DON CAZAYOUX SHOWS HIS COLOR... BUT DO THEY CALL THAT BLUE IN LOUISIANA?

Democrat Don Cazayoux looks like he will beat KKK Republican Woody Jenkins in the race to replace lobbyist Richard Baker in a Louisiana congressional district centered on Baton Rouge. How happy should progressives be? Well, there can be little doubt that Cazayoux will vote for a pro-worker/pro-middle class agenda more often than the radical right-- some say neo-fascist-- Jenkins. And that's a good thing. Unfortunately, it's the only good thing.

A story in today's L.A. Times illustrates the problems with electing reactionary Democrats like Cazayoux. Allow me to veer off on a tangent and I promise to come back to Cazayoux in a moment. I'm reading 3 books simultaneously now-- one by Arianna Huffington, one by Cliff Schecter and one by Senator Lincoln Chafee (it just depends on which room I'm in when I get an urge to step away from the computer). I want to quote the defeated Republican senator's recollections of the first big battle the Congress had in their struggle with the Unitary Executive, soon after the radical right stole the 2000 election for Bush and Cheney.

For many Americans the first real memory of the Bush presidency is date-stamped September 11, 2001. They forget the pitched political battles of the first nine months in office. The central front in his war on Congress was this $1.6 trillion raid on the public purse [tax curs for the rich].

The outcome was uncertain given the dynamics of an evenly divided Senate. Democrats were largely opposed, but Georgia Democrat Zell Miller, a throwback to the pre-civil rights South, had defected and even signed on as a cosponsor of the Bush tax cuts. Democrats were especially worried that John Breaux of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska might waver.

In the end Miller, true to form, voted with the GOP, while Breaux and Nelson worked within the Democratic Party to water down opposition and force the caucus-- in return for their "support"-- to give way drastically to Bush's demands.

We don't have to go back into history to find how Republican-lite Democrats rot the Democratic Party from within and disillusion and turn off the base. Largely due to Rahm Emanuel's and the DCCC's recruitment policies-- "me too Democrats," who could as easily be Republicans on the big issues-- the Democratic congressional caucus is often held hostage by conservatives unfriendly towards the needs and aspirations of working families. Whether on Iraq, on trade policy, on tax policy, on health care, Blue Dogs, Bush Dogs and the insidious Rahm Caucus either break with Democrats entirely and vote with the GOP or else work to water down progressive legislation in return for their votes. When it comes to substantive issues that narrowly divide the two parties, there are 18 reactionary Democrats-- Jim Marshall (GA), Nick Lampson (TX), John Barrow (GA), Joe Donnelly (IN), Dan Boren (OK), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Jason Altmire (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Jim Matheson (UT), Chris Carney (PA), Zach Space (OH), Gene Tayor (MS), Melissa Bean (IL), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Baron Hill (IN), Tim Mahoney (FL), Mike McIntyre (NC), and Gabby Giffords (AZ)-- who have actually voted more frequently with the GOP than with the Democrats... but only on the important stuff. [Lincoln Davis (TN) and Bud Cramer (AL) have voted an equal number of times for and against the Bush agenda.]

The election of Don Cazayoux will add another "Democrat" to this list. And that brings us back to today's story in the L.A. Times, ostensibly about Obama's campaign and the radical right's attacks on him but, in reality, about political courage, or lack of it.

In Louisiana, a TV ad attacking Obama's healthcare agenda as "radical" proved so threatening that the House candidate it targeted, Democrat Don Cazayoux, distanced himself from Obama on Thursday, issuing a stern statement saying that he "has not endorsed any national politician."

Today's Washington Post points to an ad from a right wing extremist smear outfit, Freedom's Watch: "'A vote for Don Cazayoux is a vote for Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi,'" the narrator says, referring to the House speaker." The ad refers to Obama's health care proposals as a "radical health care agenda." Many Clinton supporters are reluctant to back Obama because they claim his health care proposals don't go far enough. Americans, unlike the extreme right Big Pharma-funded 527s, want meaningful health care reform. If Cazayoux can't stand up and defend this... what good is he?

This morning I spoke with a progressive PAC chairman and asked him why progressives like him aren't matching the gigantic budgets the far right PACs are pouring into the Baton Rouge district. "Money is scarce and why prop up conservatives who can't be counted on to support us when real progressives like Gary Peters in Michigan, Darcy Burner in Washington and Dennis Shulman in New Jersey won't need their arms twisted to go in there and fight for working families. There isn't enough money to go around for every Democrat and we're using ours to support candidates who take strong stands on our issues, not people who will be likely to listen to the same corrupt lobbyists the Republicans listen to. He seems to have a lot more money than Jenkins and maybe he can get some more from his buddies at the NRA."

I looked around a little and found that Cazayoux has a position on health care. From his website: "Cazayoux does not believe a big government program is the solution; he supports a market-based solution that will increase access to quality, affordable healthcare.  Cazayoux believes that increasing access to health care for everyone will drive down the cost of premiums for those who currently have insurance." I'd love to find out how this differs from your garden variety Republican.