Dear My Entire Contact List. Re: Gulf Coast Recovery Act.

I've been trying to send this around as much as possible.

Have you seen this?

Did you see or hear about this Anderson Cooper interview with Doug Brinkley last night?

Brinkley says he's got admin sources talking about unveiling a massive Gulf Coast Recovery Act? It sounds too good to be true. I haven't seen any other press reporting on it or confirming Brinkley. A massive public works project to rebuild coastline and related infrastructure has been desired above all else in S. LA since before Katrina and especially since. I can think of nothing that would be more meaningful to these communities. Even if Brinkley was jumping the gun, it would be a massive help to at least get a discussion going on something like this.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/doug-brinkley-administration-going-come-ou

Relevant transcript excerpted in my postscript.

Eli

BRINKLEY: Well, I mean, there are three things, I mean, I think, big baskets, going on.

One is close that well, get the -- capture as much oil as you can, keep the pressure on BP on the relief wells. Second is immediate cleanup. And I think more can be done by the Obama administration. And I -- and but I think the big third piece is coming, when President Obama comes to Florida and Alabama and Mississippi, and that is holding BP responsible for the Natural Resource Damage Act, for the Oil Spill Response Act. And, by that, I mean BP is going to end up paying somewhere from $10 billion to $15 billion, maybe even $20 billion, because they're going -- one of the only ways to save the Louisiana wetlands is going to be -- you know, the Mississippi River has been channelized for navigation.

Well, now the Mississippi River has to be redirected. It's going to have to be flooded and sediment pumped into these marshlands to save it. I think the Obama administration...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: So, no, wait. No, wait. Doug, is this just a hope on your part?

BRINKLEY: No.

COOPER: Or -- I mean, I know you have been talking to sources. Do you believe this is actually going to happen?

BRINKLEY: Yes. Yes.

And it's one of the reasons why the president is not talking to Tony Hayward. And they are going to come out with a large Gulf recovery act, because the oil and gas industry has been dredging. We have disappearing barrier islands. For 40 years down there, it's abused the wetlands.

This is a turning point. There is an appetite on Capitol Hill for Gulf recovery act. The Mississippi River is going to have to be redirected into the marshlands. And BP and Transocean and other, you know, operations, Cameron, other companies are going to have to pay up to $10 billion and $15 billion for breaking national acts.

(CROSSTALK)

BRINKLEY: In addition, for offshore drilling in the Gulf, Anderson, there will be a conservation excise tax that, yes, there will be offshore drilling, but Louisianians will start getting some of the revenue to stay in state.

CARVILLE: If -- if the president does that, I will be the biggest supporter in the world. He will be beloved in Louisiana.

If he -- if he has a restoration act and the kind of things that Doug Brinkley is talking about, who Doug, by the way, lived here. His wife is from here. He knows exactly what he is talking about. If there is that kind of action from the White House and this president, he will go down, in my opinion, as one of the great presidents in history.

And I have not hesitated to criticize him. But if that kind of action is -- that -- that kind of thing starts to happen, that's going to be a very encouraging sign for South Louisiana, and for the country, too.

COOPER: Doug, I mean, what percent -- I mean, you -- you -- you're saying this based on people you have talked to?

BRINKLEY: Yes.

Steps on the rubber, checks his sign, steps off the rubber, wipes his brow, adjusts his cap, steps back up on the rubber

I've really been struggling to truly scale back my news consumption. It is, I've realized, a project. And it is one I've been working on for two or three weeks now with some important but limited success. The impetus for my effort was my decision to go to grad school but it could have just have easily been related to burnout. Geopolitical affairs have seemed especially volatile for the last month and especially over the last two weeks. It is extraordinarily stressful to read the paper these days, especially for friends of the Gulf. The national discourse has seemed especially frantic and inconsistent.

I've also been interested in a couple of interesting pieces that question what our increasing use of the internet and gadgets are doing to how we think and live. Basically, our attention spans are being tested and so are our ability to analyze larger, long term phenomenon. I don't think I've fallen into the hole but I've certain walked around the edge and peered into it. Certainly, it took me a lot longer to read my latest book than it should have.

---

I've been trying to spend more time with my favorite past time, the great game of baseball.

I happened to be watching the Tigers play the Indians live when poor Armando Galarraga lost his perfect game bid to a horrendous blown call by first base umpire Jim Joyce.

The immediate reaction to the mistake from chatterers was to call for expanded instant replay use. The argument was that since we have the technology, we should digitize the baseball rule book in order to eliminate human error from the game.

Yet the incredible class with which the perp, Joyce, and the victim, Galarraga, conducted themselves after the blown call turned out to be incredibly heartwarming and wonderful. It was such that after the immediate calls for replay, there were glowing columns and reports about the great lesson America had just learned about sportsmanship. In all probability, Galarraga's near-perfect game will be remembered for longer and more fondly than an actual perfect game would have been.

And so had instant replay been in place, we all would have been denied what is undeniably an awesome reaffirmation of the beauty of imperfection and the irreplicable nature of the human touch.

(Though for the record, I do think there has got to be an unintrusive way to use replay to overturn really bad calls in baseball.)

The calls for the mechanized reduction of human error come amid a context in which player evaluation decisions are increasingly being made with the assistance of computerized evaluation of player statistics and ability. The movement within professional player evaluation and popular with fantasy baseball players seeks to project what a player "should" do statistically speaking. The popularity of these methodologies has ushered what some have probably already referred to the "Moneyball era" of baseball team personnel management. The idea originally was that teams were relying on less-than-appropriate statistical measures or on unquantifiable measures like whether a player's was "clutch."

But it's not hard to imagine what happens when the pendulum swings to far in that direction. I believe the success of the Phillies in recent years is due, in part, to the organization's emphasis on a player's individual personality and on team chemistry. It has gotten to the point where instead of a particular measure of player skill being poorly evaluated by baseball GMs, the most undervalued baseball commodity comes from imprecise and difficult to measure judgement of a player's character.

(Though for the record, I do think a lot of GMs are still foolishly making really boneheaded personnel decisions based on their 'guts' instead of on what can be and already is measured.)

The other area in baseball in which there is an increasing clamor involves the length of games. Some, even within the world of baseball fandom, argue that baseball takes too long. Indeed, baseball has lost market share to the NFL. There is so much irregularity in baseball. There is no clock so games can last from anywhere from one and a half to four hours. That makes it difficult for busy people to stay attentive and it complicates television broadcasts.

(Though for the record, I appreciate the initiative umpires may already take to keep players moving within the rhythm of the game.)

I've enjoyed considering these somewhat related movements in baseball toward mechanization, digitization, precise calculation, and strict time management. To an important degree, they seem antithetical to the whole point of baseball in modernity and related to my struggles with my attention span when it comes to gadgetry and the internet.

What happens when the very things that are designed to require intense concentration and attention to detail, and which are characterized by imprecise rhythm and artistry, become overrun by our impulse to eat, chew, and move on to the next one?

I am absolutely not concerned about baseball or worried about the encroachment of impulsive reactionaries upon it.

But I have been considering the tension between our apparently shrinking attentions spans and the nature of leisure and deep thought.

What was this 'sposed to be?

A few weeks ago, I made the final decision to attend grad school this coming fall and quit, for the first time since I launched this blog in 2007, writing about New Orleans.

I wanted to take some time to enjoy my last month in New Orleans, to have a leisurely staycation in which I would slowly sell off my possessions to finance some restaurant goodbyes. I wanted to try to reevaluate my work here over the last couple of years, to try to paint a big picture in my mind.

What was this all about and what did I learn?

The reflection process has, so far, been way less successful than that which is forcing me to retire snug pairs of pants at an alarming rate.

My self-imposed rehabilitation and semi-retirement from writing has not stopped me from impulsively and compulsively reading the news about New Orleans, especially as it relates to the BP disaster. I just can't quite seem to quit it, at least not while I'm here experiencing the smell of it all and trying to pump up stories like this one with national media. It has been impossible to think cumulatively while simultaneously considering the daily intricacies of the unfixable oil catastrophe and coverage of it in the media.

I spent all weekend exiled in the woods to dry out a little bit. It did wonders for the soul. When I get to Philly and am at the ballpark, I think I'll be able to separate myself even more successfully.

I'm not sure I will now be able to successfully deliver to you a meaningful or interesting series that will review and revise this blog. There's too much to say.

A couple of people have said that I should write a book. It is probably true that I've got a few hundred pages worth of long-winded feelings, rants, and analysis about recovery from the failure of New Orleans' levee systems and the state of politics and governance in New Orleans more generally inside of me. But that doesn't mean it would be the least bit entertaining. Or even interesting or useful.

So what I thought I'd do, since I have resolved not to "blog" (in the sense that I refuse to "cover" anything anymore), is to try to get my own gears going by restating what I think my mission was back when I started We Could Be Famous right after the second anniversary of Katrina in 2007.

Let's see.

I was 22 years old and had just graduated Tulane University the previous spring. I was an enthusiastic student but was feeling kind of lost in terms of what to do next. I spent the entire summer backpacking through Mexico and if I knew anything it was that I wasn't ready to join the traditional 9-5 workforce in any field.

I certainly knew what my interests were and felt like I had pretty well-defined values. I care about helping beleaguered cities and knew that I would eventually find a "career" that allowed me to do that. But fresh out of college and full of that totally irritating combination of exuberance and ennui, I decided to feel out my own path.

I also saw an opportunity.

I was an early adopter of "blogs" (I still really really hate the word 'blog') as important sources of news and opinion. In Philly, I noticed the efforts of people who were starting to upset the traditional Democratic Party machine by mounting electoral challenges to ward leaders. I was amazed and inspired in 2004 as the long-shot Dean campaign, which I admired but never supported (not that I'd be ashamed to say if I did - I liked that liar John Edwards in '04), used the internet to get people organized in real life for real life purposes. I was amazed and inspired by the way it seemed like short video clips or short snarky comments by a few well positioned and widely read liberal curmudgeon outsiders could shake up the mainstream news. Even though the internet and the blogosphere (another word I detest) wasn't that different from what it is today, it kind of felt like the Wild West, especially at the local level. To put it crudely, it seemed like if you were funny and made consistent arguments, famous people would link to you and then you would be famous too.

(That inelegant conclusion was part of the thinking behind the tongue-in-cheek blog name of my blog. The other part was that I was very interested in the way that the characteristics we expected of entertainers were increasingly indistinguishable from those we expect from political leaders. I felt like 'fame' had basically become equivalent to 'success' and hoped to make snarky superficial commentary about this into a running theme. I pretty much abandoned this within the first few weeks of publication.)

I noticed and was troubled by the fact that it didn't seem like there was anybody talking about New Orleans regularly among the liberal/progressive/netroots bloggers I read. It seemed like a big hole to me since the correlation between the near-destruction of New Orleans, the deterioration of the Bush agenda, and the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 seemed so strongly correlated. It was clear to me that New Orleans was, in September of 2007, clearly not recovering - something I deduced from living here without a whole lot of reading - and I assumed that my fellow progressive liberals from around the country would be interested in finding out why and in helping. The other thing I deduced from living here was that local political leadership was totally and remarkably pathetic. I felt like an overwhelmingly awesome city overrun with liberals and Democrats ought to be able to organize itself to put really strong, articulate, and unwavering progressive leaders into City Council, the State Legislature, and Congress.

And so I set off to work on several things simultaneously. I wanted to use the internet to help other New Orleanians successfully build a progressive political movement on the local level. I wanted to use the internet to help New Orleanians explain the recovery process to a national audience. I wanted to find myself professionally and figure out where, within the wide world of beleaguered cities, I could be happiest and most helpful.

I was just talking the other day to Brad V. about the how ironic it is that, as proud as I am of my efforts and the "successes" that have resulted, I've essentially failed on every single front. I feel successful in that I am now going to an elite graduate school after having built up a tremendous network of friends and colleagues through my basically well-regarded work as a blogger/writer and political organizer. But those successes are really just a personal silver lining from what was really an across-the-board failure. I accomplished zero of the goals set forth in the previous paragraph. Maybe it's unrefined to put it that way since I feel like I've landed somewhere respectable on the success continuum and not simply at one pole or another but it is what it is.

I accomplished zero of the goals I set forth when I started this blog.

I have learned a lot of useful lessons though. Without making any promises, I'd love to figure out a way to share some of them. I'm not sure if I can get it together to put together a grand conclusion about New Orleans and the recovery but I figured I'd at least get started on sorting my thoughts by restating what I think I said or felt my mission was and going back over the assumptions that lead me to start this project. Maybe if you haven't purged WCBF from your reader, you have some questions or suggestions that might get me going.

Rustoleum

Does this thing still work?

As I said in my farewell piece for the Lens, I am heading to SIPA at Columbia to pursue a master's degree.

I really need to 'quit' the news and find where I put my attention span. I'll really need that for school. But I would like to continue writing.

So I'm not really sure what I'm going to do with ye olde We Could Be Famous blog.

We Could blog at The Lens

I'm going to be blogging at The Lens, with increasing frequency as some of the kinks with the site redesign are ironed out. My hope is to establish a regular intellectualesque conversation that I hope long time and new readers will enjoy. I'll elaborate on that idea later on.

In the mean time, my first post is up now.

Go read the super important things I have to say.

#Nolamayor piques national attention

The campaign to elect the next mayor of New Orleans has attracted a wave of national attention. The AP, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times all wrote reports within the last week to brief readers about the mayor's race and the real possibility that New Orleans will elect a white mayor for the first time in over a generation.

Check them all out and see if you agree with the analysis:

Campbell Robertson of the New York Times, "Race Assumes Central Role in New Orleans Vote"
Richard Faussett of the Los Angeles Times, "In New Orleans, a white candidate leads the field"
Kevin McGill of the Associated Press, "Mostly black New Orleans could pick white Mayor"


State Senator Ed Murray's exit from the race and the collective gasp of many members of the city's African American political elite when he did, seems to have been the impetus for the wave of national dispatches.

The three stories are not appreciably different, but do emphasize different reasons for the loss of African American political unity.

McGill points to the decline of African American middle class neighborhoods as a result of the Katrina tragedy as "undercutting efforts by black candidates to raise money and build voter support."

Faussett describes "buyer's remorse" in the African American community and points to universal disapproval of Mayor Nagin in polls and ongoing federal investigations.

Robertson's piece similarly discusses "buyer's remorse" and - I love this line - the "low wattage" of most contenders prior to Landrieu's entry. Robertson's description of "the franchise" and the significance of political power for the African American community is also very interesting.

Black professionals refer to the office as “the franchise,” the counterweight to the economic power of New Orleans’s white elite. For the past three decades, the black private sector — the lawyers, businessmen and architects — has relied on the franchise: they may not always be able to become board members at the city’s white-owned firms, but black professionals turned to the city government for contracts and jobs.

I think these are damn fine write-ups all things considered. How about you all? Any nits to pick?

City Council ordinance seeks to limit Mayor's discretionary powers, but only this one time

Yesterday, I wrote about the potential for increased federal scrutiny over the manner in which D-CDBG funds are being monitored by the LRA and used in Orleans Parish.

Recently, Mayor Ray Nagin revived plans to purchase the Chevron Building even though City Council had voted against pursuing such an agreement last summer. The Nagin administration has argued that because only funding sources independent of the city budget would be used - the revolver fund or D-CDBG money - Council has no legal oversight authority. Presumably, that logic would extent to every project the Mayor might pursue using non-budget recovery dollars.

I've now learned that City Councilmembers Jackie Clarkson, Arnie Fielkow, Stacy Head, and Shelley Midura have cosponsored an ordinance that would require the Mayor to disclose plans to use money from the capital project fund or D-CDBG funds and to obtain Council approval for those plans.

Read the ordinance here.

The ordinance only applies to "City Hall Project Worksheet 7746," which represents the proposed purchase of the Chevron Building.

It does not tackle the larger questions about the mayor's power to use D-CDBG and revolver fund money in a discretionary fashion and would not preclude the mayor from applying recovery dollars to other projects such as the proposed LSU/VA hospital or the proposed renovation of Municipal Auditorium with little disclosure or oversight.

The measure will be up for a vote at City Council on Thursday, January 21st.

Rumors I wish were true: Stormy Daniels and Trashanova

I was so excited when I heard the rumor that garbage contractor Sidney Torres, the Trashanova, had fallen for your next Senator from the Great State, pornography entrepreneur Stormy Daniels.

Unfortunately the rumor is false. That is too bad because it sounds like a lot of fun.

Can't you picture the type of hilarity that would ensue if Stormy, SDT, Kid Rock, and Lenny Kravitz jumped on a campaign bus tour through the North Louisiana Bible Belt as the Sinator's opening act?

A guy can dream.

I was able to speak to a source close to Daniels' campaign for Senate against David Vitter.

"I have heard from students at UNO that Sidney Torres was dating a UNO student named Stormy since at least the spring of 2009. I do not know the current status or validity of that relationship. I have been told that this alleged girlfriend of Mr. Torres's has blond hair and similar upper body attributes to Stormy Daniels. But they are two different people."

Too bad!

HUD Monitoring Disaster CDBG Funding More Closely?

For more than a few weeks, American Zombie and I have been wondering aloud Mayor Ray Nagin administration's interpretation of laws governing money outside the parameters of the regular city budget, as well as City Council's oversight of that money.

Of particular concern is the "revolver fund" that the Louisiana Recovery Authority established to advance cash to parishes to pay for projects that will eventually get FEMA reimbursement. Nagin wants to use some of that money to buy the Chevron Building and convert it into a new city hall - even though the council has already rejected such a move.

A statement from Nagin spokeswoman Ceeon Quiett makes it clear the administration believes it has discretionary power over funding streams like the revolver fund and that the council has no legal oversight.

"The matter before the City Council was the appropriation of funding from one capitol [sic] account to another ..not an approval of the acquisition. Funding appropriation –Legislative Branch authority per the charter, Purchases –Executive Branch authority per the charter."

To clarify, Quiett is saying that the proposal to buy the Chevron building that was shot down by City Council over the summer involved the city budget. Because the most recent proposal only uses money from state and federal sources, such as the revolver fund, there is no formal oversight process through which the administration must seek City Planning Commission or City Council approval. Whether that is accurate is debatable, but it is the administration's position nonetheless.

Presumably, that position extends to the city's use of the Disaster Community Development Block Grant money, for which the LRA is the local administrator of federal funds from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department. The City Council had obligations when it comes to this money in that the LRA required a recovery plan with community buy-in, including Council approval, before the agency would release the HUD funds.

However, when it comes time to allocate real capital to a specific project, the modification of the original plans accepted by the LRA, or the reallocation of surplus money from a specific project, it would appear that the Mayor has vast powers.

Once the Council approves a framework for yearly DCDBG expenditures, only the LRA or HUD would be in position to block funding for a specific project submitted by Nagin on the grounds that it deviates from the original recovery plan, anticipated expenditures were vaguely documented or if HUD regulations are otherwise violated.

Since the Obama administration took office and Shaun Donovan was sworn in as the new secretary, HUD has been more proactive about cracking down on dysfunctional projects. HUD's receivership of the Housing Authority of New Orleans, for instance, has been totally reshuffled amid widespread allegations of graft and waste.

There is also evidence that HUD is taking a fresh look at its role in the hurricane recovery process both in New Orleans and elsewhere.

In November, AP reported that a HUD review had discovered over 11 million in unaccounted disaster money at the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority (NORA) that had fallen victim to poor record keeping or a failure to follow HUD regulations.

That same week AP also reported that HUD had rejected Texas' recovery plan for rebuilding areas badly battered by Hurricane Ike in 2008. The notification letter from HUD, which you can read here, suggests that Texas' plan was denied for failures to comply with federal citizen participation requirements.

Are these recent actions highlighting regulatory compliance issues in New Orleans and Texas indicative of a much more widespread concern on the part of HUD administrators that processes governing the efficient use of recovery money were poorly constructed, inattentively followed or even explicitly violated?

What effect will increased federal scrutiny have on controversial local projects, such as the Municipal Auditorium renovation and the purchase of the Chevron Building, for which the Nagin administration claims the City Council has no stipulated oversight authority?

To what extent does the council concede or dispute the administration's interpretation of their oversight authority over irregular DCDBG and revolver funds? How does that effect their ability to halt the mayor from spending money on major developments should they wish to do so?

While the upcoming elections have clearly taken center stage, the dispute between the outgoing administration and the City Council over the discretionary use of federal and state recovery dollars is the most important subplot for engaged citizens to closely monitor. It is this fundamental interpretation of City Charter and of HUD rules and regulations that looms over the individual development controversies that grab headlines - from Municipal Auditorium to Lower Mid-City and the proposed medical complex.

When news broke that the Chevron Building purchase was revived, City Council members expressed surprise and confusion. Yet since the New Year, there appears to have been no follow-up. It should be very interesting to watch what happens as specific projects begin to initiate expenditures.

Warren Riley! Stacy Head! In 3-D! On Ice!

Update: WDSU just caught up with Superindendent Riley and he appears to be meekly backing off. It makes his comments on the radio last week all the more slanderous.

Off-camera, Riley told WDSU that he doesn't believe the e-mail is a big deal, that he's never seen the message and he doesn't have proof that Head actually sent it.

Update II: Seriously, I cannot believe how pathetic this walk back is by Riley. Unbelievable. He should apologize to WBOK's listeners and to Councilwoman Head.

--

Warren Riley leveled some pretty serious and racially charged allegations in an interview with WBOK last week. I really wish WBOK archived its broadcasts. Thankfully, the T-P's Brendan McCarthy was tuned in.

The allegations about Head's e-mail came up when a radio station caller, who went by the name Malcolm, mentioned the alleged message.

The caller said: "I hear some of our council members are sending e-mails out -- one in particular, Ms. Head, sent an e-mail saying she hopes you fail and let's not approve your budget. But anyway, she's the failure in all of this anyway.

Riley responded: "You forgot the N-word that was in that e-mail, from what I understand."

"Well, yeah, you heard about it," the caller responded. "She said 'Let's make this Negro, not Negro, but she used that other one."

The caller then lambasted the media for ignoring the message. "The news (media) did not, nobody else put that out, nobody else interviewed, nobody made a big story about that. And if it was somebody of color that sat on the City Council who had that kind of behavior, would have been asked to step down."

Those who know Stacy Head personally have been quick to insist that this allegation is baseless and that such behavior would be unimaginable. But considering Stacy Head's history of off-color and, in a general sense, prejudiced language, Riley's allegation must at least be considered plausible.

Saying something that reflects ignorance, prejudice, or bias is different from saying something indisputably racist with malicious intent. Riley's accusations, if true, would be far more condemning of Head's character than her casually offensive observations in the Walmart checkout aisle.

If Head indeed used that epithet toward anyone, she would have to resign. She should not and cannot represent a population for which she has such an expressed, visceral hatred. The public pressure would be intense and well-deserved.

Luckily, we don't have to live in a world of 'what ifs.' Warren Riley claims Councilwoman Head used that particular slur in an e-mail. He should immediately produce the email. Regardless, news organizations should submit a public-records request to Head to obtain it.

Head's colleagues should hold immediate hearings to demand Riley produce the email, to censure Head if he can come through, or to call for Riley's ouster if he cannot.

If this email does not exist, Riley would be guilty of an extraordinarily insidious, divisive and manipulative slander. He knew that the forum he chose to air this allegation, WBOK, would not challenge him. He knew he was speaking to an audience predisposed - because of Head's past intransigence and WBOK's listener base - to believe a plausible, even if baseless, allegation of racism about the councilwoman.

And maybe he thought Head would prefer to ignore the story and minimize its media echo amid a tough reelection fight instead of throwing down the gauntlet to make him prove his charge.

Stacy Head should not and cannot simply ignore this story. Merely asserting that the allegations are totally baseless and false, as she did to the Times-Picayune, is not enough. Because of her salty language in the past, there is a special burden on her to substantively prove her innocence to the extent that she is able. When the e-mail controversy first began, Head took it upon herself to release a large set of emails to the public by publishing them for download on her website. Those emails have since been taken down. She owes it to herself and her supporters to more substantively address her views on race, language, and the allegations being leveled by Warren Riley, perhaps first by reopening her email outbox to additional public scrutiny.

As someone who has interacted with Stacy Head and parsed all of her emails released to date, I personally, have an extraordinarily hard time believing Riley's accusations.

This is different than a blind caller on talk radio throwing out an accusation. This is the Police Superintendent, one of the most important and powerful people in the city.

For someone of that stature to level this kind of accusation without prepared evidence is irresponsible, dangerous, and wrong.

It's not just manipulative.

Mr. Riley seems... a bit... delusional, and here's what I mean:

Riley said the recent release of a poll - showing that only 33 percent of citizens are satisfied with the NOPD - was timed to dissuade him from entering politics. The poll was unveiled by business leaders shortly before the political qualifying period. Riley also alleged The Times-Picayune chose that week to release several negative stories about him.

"There's a revolution going on, and we are missing it," he said.

Riley also criticized the slate of mayoral candidates and promoted his tenure as police chief.

"You know, I listen to the mayoral candidates," he said. "I run a bigger organization, and have had bigger budgets than any of these individuals. And I'm not knocking any of them. I'm just saying, I have had the ultimate challenge. The only person ... there are two people who have bigger challenges than I. And that's Mayor Nagin and President Obama."

Riley appears to be saying that he was all set to enter the mayor's race until that poll, which showed faith in the police force at an all-time low, was released.

Riley apparently put out feelers for a mayor's race over the summer before explicitly announcing in August that he would not seek that office, saying that he had "absolutely no interest."

So Riley is essentially saying that just weeks before the qualifying deadline, with no money raised, and with no campaign team assembled, he was considering swooping into the mayor's race. That is, until, a poll was strategically released to demonstrate his department's almost cartoonishly low approval ratings. Riley is intoning that he had a really great shot at raising money and gaining popular traction had it not been for that poll.

Think about how crazy that is.

Objectively speaking, Riley has presided over one of the most dysfunctional police forces in the country, to say nothing of his own conduct during his career on the force. The feds are looming over the NOPD for its unjustifiable pattern of police brutality, missing evidence, and who knows what else. Hasn't Riley been one of the most unpopular figures in local politics for over two years? Would people argue that the poll released in early December said something they didn't already really know?

If Riley had assembled his record of sloppy, ineffective catch-and-release, fire-when-ready police work during a Presidential administration that put any effort into exercising the powers of the Clinton administration's COPS bill, the NOPD might currently be in the control of a federal receiver right now because systemically discriminatory pattern and practice.

He's not just delusional and silly. He's not just calculating and manipulative.

He's desperate.

Riley's plans, given that this conspiracy of unpopularity dissuaded him from seeking the Mayor's office?

"I'm looking at a public venture ... with a couple people here in the city that I think would be profound and lucrative," he said. "I also am looking at another position that I will absolutely not talk about. Regardless, I am going to do well no matter what. As I stated, my future is bright. If I don't work another day in my life I'll be OK. I'm not just a police chief."

Rabid John Georges demonstrates comedic value to Dems

Update: Now with video below

This was recorded at tonight's meeting of your Orleans Parish Democratic Executive Committee.

John Georges goes rabid at OPDEC endoresement forum from Eli Ackerman on Vimeo.

Apparently, Georges flew off the handle.

There should be even crazier audio or video floating out there. I will see if I can get it.

And by the way, OPDEC has officially endorsed:

Troy Henry for Mayor
Arnie Fielkow and Cynthia Willard-Lewis for Council at-large
Susan Guidry for Council District A
Corey Watson for Council District B
Kristin Giselson Palmer for Council District C
Cynthia Hedge-Morrell for Council District D
Austin Badon for Council District E
Dwight McKenna for Coroner
and Karen Carter Peterson for State Senate District 5.


Now, here is some video of John Georges exhibiting no shame whatsoever. It is amazing.

John Georges untethered from Eli Ackerman on Vimeo.

Punchline: Omg omg, a press meme

First, let's talk briefly about how and why Ed Murray left the race and what it means electorally and symbolically.

Clancy D's narrative of events is similar to what I have heard. Apparently, Murray disappeared for a few days after seeing some pretty dismal poll numbers and returned with the decision not to continue his run for office. He then announced the decision to the press without consulting his political bffs or his campaign staff.

The rest of Clancy's story - that advisers told him he'd have to find a half million bucks, make the election about race, and that Murray refused to go there after some soul-searching - leaves some stones unturned.

Chris Tidmore then went live with a story about a possible buyout from the Georges campaign.

Oyster gives us a cathartic profile of the reactions of some lovely conservative blogs who, of course, immediately reached the conclusion that everything is the White House's fault.

Clancy also accidentally (in the comments of this post) sort of confirmed that Georges' people have been pushing photographs and/or video that might be embarrassing to Mr. Murray. Since nobody else will, I will add a little bit of detail. There may be some embarrassing material circulating about Mr. Murray's fondness for wine. But considering that we generally accept politicians who drink, and even make drinking a standard benchmark of the campaign trail - see Batt, Jay or Clinton, Hillary - nothing that has been described to me would end Senator Murray's career. Even the worst rumor I've heard would just be really embarrassing and politically harmful if it were released at the right time, but not something that would make me think Senator Murray is a dishonorable human being.

So my sense of Murray's decision was that, despite the general sense from a couple of leaked internal poll numbers that he was running in second place, he didn't think he could win the election.

Let me say that again: HE didn't think he could win the election.

Clancy DuBos insists that Murray came to some sort of moral realization.

Murray’s top supporters and close friends are hurt, and most don’t understand his logic. But anyone who looks at Murray’s decision as a moral choice — particularly anyone who knows Murray — should have no difficulty understanding his decision. I spoke with Murray on Sunday afternoon and, while the conversation was “off the record,” I got the clear impression that he wanted to follow his inner moral compass, not his steering committee’s political advice, on this one.

For whatever reason, the explanation that it would take some nasty racial divisiveness on Murray's part for him to win is assumed to be reasonable. Yet, the fact that his advisers were telling him he was going to have to raise another $500,000 - $700,000 is just passed over as though it is easy or even possible to raise and spend a half million dollars over the next thirty days. Nor does anyone seem to point out that Murray was the most recognizable African American candidate going into campaign season, had already spent more money on advertisements than any African American candidate, and yet apparently still couldn't crack 20% in the internal polls that have been reported.

Here's the real dirty little secret about Ed Murray - he's a horrible candidate.

State Senator Ed Murray is a horrendous public speaker. HORRENDOUS. He's quiet, he mumbles. He trails off at the end of sentenc...

Again, he was the highest profile black candidate in the race BEFORE he unloaded his campaign war chest on an expensive two minute television commercial. I didn't see every single debate, but in the ones that I did, Murray was getting destroyed. He wasn't being attacked, he was being ignored - he was barely part of the conversation. John Georges, for all the sleaze, is out there talking about getting Charity and Methodist hospitals open. What the hell was Ed Murray's rallying cry?

And even in the internal polls that showed Murray to be the front-runner among African American candidates, his lead over Henry for that distinction wasn't even outside the margin of error.

So when you consider that Murray was going nowhere fast in his own polls even though he'd spent the most and had the best name recognition, it doesn't seem like his decision to drop out of the election was against the grain.

Mitch Landrieu is certainly the front-runner in this election and could indeed obtain the votes needed to avoid a runoff but I have a hard time believing that Mitch Landrieu is substantially better off today than he was before Ed Murray made his announcement.

One could argue that Landrieu is going to earn a lot of Murray's voters but one could just as easily argue that Murray's departure heals a fracture in the African American electorate and will lead to a more unified effort to mobilize voters on behalf of Mr. Henry, Judge Ramsey, or Mr. Perry.

The reason that I think the media and others have fixated on Murray's departure is that Murray was the only African American candidate from the African American political lineage that fought so hard for a fair share of municipal power over the last five decades. That is a major development within the African American political community, which is, to throw out a major generalization, the place where white people go to try to figure out what all African American people must be thinking. When, for instance, the Louisiana Weekly the New Orleans Tribune writes that Ed Murray's exit represents a "betrayal of the African American community..."

...what the Tribune is saying is that Murray is betraying the particular political lineage that helped him get to the State Senate in the first place, a political lineage that since Katrina, has lost a lot of real political power.

But after reading that, one might come to the conclusion that Senator Murray must have been the consensus black candidate to hold the Mayor's office.

That view isn't supported by evidence.

Murray was going no where fast.

With the election a month away, the best known black political candidate, the candidate who spent the most money on signs and advertising, was only polling in the teens in a city that is two-thirds African American.

--

Yesterday, Troy Henry pulled a classic stunt to ensure attendance at yesterday's press conference so he could then lambaste local media. He is upset because he believes the media is pushing a meme that the mayoral election is over and that Mitch Landrieu is going to be the next Mayor of New Orleans.

He doesn't think that meme is fair. He thinks that if the media spreads the idea that Mitch Landrieu is probably going to win, voters will be unduly influenced to tune out the campaign.

"What we don't want to do is begin to put in the minds of all voters that this is a fait accompli, that this is not a real race, that this is an anointment. That's not fair to any of the candidates. And the fact that some of the reports have categorized this in terms of race, it's disingenuous to all of the African-American candidates. It's not fair."

Read the whole article or watch the press conference to get a sense of what he said overall.

There are a couple of points I think he was trying to make.

1. The press is spending too much time analyzing electoral prospects and not enough time reporting the positions of the candidates, and that's not fair to African American candidates or to the African American community.

2. The analysis of the press - that it is going to be nearly impossible for anyone to beat Mitch Landrieu - is wrong.

I agree that the media tends to fixate on the theatrics of the election - the horse race itself - and not on positions and values of candidates relative to the problems the city faces. I agree that this hurts African American candidates and the African American population, but it also hurts everyone in this city. The public should know who their choices are and what differentiates them from one another. Mitch Landrieu should be forced to really prove he knows "what to do and how to do it" by being asked to provide some basic detail about what it is he's going to do and how it is he plans to do it.

But in the end, it's kind of hard not to say 'tough sh-t.' That is how the media works.

And on point two, I think it's going to be extraordinarily difficult for anybody to defeat Mitch Landrieu on Election Day. That was true before Ed Murray dropped out of the race and it is true now. It would take a sizable financial investment and an lightening fast organizing effort to mobilize enough voters - white and/or black - to overcome Landrieu. You need more than a month to build a political machine from scratch. Troy Henry maybe has the money to get his name out there but probably can't scramble the necessary field outreach. James Perry has performed very well at the debates and maybe can get some television more television exposure but the guy doesn't even have a sign on the front door of his campaign headquarters, let alone in the lawns of supporters. I'm not sure most voters have even heard of Nadine Ramsey.

We are not at the beginning of the campaign anymore, we're already approaching the end. There is one month to go. They say that's an eternity in politics but it really isn't. A month is a month. With Landrieu reportedly 20 points or more ahead of everyone else and earning significant shares of the African American vote himself, we might soon approach official dead girl or live boy territory...

With regard to Henry's assertion that writers wrongly "categorized" the electoral dynamics in terms of race, it is kind of hard to ignore the entire last half century of elections in this city.

Since the VRA, municipal elections in New Orleans have been about the realization African American political power and the mobilization of African American voters to win basic political representation for the first time. In this election, African American community leaders are struggling to unite behind a consensus candidate, to mobilize demonstrable support for any African American Mayoral candidate - but that was true before Ed Murray got out of the race.

If Henry is upset with this analysis insofar as it has resulted only since Mr. Murray ended his candidacy, well then he has a real point.

The press could have written an article about the African American leadership crisis well before Ed Murray ended his campaign.

It's a sad thing.

Mitch Landrieu is a polished, recognizable politician but it ain't like he's the second coming.

--

The Line

6. Rob Couhig

5. Nadine Ramsey

4. James Perry

3b. John Georges

3a. Troy Henry

1. Mitch Landrieu

Stuff Real Mayors Do

Mayor of Philadelphia spends New Years' Day speaking to inmates.

On New Year's Day, while many Philadelphians were enjoying bowl games and parades, Mayor Nutter was up early and delivering a message of hope - with a little tough love mixed in - to the inmates of seven of the city's correctional facilities.

He was joined by about 40 clergy members, from a number of denominations, for the annual Ecumenical Services and Civic Engagement Visit to the Philadelphia prison system.

Part of Nutter's message to the clergy, which started at a breakfast meeting, was a practical accounting of money and choices.

He said that of the city's nearly $4 billion operating budget, 24 percent is spent on all the components of the criminal-justice system.

"We don't need more incarceration, we need more education," he said. "Some of these people don't need to be locked up, they need a job."

The message to the 200 inmates at Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility - his first stop - was just as pragmatic.

"We spend a lot of money to keep track of you up here," Nutter said. He told them it cost $30,000 a year for each prisoner, compared with $10,000 for a community-college student.

"Where do you think I'd rather spend our money?" Nutter said.

--

Before he left Curran-Fromhold, two inmates, Lynwood Ray and Alex Naranjo, presented Nutter with a portrait of him they had painted. He told them he would hang it in City Hall.

Later, Nutter said that it was "painful and personal" to see talent wasted in prison and that the city could be doing more to help inmates.

"It just shows you, when properly motivated and directed, every one of these men and women can be doing something totally different and don't have to be in prison," he said.

When the entourage arrived at the Riverside Correctional Center for women, Nutter received a foot-stomping, hand-clapping, rock-star welcome.

His message was the same. Have a reentry plan. Play by the rules. Stay away from bad influences. And don't return.

"Never, never, never come back to this place," Nutter said to the about 125 women in attendance.

That's all for today's installment of Stuff Real Mayors Do.

Process Matters: The Revolver Fund and the Chevron Deal

I think WDSU was the first to report on it but the Times-Picayune has a story as well.

I also learned earlier today that the city was again pursuing the acquisition of the Chevron Building and the abandonment of City Hall. The section 106 (historic review process) notice is here and supporting material is here.

Both of those articles remind us why this is news. Over the summer, the administration negotiated with Chevron Corporation to potentially purchase the Chevron Building from the oil giant for the price of $8 million, pending the process stipulated by City Charter.

There was a process. The City Planning Commission held a hearing and a vote. The City Council held a hearing and a vote.

City Council voted against the project.

So some members were apparently surprised today to learn that the administration was going to go ahead with the purchase and relocation anyway. Travers Mackel reeled in Shelley Midura:

"This is news to me," she said. "(The information) is not factual. The city determined in July that it would not buy the Chevron Building and would not move any city offices into that building."

Frank Donze also caught up with the Councilmember from District A:

She said she has "serious concerns about what is going on here" and described any effort to acquire the Chevron complex with state and federal money as "an undisguised attempt to avoid the council's involvement, and, unfortunately, part of a disturbing pattern of this administration."

Later, I emailed Councilman Arnie Fielkow for his thoughts:

We only learned of this today and are trying to get many of the same questions answered. I, and many other cms, do not support this! The entire project needs to be better thought out, master planned and left to the next administration and council!

And Councilwoman Stacy Head for hers:

I have no idea how he plans to do this without council approval. I am calling around to find out.

I also emailed Ceeon Quiett at the Mayor's Office of Communications. Here is what she wrote back:

The matter before the City Council was the appropriation of funding from one capitol account to another ..not an approval of the acquisition. Funding appropriation –Legislative Branch authority per the charter, Purchases –Executive Branch authority per the charter. The Mayor and the City Council both believe in the relocation of City Hall and the viability of the Chevron building. To this day, as the media has reported, leaking roofs, lack of hot water, broken elevators remain. As you remember FEMA has recognized the depth of damages to 1300 Perdido St. City Hall. Over $5million has been approved by FEMA for City Hall.

--

I think the administration is arguing that City Council and the City Planning Commission had oversight power over the original proposal to acquire the Chevron Building and mothball 1300 Perdido St. from this past spring and summer because at that time, they were being asked to fund the purchase using the city's capital budget.

Indeed, the city's original deal was to purchase the Chevron building for $8 million by using the $5 million FEMA has pledged for damage to our current City Hall and cobbling together the other $3 million through bond sales and the capital improvement budget.

This time is different, from the Mayor's perspective, because the executive is simply moving forward with the execution of a purchase and is not pursuing funds from the budget, which would reengage the a cycle of public hearings and votes by Council and the City Planning Commission.

The administration's position is that it did not need approval for the project itself, just the funds to move forward with the purchase. Ms. Quiett reminds us that FEMA has already allocated $5 million. That still leaves the same $3 million shortage for the price of purchase alone, ignoring the cost of renovation as a factor. I suppose that means that this time, administration is going to fill in the rest using funds that they have the authority to move around in a discretionary fashion without triggering a cycle of hearings.

--

I closely followed Dambala's recent piece about the potential pitfalls involved with discretionary use of Disaster Community Development Block Grant (DCDBG) funds, which come from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and are administered by the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA).*

Today, he has a post about today's new controversy about the Cheveron Building in which he indicates the administration is planning to use what is called "the revolver fund" to avoid initiating the CPC and Council oversight process.

The revolver fund was set up by the LRA to help hurricane-damaged parishes scrounge up the cash to initiate recovery projects. For instance, when FEMA agrees to reimburse the City of New Orleans a certain amount of money for damage to a public building, they don't just cut the check so the city can go and hire a construction firm. Instead, FEMA reimburses the city once the work has begun. This protects taxpayers by ensuring that these recovery dollars are applied to restore the infrastructure that was damaged and not to other purposes but it also hurts the liquidity of parish level and municipal governments by requiring them to front the cash for all of these projects. To fix the problem, the LRA created revolver funds to help parish and municipal governments get cash up front. New Orleans can now tap revolver money to pay for projects and then repay the revolver fund when FEMA reimbursement checks cleared.

Dambala says today that:

The problem with that equation is that any money spent under the Revolver system must meet FEMA requirements for spending. If you recall in my previous post, the FEMA requirements state the the money can't be used for new development....they can only be used for repairs of exising infrastructure.

But FEMA requirements aren't that inflexible. FEMA money can be applied to a new development, if it is classified as an "improved project." That is what the city requested in its letter (see the WDSU story or the attachments linked at the top of this post) to FEMA.

I am trying to understand, from a procedural standpoint, how the administration can use revolver money for discretionary purposes. The idea is that the fund fronts the city cash for a specific, reimbursement approved project and then the city reimburses the revolver once the FEMA money comes through. Seems like a simple, clean transaction. But it's more complicated than that.

For instance, under the School Facilities Master Plan, the Recovery School District is not rebuilding every single school for which it is receiving FEMA reimbursement money. Or, under the plan guiding construction for the New Orleans Public Library, the city is not rebuilding every single branch for which it is receiving money from FEMA for flood damage.

One would assume that the city would apply every dollar from FEMA toward reimbursement for damaged libraries (just as an example) to building new libraries, even if the plan is to build fewer libraries in a more consolidated system. But maybe that's not the case. Conceivably, if the city spends less out of the revolver fund than they take in reimbursement money from FEMA, there would be a stash of surplus cash sitting in the revolver fund.

FEMA is not, I don't think, supposed to reimburse for construction that is not performed. If the city uses $10 million in revolver money, they're only supposed to get a $10 million check from FEMA to repay the revolver even if FEMA had budgeted $20 million for their assessment of damage. But I don't really know how it works in practice. It might be that the City allocates money from the revolver and gets an expedited reimbursement based on the allocation instead of the actual expenditure.

Some reader insight on this would be great.

Dambala says it is understood that the money leftover in the revolver when it is no longer needed to front anticipated reimbursements would go into the city's pot of remaining DCDBG funds and could be reapplied to other purposes. Is that what is understood and is that what is happening now?

I also want to know more about how oversight and administration of the revolver fund works. My sense is that it is something the LRA created for the Mayor's office to help with cashflow, is not something that is considered a part of the city's revenue or spending streams, and is therefore hidden from the regular budget process. Does that mean that a hypothetical surplus in the revolver fund is purely a discretionary tool for the executive branch? If Council doesn't have oversight over that money, does the LRA?

If there's anybody out there who can add some detail, answer some questions, or correct my mistakes, please leave a comment or email me.


*I have additional analysis and questions on this matter as well that I'll have to tease out in another post. I have been very curious about unaccounted discretionary spending, the 2010 budget, and the use of DCDBG funds as it relates to the demolition of Lower Mid-City and the proposed LSU/VA. If you've been itching for more information about what Dambala might be talking about, check out this story and video. It'll get your brain churning a little bit but it might give you more new questions than new answers.

Perry outclasses those that bothered to show in CJ reform debate

What an outrage! I cannot believe some campaign produced a largely unoffensive YouTube video! I give the story that an anti-Mitch video was online for all of an hour a big fat who cares. The Gamblog called it "virtual mud," but I call it unnoticeable dandruff. The only thing I don't understand is why a campaign wouldn't just stand behind the video. It's not a swift-boating, it's a PG-rated parody.

I could be wrong though, I noticed Landrieu skipped out on last night's Mayoral forum. Maybe poor Mitch was still crying about that meanie meanster video.

In other news, there was indeed a forum for the Mayoral candidates yesterday on the issue voters and every candidates agree is the most important issue facing the city, criminal justice.

Only James Perry, Troy Henry, Nadine Ramsey, and Ed Murray made it. Seems a bit odd that there would be any no-shows for a forum on the hottest issue in town, let alone three. The Landrieu and Georges campaigns sent representatives with statements. The Couhig campaign avoided it entirely. I guess they felt it was too risky to send someone across State Street after dark.

To dispense with the sarcasm, last night's forum was very interesting. I wish it had been televised. The candidates were asked to sign onto a ten point platform prepared by the host organizations, which included Safe Streets/Strong Communities and the Juvenile Justice Project. The platform is far from radical, it reflects a lot of the principles that a comprehensive community policing strategy ought to entail. Since most candidates profess to support something called "community policing," it was helpful to have a forum in which some of the ideas that actually make "community policing" different from what we have now were spelled out in at least a little bit of detail.

I will paraphrase the platform that candidates were asked to endorse.

1. National search for a reform-oriented police chief
2. End incarcerations for traffic violations and/or municipal offensives; end incarcerations for people charged with "marijuana 1st offense."
3. End practice of charging suspects of simple solicitation with felony crime against nature
4. Prioritize youth/recreation programs, access to drug treatment and mental health services as part of crime prevention strategy.
5. Create incentives in city contracting process to encourage employers to hire formerly incarcerated individuals
6. Establish certificates of good conduct to help those with criminal records find jobs
7. Establish Office of Formerly Incarcerated Affairs in Mayor's Office
8. Convert vacant properties into housing opportunities for formerly incarcerated and low income families
9. Create a public-works style program to improve public transportation
10. Increase youth opportunities by investing in alternatives to incarceration including employment programs, recreation programs; building positive behavior supports in public schools, and rebuilding the Youth Study Center in way that respects human dignity of inmates.

All pretty benign and unobjectionable, don't you think? Certainly, some planks, like the suggestion of a public works style program for public transportation, are entirely vague, but why would a candidate have a problem endorsing a reform platform like this? Wouldn't this platform seem to generally outline what a real community policing strategy would look like?

Strangely, in addition to those candidates that weren't even there, Ed Murray and Nadine Ramsey refused to endorse the suggestions, saying they don't make campaign pledges as a matter of principle (amazing). Only James Perry and Troy Henry did.

James Perry put on a clinic at this debate. He is well-versed in criminal justice reform issues and spoke very decisively, drawing applause on several occasions.

Henry was also a confident speaker but his constant reiteration of his executive experience and desire to bring a CEO's mentality to the Mayor's office did not play particularly well with an audience more geared up to hear about criminal justice reform than economic development. He also left himself open to Perry's implication that certain candidates (Henry) were "empty suits" and "Nagin third-termers."

I don't know Perry's campaign is really up to the challenge of actually winning an election but he certainly won last night's debate and won it pretty damn emphatically.

Murray was totally uninspiring. He is not a good public speaker at all. His mumbling cadance is one thing, but his closing statement, in which he talked about realistic political expectations, was so bad it was almost funny. Even allowing that Murray was providing an genuine reality check, nobody has ever won an election with a message of 'lower your expectations.'

I was surprised that no-show candidates didn't juggle their schedules to attend and astonished that some candidates refused to sign onto the reform platform given the shamefully low approval ratings for the NOPD and the current direction of our much-maligned CJ system.

One would think that candidates would fall all over each other to carry the criminal justice reform mantle. However, Perry didn't really have a whole lot of competition last night.

And then there were... fewer than before

Leslie Jacobs has abandoned her campaign for Mayor.

"I'll be going on a mini-vacation," she said. "I want to read a book of no intellectual value and watch the waves for a few days."

This was not unexpected. It had been widely rumored that Mitch Landrieu's last minute entry in the race would ultimately force Jacobs to yield.

In an interview, Jacobs said she made her decision after reviewing results from a poll she commissioned last week.

"Those numbers confirmed what I thought: Once Mitch entered the race, I could not win," she said. "I am a Democrat, he's a Democrat. And I think it's safe to say our bases overlap -- very much so."

Jacobs, a wealthy businesswoman who had been waging an aggressive television campaign, confirmed earlier reports that she consulted with Landrieu before announcing her candidacy on Nov. 18, about three weeks before qualifying opened.

At the time of their meeting, Jacobs said Landrieu told her "there was a possibility, not a probability" that he would run after announcing in July that he would not.

"He said the odds were low," Jacobs said, "but that he would leave that door open. So I took a calculated risk on my part. Mitch had the luxury of name recognition so he could decide at the last minute. I didn't have that luxury."

What does this mean for other candidates?

On the face of it, it would appear that Mitch Landrieu is the most direct beneficiary of Jacobs' decision to sit out. The two were essentially competing for the same pool of voters. I'm sure Jacobs' poll showed Landrieu way out ahead of the field. That he no longer has a well-heeled challenger biting at his heels, he has less work to do.

John Georges is also probably pretty happy that he has one less WMA (White Mitch Alternative) with whom he'll have to compete. Jacobs was going to be the only candidate capable of buying TV commercial time to the extent Georges can. He'll be able to dominate the airwaves.

James Perry might also squeeze a few votes out of the situation. Jacobs was definitely hoping to win over some of the post-Katrina young transplants that Perry has courted aggressively.

Analysis: Meh

This forum did not lend itself to serious candidates truly distinguishing themselves. As much as people are frustrated by talking points, it is kind of hard to do anything but stick to sound bites when you only have fifteen seconds to outline how you're going to reduce crime. That said, before I watch the rebroadcast this debate to see how it came across on television, I want to share my thoughts on how the candidates fared.

First of all, considering what he had to do, I thought Norman Robinson pulled off one of the slickest, smoothest debates I've ever seen. He was charming and he kept it moving. Big props.

Manny Bruno was hilarious. He should do this every year until he is dead or finally elected Mayor. Jonah Bascle did a great job with his opening statement. I think he should file a lawsuit if they don't do the obvious and switch a few of the red, handicap-accessible streetcars onto the St. Charles line.

Marijuana was also a big winner tonight. Very nice to have two people bring it up, even if it wasn't any of the "real" candidates. I was surprised that no candidate spun off of the laugh lines to make a serious point about how decriminalization of marijuana possession is a big part of real community policing policy, how simple pot arrests suck resources out of our criminal justice system, or to commend DA Cannizzaro for his progressive views on this issue. That would have been a big move for someone with direct knowledge about this like Judge Nadine Ramsey. She whiffed though. I don't know why candidates are still too scared to talk about this like grownups.


The Good:


As for the major contenders, I think that if there was a winner, it was Troy Henry.

His delivery was strong and direct and he didn't repeat himself as much as other candidates. In a forum like this, I think that you have to be unafraid to say I and me. You have to be loud and in charge. Henry did this well. I think he raised a lot of eyebrows.

James Perry also did a pretty good job. Similarly, he was not afraid to be loud and direct. He spoke firmly. He needs do more to emphasize his work as a civil rights attorney fighting housing discrimination and less to emphasize that one time he was a lifeguard for NORD.


The Bad:


Ed Murray needs to get his money back from whoever has been coaching him. You might be able to get away with mumbling one-on-one to a constituent but you can't mumble during a debate. During one answer, he started to say something about the Beacon of Hope but then just trailed off. It was weird.

On more than one occasion, Mitch Landrieu repeated lines verbatim from the youtube announcement of his candidacy released last week. I would have expected something a little better from someone with actual charisma. It came off as phony.

John Georges also had a mumbling problem and had trouble thoroughly answering questions without straying onto other topics or talking points.


The Boring:

Leslie Jacobs, Nadine Ramsey, and Rob Couhig were largely forgettable.

If I were Ramsey, I'd have rather been bad than forgettable.

Leslie Jacobs was really timid and uninspiring. Since Mitch Landrieu jumped in the race, she has had to work hard just to convince people she is still interested in the office. She should have used this opportunity to show that to people. She needed to be louder, more confident, even fiery. She seemed nervous and reticent.

Rob Couhig is just not someone I'm interested in. People told me he was going to make fireworks or something but he was stiff and I didn't pay attention to him.

Stay tuned. I will update this post with additional thoughts once I've watched video.


UPDATE: After watching pieces of the debate on television, I don't think I have much to add. Nadine Ramsey looked even more uncomfortable than she sounded.

The Great Boilerplate Debate

Just got home from debate number 1. I do have some summary thoughts but first I thought I would publish, unedited, my shorthand version of tonight's debate.

I typed while they talked. I had intended to just write a couple of things down but found it enjoyable to just try and type everything I heard. The fluffy words of the candidates came into my ears but my fingers were only able to type the distilled essence of the product. So if you don't have time to actually watch the debate because candidates spend too much time thanking the moderator, you can just read this summary of the most popular and repetitive catch phrases and buzzwords.

I didn't catch everything and my notation may be a little confusing. I apologize.

I tended to transcribe rote boilerplate when candidates delivered their statements clearly and forcefully and tended to stop typing when candidates began to drone.

Italics reflect cheap thoughts of mine, regular font reflects the candidates' intonations.

Again, these are my actual, almost entirely unedited notes from tonight's candidate forum:

6:01 Norman in.

6:04 Introductions over. Apparently everybody’s poll numbers say crime is the biggest issue. Good for Troy Henry and the intentional comedians to think of something creative.

6:05 Leslie Jacobs gets her first crack at it. Crime on. We need leadership, accountability, collaboration, trust. “Community policing experience.” It’s not just police… I want all NORD centers reopened.

6:06 Ed Murray wants national search. “Community Policing,” knowing people in neighborhoods. Long term it is about education. I’m going to create an office of education in the Mayor’s office. NORD.

6:07: Jerry Jacobs – Look at reasons for crime, not the manifestation of the crime. The law is incorrect. The law of prohibition of marijuana is the worst thing ever. Legalize marijuana! Repeal marijuana laws. Glad Georges and Copelin got this guy in.

6:08 Nadine Ramsey – My solution is “neighborhood policing.” It’s a long-term commitment. We must listen to our neighborhoods. Get the faith-based community engaged, after-school programs, old people.

6:09 Troy Henry – I’m talking about reengineering city government. A comprehensive approach that’s a five legged stool. We need transparency, more jobs, housing/blight. I missed some of his legs, sorry.

6:10 Jonah Bascle – Equal access. New Orleans is dysfunctional for everyone. St. Charles street cars need to be handicap accessible now. You can just switch 5 streetcars from Canal line to St. Charles line. Honest and transparent government. I had to run for Mayor because I’ve been trying to get this done for months and this is my last resort. This kid is just got himself some streetcars moved.

6:11 James Perry – I’m the only candidate that has made a real commitment. I won’t run if I can’t bring the murder rate down 40%. That same day I kicked ass in a debate when people didn’t know a jail from an after-school program. I am going to invest in NORD.

6:12 Manny Chevrolet – I want to go on the record right now by saying I’m against crime. How can we fight crime when police themselves are criminals? Nice. Also let’s grow lots of pot and tax the hell out of it. Two people! Yes!!! Soon they'll stop laughing...

6:13 John Georges wants leadership. Our leaders are in the private sector. With strong leadership we can do anything!

6:14 Some guy named Lambert says we need lots of transparency.

6:15 Mitch Landrieu loves this city with his heart and soul. He’s going to fix it with the children. This is regurgitated word for word from his internet message. We need a national search and hold the next chief accountable. I’m going to stop kids from getting into crime in the first place. I want a public-private partnership for NORD.

6:16 Rob Couhig – I love you Dr. Francis! Police chief needs integrity. Integrity again. New chief. New chief.

6:17 for Leslie Jacobs – re: what is the criteria for a new police chief – national search, for someone with experience leading major change. Someone who will drive accountability up and down. Three I want someone who embraces technology. One time I had a hard time getting an accident report filed. It sucked. It was like the 1950s. We need hiring standards. When the head of PANO that the police can no longer police themselves, it’s time for a new commission..

6:18 for Murray re what the mayor can do - I am going to open up an office of education that is going to coordinate all of the issues between and amongst the different school systems. Times-Pic wrote article (Sarah Carr series, go read G-Bitch) about how difficult it is for parents… We need to coordinate funding for public education. I think that I can get more money for education from BR and DC

6:19 for Mr. Jacobs – what about the racial divide? – Finances really matter. Crime matters. If we had more money, we would be able to do whatever we want. What I want to do, legalize pot, and raise money, we can reduce crime and give everyone money to get whatever resources they need.

6:20 Norman. If we have weed legalized, everyone can just chill…

6:21 for Ramsey- what about more revenue? We need a comprehensive review of our budget. There is a distinction between what we want and what we can afford. We need to see if there are any millages out there.

Norman – what about raising taxes?

Ramsey – No.

6:22 – What is your strategy for blight reduction?

Henry – I have a 2fold approach. Let’s use enforcement tools we have – liens, sheriffs sales, etc. Two is to do what we did in Ponch Park. Use incentives to help residents buy homes.

Perry – Murray made it harder for NORA to buy blighted property, so bad that he had to rewrite his law. We need properties put back into commerce. I have leadership skills.

Bruno – I am also against blight. One way to redevelop blighted neighborhoods is to bring Amish down here. They can build barns in a day. Imagine what they could do with a city block.

Georges – We should do what Jeff Parish does. We need coordination between code enforcement and other departments. I want citizens to be able to go around NORA to buy these homes. We need to add more people to code enforcement but we need to add this step before NORA so that people can buy these things. NORA adds cost to the process.

Lambert – I cannot solve any of these problems. It’s a we thing. There is no I in team. I’m going to use code enforcement. We thing. No I.

Landrieu – This is an experience issue. City Hall is dysfunctional. Blight is strangling us. We have to stop demolishing homes by accident.

Couhig – The Mayor made life hard for me at NORA. We need a Mayor who is disciplined and hard working. We need someone who wants to be Mayor. Livability is a big issue. Blight.

Leslie Jacobs – Let’s get code enforcement going. Let’s invest in NORA. We need to change the constitution to make it easier to expropriate abandoned property. Beacon of Hope is a great example of awesomeness in Lakeview. We also have commercial blight. We need a master plan.

Murray – This constitutional amendment is not a problem. NORA needs proper funding. They have statutory resources but not money. We need neighborhood associations engaged. Beacon of Hope… mumbling… something about passing savings onto NORA.

Jerry Jacobs – The definition of blight can also be poverty. The city needs money. The only way is to legalize marijuana. It will reduce workload of NOPD.

Nadine Ramsey – We need to enforce existing laws. Adequate funding for NORA is one step. 58-60k blighted properties is not a small number.

Troy Henry – We need to rehabilitate juvenile criminals. Let’s reengineer YSC.

On the IG

Bascle – Let’s not just award political pals.

NORD

Perry – I think the core issue is funding. Story about being lifeguard with NORD. Less funding now than when I was a kid. The key issue is leadership for that Dept. and true investment.

Making City Hall customer friendly

Bruno – My face will be everywhere so everyone knows who is in charge. I will hire the right people. Hostesses. Friendly customer service.

Top 3 industries for new business?

Georges – we have to change our image from partying to historic. We need to enhance the tourism industry, attract airlines, we need the immediate reopening of Charity Hospital so we can redevelop downtown, etc. Healthcare jobs. Save Charity, he says.

Re: Charity

Lambert – I’d like to talk about crime instead.

Re: Public Private Partnership

Landrieu – Biomedical, Nagin blew it.

Re: Young people

Couhig – my whole campaign is young people! We will have great customer service and transparency.

Norman – what is the city’s bond indebtedness?

Lambert – Don’t know

Couhig – I don’t know.

Jacobs – Don’t know.

Mr. Jacobs – Can’t see the

Ramsey – Don’t know.

Henry – don’t know

Perry – don’t know

Bruno – A lot

Bascle – A lot

Georges – I know what the Youth Study Center is.

The correct answer is 524-525 million.

Next one: What % does the city receive in sales tax?

Jacobs – after rephrase....

Norman -Does anyone know?

32%, 31%?

Norman is sorry he went there.

Closing statements:

Leslie Jacobs – Leadership, results, regional coalition. Quality of life stuff. I lead a movement to retain youth. I took on our schools. Today our schools have a lower performance gap. We have a powerful charter school movement and it is getting better. We need our next Mayor to get results. More economic development

Murray – I am unique because of my experience in the legislator. I have been floor leader for lots of stuff and I get results. There isn’t a single business here that has asked me for help and hasn’t gotten it. (Maybe the fail of the night if I got this quote right) The Mayor and Council needs to be civil and get together. The Mayor needs to spread the word on economic inclusion. All of those things need to happen, I ask for your vote.

Jerry Jacobs – I’m a Tulane grad and did life insurance. I took a ton of courses until I retired. I learned how to look into peoples’ minds. The city is riddled with crime, economic disaster. We don’t have enough money. I have the ability to look into that. I know how to increase revenue and reduce waste. And it won’t be popular.

Ramsey – Politicians always say what they have done. But why is our city in the condition that it is in. I want a crime plan for each neighborhood, not just one for the city. It will get input. It will hold politicians accountable. We have been failed by big promises and big plans. Politicians need to trust citizens instead of the other way around.

Henry – I’m most qualified and experienced. I have managed big budgets and big numbers of people. I know the recovery needs of all departments and neighborhoods. I’m the only one who has developed an energy efficiency program. If you want experience it is me, if you want on the job training it is everyone else.

Bascle – Let’s stop ignoring handicap accessibility. If we can’t do something that takes no money and no time like streetcar accessibility, how do we fix anything else? I hate how much money there is in these things. Take campaign funds and plug the budget with them. I personally experience failing services every day, nobody deserves it.

Perry – Our best days are ahead but only if we get safer and more prosperous. Our opportunity is in less than two months. They can choose dramatic change. It is the difference between past and future… Remember Barack Obama? Hope. My name is James Perry.

Manny Bruno – Gandhi, King, me. This city is so divided. It can’t be a black thing or a white thing it has to be a right thing. We have problems. It is insanity here. We need a radical, revolutionary thing.

Georges – This is about leadership. I am optimistic. Small family business and now I’m rich! I employ locals. I will fix everything. I will make you feel proud. My name is John Georges.

Lambert – My name is Lambert. I am a working class stiff. My platform is….

Landrieu – I am running for Mayor because I love New Orleans with my heart and soul. Wow regurgitating video again…. Schools, jobs. We need to bring everybody together. AAs whites, Vietnamese, Hispanics walking in same direction. I want to lead this effort.

Couhig – I have listened I’m in talk radio. Livability, affordability, opportunity, fairness. Jobs. Hard-working, disciplined.

Norman out.