When the national media spotlight last shone on our beloved Guv'nah Bobby Jindal, he was making some noise about how government could do no right and the private sector could do no wrong in response to President Obama's near-State of the Union Address.

Cynics among us noted that the Louisiana economy about which Jindal boasted was floating on a sea of federal disaster relief funds that had flooded our state as the waters of hurricanes Katrina and Rita ebbed. Jindal's speech proved once and for all that he is a card-carrying member of the immune to faction of the Republican Party.

But, fate being what it is, Jindal has recently had an opportunity to revisit the role of government in the marketplace right here in his own state and -- gasp! -- has come down firmly in the government intervention side of the argument.

Read more »

Ed Renwick is a long-time Louisiana pollster, political scientist, and recently retired head of the Loyola University Institute of Politics. He has a long-standing relationship with the CBS affiliate in New Orleans, WWL-TV.

Don Cazayoux's victory in Louisiana's 6th Congressional District should send a message to national Democrats that Louisiana is officially in play in this year's elections.

The DCCC spent significant dollars in the race and Cazayoux had decent fund-raising efforts on his own. As a result of those efforts — and a rising tide of disgust with the impact of national Republican policies and the Bush administration — a Democrat took this seat for the first time since the 1970s.

These developments and others point to the real possibility of Louisiana's nine electoral votes going into the Democratic column in this fall's election. But it's not all good news.

National Democratic spending in Louisiana was instrumental in Cazayoux's victory, particularly so in light of the political message vacuum that Democratic congressional candidates (and voters) have operated in for the past 12 years.

Bill Clinton carried Louisiana in both of his presidential campaigns. He won here, in part, because his campaigns spent time and effort here. That is something that neither the Gore campaign, nor the Kerry campaign did during the stretch run to election day in 2000 and 2004, respectively.

This year, with Mary Landrieu being targeted by Karl Rove's hand-picked candidate, John Kennedy, the DSCC will be spending money here in coming months, defending what appears to be one of the only Democratic senate incumbents in any serious re-election trouble.

But, the real opportunity here will come if Barack Obama is the nominee and his campaign spends money in Louisiana, where he won the primary with 57 percent of the vote in March.

The reason Obama, in particular, brings Louisiana into play can be found in newly-released U.S. Census bureau population estimates that peg Louisiana's minority population at 37 percent, the vast majority of that minority being African Americans.

Louisiana African American political leaders with whom I've spoken believe that Obama at the head of the Democratic ticket will produce record turnout among African Americans here, to levels not seen since the Edwards vs. Duke governor's race of 1991.

The news is not all good for Democrats, though. A series of racially obtuse state party leaders and white Democratic candidates candidates who court the African American base here at election time, but shunt them and their interests when it comes to governing, have inflicted serious damage on the party base here.

The extent of that damage to the party caused by these self-inflicted wounds may be about to become apparent.

There are active discussions involving a number of African American Democratic state legislators about running as independent candidates in the November congressional elections. They hope to ride that anticipated record African American turnout to seats in the next Congress by winning pluralities in their respective congressional districts — one of which is the 6th where Cazayoux just won election. The other Louisiana congressional districts where this scenario might play out are the 4th (being vacated by Republican Jim McCrery) and the 7th (now held by Republican Charles Boustany).

That is, these lawmakers are contemplating runs as independent candidates against Democrats and Republicans in the November election, thereby skipping the Democratic party primary where they face the prospect of having to run against better-funded white Democrats.

Not surprisingly, there are reports that Republicans are encouraging these moves.

At this point, no establishment Democratic candidate has emerged in the 7th District (southwest Louisiana), so it may well be possible to convince the African American legislator looking at the district (state Sen. Donald Cravins, Jr.) to run as a Democrat, which would offer him a real chance at victory.

In any event, there area some high risk strategies being contemplated which could end help bring Louisiana into the Obama column in the electoral college, but at the same time undermine potential Democratic gains in the Congress.

This is not reason for the national party to shy away from here. Our nine electoral votes would look mighty nice in the blue column. But, they won't get there unless the party and the national ticket commits to trying to win them. It's been a while since they've done that.

The new path that the Bush administration is about to embark on in Iraq ("Go Strong?") is proof positive about the accuracy of what that Bush insider told writer Ron Suskind some years ago about how the administration was (and is) about changing reality while the so-called reality-based community is about debating what has already passed.

According to polls, 70 percent of Americans oppose the Bush administration's war/occupation in Iraq. Republicans lost control of the House and the Senate in large measure because of public dissatisfaction with the war.

Hemmorrhaging money to the tune of $2 billion a week, rampant corruption in the no-bid private contracts that were handed out to rebuild Iraq, almost 3,000 American soldiers dead, 22,000 wounded, the Army on the verge of breaking, and the administration is pushing to escalate the fighting in Iraq.

The so-called grown ups tell us that horrific things will happen if we pull-out. Bad things will befall America if we leave. A bloodbath will ensue as our military departs.

And how, exactly, is that any different from what is going on now and what will go on as we stay?

What we have seen in recent weeks is the emergence of a new reality among the foreign policy elite (neo-cons, conservatives, liberals, and progressives alike) that we cannot afford to pull out of Iraq — regardless of what the vast majority of the people in this country believe.

The shift confirms that Bush has altered reality to such an extent that the reality-based wing of the foreign policy elite is left to wring its hands over the bad choices that this new reality presents.

The other reality — the reality outside the Beltway, outside New York, outside think tanks — is that ordinary Americans have had it with these imperial parlor games that drain national resources and attention from the issues that shape their lives on a daily basis.

One reality the Bush administration has made clear: we can have an empire or we can have a republic, but we cannot have both. Those of you who argue for 'responsible' policies are implicitly making your choice on the side of empire.

The fact that the Army is on the verge of breaking is not a sign that the Army is too small. It is a sign that we have committed to missions and policies that are beyond the scope of our republic to support and sustain.

In one of his tapes released just prior to the 2004 presidential election, Bin Laden said that he had bled one empire to death (meaning the Soviet Union) and that, through the gift of Iraq, he had a chance to bleed a second one (meaning the United States). Any policy that commits more U.S. troops to Iraq or that does not immediately start drawing down those troops is reactionary in the sense that it's first impulse is to validate the new Bush-created reality in Iraq.

There are no good choices left for the United States in Iraq. But, doubling down on a catastrophic policy is a national death wish. Anything less than beginning the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces is to commit this country to a role to which is not genetically suited: that of imperial power.

The intervening two weeks since the release of the ISG report have provided concrete evidence that Bush believes he is above the law and above the will of the people. He will not comply or cooperate with any congressional attempt to rein in his power or his policies. We are headed to a constitutional crisis. Impeachment will be one alternative; the other will be to accept the newly ordered constitutional reality created by the Bush/Cheney cabal.

Based on how they've shifted the Iraq debate, I'm not sure anyone on the Democratic side has the courage to stand against this most fundamental shift.

National Public Radio had the best coverage of the day on the House Armed Services Committee testimony by the Judge Advocate Generals of the four branches of the U.S. armed forces today.

Hearing it on All Things Considered as I drove across the Atchafalaya Basin bridge on I-10 this afternoon was an amazing experience. I believe something fundamentally changed today with this testimony.

The press today was in absolute awe of Bush/Rove/Cheney's ability to change the agenda from Iraq/Rumsfeld to the squeeze play his team was attempting to put on Democrats with his new plea for congressional approval of his illegal military tribunals for captured alleged terrorists.

That focus on the game, rather than the facts came to a grinding halt today with the testimony of the JAGs.

Steven Bradbury, the assistant attorney general who testified before the Senate panel for the Bush administration, assured lawmakers that this time, the White House got it right.

"These military commission procedures would provide for fundamentally fair trials," Bradbury said. But he also pointed out one provision that is unheard of in courts of law, that "classified evidence may be considered by the commission outside the presence of the accused."

In explaining the policy, Bradbury said that, "In the midst of the current conflict, we cannot share with captured terrorists the highly sensitive intelligence relevant to some military commission prosecutions."

For Gen. James Walker, staff judge advocate of the U.S. Marine Corps, that provision is a major problem.

"I'm not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people," he said, "where an individual can be tried without -- and convicted without -- seeing the evidence against him. And I don't think that the United States needs to become the first in that scenario."

The judge advocate generals of the Army, Navy and Air Force who also testified all agreed with Walker. Some also objected to the commissions' admissibility of evidence obtained under coercion that falls short of torture.

The Bush tribunals would not as "a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people."

Has anymore powerful indictment of the policy of any U.S. administration ever been delivered in Congress by anyone serving on active duty in the military?

In an exchange included in the airing of the segment on ATC but not in the story carried on the site, under questioning from a North Carolina Democrat, Assistant AG Bradbury admitted that the U.S. would not recognize as legitimate the very standards he was defending if captured U.S. servicemen and women were subjected to them at the hands of their captors.

The political desperation of the Bush administration has compelled it to seek rushed Congressional approval of its methods. The reforms are defined as being outside the norms of legitimate jurisprudence. What does that say about the practices that the CIA and the military have been engaged in prior to this rush for cover?

The military has stood up to the administration in a public way that has not happened before. We are in new territory here. The old plays no longer appear to be working.

Mike Stagg

Democratic Candidate for Congress

Lousiana's Seventh District

http://www.mikestagg.com

Does anyone else find it a bit more than coincedental that the head of Exxon met with the Speaker of the House today -- the day that Bolivia nationalized natural gas fields in its country. Did anyone else notice that Exxon was one of the companies whose assets were most directly affected by the nationalization? The New York Times story on the takeover included this paragraph:

"I don't think the game is over," said Lawrence J. Goldstein, president of the PIRA Energy Group, which is based in New York and is supported by the petroleum industry. "It's going to move from the Americas to the Africans. This is a very dangerous precedent."

The Times article goes on to cite the influence Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is said to have had on this decision by the government of Bolivia.

Considering the history of U.S. adventurism in Latin America on behalf of U.S. companies and the dire political straits in which Bush now finds himself, could a strike on Venezuela and/or Bolivia be something that the head of Exxon was pushing -- not some reason not to pass a windfall profits tax? Might this be something the Republicans would consider?

This is worth watching.

Welcome to Louisiana, Democratic National Committee! Thank you for choosing Louisiana in general and New Orleans in particular as the site for one of your 2006 meetings.

We are grateful for the attention.

But, don't think for a minute that just showing up and contributing some bucks to our sales tax coffers in any way approaches settling the debt we are owed by you, the party, and the nation as the place where the resistance to Bush/Cheney emerged, the implosion began and then tipped to the point of creating an imperiled presidency.

Before laying claim to what we're owed, let's establish why we're owed.

In the month between the November 2002 mid-term elections and the December run-off for Mary Landrieu's U.S. Senate seat, the Bush/Cheney administration and their allies, poured tens of millions of dollars into Louisiana seeking to end Senator Landrieu's tenure at one term. But, Louisiana voters cut through the rhetoric and the BS, rallied to Senator Landrieu and, despite being outspent, she was returned to the Senate for a second term.

At that same time, unbeknownst to just about everyone then, Jack Abramoff and his band of happy thieves were planting the political mines across Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi (in the form suitcases of Indian casino cash) that would bring Republicans crashing down. Abramoff, like his buddies Bush and Cheney, apparently figured Louisiana Indians, Republicans and Christians for easy marks. It would all come crashing down within four years, but that would come later. Just remember that it all got started in Louisiana. Welcome to ground zero.

In 2003, again, national Republicans and their allies poured big bucks into Louisiana, trying to retain the governorship for their party. Again, Louisiana voters sniffed through the BS, figured out who was genuine, and elected Democrat Kathleen Babineaux Blanco as their governor.

In 2004, things went crazy.

For the second consecutive election cycle, the Democratic national ticket abandoned Louisiana shortly after the convention, thus leaving the Republican spin machine to fill the vacuum. Let the record also show that when the national ticket and the DNC spend money in Louisiana, Democrats elect presidents. See Bill Clinton 1992 and 1996 for the freshest evidence.

As a result of that vacuum, Louisiana elected our first Republican senator since Reconstruction, we also lost a traditionally Democratic Congressional District (the 7th) and failed to support what could have been a serious challenge to a party-switching traitor in the 5th. Fortunately, Charlie Melancon was just too dogged a campaigner to let any obstacle stand in the way of his election and he captured the 3rd District.

The fact remains that when the 2008 presidential election cycle comes around, it will have been 12 years since the national party ran a campaign in our state. Howard Dean, this statement presumes that you will make good on your pledge that the party will run in all 50 states in 2008.

But, there's one more matter on the why we're owed: the storms of 2005.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ripped final tatters of competence from the facade of the Bush administration. People around the world were stunned by the images of Americans standing on the roofs of their houses pleading for food and rescue; shocked by the scenes of people dying on the street in front of the New Orleans Convention Center while the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security denied knowing there were any people gather there at all; dumfounded by the incompetence of Bush-appointed head of FEMA Michael Brown and how his scapegoating sought to shield the Bush administration’s record of cronyism.

Two weeks later, Hurricane Rita devastated southwest Louisiana and east Texas, but the horror of the impact of that storm paled in the wake of the federal failures after Katrina. The worst kept secret of 2005 and 2006 is that the federal response to Hurricane Rita has been every bit as incompetent and ineffective as it was for Katrina.

One result of more than 1,000 Louisianans being killed by the storms and their floods, tens of thousands having been displaced from their homes, hundred of thousands forced to evacuate the communities which they'd always called home, has been that the Bush administration has lost credibility with all but the most diehard Republican loyalists.

It was too high a price for us to pay, but Louisiana's misfortune has extracted a political price from Bush and Republicans that will haunt them this year and for decades to come.

While his Iraq adventure/war has seriously damaged his presidency, it was the failure of his administration to protect and shelter Americans in their homes, in their cities in the wake of natural disaster that finally undid George W. Bush. That happened here. It happened in our state, in our cities, to our people. It happened to us.

What we're owed.

So, now that you've decided to meet in New Orleans, here's a bill for services rendered over the past four years in the matter of the wrecking of the Bush presidency.

That bill is a commitment from the DNC and its allies and friends to spend not one damned dime less than $2 million in Louisiana in 2006, delivering its national campaign theme in districts across the state and in direct support of Democratic members of Congress and Democrats who are challenging Republican members of Congress.

Start with the Democrats. Charlie Melancon deserves to be re-elected and, though his prospects for re-election look good at this point, we want to ensure that he has the resources he needs to win against all challengers.

Congressman Bill Jefferson's legal challenges are well known. The party needs to work to ensure that this seat remains in Democratic hands.

In District 1, Republican Bobby Jindal is running around the state preparing to run for governor again in 2007. Jindal has deep ties to the conservative movement in the country and to corruption (he has signed more of Grover Norquist's no-tax pledges than he's signed paychecks). When he was DHH Secretary under Republican Governor Mike Foster, his office squelched water tests that showed contamination of drinking water of residents in a trailer park next to a chemical plant across the river from Baton Rouge. And, on his first day as a member of Congress, Jindal voted to scuttle the ethics process in the house in order to protect Tom DeLay. Go after Jindal in 2006 and it will pay dividends in 2007 as well.

In District 5, Rodney Alexander has jumped parties once and (man of principle that he is) will probably try jump again when the Democratic Party returns to majority status in the House later this year. But, the party does not need traitors in its ranks and should not repeat the mistake of 2004; it should put money into a Democratic campaign to defeat Alexander.

In the 4th District, Jim McCrery is up to his armpits in money from Jack Abramoff’s clients. What party loyalty oath will he have to take in order to move up the Republican leadership? This is the year to once and for all link McCrery to the corruption and incompetence of his party. There is a strong military presence in his district, too. Hold McCrery accountable for his support of Bush/Cheney military adventurism.

In the 7th District, Charles Boustany got elected because Democrats tried to defeat him by running a Republican against him. The 7th District is a Democratic district waiting for a Democrat to run for that seat. People will not spontaneously respond to a message that is not articulated. They also will not vote for candidates who they perceive don't have a set of core values. Boustany's core value is political opportunism that was masked by the failure of the party to give voters a choice in 2004. Boustany has been touched by corruption (like fellow freshman Jindal, he voted to gut the Ethics Committee in a vote on his first day in office). He's taken money from other corrupt Republicans and their corruptors. He is an atrocious public speaker, easily rattled. Run a Democrat against him and this seat can be ours again.

All of these Repubican congressmen are susceptible to the kind of national campaign that can not only tip Louisiana, but the majority of the House into the Democratic column.

The reason national participation in these campaigns is so important this year is the economic and financial blows that the storms have delivered to our state and its people. Too many of our voters and our workers are flat on their financial backs trying to recover from the devastating blows those two women delivered.

The financial resources to mount the kinds of campaigns we need are just not available locally.

This money would not just be an attempt to wring victory this year, it is an essential investment that will lay the foundation for victory here in 2008 when we have a senate seat to defend and a president to elect.

As prior elections have shown, every vote does count. Louisiana’s electoral votes should be in the blue column in 2008. The way to get there is by investing in the Democratic message here in 2006.

Mike Stagg

Lafayette Democrats Blog

http://lafayettedemocrats.blogspot.com/2006/04/louisiana-democrats-and-dnc-bill-has.html