Regardless of whether it is past performance or future promises, Louisiana Democrats running for reelection to Congress keep trying to say one thing and hope you don't look deeper to find out what they say they are and what they truly are in fact are different things.
Both Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. Don Cazayoux keep trying to run from their liberalism, carefully choosing their rhetoric to shield themselves from reality. But their actions and words keep tripping them up.
Landrieu's actions belie the "centrist" label she keeps trying to claim, even as it has fooled some otherwise intelligent, attentive people. She will spout off how the for 2007 the publication National Journal rated her at the median of senators on her voting record and how she votes with her liberal party the second-least of any senator.
But looking at Landrieu's relative standing among her peers obscures the fact that she is very liberal, by her record, because even if she is among the least liberal of all the liberals she's still being very liberal. Or another way to look at it, put Landrieu-endorsee for president Sen. Barack Obama, and his associates the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Rev. Michael Pflegler, and admitted terrorist Bill Ayres together in the same room, and Obama might be the most "centrist" of the bunch. Yet that does not change the fact that he was rated in 2007 by the National Journal as the most liberal senator as he is scored as extremely liberal.
Landrieu the magazine ranks on the liberal side, if not by much, at 53.7 (100 being perfectly liberal) in 2007. However, Landrieu has a history of sliding towards to center in the years leading up to an election. A better indicator comes from the American Conservative Union's scorecard of her, which shows she has a 22.4 lifetime rating (1997-2007, where 0 is the perfect liberal score), but remove the years 2001, 2002, and 2007 where she scored 28, 35, and 40, respectively, her average when she thinks she isn't being watched is an 18. Somebody who votes the liberal line when uninfluenced by electoral politics 82 percent of the time simply is no "centrist" or "moderate." (Her liberalism is mirrored if not better shown in the ratings put out by the Americans for Democratic Action, where, for example, she scored an Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 month, 5 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes ago
Am I missing something here? A collection of black ministers has endorsed embattled Rep. Bill Jefferson, who is black, for reelection despite the fact he is under indictment for influence peddling, against political newcomer and non-black Helena Moreno for the Democrat nomination.
As regards someone accused of dishonesty in government, one might think ministers in particular would shy away from that candidacy. But apparently not, as Jefferson is touted as the best choice because they believe him to be "effective."
Ministering to the faithful requires some degree of wisdom, yet in remarks made about the endorsement leads to wondering whether they possess the good judgment needed to lead their flocks. Their spokesman, for one, believes in Jefferson's innocence. While this certain adheres to the power of faith, after a certain point faith becomes wishful thinking. Besides the mountain of evidence and Jefferson's associates, friends, and relatives singing like birds about his role, just last week former state Sen. Derrick Shepherd plead guilty to a separate crime which implicated Jefferson. Legally, anyone not yet found guilty of a crime is innocent of it, but at a certain point when giving political direction credulity must factor in.
But let's really give Jefferson the benefit of the doubt beyond what he deserves. Regardless, there must be great doubt about whether he is "effective" as a member of Congress. He has been stripped of committee assignments where most influence is attained and is shunned by the Democrat leadership, desperate to deflect attention from other scandals such as those concerning Reps. Barney Frank with improper influence and Tim Mahoney with hush money.
All right, let's concede that, somehow believing Jefferson still could have more pull that a new representative unencumbered by all of this baggage. Yet this brings us to the most baffling aspect of the endorsement, where the spokesman argued even if Jefferson were found guilty and subsequently removed, "I would rather at least go back and have a special election than put the wrong person in."
Silly me, but if that happened, wouldn't that prove that Jefferson himself was the "wrong" person? So wouldn't it make more sense to put someone in office initially that could build up some seniority and not have to go to the trouble of a special election in the first place? And thus avoid the risk of starting over and dealing with a felon?
("Wrong" is a poor choice of words in this instance; I hope it isn't being used as … Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 month, 6 days, 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
Unfortunately, ignorance about political history and economics is all too common in the American public, but it is particularly tragic when we see it in those who disseminate information (that does not constitute a politically dishonest attempt to persuade; in that case it is not tragic but venial). Regrettably, longtime political journalist Jim Beam fell victim to this in a recent column.
Beam asserts that the recent difficulties in the credit markets that caused big selloffs in the equities markets make 2008 too uncomfortably close to 1929, considered the start of the Great Depression, raising the specter of another economic dislocation of that magnitude. This misunderstands that the precipitant of the two events, easy credit. In 1929, borrowing money to buy securities without any real collateral was the straw that broke the camel's back, whereas in 2008 the borrowing comes with substantial real assets attached. Nor are the magnitudes of the events even closely comparable.
Perhaps he does not recognize the difference because he does not understand what caused the Great Depression in the first place. Too much credit was being extended, but that doesn't answer why that happened. The answer: government intervention that distorts the marketplace (this summation of a larger academic work probably explains it most elegantly). In the 1920s it was because of government's expansionary monetary policy obsessed with price stabilization and trade flows, coupled with a sufficiently immature central banking system. None of these conditions operate today; rather, a reason just as political has caused it: policy to push lending to individuals of dubious ability to manage that debt (which Beam doesn't seem to grasp, either).
Instead, Beam relies on one of the most discredited pieces of boilerplate explanation for the Great Depression, income inequality causing underconsumption at the lower end of the wealth continuum. This view totally ignores that overproduction from easy credit causes a supply problem (too much) yet props up prices artificially so underconsumption occurs not because too many people have too little money, but that artificially low credit pricing encourages them to overextend and waste their resources on something they cannot afford. (During the 1920s, this caused wage stagnation even as prices barely crept up, not the case today.) Proportion of wealth held by various income classes has nothing to do economic performance (unless it is a matter of government policy to redistribute income for that very reason of perceived inequality, which then impedes economic performance and growth).
Not only does Beam not know what caused the Great Depression, neither does he know what ended it. While he believes it … Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 month, 1 week, 4 hours, 3 minutes ago
While polls show Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu holding a decent lead in her reelection bid against Republican Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy, she has been unable to gain a decisive advantage with public's intended vote (which to some degree probably only reflected name recognition rather than real intent). She had a chance make progress towards that goal, and Kennedy an opportunity to work to closing the gap, at their Louisiana Public Broadcasting-sponsored debate Sunday night.
Landrieu's strategy has been to assert she has some kind of "independence" from her party and ideology - despite the fact that she votes with it most of the time and has a lifetime 22.4 rating from the American Conservative Union (0 meaning a perfect liberal voting record - and trying to convince voters that Kennedy is shiftless. By the same token, Kennedy plays up her liberal votes and stresses a mix of conservative themes especially on fiscal issues while trying to demonstrate he has rethought some of his past preferences. In their debate, both candidates went after each others self-drawn perceptions.
On several occasions she touted how she was "independent," that her "seniority" would benefit the state, how she had displayed "effectiveness," and that she could work in a "bipartisan" manner - playing to the populist mentality in Louisiana where many see their elected officials as paraders throwing goodies off of floats. He refused to concede, such as describing her agreeing philosophically with Sen. Barack Obama's nationalization of health care policy, or voting with Obama on the Democrat measure that would have forced withdrawal from Iraq, or that even as she is chairwoman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees the Department of Homeland Security responsible for disaster relief that her influence amounted to nothing in speeding up the ongoing recovery process from the 2005 hurricane disasters.
She tried to make him look hypocritical when possible, saying he had once favored the withdrawal (which he denied), or that he took money from interests from those appearing in front of the state's Bond Commission which he heads. The latter was responding to Kennedy's observing she had taken campaign contributions from financial entities that were alleged to have precipitated the mortgage-backed securities difficulties which prompted the huge bailout (with which both disagreed, although Kennedy faulted it for having too much government involvement while Landrieu found it short on government intervention).
Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 month, 1 week, 23 hours, 53 minutes ago
The good news for Louisianans is gas prices are falling. The bad news for Louisiana is gas prices are falling, and it's probably only going to get worse given election dynamics.
People often forget that prices in a marketplace are set not just by changes in supply, but in changes in demand. Typically, demand is highest in summer and slacks off to the end of the year. So the decline in prices is not unexpected.
But demand also is a function of overall economic activity, and that is tapering worldwide in part to the overleveraged mortgage market now being addressed by world central banks. However, in the short term, perceptions spawned from all of the alarmist attention being paid to government interventions have taken over from reality and are changing people's investing, borrowing and spending habits. This results in an artificial depressing of financial activity that contributes to the slowdown.
Worse, election-year dynamics are exacerbating this reaction. Democrats in particular such as presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama have been hyping the circumstances because they believe it helps them electorally, something that in Obama's case seem to work as he has been creeping up in polls resting on the Democrats' case Republicans are to blame - the tremendous irony being it was Democrat policy that set the stage for problems in the mortgage industry.
This now is creating a vicious cycle that threatens to make matters worse than they should be. In another irony, even though it is a Democrat-led Congress that has more responsibility for and control over the economy than the Republican president, Democrats are benefitting electorally from the uncertainty which depresses things further. While some of the recent incredible decline in the equities market obviously is due to the ramifications of the credit crunch, a significant portion of it as well comes from the fact that as Obama rises in the polls and Democrat congressional gains look larger, investors understand that their articulated policies are going to cause economic damage to the country if enacted and therefore are reducing their commitments.
This is no surprise given these markets serve as leading indicators of future economic performance. But the danger is that declines in stock markets create a bigger crisis in the general public's mind, which then seems to increase further Democrats' chances of being elected, and then feeds itself as more informed investors continue to reduce equities commitments, and the cycle begins anew. Further, regardless of who gets elected they will talk down the situation … Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 month, 1 week, 4 days, 12 hours, 25 minutes ago
It's all right to be clever, but when you are trying to be clever but aren't clever enough, you don't realize that your effort ultimately was not clever. Such is the fate with an editorial written by the Baton Rouge Advocate concerning Gov. Bobby Jindal.
While the piece lacks some clarity and coherence, the gist seems to be that The Advocate asserts Jindal, well known as a conservative, borrows from the left to argue for a public policy goal. When Congressional legislation recently passed to create a mechanism by which the federal government could fund potentially large financial concerns, Jindal decried the fact that while this was getting funded, progress was slower on emergency funding to assist the state in recovery from the September hurricanes.
Such a view by the editorialists misunderstands the nature and purpose of government. Jindal is criticized for comparing one kind of spending to another, in essence saying one purpose with less legitimacy gets money while another with more does not. It's not exactly clear what it's trying to state here, but it appears The Advocate equates use of a rhetorical strategy comparing different things and using spending on one to justify another is a kind of demagoguery, and one that has been used by the left in reference to the Iraq war.
But note the inherent assumption: it grants sufficient legitimacy to all spending claims. That is, if Democrats claim more ought to be spent on wealth transfer policies, a bedrock demand of liberalism, because so much is being spent to prosecute the war, then it presumes Jindal adopts the tactics of the left because he now is criticizing the bailout, which because it would assist first businesses that is argued is a hallmark of conservatism, in order to justify transfer of wealth to Louisiana, the syllogism works only if all instances of government spending are mere matters of policy choice within a framework that legitimizes any choice.
In fact, the argument breaks down precisely because that is untrue. While expenditures on disasters are a legitimate federal government purpose (see Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution, to protect states from domestic violence), as are those for the prosecution of war (Art. I, Sec. 8), and, even though it is a stretch through the "necessary and proper clause" (same passage), spending on wealth transfer programs can also be deemed a proper function of government constitutionally speaking. But arguably it stretches way too far that government should intrude so decisively into the economy as through the bailout plan. Thus, Jindal may argue that spending is occurring for an illegitimate and unwise policy rather than another that is legitimate and he thinks wise, a … Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 month, 1 week, 5 days, 5 hours, 59 minutes ago
Yesterday we learned why legally-challenged Rep. Bill Jefferson was able to come in first in the Democrat primary for his Second Congressional District seat. Here, we'll see why he will win the runoff against former television reporter Helena Moreno in the Nov. 4 nomination runoff.
The first part is its usual, if not somewhat lamentable, self: race. Most analysts, drawing upon their experiences without resorting to detailed use of numbers, argue that there are too many black voters present for Moreno, who is Hispanic, to be able to defeat the black Jefferson. It's just the way things are in and around Orleans Parish: in a black vs. non-black contest, non-blacks will vote largely for the non-black candidate, while blacks will vote overwhelmingly for the black candidate.
The numbers confirm this. Of the 492 precincts in the district, 93 or almost 19 percent have total registrations (not just Democrat and independent ones who were the only ones who could vote in this contest; several more would be added if Republicans were removed) of fewer than 2.5 percent white voters. They represented 10,569 of the 69,149 votes cast, or 15.28 percent votes cast. They may be used as a close proxy for the proportion of the black vote received by the candidates (but will slightly underestimate the black vote received by Moreno because in mixed-race neighborhoods there tends to be more crossover voting, and thereby will overestimate it for the black candidates).
Reviewing the results of these, Moreno cannot win. She received slightly less than 4 percent of the black vote. Jefferson got a little over 38 percent of this vote, with the other five black candidates obviously receiving the remaining 58 percent or so. Keep in mind Jefferson got about 25 percent of the overall vote, Moreno about 20 percent, and that the registration of blacks among Democrats and independents in the district is a little over 68 percent. (Interestingly, multiplying Jefferson's share of the black share of the vote with the black proportion in the district puts him almost exactly at his percentage for the election, suggesting he received almost no non-black votes.)
Therefore, in order to win, assuming everybody who voted in the primary will turn out for the runoff and no non-blacks vote for Jefferson, he needs only 45 percent of the remaining vote to win of which it appears about three-quarters are black. Going by race alone, Jefferson is 30 points to the good.
One could argue that perceptions of corruption would trump racial voting in this case. But even if just 60 percent of black … Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 month, 1 week, 6 days, 3 hours, 59 minutes ago
The most interesting question about how Rep. William Jefferson, despite federal corruption indictments, managed to lead a Democrat primary for reelection is not really how he did it, but why he was able to. It's an answer not so much connected to Jefferson, but to a political environment largely untouched by modern forces.
We must recognize that Orleans Parish, which comprises the majority of the Second District, is the least mature political culture not only in the state, but perhaps in the entire nation. "Maturity" is a concept defined by how much of a role personalistic forces play in determining a vote decision. Thos forces are defined as qualities of candidate image - inferences about a candidate's experience, leadership, and other personal characteristics - that voters make. The more that candidate image plays a role in voters' decisions, the more personalistic and less mature is the political environment. By contrast, the more that impersonal institutions like political parties and that issue preferences play a role in the vote decision, the less personalistic and the more mature the environment is.
Note in the Orleans area, when reviewing this office and that of mayor, the second-level offices after the so-called starter level of city council, state legislature, and others, for decades not only are the winners of these experienced politicians, but almost all of the candidates contesting them have been and are people experienced in government. The one great exception going back well into the middle of the 20th century is current Mayor Ray Nagin (and technically former U.S. Rep. Lindy Boggs, but to be honest she received impetus to win office right after the tragic death of her husband former U.S. Rep. Hale Boggs).
This is because the political environment creates conditions that make these kinds of candidates successful. They must build a political base on their ability to satisfy individuals and small groups not on grand matters of policy but on their skill in passing along rewards - patronage, contracts, government programs, and the like - to these intermediaries who then, either substantively or symbolically, pass down a portion of these rewards to key constituencies that can be mobilized for elections to vote for the favored candidate.
This does not mean that election decisions aren't made with other tactical considerations in mind - as my colleagues have demonstrated - nor that external institutions aren't important. In fact, New Orleans is distinguished from almost every major city in the country in that a passel of "alphabet soup" political organizations for decades have played a major role in elections. But keep in mind that these organizations themselves are … Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 month, 2 weeks, 11 hours, 33 minutes ago
Mary Landrieu: centrist with experience
Regardless of whether it is past performance or future promises, Louisiana Democrats running for reelection to Congress keep trying to say one thing and hope you don't look deeper to find out what they say they are and what they truly are in fact are different things.
Both Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. Don Cazayoux keep trying to run from their liberalism, carefully choosing their rhetoric to shield themselves from reality. But their actions and words keep tripping them up.
Landrieu's actions belie the "centrist" label she keeps trying to claim, even as it has fooled some otherwise intelligent, attentive people. She will spout off how the for 2007 the publication National Journal rated her at the median of senators on her voting record and how she votes with her liberal party the second-least of any senator.
But looking at Landrieu's relative standing among her peers obscures the fact that she is very liberal, by her record, because even if she is among the least liberal of all the liberals she's still being very liberal. Or another way to look at it, put Landrieu-endorsee for president Sen. Barack Obama, and his associates the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Rev. Michael Pflegler, and admitted terrorist Bill Ayres together in the same room, and Obama might be the most "centrist" of the bunch. Yet that does not change the fact that he was rated in 2007 by the National Journal as the most liberal senator as he is scored as extremely liberal.
Landrieu the magazine ranks on the liberal side, if not by much, at 53.7 (100 being perfectly liberal) in 2007. However, Landrieu has a history of sliding towards to center in the years leading up to an election. A better indicator comes from the American Conservative Union's scorecard of her, which shows she has a 22.4 lifetime rating (1997-2007, where 0 is the perfect liberal score), but remove the years 2001, 2002, and 2007 where she scored 28, 35, and 40, respectively, her average when she thinks she isn't being watched is an 18. Somebody who votes the liberal line when uninfluenced by electoral politics 82 percent of the time simply is no "centrist" or "moderate." (Her liberalism is mirrored if not better shown in the ratings put out by the Americans for Democratic Action, where, for example, she scored an Read More...
Jefferson touts minister endorsement
Am I missing something here? A collection of black ministers has endorsed embattled Rep. Bill Jefferson, who is black, for reelection despite the fact he is under indictment for influence peddling, against political newcomer and non-black Helena Moreno for the Democrat nomination.
As regards someone accused of dishonesty in government, one might think ministers in particular would shy away from that candidacy. But apparently not, as Jefferson is touted as the best choice because they believe him to be "effective."
Ministering to the faithful requires some degree of wisdom, yet in remarks made about the endorsement leads to wondering whether they possess the good judgment needed to lead their flocks. Their spokesman, for one, believes in Jefferson's innocence. While this certain adheres to the power of faith, after a certain point faith becomes wishful thinking. Besides the mountain of evidence and Jefferson's associates, friends, and relatives singing like birds about his role, just last week former state Sen. Derrick Shepherd plead guilty to a separate crime which implicated Jefferson. Legally, anyone not yet found guilty of a crime is innocent of it, but at a certain point when giving political direction credulity must factor in.
But let's really give Jefferson the benefit of the doubt beyond what he deserves. Regardless, there must be great doubt about whether he is "effective" as a member of Congress. He has been stripped of committee assignments where most influence is attained and is shunned by the Democrat leadership, desperate to deflect attention from other scandals such as those concerning Reps. Barney Frank with improper influence and Tim Mahoney with hush money.
All right, let's concede that, somehow believing Jefferson still could have more pull that a new representative unencumbered by all of this baggage. Yet this brings us to the most baffling aspect of the endorsement, where the spokesman argued even if Jefferson were found guilty and subsequently removed, "I would rather at least go back and have a special election than put the wrong person in."
Silly me, but if that happened, wouldn't that prove that Jefferson himself was the "wrong" person? So wouldn't it make more sense to put someone in office initially that could build up some seniority and not have to go to the trouble of a special election in the first place? And thus avoid the risk of starting over and dealing with a felon?
("Wrong" is a poor choice of words in this instance; I hope it isn't being used as …
Read More...
Crisis similar to '29 crash, but outcome likely different
Unfortunately, ignorance about political history and economics is all too common in the American public, but it is particularly tragic when we see it in those who disseminate information (that does not constitute a politically dishonest attempt to persuade; in that case it is not tragic but venial). Regrettably, longtime political journalist Jim Beam fell victim to this in a recent column.
Beam asserts that the recent difficulties in the credit markets that caused big selloffs in the equities markets make 2008 too uncomfortably close to 1929, considered the start of the Great Depression, raising the specter of another economic dislocation of that magnitude. This misunderstands that the precipitant of the two events, easy credit. In 1929, borrowing money to buy securities without any real collateral was the straw that broke the camel's back, whereas in 2008 the borrowing comes with substantial real assets attached. Nor are the magnitudes of the events even closely comparable.
Perhaps he does not recognize the difference because he does not understand what caused the Great Depression in the first place. Too much credit was being extended, but that doesn't answer why that happened. The answer: government intervention that distorts the marketplace (this summation of a larger academic work probably explains it most elegantly). In the 1920s it was because of government's expansionary monetary policy obsessed with price stabilization and trade flows, coupled with a sufficiently immature central banking system. None of these conditions operate today; rather, a reason just as political has caused it: policy to push lending to individuals of dubious ability to manage that debt (which Beam doesn't seem to grasp, either).
Instead, Beam relies on one of the most discredited pieces of boilerplate explanation for the Great Depression, income inequality causing underconsumption at the lower end of the wealth continuum. This view totally ignores that overproduction from easy credit causes a supply problem (too much) yet props up prices artificially so underconsumption occurs not because too many people have too little money, but that artificially low credit pricing encourages them to overextend and waste their resources on something they cannot afford. (During the 1920s, this caused wage stagnation even as prices barely crept up, not the case today.) Proportion of wealth held by various income classes has nothing to do economic performance (unless it is a matter of government policy to redistribute income for that very reason of perceived inequality, which then impedes economic performance and growth).
Not only does Beam not know what caused the Great Depression, neither does he know what ended it. While he believes it …
Read More...
Landrieu, Kennedy meet in first TV debate
While polls show Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu holding a decent lead in her reelection bid against Republican Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy, she has been unable to gain a decisive advantage with public's intended vote (which to some degree probably only reflected name recognition rather than real intent). She had a chance make progress towards that goal, and Kennedy an opportunity to work to closing the gap, at their Louisiana Public Broadcasting-sponsored debate Sunday night.
Landrieu's strategy has been to assert she has some kind of "independence" from her party and ideology - despite the fact that she votes with it most of the time and has a lifetime 22.4 rating from the American Conservative Union (0 meaning a perfect liberal voting record - and trying to convince voters that Kennedy is shiftless. By the same token, Kennedy plays up her liberal votes and stresses a mix of conservative themes especially on fiscal issues while trying to demonstrate he has rethought some of his past preferences. In their debate, both candidates went after each others self-drawn perceptions.
On several occasions she touted how she was "independent," that her "seniority" would benefit the state, how she had displayed "effectiveness," and that she could work in a "bipartisan" manner - playing to the populist mentality in Louisiana where many see their elected officials as paraders throwing goodies off of floats. He refused to concede, such as describing her agreeing philosophically with Sen. Barack Obama's nationalization of health care policy, or voting with Obama on the Democrat measure that would have forced withdrawal from Iraq, or that even as she is chairwoman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees the Department of Homeland Security responsible for disaster relief that her influence amounted to nothing in speeding up the ongoing recovery process from the 2005 hurricane disasters.
She tried to make him look hypocritical when possible, saying he had once favored the withdrawal (which he denied), or that he took money from interests from those appearing in front of the state's Bond Commission which he heads. The latter was responding to Kennedy's observing she had taken campaign contributions from financial entities that were alleged to have precipitated the mortgage-backed securities difficulties which prompted the huge bailout (with which both disagreed, although Kennedy faulted it for having too much government involvement while Landrieu found it short on government intervention).
Read More...
Candidates left viewers hanging
The good news for Louisianans is gas prices are falling. The bad news for Louisiana is gas prices are falling, and it's probably only going to get worse given election dynamics.
People often forget that prices in a marketplace are set not just by changes in supply, but in changes in demand. Typically, demand is highest in summer and slacks off to the end of the year. So the decline in prices is not unexpected.
But demand also is a function of overall economic activity, and that is tapering worldwide in part to the overleveraged mortgage market now being addressed by world central banks. However, in the short term, perceptions spawned from all of the alarmist attention being paid to government interventions have taken over from reality and are changing people's investing, borrowing and spending habits. This results in an artificial depressing of financial activity that contributes to the slowdown.
Worse, election-year dynamics are exacerbating this reaction. Democrats in particular such as presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama have been hyping the circumstances because they believe it helps them electorally, something that in Obama's case seem to work as he has been creeping up in polls resting on the Democrats' case Republicans are to blame - the tremendous irony being it was Democrat policy that set the stage for problems in the mortgage industry.
This now is creating a vicious cycle that threatens to make matters worse than they should be. In another irony, even though it is a Democrat-led Congress that has more responsibility for and control over the economy than the Republican president, Democrats are benefitting electorally from the uncertainty which depresses things further. While some of the recent incredible decline in the equities market obviously is due to the ramifications of the credit crunch, a significant portion of it as well comes from the fact that as Obama rises in the polls and Democrat congressional gains look larger, investors understand that their articulated policies are going to cause economic damage to the country if enacted and therefore are reducing their commitments.
This is no surprise given these markets serve as leading indicators of future economic performance. But the danger is that declines in stock markets create a bigger crisis in the general public's mind, which then seems to increase further Democrats' chances of being elected, and then feeds itself as more informed investors continue to reduce equities commitments, and the cycle begins anew. Further, regardless of who gets elected they will talk down the situation …
Read More...
Bobby Jindal, big spender
It's all right to be clever, but when you are trying to be clever but aren't clever enough, you don't realize that your effort ultimately was not clever. Such is the fate with an editorial written by the Baton Rouge Advocate concerning Gov. Bobby Jindal.
While the piece lacks some clarity and coherence, the gist seems to be that The Advocate asserts Jindal, well known as a conservative, borrows from the left to argue for a public policy goal. When Congressional legislation recently passed to create a mechanism by which the federal government could fund potentially large financial concerns, Jindal decried the fact that while this was getting funded, progress was slower on emergency funding to assist the state in recovery from the September hurricanes.
Such a view by the editorialists misunderstands the nature and purpose of government. Jindal is criticized for comparing one kind of spending to another, in essence saying one purpose with less legitimacy gets money while another with more does not. It's not exactly clear what it's trying to state here, but it appears The Advocate equates use of a rhetorical strategy comparing different things and using spending on one to justify another is a kind of demagoguery, and one that has been used by the left in reference to the Iraq war.
But note the inherent assumption: it grants sufficient legitimacy to all spending claims. That is, if Democrats claim more ought to be spent on wealth transfer policies, a bedrock demand of liberalism, because so much is being spent to prosecute the war, then it presumes Jindal adopts the tactics of the left because he now is criticizing the bailout, which because it would assist first businesses that is argued is a hallmark of conservatism, in order to justify transfer of wealth to Louisiana, the syllogism works only if all instances of government spending are mere matters of policy choice within a framework that legitimizes any choice.
In fact, the argument breaks down precisely because that is untrue. While expenditures on disasters are a legitimate federal government purpose (see Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution, to protect states from domestic violence), as are those for the prosecution of war (Art. I, Sec. 8), and, even though it is a stretch through the "necessary and proper clause" (same passage), spending on wealth transfer programs can also be deemed a proper function of government constitutionally speaking. But arguably it stretches way too far that government should intrude so decisively into the economy as through the bailout plan. Thus, Jindal may argue that spending is occurring for an illegitimate and unwise policy rather than another that is legitimate and he thinks wise, a …
Read More...
Jefferson's challenger faces tough race, observers say
Yesterday we learned why legally-challenged Rep. Bill Jefferson was able to come in first in the Democrat primary for his Second Congressional District seat. Here, we'll see why he will win the runoff against former television reporter Helena Moreno in the Nov. 4 nomination runoff.
The first part is its usual, if not somewhat lamentable, self: race. Most analysts, drawing upon their experiences without resorting to detailed use of numbers, argue that there are too many black voters present for Moreno, who is Hispanic, to be able to defeat the black Jefferson. It's just the way things are in and around Orleans Parish: in a black vs. non-black contest, non-blacks will vote largely for the non-black candidate, while blacks will vote overwhelmingly for the black candidate.
The numbers confirm this. Of the 492 precincts in the district, 93 or almost 19 percent have total registrations (not just Democrat and independent ones who were the only ones who could vote in this contest; several more would be added if Republicans were removed) of fewer than 2.5 percent white voters. They represented 10,569 of the 69,149 votes cast, or 15.28 percent votes cast. They may be used as a close proxy for the proportion of the black vote received by the candidates (but will slightly underestimate the black vote received by Moreno because in mixed-race neighborhoods there tends to be more crossover voting, and thereby will overestimate it for the black candidates).
Reviewing the results of these, Moreno cannot win. She received slightly less than 4 percent of the black vote. Jefferson got a little over 38 percent of this vote, with the other five black candidates obviously receiving the remaining 58 percent or so. Keep in mind Jefferson got about 25 percent of the overall vote, Moreno about 20 percent, and that the registration of blacks among Democrats and independents in the district is a little over 68 percent. (Interestingly, multiplying Jefferson's share of the black share of the vote with the black proportion in the district puts him almost exactly at his percentage for the election, suggesting he received almost no non-black votes.)
Therefore, in order to win, assuming everybody who voted in the primary will turn out for the runoff and no non-blacks vote for Jefferson, he needs only 45 percent of the remaining vote to win of which it appears about three-quarters are black. Going by race alone, Jefferson is 30 points to the good.
One could argue that perceptions of corruption would trump racial voting in this case. But even if just 60 percent of black …
Read More...
Many surprised at strength of Jefferson win
The most interesting question about how Rep. William Jefferson, despite federal corruption indictments, managed to lead a Democrat primary for reelection is not really how he did it, but why he was able to. It's an answer not so much connected to Jefferson, but to a political environment largely untouched by modern forces.
We must recognize that Orleans Parish, which comprises the majority of the Second District, is the least mature political culture not only in the state, but perhaps in the entire nation. "Maturity" is a concept defined by how much of a role personalistic forces play in determining a vote decision. Thos forces are defined as qualities of candidate image - inferences about a candidate's experience, leadership, and other personal characteristics - that voters make. The more that candidate image plays a role in voters' decisions, the more personalistic and less mature is the political environment. By contrast, the more that impersonal institutions like political parties and that issue preferences play a role in the vote decision, the less personalistic and the more mature the environment is.
Note in the Orleans area, when reviewing this office and that of mayor, the second-level offices after the so-called starter level of city council, state legislature, and others, for decades not only are the winners of these experienced politicians, but almost all of the candidates contesting them have been and are people experienced in government. The one great exception going back well into the middle of the 20th century is current Mayor Ray Nagin (and technically former U.S. Rep. Lindy Boggs, but to be honest she received impetus to win office right after the tragic death of her husband former U.S. Rep. Hale Boggs).
This is because the political environment creates conditions that make these kinds of candidates successful. They must build a political base on their ability to satisfy individuals and small groups not on grand matters of policy but on their skill in passing along rewards - patronage, contracts, government programs, and the like - to these intermediaries who then, either substantively or symbolically, pass down a portion of these rewards to key constituencies that can be mobilized for elections to vote for the favored candidate.
This does not mean that election decisions aren't made with other tactical considerations in mind - as my colleagues have demonstrated - nor that external institutions aren't important. In fact, New Orleans is distinguished from almost every major city in the country in that a passel of "alphabet soup" political organizations for decades have played a major role in elections. But keep in mind that these organizations themselves are …
Read More...
« First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last »
Transition Appointments, Ethics Charges and More!
Publishers Note: Thank you for your support over the last two years. Due to the pending sale of PoliticsLA.com, the Louisiana Political Report will be converting to a free-publication. You can continue to receive great content from the LPR – but for FREE. The Louisiana Political Report will continue to be sent to paid subscribers through the end of the year but December and any pre-paid subscriptions will be refunded promptly. If you have any questions or concerns please send an email to . Inquiries about purchasing PoliticsLA.com should also be sent to .
Sponsors
Member Blogs
Doc Fleming’s immigrant busing service
HeartlessJoe, 08/20/2008
Landrieu a Classic Empty Suit
cleslie, 07/23/2008
Attempt to counter democracy
laboruniontruth, 06/16/2008
Big Labor’s latest power grab
laboruniontruth, 06/06/2008
Wake Up and Smell the News
PoliticsLA.com Editor, 06/03/2008
Site design by Gatorworks Web Design
Site Statistics
Total Entries: 2312
Total Comments: 45
Total Members: 1368
This page has been viewed 644774 times.
This page rendered in 1.1194 seconds.