Laying Claim to Louisiana

 

Progressives and Democrats from across Louisiana will gather in Alexandria on Saturday, August 27, to unite behind a strategy to plug grassroots activists into Democratic legislative campaigns this fall.

The event -- "Laying Claim to Louisiana"-- is the first part of a 500-day strategy to renew and revitalize the Louisiana Democratic Party and change the course of electoral politics in the state.

At the core of the strategy is the belief that all politics is local and that the key to renewing the state party is to harness the enthusiasm and passion of Democratic activists who have been motivated and engaged primarily by national campaigns and national issues.

The organizers of the event include officers and members of the Louisiana Democratic Party at the state and parish levels, traditional Democratic constituencies, and the in-state leaders of organizations active in national Democratic campaigns.

The goal is to build a new, working coalition that begins with electoral politics but extends beyond that into joint work on legislative and public policy issues.

The redistricting process completed earlier this year by the Legislature provides a new map from which the leadership of the Louisiana Democratic Party will be elected next year (qualifying is in early December). The state party leadership is going to change because the legislative map has changed.

We will plug in these activists into that new map to bring new vitality and energy into the state party through the election of members to the state party central committee, as well as to parish Democratic executive committees. The aim is to utilize the structure of the Democratic Party to channel the efforts and enthusiasm of the activist base into Louisiana state and local politics. We want to build a functioning political party that can provide resources, technical skills, and people to help Democratic candidates win election across the state.

It's a model that has been shown to work for Democratic parties in other states. Hell, it's worked for the Republican Party in Louisiana.

The election calendar provides the road map to guide this effort. The October 22 primary election and the November 18 runoff provide great opportunities for activists to connect with Democratic legislators and their allies to help those legislators stave off the attacks coming at them from Republicans led by David Vitter and Bobby Jindal.

Many of the activists who have been drawn to politics by national campaigns have not been as active in Louisiana politics. They have been turned off by Democrats who tended to run 'Republican-lite' campaigns. The exodus from the party of many of those candidates combined with the explicit targeting of Democrats by Vitter and his operatives, Democratic candidates must now follow the model of their Republican peers and understand that winning campaigns begin by securing their base — not in trying to themselves from it.

In Alexandria, there will be a list of targeted races presented where activists will be asked to help Democrats win election. That cooperation can serve as the springboard to greater cooperation between the activist wing of the party and legislators who, prior to this year, tended to operate independent campaigns with little or no regard for party.

The explicit external threat posed by Vitter's Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority has produced a willingness to engage the party's activist base among Democratic legislators that did not heretofore exist.

That opportunity to cooperate shows the path forward for the entire party, not just the legislators.

The entire 500-day plan will be discussed in detail in Alexandria. Keynote speaker Melissa Harris-Perry will put our fight in the national context of other fights in places like Wisconsin and Ohio (the same anti-labor, anti-women, anti-democratic forces at work there, are working with Vitter and Jindal here).

The days of Democrats being able to hide their party label are over -- Vitter and the Republicans have seen to that. The path forward is to embrace to our party. We are the only multi-racial, pro-middle class, pro-education, pro-small business party in our state.

If we lay claim to our party, we can once again lay claim to our state.

See you in Alexandria on Saturday!

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.

HOAX!: Moratorium job loss projections deceived a Judge and the Public

Three months into the the U.S. Department of the Interior's moratorium on deep water drilling and it is abundantly clear that the doom and gloom prophesied by opponents of the moratorium have not materialized.

The Louisiana Workforce Commission's (LWC) latest report shows record employment in the state in July, with falling unemployment in every metro market, including the Houma and Lafayette markets — the areas that opponents of the moratorium said would be devastated by the pause in deep water drilling.

The Louisiana Oil and Gas Association (LOGA) shows drilling rig activity holding steady in the range of about 185 rigs.

The Lafayette Economic Development Authority (LEDA) web site offers users the opportunity to examine drilling rig counts over time. In April of this year, LEDA's site shows that there were 75 more drilling rigs active in Louisiana than there were in the same month last year (April is the most recent month available in the LEDA site).

Even the Associate Executive Director for the LSU Center for Energy Studies (LSU CES), David Dismukes, has had to climb down from his predictions of gloom and doom and admit that the job losses the center predicted have not materialized.

Interestingly, all of the above parties were players in the drum beat leading up to the Rally for Economic Survival that opponents of the moratorium organized in Lafayette in July. LOGA was the prime organizer of the event. Presentations by the Louisiana Workforce Commission (PDF) and the LSU Center for Energy Studies (PDF) drove home the supposed dire consequences of the moratorium.

But, at the same time the Louisiana Workforce Commission study was being bandied about on stage in Lafayette, the weekly employment updates from the Commission were reporting falling numbers of new unemployment claims. This trend has continued all summer.

The LWC presentation at the rally was propaganda, pure and simple.

In the three months since it was declared, it has become clear that the moratorium has not had anything remotely near the devastating impact predicted by the oil and gas industry, its apologists and paid hangers on. It has also become clear that the LWC and the LSU CES played key roles in what amounts to a hoax that has been perpetrated against a federal court and the public regarding the moratorium on deep water drilling and its impact.

How do we know this? Steady drilling rig counts. Record employment. Low claims for new unemployment. And court documents.

Confecting A Hoax

To most outside observers, the worst oil spill in U.S. history justified a pause in deep water drilling activity until the causes of the disaster could be determined and new rules promulgated to govern the industry going forward. This is precisely the intent behind the deep water drilling moratorium issued by the Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on May 28.

What Salazar and the Obama administration did not immediately appreciate is that the moratorium threatened the web of offshore service companies in Lafourche and Terrebonne parishes. Those companies, especially those headed by Gary Chouest and Donald Bollinger, have become the financial muscle behind the rise of the Republican Party in Louisiana.

In fact, when Hornbeck Offshore filed suit against the moratorium, they were joined by 37 companies controlled by Chouest (16) and Bollinger (21). The fight against the moratorium in Louisiana was political from day one. The Office of the Governor filed an amicus brief on June 20 with the court in support of Hornbeck, Chouest and Bollinger. Bobby Jindal has been the beneficiary of the political largess of Chouest and Bollinger and has displayed a certain extravagant gratitude using public dollars — particularly to Chouest.

The anti-moratorium hoax appeared fully formed in the Jindal administration's amicus brief (PDF) on the case. In that filing, the state-endorsed purveyors of gloom and doom for the anti-moratorium forces were in place — the LSU CES and the LWC.

The state's brief points first to LSU CES as the source of its concerns about job losses. In the brief, the State of Louisiana, citing the center, claimed:

The impact of the moratorium is neither speculative nor remote. According to the LSU Center for Energy Studies, within only five months the moratorium will result in the direct layoff of 3,339 Louisiana workers and the loss of an additional 7,656 jobs indirectly in the State. (page 3)

The brief then puts the Louisiana Workforce Commission to work on behalf of the anti-moratorium effort.

The Louisiana Workforce Commission (LWC) administers Louisiana's unemployment compensation system, its workers' compensation program and its workforce programs, including job training and work search services. Because of the moratorium, many thousands of Louisiana workers have lost their employment and many more are at risk of losing it in the near future. All of the programs administered by LWC have been and will be heavily impacted by its effects. (Emphasis added)

There's only one problem with these claims. They are false.

According to a news release issued by the LWC on June 18, new unemployment claims were falling not rising, as would have been the case if the moratorium were having the impact declared in the state's court filing. Here's the lead paragraph of that release:

Initial claims for unemployment insurance (UI) for the week ending June 12, 2010, decreased to 4,902 from the previous week’s total of 5,188. Initial claims were below the comparable week ending June 13, 2009, figure of 5,139.

The LWC release from the following week also contradicted the assertions in the state's court filing:

Initial claims for unemployment insurance (UI) for the week ending June 19, 2010, decreased to 4,450 from the previous week’s total of 4,902. Initial claims were below the comparable week ending June 20, 2009, figure of 6,113.

The four-week moving average of initial claims decreased to 4,927 from the previous week’s average of 4,975.

So, the state — through the Office of the Governor as represented by the State Attorney General — was making claims in federal court that it should have known were false.

Those false claims served as a significant reason that Judge Martin Feldman ruled against the moratorium:

The effect on employment, jobs, loss of domestic energy supplies caused by the moratorium as the plaintiffs (and other suppliers,  and the rigs themselves) lose business, and the movement of rigs to other sites around the world will clearly ripple throughout the economy in this region. (Page 22 of the ruling PDF.)

The argument that played so well with Judge Feldman would prove equally effective when it went public in support of the anti-moratorium rally in Lafayette.

Creature Comforts

The LSU Center for Energy Studies (LSU CES) is, to put it mildly, a creature of the oil and gas industry. The Center's has an Advisory Council that "provides research direction and guidance and frequently assists the Center in securing finances." The phrase 'bought and paid for' comes to mind.

The Advisory Council is comprised of a who's who of Louisiana energy company executives, including officers from the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association and the Louisiana Mid Continent Oil and Gas Association, the Louisiana Chemical Association, the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, and interim Lt. Governor Scott Angelle.

Would it be a stretch to imagine that someone on the Advisory Council suggested that the Center take the lead on producing the worst case scenarios that would serve as the basis for the anti-moratorium fight in Louisiana? Would it then be advantageous for the various members of the Advisory Council to begin parroting those 'findings' through their various communications channels to their members and the media?

That certainly appears to be what took place.

The moratorium was issued on May 28. Statistics from LSU CES were cited in the state's court filings on June 20. Those figures became a staple of the anti-moratorium propaganda thereafter.

Political Workforce

The Louisiana Workforce Commission offers a stark example of how the Jindal administration has politicized the upper level management of some state agencies. The proof is in the data that continues to flow from the LWC and how that data has regularly contradicted the claims being made publicly by the LWC's leadership as part of the heavily orchestrated political opposition to the deep water drilling moratorium.

The clearest public display of how Jindal has politicized the LWC can be found on slide two of the commission's presentation used at the Rally for Economic Survival. That slide ("Industries Directly Impacted by Moratorium") includes the questionable use of two employment categories — "Chemical and petroleum merchant wholesalers: includes bulk stations and terminals" and "Gasoline stations."

An argument could be made that there might be some slowdown in business at bulk stations and terminals if, say, the oil and gas industry was completely shut down (which is clearly not the case). But, under what set of circumstances could the moratorium possibly affect people working at gasoline stations?

The only reason these two categories were included in the presentation were to enable moratorium opponents to inflate the size and importance of the oil and gas industry in Louisiana. Including the gasoline station workers (does that include cashiers at, say, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Valero stations?) ads 18,000 workers to the rolls of the 'potentially' affected.

This distortion was essential to the creation of a climate of fear needed to, at the very least, get 11,000 people to turn out for a political rally against the moratorium.

Follow the Money

The first threat of layoffs resulting from the moratorium was made by Edison Chouest Offshore at Port Fourchon on June 4. The first rally against the moratorium that Jindal attended took place in an Edison Chouest facility at Port Fourchon on June 10. The second event took place at the Gulf Island Fabricators facility in Houma on June 24. Gulf Island Fabricators just happens to be the company building Chouest's LaShip facility that Jindal has supported with state funds.

Jindal was the featured speaker at the Rally for Economic Survival. That was no accident considering the role he and his office have played in orchestrating the politically driven response to the moratorium.

Gary Chouest, though, has maintained an active role in the campaign through the dispersing of campaign contributions to Republican members of Louisiana's congressional delegation.

Contributions from individuals associated with Edison Chouest Offshore are make that firm the largest single contributor to Sixth District Congressman Bill Cassidy, according to the campaign finance website OpenSecrets. Cassidy of Baton Rouge called the deep water drilling moratorium, "a jobs moratorium."

Chouest Offshore-related contributions to An "Joseph" Cao rank that firm at the top of the freshman Republican's contribution list.

Chouest Offshore-related contributions ranked second among all contributors to Senator David Vitter's current campaign, again according to OpenSecrets.

The Chouest/Vitter connection should not be a surprise considering the fact that Chouest pumped $100,000 in to the Vitter-founded Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority in 2006.

Other than Jindal, no Louisiana politician has benefited more from the anti-moratorium furor than Vitter. It provided him a forum to discuss something other than his own sordid past and/or those of his staffers. In leading the fight against the moratorium at the federal level, Vitter spared no effort to ramp up the potential damage (Cassidy cites Vitter as the source for the claim of 150,000 families affected by the moratorium while Vitter cited Cassidy in radio spots.) nor to demonize President Obama.

Donald Bollinger has also been active on the campaign contributions front, but less so than Chouest.

The Fig Leaf

Interim Lt. Governor Scott Angelle has provided cover for the deeply partisan nature of the anti-moratorium effort. Angelle is a Democrat by party registration but, like Jindal, is most interested in pursuing his own ambition.

Angelle was appointed secretary of the Department of Natural Resources by Governor Kathleen Blanco in 2004 and was reappointed by Jindal in 2008. In addition to heading that department, Angelle has acted as a legislative liaison for Jindal in each session of the Legislature. He's also raised money for Jindal, having arranged an over night hunt for thus far unnamed donors earlier this year at a hunting lodge owned by a prominent Louisiana Democrat.

Because this is not an election year, the identity of Angelle's guests at the hunt will not be known until Jindal's campaign files it annual report on this year's activities after the first of the year. Angelle was still DNR secretary at the time. If the campaign party included members of the industries supposedly regulated by DNR, it will raise ethical flags. Of course, the Ethics Governor™ has so screwed up the state's ethics code when it comes to campaign finance, it is unlikely that anything could happen to Angelle even if it were proven that he took Tony Hayward with him out into the marshes of Cameron Parish.

Angelle's stint at DNR earned him some good friends in the oil and gas industry. Some of that friendship was the product of the St. Martin Parish native's winning personality. Some of it might have been related to the haphazard way his department tracked royalty payments the industry owed the state.

Nonetheless, Angelle has been an effective public face on the anti-moratorium farce. He has attack and mocked President Obama at every turn. He wowed the crowd at the anti-moratorium rally in Lafayette with a stump speech he'd been perfecting for at least a month before that event. He also led the effort to get thousands of people to sign a petition calling for the end of the moratorium.

All of that effort was made possible by the fear generated by the claims of the damage that the moratorium would inflict on Louisiana — none of which has come true.

The Circular Citing Squad

Angelle inadvertently revealed the self-fulfilling nature of the gloom and doomers when he testified on August 17 before a meeting of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship conducted by Senator Mary Landrieu. At that meeting in Lafayette, in prepared remarks Angelle cited numerous anecdotes from businesses about the supposed impact of the moratorium.

He cited a litany of businesses reporting sales being down in anticipation of the impact of the moratorium. Since the moratorium has had little or no economic impact in terms of jobs or drilling activity, Angelle was really testifying about the effectiveness of the hoax that he, Jindal and the industry have inflicted on the people of south Louisiana.

None of their predictions have come true. Yet, that has not stopped the grandstanding and political opportunism, nor the spreading of their particular brand of fear.

Consider this fact. The disgraced financier Alan Stanford allegedly scammed $8 billion from people through a Ponzi scheme involving IRAs. An estimated $2 billion of those losses came out of Louisiana, primarily in Lafayette and Baton Rouge. Those losses became known last year. The impact is hitting home this year.

The Stanford scam is hitting Louisiana harder than the moratorium. Yet, there is no Republican political gain to be scored by going after a criminal whose activity took place under the noses of the Bush/Cheney edition of the asleep at the switch Securities Exchange Commission.

The politics of fear is something about which Republicans are well-versed on the national level. The anti-moratorium hoax is a clear display of its power in state politics. As the deception becomes apparent, will those who perpetrated this hoax — Jindal, LOGA, Angelle and their allies — pay a price for it?

Louisiana faces some very tough choices. As the impact of the moratorium proves minimal, will the leaders who ran that fear campaign have the reservoirs of credibility to lead us through these challenges? Or, will they resort to gimmickry, trickery and deception — as  they have done with the moratorium — to accomplish political objectives that leave us diminished as a state?

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!

SINator Vitter

Three years ago, in the summer of 2007, David Vitter' life and career were in chaos.

He'd been identified as a customer of DC Madam Debra Jean Palfrey's escort service. Her phone records indicated at least five calls between Vitter (who was a First District Congressman at the time) and the service, including calls taken while votes were open on the floor of the House of Representatives. Vitter was lining up, uh, entertainment for him after a hard day at the office taking care of the public's business.

At least two other women — one, a madam; the other, a former prostitute — identified Vitter as a client of theirs in after news broke of his involvement in the DC Madam scandal. These women said Vitter's involvement with prostitutes dated back to his time in the Legislature.

Vitter, acknowledged having sinned, then went into seclusion for a week in Metairie with his wife and family.

On July 16, 2007, he emerged from hiding to head back to Washington. He and his wife delivered a media statement at a hotel near the New Orleans airport, just minutes before Congressman Bobby Jindal, who succeeded Vitter as representative from the First Congressional District, was scheduled to land at the same airport on the last leg of his tour announcing his campaign for governor.

Vitter dug in. He stonewalled the media. He ignored calls for him to resign. He pressed on. There was never any apparent doubt that he would run for re-election this year. In fact, in the three years since that scandal erupted, Vitter has worked hard to further ingratiate himself to the right wing of his party and, in the process, has maintained strong levels of support among Louisiana Republicans for a man so blatantly and explicitly connected to scandal and hypocrisy.

The DC Madam Scandal did not just disappear after Vitter's connection was exposed. Palfrey had been indicted. She was going to be tried in Washington. There were months of news stories about the progress of the case leading up to the trial, which would take place in the spring of 2008. Until April of 2008, there was a very real possibility that Vitter would be called to testify during Palfrey's trial.

When Palfrey was convicted on April 15, 2008, the case and Vitter's links to it did not end. Palfrey committed suicide two weeks after her conviction.

Vitter spent a good deal of money on attorneys to ensure that he did not have to testify — $127,000. In July of 2008, Vitter asked the Federal Election Commission to allow him to use campaign funds to pay for his legal and other fees related to his effort to resist having to testify.

So, for almost exactly a year from the time the DC Madam Scandal broke until his filing request to the FEC, Vitter was focused like a laser on two things: staying out of the witness stand and clawing his way back to a position where the re-election bid he was adamant about seeking so that, at the very least, he did not attract a serious Republican challenger in this year's party primary.

In the middle of all this, on January 12, 2008, Brent Furer, an aide for Vitter, was arrested in Washington on a series of charges for holding his girlfriend against her will and cutting her with a knife. Furer was, according to Vitter, suspended from the office for five days, but remained on the Senator's staff until his resignation last month.

For all of his personal failings (and who does not have them?), David Vitter is an astute politician. He fought Mike Foster in the Louisiana Legislature and turned the admiration he'd won from conservatives into a base that propelled him into the House after Bob Livingston resigned — ironically, over a sex scandal. He and his wife had the presence of mind to seize the political opportunity created in the wake of the flooding after Katrina to form the Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority.

His focus since 2007 has been on positioning himself for re-election. To do that, he must overcome the negative reaction that most women had of him for betraying his marriage vows by consorting with prostitutes (which happens to be a crime).

And, when an aide gets arrested for, charged with and convicted of crimes against a woman, Vitter deals with this threat to his political recovery by keeping the aide on his staff for another two-plus years?

Something does not make sense here.

What call on Vitter's loyalty does Furer have that would make the Senator decide to retain him on his staff when Furer's actions re-enforce the perception that Vitter has a problem with women at the very time when Vitter was working to rehabilitate his own image?

What call on Vitter's loyalty does Furer have that would make the Senator decide that it would be better to have to answer questions about Furer now — in the middle of his re-election campaign — than in 2008 when he was still mired in the DC Madam Scandal and facing the possibility of having to testify in open court?

The picture of the Vitter/Furer relationship is not complete. What we know now does not match with what we know about David Vitter's political instincts.

There must be more to this story.