Skip to content

Archive for October, 2010

Oct 30

3 Comments

Poverty Point Considered for UNESCO World Heritage Site Distinction

This is a big deal:

Louisiana’s Poverty Point State Historic Site could one day be mentioned with the same historical significance of such cultural and natural sites as the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, the Great Wall of China, the Statue of Liberty and the Galapagos Islands.

The vast complex of earthen mounds and ridges in West Carroll Parish built by inhabitants more than 3,500 years ago is among 13 sites on the U.S. Department of Interior’s tentative list of places that could be nominated to the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s World Heritage List.

“The inclusion of Poverty Point on the World Heritage List would elevate the status of both the site and our park system tremendously,” said Stuart Johnson, assistant secretary of Louisiana’s Office of State Parks. “It would be absolutely huge to reach that level of distinction.”

From the ground, Poverty Point may just look like a series of tree-topped earthen mounds, but from the air, it reveals itself to be a massive, complexly designed, and expertly constructed series of interwoven half-circles. It is believed to be as much as 3,600 years old. The strangest thing is: No one knows exactly why Poverty Point was built. Some New Age folks think it’s spiritually significant; some say the place was built by extraterrestrials. (The science suggests that Poverty Point was constructed gradually, over a period of hundreds of years).

A couple of interesting things from Poverty Point’s nomination to UNESCO:

The vast earthen architecture of this site was constructed by a foraging society of hunter- gatherers, not a settled agricultural people, which makes it all the more remarkable a site. It is still not understood how and why such a society could so totally transform this landscape.  It may well be the largest hunter-gatherer settlement that has ever existed.  Not only was it the largest settlement of its time in North America, but its design was absolutely unique and its construction required an unprecedented amount (over 750,000 cubic meters) of earth-moving.  Poverty Point was also the center of a major exchange network with goods brought in from as far as 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) distant.

And:

There are no reconstructions at the site and only a small portion has been excavated.  Agricultural use in the 19th and 20th centuries caused some deflation of the southern sectors of the concentric earthen ridges and more severe damage to a small part of one of the ridges. Other damage includes an historic road that bisected one of the mounds.

If Poverty Point became a UNESCO World Heritage Site, it would be a coup for Louisiana. But regardless, clearly, Poverty Point is one of our country’s most significant prehistoric sites.

Oct 26

1 Comment

Debate Questions for Senator Vitter

On the eve of the first debate between Senator David Vitter and Congressman Charlie Melancon, the Louisiana Democratic Party issued a strongly-worded appeal to “Louisiana’s notoriously timid press corps”: Dont’ be afraid to ask the tough questions. From Politico:

“We’re asking Louisiana’s notoriously timid press corps to show that they are not intimidated by David Vitter,” state party spokesman Kevin Franck said in a statement Monday. “For years now, Louisiana reporters have let David Vitter walk all over them, now finally a few of the state’s most senior journalists will have a chance to ask David Vitter the questions he’s been avoiding.”

Amen, Kevin. The Louisiana media isn’t complicit; they’re just complacent.

“Even after the national press broke the D.C. Madam scandal, the Times-Picayune refused to report on allegations from a New Orleans prostitute until after a local television station aired an interview with her. Of course it took a national outlet, ABC News, to break the [Brent] Furer scandal, even though most of the information about Furer’s criminal charges came from public documents available at Louisiana courthouses,” Franck told POLITICO, referring to the former aide.

It’s not just The Times-Picayune: It’s The Shreveport Times, The Town Talk, The Daily Advertiser, The Advocate, and The News Star, among others. It’s television news organizations all over the state.

Mr. Vitter was personally involved in a high-profile prostitution ring, and the mainstream Louisiana media, for the most part, was only capable of reprinting stories from the AP wire. They didn’t do any of their own investigative reporting. It was presented to Louisianans as a national scandal, and that’s how the Louisiana media reported it.

If I were moderating the upcoming debates between Mr. Vitter and Mr. Melancon, I’d be interested to hear Mr. Vitter answer the following questions:

1. When Bill Clinton was President, you called on him to resign from office after it was revealed that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. You wanted the President of the United States to resign from office because he had an affair. Why did you refuse to resign after your number was found on the D.C. Madam’s phone records and after publicly admitting to a “very serious sin”? Weren’t you also admitting to having an affair? At the time, weren’t you also an elected official? If Bill Clinton should have resigned, as you believe, why didn’t you?

2. And what, exactly, was that “very serious sin”? You’ve never clarified your statement for the people of Louisiana.

3. You’ve also stated that the “New Orleans” stories were untrue. What stories were you referring to? Have you ever met or had a relationship with the woman known as Wendy Cortez/Ellis/Yow? How can you assure voters that your involvement with the D.C. Madam was an isolated affair? These stories have followed you for most of your political career. Why can’t you issue a definitive statement about your own actions?

4. During the BP oil spill disaster, why did you sponsor legislation that would have effectively and definitively capped the damages BP could owe to taxpayers? Do you honestly believe the government should limit BP’s liability for damages? If so, why?

5. You employed a man, Brent Furer, who was found guilty of assaulting his ex-girlfriend. The details of the crime are somewhat disturbing, and this man- your employee- had a track record: three DWIs and possession of cocaine. Yet, even after this, you continued to pay your aide, with taxpayer dollars. You can probably understand why many Louisianans are upset about this, but to add insult to injury, after your employee pled guilty to charges related to his assault of a young woman, your office tasked this aide to work on “women’s issues.” Recently, you’ve said that Mr. Furer never really worked on “women’s issues,” but it seems the record reflects otherwise. How do you respond? Why did you continue to employ this man?

6. You claim that your opponent, Mr. Melancon, is simply towing the line of President Obama. You’ve attacked him, on television, for voting for bailouts that were actually proposed by President Bush, a Republican. You’ve also attacked Mr. Melancon for supporting benefits for illegal immigrants. Yet his voting record on immigration is very similar to yours, and you surely know that your opponent, Mr. Melancon, is a Blue Dog Democrat who is known nationally for being a swing vote on certain, hot-button issues. Recently, The Gambit suggested that you are attempting to make this election a referendum against President Obama because you couldn’t win an election that was a referendum against David Vitter. How do you respond to this?

7. Please describe, in detail, Louisiana’s problem with illegal immigration and how Congressman Melancon has voted differently than you have. Let’s focus on real votes, not procedural votes, and on the problems specifically affecting Louisiana.

8. Do you believe in continuing the Republican moratorium on earmarks?

9. Did you vote for or against funding the first round of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program? What did this program hope to accomplish?

Oct 25

Musical Interlude

Once again, GIVERS of Lafayette, Louisiana, this time appearing at South by Southwest in Austin:

GIVERS also opened up this year’s Austin City Limits music festival, to much acclaim.

Kudos to them.

Read more

Oct 25

Maybe it takes the dead…

…to bring downtown Alexandria to life.

Just something off my facebook feed this morning.  The Zombie Walk of Alexandria looks like just the sort of event that we really need to be happening on a regular basis.  It’s not huge, probably had very little budget, but got people out and about, and having a good time downtown.  Bravo.

Oct 25

5 Comments

Charlie Melancon: David Vitter Is “Ineffective,” “Immoral,” “Ethically Challenged,” and “Morally Bankrupt”

Quoting from Roll Call:

In an interview with Roll Call following a news conference here to talk about Vitter’s connections to BP, a clearly frustrated Melancon acknowledged that Vitter’s problems have not caught on with the public as much as Democrats expected they would.

“Its an embarrassment. … We are the laughingstock because people in Washington know we have David Vitter up there. He’s ineffective, he’s immoral, he’s ethically challenged and he’s morally bankrupt,” Melancon said.

One day, I think people may look at the race between Congressman Melancon and Senator Vitter as a fascinating case study in American politics.

Mr. Vitter was once left for dead by national Republicans, after he tacitly acknowledged his involvement in a prostitution ring in Washington, D.C. Mr. Vitter was the most well-known client of the so-called “D.C. Madam,” and despite his best efforts, Mr. Vitter still hasn’t been able to definitively shake off allegations that he was also involved with Wendy Cortez/Ellis/Yow, a New Orleans prostitute. Remember, Mr. Vitter was elected on a platform of “family values;” during his first run for U.S. Senate, Mr. Vitter’s young children were even given speaking roles in his campaign commercials. Folksy, feel-good, American family values. The trouble, of course, is that David Vitter was apparently breaking the law, violating his marriage vows, and paying for sex. To be fair, Mr. Vitter has only admitted to a “serious sin,” but he’s been careful not to categorically or definitively deny any of the specific allegations leveled against him. And that should be telling.

In most campaigns, if a challenger accuses the incumbent of being “ineffective,” “immoral,” “ethically challenged,” and “morally bankrupt,” they will be met with a rousing and spirited defense. So far, Mr. Vitter’s campaign seems more comfortable with running ads about President Obama and illegal immigration. Unlike six years ago, Mr. Vitter knows he can’t run on family values; he needs to nationalize this election, and in all fairness, he and his campaign have done a great job of both depersonalizing and nationalizing the context of this election.

According to Roll Call, some Louisiana Republicans are attributing Vitter’s viability to Louisiana’s laissez-faire perspective on the personal failings of politicians.

Republicans also privately speculate that the lack of apparent interest in Vitter’s dalliances may be tied to the state’s long tradition of not caring about its politicians’ ethical challenges. After all, former Gov. Earl Long (D) was known to associate with the famous exotic dancer Blaze Starr, while state lawmakers attempted to impeach former Sen. Huey Long (D) while he was governor.

Four-time Gov. Edwin Edwards (D), who left office in 1996, won his last race against former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke based in part on an infamous campaign slogan, “Vote for the Crook, It’s Important.”

I’m not sure this is the case for Senator Vitter. I think he has benefitted from an underfunded, uninformed, and uninterested state media. Sadly, Larry Flynt was more interested in exposing Mr. Vitter’s hypocrisies than anyone in the Louisiana mainstream media.

And Senator Vitter has benefitted from a national Democratic Party apparatus that has refused to seriously invest in Louisiana. Make no mistake: In Louisiana, there are more Democrats than Republicans, but for the most part, in Louisiana, Republicans are better funded, better organized, and better connected to their national party.

When Senator Vitter’s phone number appeared on the D.C. Madam’s phone records, the DNC and the DSCC, not just the Louisiana Democratic Party, should have ramped up their criticisms of Mr. Vitter. Instead, they allowed Mr. Vitter’s campaign to effectively control the campaign narrative, and today, despite Mr. Melancon’s best and most earnest attempts, David Vitter remains ahead in the polls and is still the odds-on favorite to win the election. I still have faith in the people of Louisiana and in Mr. Melancon, but I also wonder why the DNC and the DSCC have continued to neglect Louisiana at their own peril. Clearly, at least in my own estimation, Mr. Melancon is the better candidate; Mr. Melancon may be a Blue Dog, but I think, given the full panoply of facts, most Louisianans would support the Blue Dog over the Republican, Tea Party sympathizer any day of the week.

Then again, in Louisiana, Democrats and progressives are currently suffering from a severe enthusiasm gap, perhaps the largest of its kind in the nation and something that greatly benefits Mr. Vitter; in this cycle, voters haven’t been given the full panoply of facts.

So, let’s be honest about where we are in Louisiana:

Three years after Bobby Jindal campaigned on a platform that suggested Louisiana was a “rich state,” Mr. Jindal has cut hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for higher education and health care. He has spearheaded a massive, $360 million sand berm construction project that experts believe to be ineffective, money that could have been better spent rebuilding barrier islands. Despite the warnings from experts, Jindal signed the Stelly Tax Plan repeal into law, resulting in an annual loss of nearly half a billion dollars to Louisiana during the worst recession in America since the Great Depression. It didn’t matter to Mr. Jindal that the majority of Louisiana voters approved the plan or that tax revenues were already declining. It also didn’t seem to matter that the repeal primarily benefitted the wealthy.

Governor Jindal may have asserted himself as a national leader in fundraising for the Republican Party, but so far, his accomplishments as Governor of Louisiana have been paltry. He’s traveled a lot, yes. He’s been all over the nation; he was even on national television responding to the President’s address to a joint session of Congress.

But what has he done for Louisiana?

How has he increased development or added to the tax base?

He’s subsidized a poultry processing plant in Northern Louisiana (a project that uniquely benefits Arkansas), and he’s pulled millions away from shovel-ready, community-driven, and value-added projects, like the New Orleans Food Cooperative, in order to help an out-of-state company build a steel plant in a rural parish.

It should be easy for Democrats in Louisiana. Yet for some reason, this cycle has been enormously difficult for them. They’ve been ineffective.

And I don’t get it. David Vitter has one of the worst and weakest records in the United States Senate, at least when it comes to policies concerning his state. So far, Governor Jindal seems to be more about marketing his own political brand than promoting the best interests of the State of Louisiana. Mr. Vitter and Mr. Jindal are Louisiana’s most influential Republicans.

Until national Democrats recognize the potential of picking up Louisiana, Mr. Vitter and Mr. Jindal, despite their flaws and contradictions, will continue to exert a powerful influence over the electorate. Democrats may not understand, but Republicans do.

Oct 23

5 Comments

The Berms to Nowhere

In the immediate aftermath of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal aggressively pushed a controversial solution: the massive and rapid construction of a series of sand berms along the Louisiana coast. Governor Jindal’s proposal was swiftly criticized by a number of experts. They claimed the project was ill-conceived, that it could lead to additional environmental damages, and that it could potentially undermine the larger goal of coastal restoration.

Still, BP agreed to foot the bill, and the federal government provided the requisite permits.

Today, more than a month after the well was declared officially “dead,” Louisiana is still constructing sand berms, ostensibly to help continue capturing oil (which is, without a doubt, still out in the gulf). But as reported recently in The New York Times, according to official estimates, the sand berms have, so far, captured only 1,000 of the 5,000,000 barrels of oil that leaked into the gulf. Quoting:

Gov. Bobby Jindal made the sand berms a signature element of his response to the oil spill last spring,exhorting federal officials to approve the project, and BP to foot the bill. So far the oil company has disbursed $240 million of a promised $360 million to the state.

Yet many scientists say the remaining oil from the spill, the largest in United States history, is far too dispersed to be blocked or captured by large sand structures.

“It certainly would have no impact on the diluted oil, which is what we’re talking about now,” said Larry McKinney, who heads the Gulf of Mexico research center at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi. “The probability of their being effective right now is pretty low.”

So far, the berms have captured only 1,000 barrels of oil, according to official estimates, compared with the nearly five million barrels believed to have spewed from the BP well over all. By contrast, more than 800,000 barrels of oil were captured by BP at the wellhead, and roughly 270,000 barrels of oil were burned off by Coast Guard vessels offshore. Skimming operations, meanwhile, recovered at least 34 million gallons of oil-water mixture.

Ron Morris, a former Coast Guard captain and general manager of an oil spill response company on Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, called the berms’ 1,000 barrels a paltry amount.

“That’s not an awful lot of oil in the grand scheme of things,” said Mr. Morris, whose company sent 44 workers to the gulf to assist in the response effort and cleanup. “It probably wasn’t worth the dollars that they put into it.”

Without a doubt, as the Times also points out, the project has been good for Louisiana industry. It’s a $360 million construction project.

But the question shouldn’t be about whether or not a $360 million construction project would be good for Louisiana industry; that should be self-evident. The question should be: Is this the best and most effective investment we can make?

Remember, the project has always been controversial. From the very beginning, scientists questioned the merits and the effectiveness of the project. In September, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a stern rebuke of Jindal’s intransigence on the sand berm project. From WWLTV:

Federal environmental regulators are blasting Gov. Bobby Jindal’s $360 million plan to block oil from the BP spill with sand berms, saying barriers built so far are ineffective and threaten wildlife.

In a Sept. 7 letter made public Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency urged the Army Corps of Engineers to turn down the state’s recent request to build 101 miles of sand berms to stop oil from contaiminating shores and marshlands. The state needs permission from the Army Corps to complete the project.

The sand berms — paid for with $360 million from BP — have drawn criticism from coastal scientists and federal regulators. Critics say the work was ill-conceived and would damage the environment. Still, Jindal has made the sand berms a cornerstone to his strategy to fight the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Now, with the well dead, to many, the project seems “pointless,” a waste of time and precious money that could be used, instead, for more sustainable coastal restoration projects. Again, quoting from the Times:

Some scientists and federal officials suggest that the remaining money allocated for the berms might be better spent on other coastal restoration projects, a move that BP says it would support. The money could be spent, they say, on barrier island restoration, for example, in which dredged sand is used to bolster existing islands, mimicking natural processes.

In other words, BP would support spending the remaining $120 million it has pledged for sand berm construction on other projects, like barrier island restoration (which has the added benefit of better protecting Louisiana from hurricanes). Although Governor Jindal is technically directing “BP’s money,” not taxpayer money, we had and still have an opportunity to compel a foreign oil company whose negligence resulted in what could be the largest ecological and environmental disaster in American history to help rebuild our coast.

It seems like a no-brainer.

And the best thing is: People have been studying this for decades. Scores of scientists and engineers have built their careers around Louisiana coastal restoration. There are immediately implementable, shovel-ready projects that BP could and would be paying for otherwise. If we don’t pay for them with sand berm money from BP, then we’re going to have to pay for them with taxpayer money.

I don’t have any special insight about Mr. Jindal’s decision-making process on this issue. Some have accused him of listening to self-interested engineers instead of heeding the advice of coastal scientists, government agencies, and other professionals. The Shaw Group, a Fortune 500 engineering and construction firm headquartered in Baton Rouge, is the prime consultant on the project, and as reported by OpenSource, they’re also one of Governor Jindal’s top three campaign contributors.

It is worth noting, however, that Jim Bernhard, the founder and CEO of Shaw, is also the former Chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party and a major donor to Democratic candidates and causes. To me, it’s not particularly surprising that Shaw, the only Fortune 500 headquartered in Louisiana, has donated a little less than $25,000 to Jindal, over the course of his entire political career. As critical as I have sometimes been about the Governor, I seriously doubt his decision to promote the sand berm project had much, if anything, to do with campaign contributions; Jindal believed in this project. He staked a lot of his own political capital on this project, and in the process, he made news– challenging the criticism from federal agencies and experts and asserting that he, the Governor of Louisiana, understood the solutions better than the President or anyone else in the Obama Administration. For the most part, it was a public relations victory for Jindal. At least in the immediate term.

But at some point, those of us in Louisiana need to assess whether this decision was wise at the time, and more importantly, whether or not it is necessary to continue a project that even the Governor’s Administration admits to be fraught with delays and hang-ups.

Interestingly, two days ago, Garrett Graves, Governor Jindal’s Director of Coastal Affairs, responded to a YahooNews report on the sand berms and Shaw’s donations to Mr. Jindal:

This was all about who could get it done quickly. The benefit of using Shaw is that they are a Louisiana-based company that cares about Louisiana’s coast. They are one of the few companies that were capable of managing something of this size and scope.

But only days before, Mr. Graves told The Wall Street Journal that Shaw had not “delivered what they promised,” suggesting that Shaw could have “picked up the pace” by hiring “foreign” dredgers to assist them. On one hand, the project has been great for Louisiana industry, but on the other, it’s been hindered by a reluctance to outsource more of the work.

To me, the Jindal administration seems to be towing an untenable line, all in an attempt to sell – what appears to be- a massive misallocation of resources, the definition of the word “boondoggle.”

Oct 17

3 Comments

Thoughts on Melancon Versus Vitter

For once, I half-way agree with conservative blogger Scott McKay of The Hayride. Quoting from The Advocate:

“Why is it that illegal immigrants are a racist issue?” McKay said. “The ad was over the top, but the reaction was more over the top.”

McKay was more puzzled as to why Vitter stepped into the issue since he’s been considered in the lead of the race.

“It’s almost like throwing a pass when you’re up three touchdowns in the fourth quarter,” McKay said. “I would be running out the clock if I was Vitter. But that’s not his style.”

Mr. McKay was referring to David Vitter’s recent television advertisement, which accuses his opponent, Charlie Melancon, of protecting illegal immigrants against a cartoonish, carnival-like backdrop of thuggish-looking hispanics sneaking across the border and then being handed oversized checks from the federal government.

Mr. McKay is right: The ad is “over the top,” and considering Mr. Vitter is positioned as the frontrunner, it’s not clear why he felt it necessary to run such an incendiary and hyperbolic ad. Maybe it’s just Vitter’s “style,” as Mr. McKay claims. But it’s wrong-headed to suggest that critics of Mr. Vitter’s ad are simply attempting to make illegal immigration in to a “racist issue;” that’s completely missing the point. Mr. McKay would have been wise to listen to himself: Again, the ad was “over the top.” I think most reasonable Americans would understand why Hispanic and Mexican-Americans have criticized Mr. Vitter for the ad.

Read more

Oct 13

3 Comments

Sangisetty Campaign: Jeff Landry Was Either A “Dirty Cop” Or “The Worst Cop Ever”

Late last week, Ravi Sangisetty, a candidate for Congress in Louisiana’s Third District, went on the offense against his Republican challenger Jeff Landry, a Tea Party favorite who emerged as the Republican nominee after a bruising primary against Hunt Downer, a retired National Guard Major General and former Speaker of the Louisiana House. Sangisetty’s campaign launched DirtyLandry.com, which features, among other things, a stunning allegation that when Landry was a Sheriff Deputy in 1993, police recovered $10,000 worth of cocaine underneath his home and then arrested his roommate, also a Deputy, for possession with intent to distribute. Only a few months later, Sangisetty’s campaign claims, Jeff Landry turned in his badge.

This is a little bit more than a “guilt by association” attack. Early this week, Sangisetty’s campaign put out a press release focusing on this allegation (bold mine):

Sangisetty for Congress Campaign Manager Julienne Uhlich said corruption follows Jeff Landry. She said Landry ran a disgraceful campaign against a good man like Hunt Downer, and Landry now has questions to answer about his involvement in a cocaine bust.

“Here’s what we know: While Jeff Landry was employed as a sheriff’s deputy,  $10,000 worth of cocaine was stolen from the sheriff’s evidence room and found under his house. His roommate, also a sheriff’s deputy, was arrested for it and went to jail. Landry turned in his badge within months,” Uhlich (Sangisetty’s campaign manager) said. “There are only two explanations. Either Jeff Landry was a dirty cop and knew about the drugs, or he was the worst cop ever and couldn’t figure out that $10,000 worth of cocaine was being sold out of his house.”

Those are fighting words, and they probably merit a response from Mr. Landry. Was cocaine being sold out of his home? Who alerted the authorities? Was Mr. Landry surprised to learn that $10,000 worth of cocaine was stashed underneath his home? The answers to these questions are particularly important because Mr. Landry was, at the time, a law enforcement officer. It speaks to both his integrity and his competence. And if Mr. Landry has a legitimate response, then voters need to hear it.

Sangisetty also put out this web ad (H/t to The Daily Kingfish):

Oct 5

1 Comment

Moon Griffon, the Hayride, and Jay Dardenne

Recently, The Dead Pelican, a popular Louisiana news aggregate website published by conservative Chad Rogers, reported that Moon Griffon, a well-known Louisiana talk radio host and conservative, had some no-so-nice things to say about Jay Dardenne, the Republican candidate for Lt. Governor. Quoting:

Conservative talk radio host MOON GRIFFON had strong words for Lt. Gubernatorial candidate Jay Dardenne today. Griffon believes that Dardenne is lacking in conservative credentials, and highlighted what he believes to be Mr. Dardenne’s liberal leanings.

“Under no circumstances will I vote for Jay Dardenne for Lt. Governor,” said Griffon.

“I can’t look in the mirror if I vote for Jay Dardenne.”

“We’ve got to get rid of the RINO’s in the Republican party!” said Griffon.

Griffon cited Dardenne’s voting record as proof that Dardenne is no conservative.

The voting record that Mr. Griffon spoke of can be found here.

There’s some brilliant cross-promotion going on here.

It’s worth mentioning that the Dardenne campaign has spent at least $250 in advertisements on Chad Roger’s website, according to campaign finance reports. During the same period, Mr. Dardenne also spent $900 to advertise on The Hayride, a relatively new website operated by Scott McKay. (Incidentally, The Hayride uses exactly the same free WordPress template that I used three years ago).

Yesterday, Mr. McKay responded to Moon Griffon by way of attacking Mr. Dardenne’s opponent, Caroline Fayard. Ms. Fayard, you see, comes from a successful and wealthy family. Her father is a lawyer. And she was politically active even when she was a teenager (contributing to both Republicans and Democrats). Ergo, according to The Hayride:

The point is that Fayard ought to represent the absolute worst candidate for conservatives to see on the ballot – she’s a trial lawyer, spawned by trial lawyers, who has been throwing money at lefty politicians practically since before she could drive.

You may agree with Mr. McKay’s antipathy toward “trial lawyers,” but remember, Ms. Fayard’s father Calvin made national news two years ago when he jumped ship from the Clinton’s in order to raise money for Sarah Palin. Personally, I’ve always thought the “trial lawyer” meme to be vacuous and petty, because it seems like Republican operatives and pundits make that argument about any and every lawyer running as a Democrat.

Mr. McKay may believe it’s wise to attack Ms. Fayard because she’s donated to political campaigns, even when she was a young woman. Personally, I don’t think this is a fair line of attack, and again, I can’t help but wonder if this item on Mr. Dardenne’s campaign finance reports has had any influence over Mr. McKay’s coverage of the election:

$900 may not be a heckuva lot of money, to be sure, but it’s still much more than the Dardenne campaign spent on advertisements with KLAX and WNTZ in Alexandria, WGMB and WVLA of Baton Rouge, and KAQY of Shreveport, during the same reporting period. And that’s worth noting. Mr. McKay’s website isn’t exactly a news organization with a huge readership; it’s a relatively new blog site built on a free WordPress platform. I don’t fault Mr. McKay for his political entrepreneurship. In fact, I think it’s impressive.


And yes, I know, I know: I actually work for an elected official, but for what it’s worth, I’ve never received a penny from a political campaign. In fact, I’ve never been paid by anyone to advertise on this blog, despite my most earnest attempts.

Mr. McKay can teach all of us bloggers a lesson, though, unfortunately, Louisiana Democrats don’t have the same propensity to throw money at like-minded bloggers for banner ads, even if there’s a guarantee of consistently positive coverage. Cheapskates.

Oct 4

5 Comments

Behind the Curtain: Roger Villere, the Tea Party, and Dan Richey

The race for the next Lt. Governor is headed toward a run-off between Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne and Caroline Fayard, a political newcomer who, in less than two months, has adroitly emerged as a formidable candidate from almost complete obscurity.

Though somewhat under-reported by the state and local media, the primary for Lt. Governor was, perhaps, the most interesting election in the cycle: Five Republicans, including the Chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party, and three Democrats.

I, for one, was surprised that the Chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party, Roger Villere, decided to throw his hat in the ring, and I was even more surprised when he emerged as the candidate of choice for the fledgling Tea Party of Louisiana. As much as Tea Partiers seek to define themselves as an independent movement, it sure seemed weird that they would endorse Mr. Villere. The day before the election, I received no less than three robocalls from the Villere campaign, all leading with a statement about Mr. Villere representing the Tea Party.

I have to wonder: With four other Republicans in the race, including Jay Dardenne, the Louisiana Secretary of State and a conservative Republican, why, on earth, would the Tea Party endorse the Chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party? Throughout the country, the Tea Party has frustrated establishment Republicans by fielding and running their own candidates in primaries, often defeating the so-called “mainstream” Republican candidate. The fact that Tea Partiers in Louisiana would endorse the State Chairman of the Republican Party is noteworthy and somewhat of an anomaly.

Only days before the election, Inside Louisiana News reported that the Louisiana Tea Party Federation, which was described as a “loose federation” of several dozen Tea Party organizations representing “thousands” of voters, was distancing itself from Mr. Villere, after reports that Mr. Villere and operative Chris Comeaux were attempted to create “200 Tea Party groups throughout the State.” Quoting:

According to a Louisiana Tea Party Federation member, Rob Gaudet, “Once it came to our attention that a statewide political candidate, Roger Villere, with the assistance of Chris Comeaux, was attempting to organize new tea party groups within Louisiana, we felt compelled to let the public and media know that the Louisiana Tea Party Federation is not affiliated with nor does it endorse the Tea Party of Louisiana, Chris Comeaux or any attempt by the GOP to create tea parties for its own benefit.”

According to an article on LA News Link, Chris Comeaux is the “organizer” of the Tea Party of Louisiana. A few weeks ago, I published an interview with Barry Hugghins, who is also a board member of the Tea Party of Louisiana. I asked Mr. Hugghins about the Tea Party of Louisiana’s endorsement of Roger Villere. He responded:

TPoL endorsed Roger Villere for Lt Governor, so we completely support his efforts.  Of the people running for this office, it was our judgment that, of those actually qualified to do the job, Mr. Villere is the most fiscally conservative, and, thus, most closely represents the ideals and values of the Tea Party movement.  As for Mr. Villere’s chairmanship of the state branch of a major political party, that had no relevance in our decision. The endorsement was for Roger Villere, the man, NOT Roger Villere, the political party chairman.

Notably, the first time I was contacted by Mr. Hugghins, he also forwarded an e-mail that appeared to be directed to the Tea Party of Louisiana’s other board members, including Mr. Comeaux.

Perhaps Mr. Villere’s position as Chairman had nothing to do with the Tea Party of Louisiana’s endorsement. It may have had more to do with a company named Eaux Films and someone named Patrick Bergeron. As The Advocate reported last month:

Republican Roger Villere’s latest campaign finance report reveals payments to two leaders of the Tea Party of Louisiana, which has endorsed his bid for lieutenant governor.

Villere’s report filed late last week included $7,000 in expenditures to Christopher Comeaux’s Eaux Films for “production costs.”

Comeaux, a director of the Tea Party, tape recorded a message that was phoned into Baton Rouge-area homes that supported Villere and criticized front-runner Republican Secretary of State Jay Dardenne.

Another $4,000 in campaign expenditures went to Patrick Bergeron for consulting work. Bergeron is chairman of the Tea Party PAC, a political action committee. On a prior report, Villere’s campaign paid Bergeron another $2,000.

Not only is Bergeron the chairman of the Tea Party PAC, he’s also the proprietor of LA NewsLink, the website that “broke” the story about Chris Comeaux of the Tea Party endorsing Roger Villere.

It’s almost embarrassing how easy it is to connect the dots. The man who is reportedly the “organizer” of the Tea Party of Louisiana is, literally, a paid consultant for Roger Villere, and the “news” of the Tea Party of Louisiana’s endorsement of Mr. Villere was published on a website owned by another one of his paid consultants. And we’re not talking about a little bit of money: We’re talking about thousands and thousands of dollars paid out in less than four months.

But there’s another thing funny about Mr. Villere’s campaign finance reports.

Roger Villere spent nearly $20,000 with a company named Sentinel 21.

Curiously, when you look up Sentinel 21 on the Secretary of State’s Corporation Database, you get nowhere. Either Mr. Villere has the name of the company wrong, the company was only just created (and the Secretary of State is simply slow to update its records), or the company is just a shell.

Either way, when you Google the address listed for Sentinel 21, you will find that the same address is listed in an Excel spreadsheet as the home of Dan Richey, the former director of Governor Mike Foster’s “Program on Abstinence” and a former State Representative who, today, makes a living as a political consultant. (I’m not giving out the man’s home address; if you want to double-check me, it’s already all online).

Perhaps more importantly to Mr. Villere, Dan Richey is also the “independent” political consultant for the Louisiana Family Forum. For the record, Mr. Richey may, technically, be an “independent” consultant, but he is one of only three staff members listed on the Louisiana Family Forum’s website.

I suppose I can overlook all of that. After all, Mr. Richey makes no effort to shy away from the label of “political consultant.” But Roger Villere was doling out thousands of dollars in checks to a company that, apparently, has not yet been registered by the Secretary of State, a company that is apparently headquartered at Mr. Richey’s residence. And instead of scratching beneath the surface, the media, most notably Jeff Crouere at New Orleans City Business, reported Mr. Richey’s endorsement of Roger Villere as if it was proof of Villere’s Christian conservative bona fides. Quoting (bold mine):

Also seeking a Christian coalition is state Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere. As he campaigns throughout the state for lieutenant governor, he is working very hard to line up support from evangelical conservatives and so far has met with significant success.

He has the endorsement of Dan Richey, former director of the governor’s program on abstinence and a prominent social conservative, and former Louisiana GOP chairman Mike Francis, a favorite of evangelical conservatives throughout the state.

In the end, of course, Roger Villere only received 7% of the vote. He was an establishment candidate who wanted to brand himself as grassroots.

I haven’t been able to verify whether or not Mr. Villere and Mr. Comeaux are, in fact, attempting to create 200 new Tea Party chapters in Louisiana, as the Louisiana Tea Party Federation claims. To me, the claim seems a little embellished, but regardless, it’s still interesting that the Chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party would be so brazenly and actively attempting to claim such a huge stake in a movement that markets itself as independent and anti-establishment.

Even more interesting is that, despite Mr. Villere’s attempt to frame himself as the Tea Party candidate and despite the thousands of dollars he spent with consultants both directly and indirectly involved with Tea Party organizations, he finished in only fifth place, with less than 45,000 votes statewide.

Mr. Villere’s candidacy proves a few things about the Tea Party movement in Louisiana. For one, it’s completely fractured and disorganized, but more importantly, it’s never really been grassroots. It’s complete astro-turf, a subtle attempt at rebranding Louisiana conservatism without ever having to reorganize power.

With all due respect to Mr. Villere, it certainly does not appear that he earned the endorsements of the Tea Party of Louisiana and Dan Richey solely because of his platform. It’s impossible to overlook the payments given to Mr. Comeaux, Mr. Bergeron, and Mr. Richey and not believe that their support and advocacy were unrelated to the money apparently being doled out by Mr. Villere’s campaign.

I mean, c’mon.

Oct 4

3 Comments

8%

There’s another reason to be proud of Alexandria.

Greg Aymond, a former member of the Ku Klan Klan, made an incredibly hateful, last-ditch attempt at promoting his candidate for Mayor by cutting out pictures of the incumbent Mayor, Ken Juneau, and me and placing them on one of his stock photos of the Klan, which, to me, seemed like a transparently reckless attempt at justifying his own overtly bigoted track record. He also photoshopped a picture of Mayor Roy to make it appear as if he was in blackface, and then he published it on his website, maliciously and falsely suggesting that a real photo could exist. It is one of the sickest and most deranged things I’ve ever seen in politics, and frankly, it makes me question Mr. Aymond’s mental stability and sanity.

Seriously.

Greg Aymond was supported and embraced by Patrick Lacour, a former Cleco employee who volunteered for the same candidate endorsed by Mr. Aymond, only a few months after Mr. Lacour apparently approached the City for a role in the then-pending litigation against his former employer.

And the candidate that Mr. Aymond and Mr. Lacour supported, well, she also implicitly allowed her online supporters to hurl vicious attacks against anyone and everyone who believed in the incumbent. Her online supporters called on people to boycott locally-owned businesses and restaurants; they claimed I suffered from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, not cerebral palsy; they were unabashedly scurrilous, divisive, and hateful.

And guess what? They didn’t win a single precinct. Mr. Aymond’s and Mr. Lacour’s preferred candidate received less than 1% of the vote in their own neighborhoods and only 8% citywide.

Again, it’s a new day in Alexandria.

Mr. Aymond, Mr. Coco, and Mr. Lacour, in my humble opinion, haven’t just proven themselves to be ineffectual; they’ve also demonstrated themselves to be politically toxic and blatantly disingenuous.

Oct 3

1 Comment

Musical Interlude

Oct 3

3 Comments

Jacques’d the Vote

Yesterday, Alexandria Mayor Jacques Roy coasted to re-election, capturing 62.3% of the vote in a field of four other challengers. Roy raked up significant support in all areas of the City. Despite the prognostications that the election would completely break down along racial lines, Roy won the majority African-American neighborhood of Martin Park and nearly won Acadian Village, another majority African-American neighborhood which had been perceived to be a base of support for at least two of his opponents. His victory clearly demonstrates that Alexandrians were unwilling to buy into the divisiveness peddled by some on talk radio and the blogosphere; it’s a promising sign of where we are as a community and a strong sign that voters endorse Mayor Roy’s record of accomplishment and his vision for our community’s future.

Kudos to everyone who volunteered; I saw their dedication first-hand, and it was impressive. I volunteered on election day for Mitch Landrieu’s most recent campaign for Mayor of New Orleans, and even though New Orleans is a much bigger city with many more precincts, there were just as many election day volunteers for Mayor Roy as there were for Mayor Landrieu. And just like Mayor Landrieu’s campaign, Jacques Roy’s volunteers were a cross-section of the community: young and old, men and women, black and white.

Kudos, also, to Councilman Roosevelt Johnson, who ran a positive and dignified campaign focused on unity and progress. Councilman Johnson refused to frame his candidacy along racial lines or engage with those who traffic in divisiveness, which, to me, is a testament to Mr. Johnson’s integrity.

And congratulations to Councilman-elect Jim Villard, who was elected as Alexandria’s next Councilman at-large. Mr. Villard and his family have always been champions of our City, and I know, without a doubt, that he will serve with distinction and thoughtfulness.

It’s a new day in Alexandria.