general election. There will be 12 candidates on the ballot then, thanks to a surge in 'no party' candidates. The Libertarian and Reform parties will have candidates (the Libertarians are even having a primary!), the Democratic and Republican parties, plus eight 'no party' candidates.

With the likely Republicans emerging battered from a bitter primary fight that possibly turned off Republican women voters, it is not inconceivable that a candidate drawing in the low 40% range could walk off the winner in November. Meanwhile, get behind a safety screen and enjoy the Traylor/Vitter slime show!

Thank You, President Obama!

Let the record show that Governor Bobby Jindal's embrace of the protection of Louisiana's coastal environment lasted just about a month.

During a week in which Jindal lost no opportunity to lambaste BP over the damage their still-gushing oil was doing to Louisiana's wetlands and estuaries (and their ineffective response), the governor sent an impassioned letter to President Barack Obama asking that the President lift the six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Louisiana House of Representatives got into the act on Thursday, too, passing a resolution on a vote of 92-0 asking Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to end the just-announced moratorium.


Senator David Vitter (John-DC/LA) declared his undying loyalty to the energy industry and his largest contributors by sending his own letter to the President, asking that the moratorium be ended and that drilling be allowed to continue unless safety violations were found.

The question is: Found by who?

What the President recognizes — as does anyone else who has followed the reporting on this disaster — the oil and gas companies have written their own tickets in the Gulf of Mexico. Consider these items:

• The Department of the Interior's Mineral Management Service was a captured entity of the industry because of the built-in conflict it had of directing lease sales and regulating drilling activity.
• At least three decades ago, the industry obtained a blanket waiver on a requirement to provide environmental impact statements on drilling in the Gulf.
• Some drilling rigs in the deep water fleet in the Gulf did not have 'as-built' blueprints available so that crews could respond effectively to problems on the drilling site.
• There was not a clear chain of command on the Deepwater Horizon that led to an inability to deal with the crisis that emerged on the night of April 20.

Still, apologists for the industry led the charge to let the drilling continue while the damage inflicted by the BP Gulf Gusher continues unabated and it is not clear what went wrong on the rig on that fateful night.

During his trip to Louisiana on Friday, President Obama made clear he is aware of the economic cost of the moratorium but that there is no safe way for deep water drilling to continue until what went wrong on the Deepwater Horizon is known and corrective measures are in place to ensure that something like this does not happen again.

"As difficult as it may be, it's important for us to do this right, because if we don't do it right, then what you could end up seeing is an even worse impact on the oil industry down here, which is so important to so many jobs," the President said.

Obama said everyone in the meeting agreed that safety is paramount.

"They did ask: Can we do it faster?'' he said. "And what I said to them was the same thing that I said to (Bob) Graham and (William) Reilly, which is, you do it as fast as it takes to do it right.''

Obama appointed Graham, a former Florida senator, and Reilly, a former chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, to head a presidential commission probing the Gulf oil spill. He said although the commission has six months for the investigation, that doesn't mean it has to use the entire time.

"If they can front-load some of the analysis of what went wrong and can do that more quickly than six months, let me know. Don't hold the results," the President said.

No Going Back to BBP (Before BP)

Essentially, the President is saying that business as usual is over in the Gulf of Mexico. Fishermen and their families have recognized this. The energy industry is going to have to come to grips with this. The politicians, well, they can keep posturing and taking money from those companies, but the old game of conflating our state's interests as being the same as the energy industry's are over. Things like this make it unmistakably clear.

There can be no going back to "Before BP" thinking where every permit was approved and every project rubber stamped.

The concern about the moratorium is on the economic impact it will have. The temporary loss of oil and gas industry jobs is not a trivial concern but neither were the potential environmental and economic impacts of a Gulf Gusher like the one currently under way. It was the industry and their apologists who downplayed — yes, trivialized — those concerns.

Now that a catastrophe far worse than anyone had predicted is unfolding it is pretty hard to feel much sympathy for the industry that paid lip service to the environmental impact of their work, down played safety concerns and ignored the risks associated with deep water drilling.

The industry's accountability moment has arrived and they want to skip the test.

What makes the President's clarity so stark is that most of our political leadership has long been — and still remains — in the back pocket of the energy industry. Back in the 1980s, when oil and gas exploration was at its peak in Louisiana, it fed our families, it funded our government and it bankrolled out politicians.

Three decades later, industry employment has been shrinking and energy revenue accounts for a smaller percentage of government funding. But energy industry bankrolling of politicians has remained constant.

Following the Energy Money

Let's look at the campaign records of each of the four leading Louisiana political actors involved with dealing with the BP Gulf Gusher: Governor Jindal, Senator Vitter, Congressman Charlie Melancon, and Senator Mary Landrieu.

There was a time before his 2007 election as governor that then-Congressman Bobby Jindal was fighting with Senator Landrieu for credit for opening that section of the Gulf of Mexico to deep water drilling that is now the spot from where BP's oil continues to gush. Have not heard much from either on that issue of late. One can only assume that they are now each perfectly willing to let the other take credit for putting this area into production.

Jindal did pretty well with the energy industry as a congressional candidate, even managing to get a contribution from BP before his run for governor.

Senator Vitter is a leading flack for the industry, owing in no small measure the hefty sums of money he's raised from the energy industry over his various federal campaigns.

Congressman Melancon's emotional investment in the disaster unfolding in his district is probably fed by the fact that he has good friends on both sides of the issue — fishermen and energy people. Charlie is clearly torn on this issue.

Senator Landrieu continues to champion the industry, acknowledging its importance to the state's economy. However, the Senator continues to view this in terms of a transactional relationship — that is, production should be allowed to continue (albeit safely) and the state should get more money for the risks it is taking. Any fair minded accounting of the damage being inflicted on Louisiana now would have to put Louisiana on the short end of the deep water drilling transaction. The hundreds of millions of dollars the Senator won for the state back in 2006 that she now wants to see given to the state sooner than was scheduled, is inadequate.

There is not enough money to offset what is being lost in the Gulf and on Louisiana's coast now.

Interestingly, the Senator cites NASA's moratorium on manned space flight after the Challenger accident. That moratorium lasted 32 months and fewer people were killed and that disaster did not include anything like the ecological and economic catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf now. Put in that perspective, the calls for the President to lift the moratorium before the causes of the Deepwater Horizon accident are known and remedial steps recommended and taken are craven even by Louisiana political standards.

Oh, and the problem of divided loyalties is not limited to elected officials. It affects the courts, too.

Leading Hypocrites: Jindal and 'Em

But the award for hypocrisy on this issue must be shared by Jindal and Republican members of the Louisiana House of Representatives.

First, the Governor: In his letter to the President and Secretary Salazar, Jindal cites the potential that the moratorium "will result in a loss of 3,000 to 6,000 Louisiana jobs in the next 2-3 weeks and potentially over 10,000 Louisiana jobs within a few months."

Members of the House took every opportunity to bash the President during their discussion of a resolution calling for an end to the just-declared moratorium. Like Jindal, the legislators — particularly Republican legislators — decried the loss of jobs that would result from the imposition of this moratorium.

The next day, those same House members sat for hours and voted in lock-step fashion to pass a state budget that will result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of state jobs and they did so without any hint of irony, remorse or regret.

And they are not done. The budget being passed will not meet revenue projections and more cuts will have to be made. But, that's OK with Jindal and 'Em so long as they don't have to tax the top income brackets of the state.

With larger deficits looming down the road, the plan to close the LSU Hospital System is moving forward which will throw still more thousands of workers out of jobs. More higher education cuts will follow, meaning the loss of still more decent paying jobs.

What is clear is this: the only jobs that matter to Jindal and 'Em are jobs that damage our environment, wreck our coast, and put poorly educated Louisiana workers in highly dangerous jobs run by people who don't care about their safety and well-being. Jindal and 'Em people can't do enough to generate these kinds of employment opportunities while crushing jobs of people got good educations, worked to improve our state and whose 'crime' was thinking they could do this honorable work as employees of the state of Louisiana.

Jindal and 'Em's Medicaid cuts eliminate jobs in the private sector as well. Yet, all they are crying about now is the loss of jobs in the oil patch. Maybe the real reason these guys are crying about the moratorium is that Chouests, the Bollingers and their oil field marine service companies might not be able to contribute as much money to their campaigns next year?

Whatever the reason, Jindal and 'Em have amply proven that Louisiana jobs are by no means sacred to them.

Dick Did It: Cheney's Oily Gulf Legacy

Finally, the reason that President Obama's principled stand on the moratorium is such a shock to the oil patch is that for eight years, they really got their way with Vice President Dick Cheney setting the policies and the tone for the Bush administration's dealings with the energy industry.

Cheney, as you may recall, selected himself as George W. Bush's vice presidential nominee then he retired as CEO of Halliburton. Cheney convened a secretive energy advisory panel, the details of who was on it and what they recommended remain secret to this day.

A look at the legislative and regulatory agenda that flowed from those meetings early in the second Bush's first term pretty much lays it out: give the industry what it wants, ramp up our usage of oil and gas and scrap environmental regulations where they get in the way.

Check out the two links in the first paragraph of this section. It's all there. The BP Gulf Gusher is the logical outcome of Cheney's policy initiatives.

Billy Tauzin did yeoman work for Cheney and the industry trying to get some of this stuff through, but the real dirty work did not get accomplished until Tauzin had left Congress.

And, while the Gulf disaster continues to play out in coming months, years, decades, keep an eye on northwest Louisiana where the Haynesville trend gas find has drawn a lot of drilling activity. Hydraulic fracturing is the process used to extract the gas from the shale in that trend. It is a process that Halliburton invented and which Cheney and it was specifically excluded from coverage of the Clean Water Act under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that George W. Bush signed into law in August 2005.

So, Cheney is no longer in office but his policies continue to inflict a high cost on the people of Louisiana, our coast and our way of life.

In the eyes of Cheney and the industry, we have always been expendable.

Thankfully, we have a President now who sees things differently and is standing to protect our interests!

Thank you, President Obama!

Will Some Democrat PLEASE Run Against Charlie Melancon in the Party Primary?

Congressman Charlie Melancon represents Louisiana's Third Congressional District but is seeking the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate so that he can run against David Vitter.

I can't for the life of me figure out why!

On Saturday, Melancon voted in favor of the Stupak amendment which banned any public option money and any insurance program in the insurance exchange created in the healthcare reform bill. The vote on the amendment was seen as a necessity by Speaker Nancy Pelosi in order to get the votes needed to pass the overall reform bill.

But, even with the abortion funding ban language included in the bill, Melancon could not bring himself to vote for the bill. He was one of more than 30 Democrats to vote against the bill. Republican Anh Cao of Louisiana's Second Congressional District provided the sole Republican vote in support of the bill, but Melancon could not bring himself to support either his party or his president and support this legislation.

So, the question is this: Why is Charlie Melancon running as a Democrat for the Senate?

I don't get it.

He is not going to pick up any Republican votes with his healthcare votes today. The Republicans have their rock-rib, anti-abortion, anti-government, anti-Democratic, hypocrite candidate in David Vitter. Why would they take Vitter/Republican Lite when they've got the real thing?

Why, too, would Democrats vote for Melancon when the congressman is more likely to oppose President Obama and Democrats in the House and Senate?

At the Lafayette Parish Democratic Executive Committee's Lifetime Achievement Awards Banquet a couple of weeks ago, Foster Campbell described a Blue Dog Democrat as "a Republican with a significant number of black folks living in his district." Congressman Melancon says he is a Blue Dog Democrat.

We have party primaries in federal elections once again in Louisiana. The place to get these questions answered is for a Democrat to run against the Republicrat Melancon in the party primary next fall.

For any Democrat who is interested, Melancon just handed you your issue.