So will race continue to play a role in elections? New Orleans remains one of the most racially polarized cities in the United States. At the heart of the distrust is the fear that many blacks have that whites have not relented in their plans to demolish black neighborhoods under the banner of protecting residents or reducing government costs. Indeed, while the debate on reducing the “footprint” of the city at the expense of black neighborhoods has largely been put to rest, some white leaders continue to float proposals to selectively “greenspace” poor neighborhoods into parks or retention ponds but this time through zoning laws or withholding public services and utilities.
This kind of talk does little to inspire trust and promote voting across racial lines; history tells us that when people feel threatened, they tend to coalesce along racial lines and block-vote to enhance their power and defend their group interests. In a political climate of fear and mistrust, every election can potentially be transformed into a symbolic contest of power in which voters end up supporting candidates as a show of racial solidarity, despite the candidate’s flaws.
The long-term solution to New Orleans’ racial polarization is to put an end to the divisive proposals that pit one neighborhood against another and that make income the measure of who has a right to return. If we want to be free of the politics of fear, we need to eliminate the threats that breed fear.
It is a testament to Bill Jefferson's diminished pulpit, and perhaps also to Cao's origins in New Orleans East, that 'greenspacegate' wasn't a central issue in this election.
Jefferson: 23,218 51.30% Not Jefferson: 22,044 48.70%
Orleans Parish, December 6th 2008:
Jefferson: 23,197 50.74% Not Jefferson: 22,523 49.26%
Hmm. Remarkably similar. New Orleans has more full time residents now than in December, 2006 but maybe this indicates something about the upper bounds of Jefferson's post Katrina electoral base. Not buying the 'African Americans were confused' thing. If that were the case, Orleans would have gone by a much higher percentage to the Not Jefferson candidate, no?
Of the households that have returned to New Orleans in between the end of 2006 and the end of 2008, what percentage are African American and what percentage are white? An accurate estimation of that breakdown might help us establish some sort of test hypothesis for the vote totals to be expected from an off-day December runoff. I do find it curious that the anti-Jefferson vote was more or less the same as 2006, in terms of total cast and as a percentage.
-
Jefferson Parish, December 9th 2006:
Jefferson: 11,935 70.61% Not Jefferson: 4,967 29.39%
Jefferson Parish, December 6th 2008:
Jefferson: 8,099 38.34% Not Jefferson: 13,027 61.66%
Sickening. The bosses over there have way too much power.
Also remarkable because it would seem that Jefferson Parish voters changed their mind between 2006 and 2008. Unless... maybe Bill Jefferson's supporters in Jefferson Parish were 'confused' about the election this year.
I just cannot bring myself to vote for anyone with that party affiliation right now. I'm a little bit prejudiced, well mainly because of what Republican governance has done to this country over the last several election cycles. When I woke up this morning, I was still thinking of either abstaining or voting for Malik Rahim. I ended up voting third party under the assumption that Jefferson would win big.
This is a truly stunning result.
The Jefferson Machine has been weakened significantly over the last two years. I look at Cheryl Gray's 2007 thrashing of Jalila Jefferson for LA Senate as a demonstration of that.
Yet after he cruised through the open primary and runoff with Moreno, I just figured he'd found a way to mobilize enough voters this one last time.
Without the Obama excitement getting people to the polls, turnout was abysmal. Cao won with just over 33,000 votes. That's not very many at all, even with a smaller population.
When a Republican wins in a city that voted near 80% for Obama, when a Republican wins in a district like ours after what Republican politicians did to this country, that the race was even competitive -- what does it say about popular confidence in the local leadership class?
New Orleanians have no faith in their government.
It speaks to a stunning leadership vacuum in this city. It is our first problem, the problem we must solve before we can credibly address any other.
[L]ook for the Dems to put up a strong candidate in 2010 -- maybe one who isn't under indictment -- and make this seat their top pick-up target.
What people don't realize is that there's really no such thing as "the Dems" in New Orleans. Politics here is not partisan, it's tribal.
New Orleanians do not do a good job of communicating political conditions to the rest of the country. And the rest of the country sometimes writes New Orleans off to eccentricity or to drown.
Here's an incomplete list of themes that I often write about and think about:
1. New Orleans is corrupt as hell. The incredible leadership vacuum at the municipal level has lead to the city's unsteady and vision-less gridlock.
2. There are frightening and offensive quality of life issues.
3. It is emblematic of the ultimate national disillusionment with W. Bush, who should be banished from this city for the rest of time and with the concept of American geopolitical superiority, as the Katrina response demonstrated a sobering hollowness of capability reminiscent of tales of the USSR in the '80s.
4. Recovery policy is transparently unjust, racist, trickle-down horseshit. I believe that Barack Obama can only help this place by empowering and demanding his new Recovery Czar (in whatever form) live in New Orleans, engage in policy, and take strong public positions on regional issues.
5. If New Orleans weren't so kneecapped by this three-legged stool of racism, corruption, and incompetence, it would actually be well positioned to lead on matters of urban sustainability.
6. These are the most resilient people in America, some live in spite of government and some lives to spite the government.
I'd really really love for the Dems, the national ones, to come down here and take a look at this place as a pickup target in 2010. What they're going to find out is that the investment in leadership was needed a long time ago. New Orleans was desperate for competent, progressive leadership pre. It's that much more desperate post.
I hope local Democrats take notice of the political environment; Bill Jefferson's defeat today cannot be dismissed as a full exception. He'd been indicted by the Feds, but there are many more local officials who have been indicted in the minds of the public.
I won't even look at that polls methodology because I don't care how inaccurate it might turn out to be. Just use it as inspiration and worry about it later.
It can't be true that only 17% of white folks in Louisiana support Barack Obama, can it?
In my humble opinion, there's only one way to make sure that it isn't.
If you know five white people in the state of Louisiana, then you have five people to convince to vote for Obama by this Tuesday.
This is indeed a call to action.
Convince five of your white friends to vote for Barack Obama.
It is a conversation worth having, however you choose to communicate. You can send word by carrier pigeon if you want, just spread the message.
If you care about affordable health care, protecting the environment, creating middle class jobs, a sane foreign policy, and rebuilding our region then you're with Barack Obama on the issues that matter most and must have the courage to pull the lever for him on Tuesday.
Based on early voter turnout and projections for next week, we don't have to convince every single white person in the state to reevaluate their position. If a mere 25% of white people in Louisiana vote for Barack Obama, then our state is very much in play.
So talk to five of your white friends. If they already support Obama, tell them to talk to five of their friends.
If they don't yet support Barack Obama for President, have a conversation with them. Explain why this election matters, listen to their concerns, and find common ground.
Call your mom on the North Shore. Text your coworker in Kenner. Email your old college roommate from Shreveport.
Make it happen! Get them to the polls on Tuesday to vote for Barack Obama.
Don't let the poll porn lull you into thinking Louisiana doesn't matter in this election. Act locally!
Jeffrey makes some good points about state Republicans running against Obama in their campaigns against local Democrats that have mostly never met Barack Obama or don't vote anything like him. (Including a the tasteless invocation of Reverend Wright in a political ad against the conservative Democrat Jim Harlan)
Jeffrey is right not to assume that this is a 'losing strategy' though I'm not sure which liberals are making that argument.
He is also right to assume that the identical and simultaneous strategies of Steve the Sleaze and the Neely Weather vane reflect some degree of coordination.
It is very possible that Scalise and Kennedy will see their electoral prospects improve based on this guilt by peripheral association smear campaign.
But this is unmistakably a desperate strategy. The Kennedy campaign is in awful shape and Scalise is looking in the rear view mirror at the fast-approaching and well-financed Jim Harlan. They don't have positive messages. They don't want to defend their past positions. They don't want to discuss the state of the nation. They don't want to debate the merits of their current policy positions. If they attempt to engage their opponents on any of these substantive things, the best they can hope for is a draw - as good as a loss given the momentum in each of the respective campaigns.
With nothing to run on and plenty to run from, the Kennedy and Scalise campaigns are forced to dig deeper and deeper into the depths of their sleazy souls in order to find mud sticky enough to stay on the minds of voters when they go to the polls.
Maybe attaching their opponent to Obama will work and maybe it won't. Neither the Scalise and Kennedy campaigns know either.
The only calculation they've made is that they can't afford not to try it.
With more than two dozen prominent Republicans publicly backing incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu over her GOP opponent, state Treasurer John Kennedy, the state Republican Party is considering ways to discipline Republican officials who endorse Democrats, the head of the state party said Saturday.
When high-profile elected Republicans endorse Democrats, it "sends the message that we are not united," state GOP Chairman Roger Villere said. "It confuses the Republican message. . . . We are not looking to punish people, but we don't want this to develop into a trend."
Speaking with reporters after the quarterly meeting of the party's governing body, Villere said several party leaders want to adopt a formal mechanism to censure GOP officials who break with the party's candidates. He said passing a resolution "without teeth" simply to sanction a Republican who backs a Democrat, as party leaders have in the past, "doesn't make sense."
This is really rich stuff from Villere. Which confuses the Republican message more?
1. Is it that high level GOP officials endorsed Mary Landrieu? 2. Or is it that the feckless state GOP leaderships couldn't find anyone willing to run against her until the criminal rogue Karl Rove convinced a Democrat to switch parties and totally reverse nearly every major position he's held for the last decade or so?
Aren't conservative activists pretty unenthusiastic about the Kennedy campaign? Aren't they more frustrated with the professional GOP establishment that put him forth than with the popularly elected officials that have logically determined that the Kennedy campaign is a lost cause not worth spending money or time on?
And to threaten retaliation now, in October?
Wouldn't it have made more sense to bully the caucus into supporting Kennedy when, I dunno, they announced the guy's candidacy?
Meanwhile, the biggest irony of the Villere threat is that the message your average Louisiana voter gets as a reader is:
A lot of Republicans aren't happy with John Kennedy. They're not united. Most of the Republicans I voted for are actually endorsing Mary Landrieu. She must be pretty centrist and effective after all.
I really don't think the Landrieu is liberal meme resonates with the general electorate any more than it does with the facts, particularly with weather vane John Kennedy as the supposed alternative.
--
And this doesn't even begin to explore what Villere means when he speaks of "the Republican message." Perhaps someone could ask him exactly what the Republican message or platform is these days because I'm not sure he knows.
ARG has conducted a poll in Louisiana that indicates that Barack Obama is somehow within striking distance: 50% for McCain to 43% for Barack Obama.
You can volunteer for Barack Obama right here in New Orleans, as I did yesterday morning, by heading over to 3604 Canal St. in Mid-City. The office is just really getting started so there is a lot of work to do.
If I were Barack Obama, I'd strongly consider a targeted ad-buy for the Gulf Coast that highlights my plan to build Category 5 levees and restore wetlands with a WPA-style service program.
Pollster.com no longer considers Louisiana to be a Senate toss-up. In fact, it doesn't even just lean toward Senator Landrieu, as the polls indicate "strong" support. Ditto electoral-vote.com.
The latest poll from Rasmussen indicates that the effective Senator Landrieu has opened up a sixteen!! point advantage over serial candidate John N. Kennedy, tapped personally for this race by Karl Rove.
Are John N. Kennedy supporters as confused about what their candidate is running for as I am?
It's nothing compared to their confused stances against social security as a public asset, against increasing the minimum wage, and against a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
Political pundits and prognosticators have again and again cited the Louisiana Senate race between Democrat Mary Landrieu and Republican State Treasurer John N. Kennedy as the GOP's only realistic chance of knock out a Democratic incumbent in their quest to prevent a filibuster-proof majority. Yet, by and large, there has not been extensive media coverage of the Louisiana race comparable to other swing Senate races around the country. The reasons for that may seem obvious at first-glance.
The Alaska race features the progressive former mayor of Anchorage, Mark Begich against the longest serving Republican Senator, Ted Stevens, who may be as likely to face jail time as he is to see another six years in office. The Colorado contest between progressive Rep. Mark Udall and Abramoff-connected, oil-pocketed Bob Schaffer has largely been a laugh-fest for those of us on the left. The insurgent campaign of Rick Noriega in Texas against arch-conservative John Cornyn and the seemingly unlikely viability of Ronnie Musgrove against Republican Senator Roger Wicker in Mississippi have captured a good deal of attention because of their symbolic implications.
Further, Louisiana political campaigns traditionally receive relatively little national attention because pundits admittedly don't understand the state's electoral structures, to say nothing of the colorful personalities that routinely defy the nation's sense of rational thought.
Nonetheless, considering the importance of this Senate race, I do feel as though coverage of this race has been seriously lacking.
And the specific reason for that may become glaringly apparent by the end of this quick primer.
Incumbent Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu has established herself as a big swing vote, consistently rated as amongst her chamber's most moderate members. While progressives often decry her caves on FISA, the Iraq War, oil, etc., it is clear that she has aptly positioned herself to bring bacon home for her state. Whatever your feelings are on earmarks or pork-barrel legislation, it is difficult to argue that Louisiana doesn't need or deserve as much federal help as it can get.
Then there's John Neely Kennedy, the State Treasurer.
In 2004, when Democrats were working to save the open seat vacated by longtime Senator John Breaux, John Neely Kennedy was a Democratic candidate. He couched himself as the most progressive option in the primary, running to the left of eventual nominee Chris John. He even gave an enthusiastic speech introducing John Kerry, whom he endorsed, at a campaign event in New Orleans.
Still a Democrat and still the state treasurer well into 2007, the Louisiana GOP seemed to be struggling to find a candidate to run against the effective Landrieu. Top Bush advisor and possible convict Karl Rove made a special trip to meet with potential challengers. At the time, Stuart Rothenberg (see link), noted that Rove's eroding stature may have rendered him an ineffective recruiter, especially for a Democrat.
Yet John N. Kennedy was somehow convinced and a few short months later, switched his affiliation, ignoring not only all of the foibles of the GOP during the Bush administration, but also constantly updated national poll data reflecting overwhelming public dissatisfaction. In November of 2007, just five weeks after being reelected State Treasurer, he announced his intention to run against Landrieu.
Since then, he has run an inarticulate and unenthusiastic campaign. His inability to raise money in reputably ruby red Lousianaforced him to call in George W. Bush to Katrina territory for a fundraiser in late March. The Daily Kingfish crunched the numbers when the 2nd quarter fundraising totals were released. The Bush fundraiser alone accounted for over one third of Kennedy's meager haul. Without Bush's help, Kennedy would have raised less money in the 2nd quarter than he did in the first.
Meanwhile, Kennedy has awkwardly masked his party-hopping and flip-flopping by just gobbling up GOP talking points with little regard for fact. Last month, he took one of the more insulting routes possible, repeating the GOP-derived myth that "not one drop of oil" spilled during Hurricane Katrina ignoring that the talking point is patently false. While that may put you in the good graces of John McCain's campaign, it is awfully insulting to the people in your own state that survived the storm and are still learning the extent to which our eroded environment contributed to the strength of the storm and the extent to which the storm has eroded the environment.
Then, after slamming Mary Landrieu for an appearance with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg because of Mr. Bloomberg's progressive stance on social issues. That is ironic for a couple of reasons. First, as Oyster from Your Right Hand Thief points out, Kennedy has had trouble deciding how much he'd like to associate with sex-scandal marred Republican Senator David Vitter. After taking campaign money from Senator Vitter, he refused to answer whether or not he would be accepting Vitter's appearance on the campaign trail. Then he decided to indeed schedule a joint appearance at the end of August. The second interesting point to note about that is that Senator Vitter was once regional campaign chair for former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is a well-known liberal on the same social issues for which Kennedy panned Bloomberg.
Just last week, the Daily Kingfish made another interesting observation about a Kennedy radio appearance - he was reading his policy on oil shale nearly verbatim from a wikipedia entry.
So with a filibuster-proof Senate majority on the line, the GOP has pinned its only hope of defeating an incumbent on a guy that isn't even properly prepared for softball radio interviews.
One would think that national GOP operatives would be really promoting this race in the media or working the right-wing fundamentalist roots for donations or activist assistance. But they're not. Not at all.
Maybe it's because not even the local GOP seems interested in this race.
This is John N. Kennedy kicking off his campaign bus tour to his most loyal supporters:
Here is one of his events in Alexandria, another critical population center:
Here is John Kennedy speaking to a quorum of supporters at another appearance in Houma:
So it's no wonder the national press doesn't have much to say about the supposedly-critical Senate race in Louisiana, neither does the local GOP. They're not exactly lining up to greet the man. Additionally, since John Kennedy has proven not to have much to say for himself, it looks like Mary Landrieu might not have much of a race on her hands after all.
There has been a lot of talk about Republican Senate candidate John N. Kennedy recently.
Though much of that talk has been about whether or not this pathetic showing actually constitutes a campaign:
Doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of enthusiasm amongst Republican activists. I can't confirm this, maybe BrianWelsh can help shed some light, but perhaps Kennedy's people (or person) forgot to put out the platter of Triskets and cheddar cheese cubes. As anyone familiar with events that pair impressive banquet hall carpeting with soulless out-of-touch millionaires who lack any political values other than their own greedy thirst for power, it is difficult to obtain the intern/service staff attendance necessary to make the room look enthusiastic without toothpicks and slices of under-ripened honeydew.
While we wait for reports of the event refreshment situation, we'll be left to speculate as to why Kennedy failed to attract any Republican interest from Republican stronghold Baton Rouge. Mr. Kennedy's campaign against Senator Mary Landrieu is slated as the GOP's only realistic chance at unseating an incumbent Democrat.
Mr. Kennedy himself was personally recruited for the race by Karl Rove, the brain behind President Bush's historically low approval ratings and a future convicted felon. Mr. Kennedy, it would appear - after listening to the advice of Mr. Rove - took a look at all his previously-stated political positions, realized that they were of increasingly popularity in a climate toxic toward the failed policies of the Bush administration, an administration he had been wise enough to repudiate when he endorsed and campaigned for Senator Kerry in 2004. . .
. . . And ultimately decided to go ahead and declare himself wrong on all the things which he had actually been totally right.
That was a mouthful, let me attempt to simplify that into a simple diagram:
Future felon + Kennedy's correct and politically popular positions on important economic and foreign policy issues = Embarrassingly abrupt reversal + adoption of factually inaccurate and politically unpopular positions on economic and foreign policy issues
Pretty clear, no?
Anyways, after Mr. Rove promised Mr. Kennedy all kinds of campaign resources because Landrieu's seat was apparently such a golden lifeboat for the GOP to not be entirely blown out in November, the State Treasurer decided to jump on board the sinking ship.
So how did Karl Rove follow up on his promises to John N. Kennedy?
Rove put the Kennedy campaign on the right foot by allowing the Landrieu campaign to out-raise Kennedy by nearly 2 to 1, in spite of George W. Bush's $500,000 plea to Republican donors and Louisiana citizens on the importance of voting for Mr. Kennedy before giving him a "fair hearing" on his views.
So with Kennedy in a huge financial hole and national GOP helpers slowly backing away at the site of polls occasionally putting him 12 and 16 points behind Senator Landrieu, he launched his refreshment platter and supporter-deficient bus tour.
Now, national GOP helpers may be running for the hills.
John N. Kennedy is going to have to out-conservative an insurgent primary challenger.
With a name like J. Jacques Boudreaux, how can he not gain at least some traction amongst grassroots Republicans?
Knowing absolutely nothing about the man, he should instantly possess more credibility amongst conservatives and objective human beings of all stripes than the spayed down-ticket pet that Karl Rove took from John Kerry's kennel of no-talent castaways.
Whether or not Mr. Boudreaux will be able to raise the money necessary to legitimately challenge Mr. Kennedy's nomination is unclear. It is not a stretch of the imagination to assume that there are a lot of activist fundagelicals less than pleased with Mr. Kennedy's commitment to conservative doctrine.
Either way, John N. Kennedy is going to have to spend a lot more of his already meager campaign loot than he thought on the carrot, celery and ranch dip plates necessary to fend off this most unexpected primary opponent.
I'm no fan of Senator Landrieu centrism but Louisianians would be absolutely out of their mind to elect a stiff like John N. Kennedy when Senator Landrieu is poised to become one of the most powerful blue dogs and effective pork farmers in all of Congress.
I predict a relative blowout in favor of Senator Mary Landrieu.
Rasmussen Reports, a respected name in reports, has released some interesting polling data pertaining to Louisiana.
First, John McCain is running at 50% and Obama is nine points down at 41%.
That's not bad considering the contentious nature of the Democratic nomination process and the palpable reluctance of some loyal Clintonites to state their support for Mr. Obama as the nomination process comes to a close. Louisiana is considered to be a safely Republican state and does not seem right now to be a major priority of the Obama campaign.
Yet, I believe that Louisiana could be won by Mr. Obama. Many voters will be registering at new residencies for this election - the first of mainstream consequence since the Hurricane. I don't think it is a stretch to assume that most of those displaced and uncounted voters have a reason to be bitter toward the Republican Party and their nominee John McCain. With a sizeable investment in voter registration efforts and targeted advertisements pointing out the vastly different recovery and wetlands protection agendas of the two candidates, I believe John McCain would be hard-pressed to keep up, given that his campaign will need to invest precious resources elsewhere.
-
We also have a Senate race.
Currently, Mary Landrieu leads John Kennedy by 3 points, 47%-44%.
This is the only Senate race where Republicans believe they'll have a decent shot at knocking out a Demcratic incumbent. Clearly, Senator Landrieu should be nervous, these polls do not show a big advantage and Kennedy has not begun campaigning in earnest. Senator Landrieu will have to focus on reregistration efforts to boost Democratic turnout where voters have been displaced or have placed voting on the back-burner.
It is likely that the DNC will pump resources into the region to assist Senator Landrieu.
-
That being the case, wouldn't it be more efficient to coordinate efforts between Landrieu and Obama? The Landrieu team should make this case. Certainly they can see the power of the Obama campaign in terms of inspiring voter registration and campaign participation. Even if Landrieu's consultants determine that Obama could pose a public relations problem given the GOP's propensity to use him in attack ads against down ticket candidates, Kennedy is likely to try this out regardless of whether or not Landrieu and Obama coordinate events, fundraisers, or voter registration campaigns.
This Times Picayune article details the findings of a new study by University of New Orleans political scientist Ed Chevernak.
Though voter rolls have remained virtually untouched since the flood, the comparison of voter turnout in the 2003 and 2007 gubernatorial contests shows that about 100,000 fewer people cast ballots last year in New Orleans and seven surrounding parishes than in the 2003 race.
Losses weren't borne equally by racial and party-affiliated groups, according to the analysis by University of New Orleans political scientist Ed Chervenak. For instance, a disproportionate loss among black voters across the region helped drive up white voters' share of the electorate, from two-thirds in 2003 to nearly three-quarters last year.
Democrats also lost ground, with their participation sliding from 58 percent of the electorate in 2003 to 51 percent in 2007, the report shows. Republicans, meanwhile, saw their share of the voting population jump from 28 percent to 33 percent during the period.
Chevernak's report states the obvious fact that the city and region have lost population as a result of the storm and that this means our region is less politically influential.
However, Chevernak analysis compares the 2007 gubernatorial contest to that in 2003 as the telltale evidence.
Why not just look at the population figures? What do the voter turnout numbers tell you about our population loss that the population figures can't?
To me, the 2007 gubernatorial election was a sham. The election Bobby Jindal seemed to be a foregone conclusion for the entire cycle. There were no Democratic candidates remotely capable of raising money or inspiring local voters. There were no voter registration drives. People in this city, disproportionately Democratic voters, are disillusioned with the electoral system and with local officials of all stripes. I don't want to say that people elsewhere in Louisiana aren't disillusioned by politics, but it's not a stretch to say that New Orleanians carry some extra pebbles in their shoes that might irritate feet enough to stay home on election day. (Disproportionate to the population)
Get my point?
What was the purpose of Chevernak's study? Seriously, why not just look at the population?
Seems like a wash to me.
The Times Picayune headline was "It's Official," as if the UNO team had actually provided something of note.
It is encouraging to see an elected official make an honest effort to keep in touch with the community in an unpretentious way.
We were all encouraged to ask questions and raise whatever concerns.
Turnout was... eh.
Maybe twenty something people. Maybe thirty.
A lot of neighborhood association types, some recently-elected Democratic committee people, State Rep. Neil Abramson, City Councilwoman Shelly Midura, some of NOPD's finest, Cheryl Gray, her staff, and a judge.
A lot of shout-outs to Robert Cerasoli, our new inspector general here in New Orleans.
Anyone could have been there, though. It's not an exclusive club. I made it past the velvet ropes no problem. (None of them have any idea that I happen to be a Mayoral candidate)
State Senator Gray spoke briefly about the legislative session that Governor Bobby Jindal has called to address the ethics laws governing state officials. It was only her second day in the Senate. Neil Abramson is only on day two in the House as well.
Sounds like they're busy. They were broken into committees and tons and tons of ethics reform bills are going to be going onto the House and Senate floors this week and next. They're trying to require officials to reveal the sources of their income. One area that may be contentious may be whether or not to expand that requirement to judges.
Apparently, it's a question of constitutionality.
Yo! Of course a judge is going to find it unconstitutional!
We can't require judges to disclose the sources of their income in this state?
Shoot, that's a conflict of interest problem waiting to happen. It probably already has happened. A lot of times, probably.
Anyway, they have a lot of different bills they gotta sort through. You can watch it live here.
Shelley Midura said City Council has sent a resolution automatically applying any new state laws stronger than existing municipal laws to municipal officials. People clapped.
The NOPD officials answered questions for awhile. It was very interesting, I'm thankful to the officers for doing so. They're put on the defensive a lot, I'm sorry to say.
But they should be, people are rightfully mad about the crime, we have to ask questions.
Ed McGinnis, President of the Irish Channel Neighborhood Association informs me that it was tame. Each police district has monthly open meetings, I'm pretty sure on the third Tuesday of every month.
The rest of the time Cheryl Gray just took questions from the attendees.
Questions about the ethics bills, questions about coastal restoration, questions about the new VA hospital, questions about accessibility.
(This accessibility thing where a State Senator meets with constituents to answer questions and open a community conversation is apparently new to District 5)
Senator Gray promised to look into some of the things people were concerned about, promised a newsletter to constituents, and promised to meet again with us soon.
I was a jackass and asked State Senator Gray if she was considering a bid against William Jefferson Jefferson to go to Washington D.C. to represent the city. People howled. She just started this job. I know, I know. Anyway, nobody really ate the refreshments.
-
Hmm, maybe I should run for his office first. Before I run for Mayor. I think I might do that. Because I'll likely lose the first race. It'll position me better for the mayoral run, no? Get some name recognition, establish my values and my character... I'll commission some polls or some test groups or hire a consultant or something... unless I win. I'm in it to win it!
Mr. Jefferson's running for reelection.
I believe his presence in Congress is an embarrassment to this city.
If people here are going to get what they deserve under the next President, we're going to need someone that cares about the people's concerns. It's called the audacity of care. (Oh snap!)
Washington, Nebraska, and right here in Louisiana!
I like to think that my canvassing on behalf of Mr. Obama swung the tide in New Orleans precincts. Barack Obama won 75% of the vote here in Orleans Parish. That's a pretty substantial blowout, no?
Rep. William Jefferson Jefferson received 126 votes for the Presidency. Nice to see he's looking forward to his next job and not over his shoulder where progressive Democrats are poised to have him electorally embarrassed if he's not already sitting in prison.
His speech tonight had some really compelling pieces to it.
Barack Obama's campaign in November will feature a candidate actually looking forward to representing the values of what once was the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton cannot make the same arguments because of her centrist Senate record. Check out the whole thing:
Tomorrow is Maine.
Tuesday is D.C., Maryland, and Virginia.
---
Locally, there has been a moderately successful insurgent takeover of some local Democratic Party apparatus offices. The Orleans Parish Democratic Executive Committee and Democratic State Central Committee are receiving some fresh blood.
I'm still not exactly sure what those committees are supposed to do but I recommend they get to work on winning this state for the Democratic nominee in November. Turnout in recent elections has been extremely disheartening. When I'm Mayor, I'm going to complain about turnout and vote. I'm a change candidate too. Our citizen participation snowflakes are going to become snowballs this summer. It ain't even an oxymoron.
Congratulations to the bloggers, neighborhood activists, and local representatives that have made the cut. Special shout outs to Cheryl Gray, Karen Gadbois, Kimberly Marshall, Ed McGinnis, Walt Leger, Deborah Langhoff and the District A trio, Natasha Hutchinson, and all you other heroes, we'll know who you are because we'll be watching.
Oyster's fear of germs prevented him from attending the campaign events I had planned for him. Oh well, this just sets him up to get Cheryl Gray's State Senate seat which she will vacate to defeat William "Freezer Bank" Jefferson. (Don't answer me now, just form an exploratory committee. We can raise money by throwing a pizza party!)
Michael Homan apparently overly courted the Elvis lobby too close to election day. I mean you have to get your base out to the polls but most voters get turned off by that kind of pandering.
That certain neighborhoods may or may not have received a racially loaded David Williams attack pamphlet targeting Cheryl Gray is no longer necessary as a smoking gun of sorts. The coordination of what now amounts to several nearly identical attack pamphlets from a plethora of Republican and Jefferson-tied agents seems to not have been hidden very well. Thursday's T-P indicates that the David Williams attack mirrors that of an earlier mailing from the Jefferson-Bullock people:
Williams said the mailer was not intended as an endorsement of Jefferson-Bullock, but it happens to cite the same two bills that were listed in an earlier mail piece paid for by someone with apparent ties to the Jefferson camp.
Trouble is, both fliers incorrectly match the bill numbers with the language they quote as examples of why, according to the authors, Gray is fighting for the "rights of criminals" rather than the general public.
Indeed, the mailers make the exact same mistake.
In one case, the mailers point to House Bill 1146 from the 2006 regular session, which according to the state Legislature's Web site corresponds with a measure amending the definition of "bird." The other measure listed, House Bill 1142 from the 2007 regular session, matches no bill at all.
Then, yesterday, while investigating suspicions that the Williams attack mailing was targeted to white neighborhoods, I uncovered a similar smear pamphlet from another individual:
The above piece is from Republican State Rep. Ernest Wooton from Plaquemines Parish. That's the same Ernest Wooton that had been a Democrat as recently as 2006, is up for reelection in 2007, and whose seat is considered to be vulnerable.
Now, this morning, Oyster posted a letter from a reader describing yet another attack on Cheryl Gray:
Has the two house bill #'s, 1146 & 1142 & says S.G. wants young, violent street criminals released eary & put back on our streets & wants to abolish capital punishment for murderers, aggravated armed robbers & aggravated rapists under 18 years of age.
Well, that IS very interesting. Because those two house bills (1146 and 1142) are the same WRONG ones used in the David Williams and earlier Jefferson-Bullock mailings.
In one case, the mailers point to House Bill 1146 from the 2006 regular session, which according to the state Legislature's Web site corresponds with a measure amending the definition of "bird." The other measure listed, House Bill 1142 from the 2007 regular session, matches no bill at all.
It's so easy to just kind of smirk this off:
"Oh, well that's New Orleans politics for ya!"
I know that. I know that's what politics in Louisiana and New Orleans has been for hundreds of years. I know. That sucks. I know.
"They'll all screw us over in the end, so whatever!"
Yes I know. All politicians are awful, I know.
These attitudes prevail because people believe that they are incapable of making changes. In so many cases they have been right. But this is a real opportunity. Cheryl Gray may indeed end up hurting our feelings one day. But the Jefferson Machine already has. Progressive New Orleans, New Orleans folks that believe government should be ethical and transparent, neighbors that believe that campaigns should not be decided by racial smear tactics and back-room hit-job alliances must make a statement on election day tomorrow. A progressive movement for clean governance of New Orleans, Louisiana, and the United States must start somewhere: be a part of it.
While I expect Cheryl Gray to win easily, I hope that nobody who has read Oyster, Celcus, or myself on a regular basis will be sitting on their ass and assuming the election results will come in favorably.
I'm voting.
And I've signed up to phone bank for Cheryl Gray on election day.
A simple victory will not feel the same as a landslide blowout.
So come phone bank with me. Or sign wave. Or talk to your neighbors.
News and commentary on New Orleans and the nation with an unapologetic progressive bias.
This body of work represents part of my journey through New Orleans rebuilding politics starting in 2007. For later work see savecharityhospital.com or thelensnola.org.
Posts
