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.

(Blue) Dog Whistles

Dah-yum! Says here that the so-called Blue Dog Democrats are raking in political contributions from the pharmaceutical, health insurance and health insurance industries.

McClatchy's Washington news bureau has the shocking news:

As the Obama administration and Democrats wrangled over the timing, shape and cost of health care overhaul efforts during the first half of the year, more than half the $1.1 million in campaign contributions the Democratic Party's Blue Dog Coalition received came from the pharmaceutical, health care and health insurance industries, according to watchdog organizations.

The amount outstrips contributions to other congressional political action committees during the same period, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit watchdog organization. The Blue Dogs, a group of fiscally conservative lawmakers, successfully delayed the vote on health care overhaul proposals until the fall.

The article continues:

On average, Blue Dog Democrats net $62,650 more from the health sector than other Democrats, while hospitals and nursing homes also favor them, giving, respectively, $5,680 and $5,550 more, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks the influence of money in politics.

The contributions came at a time when health care and pharmaceutical companies were mounting a campaign against a government-run public health insurance option, fearing cost controls and an impact on business. The Blue Dogs' windfall also came at a time when the 52-member coalition flexed its muscle with both the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives as an increasingly influential bloc in the health care overhaul debate.

With 'friends' like these, who needs Republicans?

Well, at least the those same interests view the Republicans as more reliable votes, based on the money they give them:

House Republicans, however, tend to collect more than Democrats — including Blue Dogs — from insurers, health professionals and the broader health sector, the Center for Responsive Politics found.

I consider myself a loyal Democrat, but I am sick and tired of supporting Democrats who go to Washington (and Baton Rouge) and vote like Republicans on issues that matter to me. Healthcare reform is a signature Democratic issue and has been since Harry Truman tried to pass universal healthcare back in the late 1940s.

If these Blue Dogs can't bring themselves to stand with their party and their president on this core issues of our party, the question that must be asked is this: "Why are they members of this party?"

If their loyalty is to their corporate fund-raisers and not to the hard working people in their states and districts who are struggling to afford health insurance and/or to avoid losing everything they have in order to pay medical bills, why don't they align themselves with the party that makes no pretense about their loyalty to the rich and the powerful?

There is a party that welcomes people who think and vote that way.

The Democratic Party is not it.

We have a party primary system in place for federal elections in Louisiana. Those primaries should be used to remind Democrats who have apparently gone soft headed running in open primaries that there is a loyal Democratic base that cannot be taken for granted or ignored.

We matter. We volunteer. We work in campaigns. And we vote.

Louisiana Democrats Paying the Price of 'The Whittington Tax'

It is the middle of 2009, the middle of a heated national debate about monumental issues like healthcare reform, energy policy, and re-regulating the financial industry. There is an incumbent Republican United State Senator up for re-election next year who has moral and ethical problems that would put even other Republican members of the Senate to shame. The seat is there for the taking (with a fight, no doubt, but more winnable than anyone had expected it to be after Vitter won re-election in 2004).

We have a Republican Governor who trashed federal stimulus spending while bragging about the state's economic performance — which has been fueled by years of federal disaster relief dating back to the storms of 2005 and those since. That same governor is in the process of dismantling the public health delivery system by shutting down public hospitals — a long-cherished dream of Republicans and a mission that Jindal has pursued since his days working for Mike Foster.

But, the Louisiana Democratic Party is no where to be found in any of this. Not standing up for our President. Not working with candidates to develop a strategy to take Vitter's seat. Not pointing out Jindal's budgetary hypocrisy (fueled by his apparently incurable case of Blind Ambition). Not working with legislators and local government leaders to deal with the upcoming reapportionment of political districts after the 2010 Census.

The party's absence is directly attributable to the person who sits as chairman, Christopher Whittington. The actions of the executive director Whittington hired as part of his re-election bid has made the party the target of at least two lawsuits.

The highly regarded communications director left shortly after the executive director did.

The entire staff of the party consists of two people, neither of which has any executive power. They are merely at the party's Government Street headquarters in Baton Rouge to turn the lights on and off, answer the phone and get the mail.

The Jefferson/Jackson Dinner in Baton Rouge two weeks ago was a farce. James Carville spoke, but for less than 10 minutes. There were no statewide elected officials in attendance. Senator Mary Landrieu was not there. There were about seven members of the state Legislature in attendance. The event started late and ended early. The speaking ended before 8 p.m. Had Rep. Karen Carter Peterson not given a stem-winder of an address that out-lasted Carville's talk, the event would have lasted less than 30 minutes.

Word is now that Whittington has said that the party will not hire an executive director at this critical time, that "we are going to take a vacation from that."

Imagine that. A political organization taking a vacation from political work.

Anyone who has watched Whittington fight to keep his job while letting the party's work wither will not find this as a surprise. Whittington's fight has always been about keeping control of the party apparatus so that he and his cronies can keep control of the money and the favors that flow through the state party during election cycles.

The crony list includes lawyers, consultants and various hangers-on.

Meanwhile, the party does not do the basic work of crafting a message, registering voters, and winning elections.

But, that's OK with Whittington because, again, this is not about politics. It's about control of money and favors.

There are people on the Democratic State Central Committee and even on the party's executive committee whose efforts guaranteed Whittington's re-election who are now said to be disenchanted with the course things have taken. That course is no different now than it was when they worked and voted for Whittington; he is still playing the same game only now those former allies find that Whittington does not care about the party and its fate. They are shocked! Shocked I tell you! That this petty little man has turned on them.

The sad fact is that the party's constitution and by-laws are such a shambles that any attempt to oust Whittington is a waste of time and effort. He and his various legal advisors twist the interpretation of those rules to make them say whatever it is that serves Whittington's puprposes.

This is not a political organization. This is not a political party. It is a club run by an ever-shrinking group of insiders who are determined to hold control of the organization for the sole purpose of demonstrating that they can.

Every additional day that Chris Whittington holds the otherwise meaningless title of "Chairman" of the Louisiana Democratic Party is further proof of his complete and total disregard for the well-being of the party and its interests.

Chris Whittington has brought this party to the bring of ruin. Why is he holding on? Why is the state central committee letting him?

Blood Money

The new blank check that Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate gave to the Bush administration this week to continue the occupation of Iraq contains money and write-offs for storm-affected areas of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast. Members of Louisiana's congressional delegation would have us believe that this is some great victory for the state.

It is not.

It is blood money.

It is the craven attempt of two of Louisiana's three congressional Democrats to provide some semblance respectability for their assumption of joint-ownership of the national disaster that is the occupation of Iraq. Democrats who voted for the supplemental appropriation for the war are now co-owners of the policy choices that are wrecking the Army.

Republicans like Senator David Vitter and Congressman/compulsive candidate Bobby Jindal took ownership of this war long-ago. Democrats in Louisiana ought to have expected more out of Senator Mary Landrieu and Congressman Charlie Melancon on this war; after all, Louisiana has paid a very steep price for this war in terms of lives lost in this war that was based on lies. That does not even bring into account the cost storm-ravaged Louisiana paid in 2005 when so much of our National Guard's equipment was in Iraq instead of being put to use in rescue and recovery efforts here. It also was revealed this week that the Bush administration had been warned by the CIA about the hazards of invading Iraq.

For the first three years of this war and occupation, the Republican-controlled Congress did nothing to hold the Bush administration accountable for its policies in Iraq. With this vote, many Democrats have demonstrated that they are no more committed to accountability than the Republicans were.

It has become clear that the Bush administration has used the pretext of this war of choice as the basis to subvert constitutional law in this country, to violate civil liberties with impunity, and to abandon the rule of law. Democrats who voted to allow this occupation to continue without restraint have signed on to this process. Like the President, they have now violated the Constitution that their oaths of office committed them to defend and protect.

With this vote to continue funding the occupation of Iraq without any restraints on the administration's policies, Democrats have spent whatever moral and political capital they had won by posing as strong opponents of the administration's policies in Iraq. If Democrats cannot stand up to this administration now when nearly 80 percent of the country thinks we're on the wrong track, when almost 2/3 of the people believe going to war was a mistake, when will they have the courage and conviction to do so?

Democratic voters need to wise up. This vote demonstrates that the presence of a "D" behind a candidate's name cannot be sufficient justification for support. Senator Landrieu and Congressman Melancon will run in party primaries in 2008. I hope members of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will have the courage to challenge Landrieu and Melancon in those 2008 primaries in order to force them to account for the votes they just cast in support of this war.

Ask Landrieu and Melancon how they can justify asking our men and women in the armed forces to continue dying for a mistake.