Conventional Wisdom Inside The Beltway Wants To Blame Black Voters For The Coming Blue Dog Losses

It was like when I was in high school and Ken and I would be on the phone late into the night on election day, comparing notes on obscure races no one else either of us knew were even aware of. On May 3, 2008 Ken and I had long since graduated from high school but we were still following obscure races. This one was in Louisiana's 6th CD, where a special election was being held to replace lobbyist Richard Baker. I live-blogged it, and watched with some sense of excitement as Easy Baton Rouge's predominantly African-American precincts came rolling in late in the evening-- rolling in and wiping out, then swamping, the KKK/GOP candidate, Woody Jenkins. Jenkins had been ahead all night. Here were my updates that night:

UPDATE ONE: KKK CANDIDATE PULLS AHEAD IN BATON ROUGE

With 20% of the parishes reporting it's Jenkins with 13,237 (52.7%) and Cazayoux with 10,936 (43.6%).


UPDATE TWO: THERE'S GONNA BE SOME HAPPY KLAN DRAGONS TONIGHT

With about half the precincts counted, Jenkins has 27,457 votes (51.6%) and Cazayoux has 23,308 (43.8%) but... the biggest Democratic precincts of East Baton Rouge haven't reported yet.


UPDATE TROIS: AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRECINCTS OF EAST BATON ROUGE ARE REPORTING NOW

The race is tightening as Jackson's primary supporters come in big for Cazayoux. With 121 of East Baton Rouge's 314 precincts now in, it's Jenkins with 29,841 (48.9%) and Cazayoux with 28,350 (46.4%)


UPDATE FOUR: IT'S ALL UP TO EAST BATON ROUGE NOW

Virtually all votes are counted in the KKK-heavy areas and all that's left to count are the Democratic strongholds of East Baton Rouge. Any Klansmen who were breaking out the rum and coke or Pabst Blue Ribbon, hold off. Only 156 of East Baton Rouge's 314 precincts are in and Jenkins can still lose this. Right now it's Jenkins with 34,428 (49.1%) and Cazayoux with 32,400 (46.2%).

UPDATE FIVE: CAZAYOUX PULLS AHEAD

The East Baton Rouge precincts are flooding in now and Cazayoux has pulled ahead of Klansman Woody Jenkins.-- 49,312 (49.2%) to 46,282 (46.2%) It is OVER!


UPDATE: FINAL VOTE

Don Cazayoux- 49,702 (49.20%)

Woody Jenkins- 46,741 (46.27%)

One would have to guess that I wasn't the only person watching that Saturday night. I mean at least Don Cazayoux must have been paying attention, no? But maybe not. He went to Congress and immediately made a spectacle of himself as the most conservative, anti-family Dixiecrat imaginable, voting with the Republicans again and again... and again. It seemed in those few months he served in Congress he had only one goal: persuade the voters who had cast their ballots for the Klansman, Jenkins, that he was just as... well... horrible as what they had hoped Jenkins would be. One thing he showed without any doubt is that no one would ever be able to accuse him of catering to the working families or African-Americans who had voted for him.

So, he progressively infuriates the voters from the East Baton Rouge precincts-- the only thing you could attach his name and "progressive" to-- while putting all his eggs in the Republican-light basket. It didn't take long before an African American state Senator, Michael Jackson, was pissed off enough to declare his candidacy for the general election. And that was the end of the idiotic congressional career of Don Cazayoux. How could he possibly expect African-American voters to cast their ballots for him again after he had so blatantly disrespected them? They didn't stay home and they didn't vote for the clownish Republican thing Bill Cassidy (who wiped Cazayoux out, 48-40%). Nope, 12% of the votes, almost all in the East Baton Rouge precincts that had elected Cazayoux to being with, and substantially more than Cassidy's margin of victory, were cast for Michael Jackson. It was a year when Republicans were losing everywhere-- and the 6th was Obama's best performing congressional district in Louisiana outside of New Orleans (also taken by a Republican)-- but Cazayoux was conscientiously evaluated by his constituents, found wanting, and left to the tender mercies of the Republicans he had so assiduously courted.

Now, why bring this up today? Yesterday's Hill tried grappling with some Inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that has it how Democrats are in for a shellacking in 2010 because African-American voters, with no Obama on the ticket, are not going to turn out in the big numbers needed to re-elect shaky incumbents. The words "public option" never appear in the story, nor do the words "health care reform." And yet, African-American voters have always shown that they're savvier than the general electorate and more likely to understand their own interests and use the ballot to reward candidates who are fighting for them-- or punish the ones fighting against them and their families.

At the very bottom of the story-- 21 paragraphs down (of a 22 paragraph story)-- Emory University political scientist Merle Black is quoted, regarding the senatorial run-off election last year between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin. Martin lost by 3% points in the general and by 15% in the run-off. Black offered the novel idea that it can depend on how much a candidate has to offer black voters, and that’s what Democrats will have to work on. "There were efforts to turn them out [in the Senate runoff], but the main driving force is whether voters think candidates are going to do something for them. The difference between Obama and Martin was a chasm."

The Hill identifies a half dozen Democrats representing districts with significant black populations who might suffer if black participation falls off precipitously. “If what looks like is going to happen in Virginia plays out on a national level, I do think Democrats will lose the House,” said Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling.

“We really don’t find that many people who voted Democratic in 2008 are switching sides; they’re just becoming complacent,” he added. “And that’s particularly true with black Democrats, which is the party’s most dependable voter bloc.”

...Reps. Tom Perriello and Glenn Nye both rode into Washington in districts that are nearly one-quarter black. Nye won by 5 percent, while Perriello won by fewer than 1,000 votes.

The third freshman Democrat in the state’s delegation, Rep. Gerry Connolly has a 10 percent African-American district. He said he, Nye and Perriello will be watching the results, but that it’s a yearly exercise in the state to re-evaluate the electorate.

He noted that not only are black voters expected to drop significantly, but so is another key Democratic voter group: young adults.

“That’s a huge change in the composition of the electorate. That’s not easily made up on the run,” Connolly said. “So, yeah, we’re watching the electorate, but this is not a new phenomenon in Virginia.”

Many other freshman Democrats come from districts with black populations similar in size to Nye’s and Perriello’s, including Alabama Reps. Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith, North Carolina Rep. Larry Kissell and Ohio Rep. Steve Driehaus. Many of the rest come from districts with about 10 percent black populations, like Connolly’s.

“It’s going to be hard to get African-Americans to vote without Obama, but there’s going to be lower turnout across the board,” said a consultant who works with candidates in the former group.

No distinction between candidates (like Bright, Nye and Griffith) with voting records that no self-respecting working family-- black or white-- would want to see re-elected and members who have been true to the principles and values they ran on, principles and values embraced by most African-American voters. Tom Perriello has been an excellent representative for working families, regardless of color. Many African-American voters, like working people across all demographics, are watching to see which congressmembers oppose meaningful health care legislation. It isn't lack of interest that could wipe out conservative Democrats like Bright, Griffith and Nye but anti-family votes on health care. Arguably, Parker Griffith is the worst Democrat in the House, certainly at least as big a disappointment for working families, for Democrats and for African Americans as Don Cazayoux was. And he is doing exactly what Cazayoux tried-- courting angry, low-info, reactionary whites whose natural home is the GOP. If I had to bet on one Democrat losing in 2010, it would certainly be Parker Griffith and if black turn-out is blamed, it will be something to feel proud of.

Gerry Connolly isn't exactly my idea of a great congressman but he's a moderate, not a reactionary Blue Dog. Watch him fending off a radical right Republican and a laughably biased Fox propagandist while defending the public option for his working class constituents. This-- not Parker's promise to vote with the GOP against Nancy Pelosi-- is what will turn out black voters for Democrats:



Now, speaking of reactionary Blue Dogs who don't deserve any support from African-American voters, Arkansas Congressman Mike Ross is not just egregiously corrupt but has also played an especially destructive role in the health care debate. He's consistently conspired with Republicans to block reform. Now that that has become fodder for the newspapers back home-- as has his corruption scandal-- and now that his chances to win re-election are rapidly dimming, Ross is rethinking his position on health care.

A quarter of Ross' constituents in southern Arkansas are African-Americans. Overwhelmingly they strongly support President Obama's calls for meaningful health care reform. Ross didn't have an opponent in 2004 and he didn't have an opponent in 2008. (In 2006 the Republicans thought they could fool someone by running an architect from El Dorado named... Joe Ross. Joe scraped by with 25% of the vote.) The spokesman for the Blue Dog caucus on health care is now telling reporters that he actually favors... single payer!!!! That's right, one of the most reactionary Democrats in Congress says he wants to open up Medicare to the uninsured. What a joker!

Will A 2010 Bright v Love Rematch Be A Replay Of The Dynamics That Doomed Don Cazayoux And Nick Lampson In 2008?

When it matters, Bobby Bright is just as bad as a Republican

Republican Jay Love is telling whoever asks that he's considering a rematch with reactionary Democrat, Bobby Bright in their deeply red Alabama district. Now that voters in the area have seen that Bright will never stand up for Democratic values-- he votes more frequently with the GOP against President Obama's programs than any Democrat other than fellow winger Walt Minnick of Idaho-- two questions will have to be answered. First, will enough Republicans and conservative independents vote for him over an actual Republican (and one who is even more conservative)? And second, will moderate and progressive Democrats in AL-02 bother turning up at the ballot box to vote for someone who has been as terrible in Congress as Bright? In other words, will Bright suffer the same fate suffered by similarly positioned-- and similarly craven-- Blue Dog Democrats Don Cazayoux (LA) and Nick Lampson (TX) last year?

First let's look at the stats on the 3 districts. In November Bright narrowly edged Love 143,997- 142,231 (50-50 if you want to work out the percentages) in a southern Alabama district with an R+13 where a longtime Republican incumbent, Terry Everett, has retired. At the same time the voters were narrowly giving Bright the nod, they voted overwhelmingly for McCain, 63-36%, the largest McCain vote in any district electing a new Democratic congressman.

Don Cazayoux had been elected to replace Republican crook Richard Baker in May, 2008, when Baker was sent to prison for corruption officially became a lobbyist. Cazayoux, a conservative, ran against a KKK-backed extreme right sociopath. The sociopath was winning until Cazayoux was able to nail down support from East Baton Rouge's African-American community, which he immediately stabbed in the back-- repeatedly-- upon getting into Congress. Last November voters in East Baton Rouge supported a third party candidate, their own state Senator, Michael Jackson, who decided to teach Louisiana Democrats a lesson about dissing working families. In a powerfully Democratic year, Cazayoux became one of only 4 Democratic incumbents-- all conservatives-- to be defeated. Bill Cassidy beat him 150,226 (48%) to 125,716 (40%) with 12% going to Jackson, more than enough to have prevented Cazayoux to continue another two years of crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. The PVI is R+7 and McCain won with 57%.

A second reactionary Blue Dog incumbent to be defeated in 2008 was Texas' Nick Lampson who, in 2006, had beaten a stand-in for disgraced GOP corruptionist Tom Delay 52-42%. The right-leaning district (PVI- R+15 at the time) then turned around this past November and rejected Lampson for Republican Pete Olson 161,600 (53%) to 139,879 (45%), while handing McCain a 58% win over Obama.

Why should a progressive Democrat-- one of a small number in AL-02-- come out and vote for Bright? He's a bit better than Love? Yeah, he is-- but on almost all the key issues of the day, he really is just as bad as Love and tarnishes the Democratic brand and leads in the wrong direction. Even on something as easy for a Democrat to vote for as SCHIP, Bright was one of only two Democrats to vote "No," while forty Republicans voted for the program to provide health insurance to needy children. He was also one of only 8 right-wing Democrats to vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act and 5 Democrats to oppose equal employment protection for women. I don't see how anyone who cares about Democratic Party values would even seriously consider voting for Bright. He calls himself a Democrat but... so what? When it counts, he votes with the GOP. And at the same time, Democrats try working with these Blue Dogs and compromising with them, forever dragging the Party rightwards-- and away from solutions to the country's real problems. Time to dump Bobby Bright, no matter how execrable Jay Love is.

THE PLOT THICKENS IN BATON ROUGE-- THREE-WAY RACE OFFERS VOTERS A REAL CHOICE

This morning CQPolitics did a Louisiana story claiming that challenges to corporate shill Mary Landrieu and alleged bribe taker William Jefferson top the state's political news. The Landrieu story hasn't actually developed into much and, where once she looked to be the only vulnerable Senate Democrat up for re-election, she's looking safer by the day. Karl Rove's strategy of recruiting the Democratic state treasurer, John Kennedy, to jump the fence and run as a Republican hasn't been panning out. Meanwhile a hodgepodge of 7 Democrats have filed to run against Jefferson in the September 6 primary. I can't figure out who the progressive is in this race.

I'm more interested in the competitive House seats that could result in a seats switching parties, the Shreveport district (LA-04, where McCrery is finally resigning, presumably so he doesn't have to spend any more time with his family and pretend he's straight, and where Paul Carmouche-- typical DCCC website with no positions on issues; I guess Rahm hasn't told him how he feels about stuff yet-- is running for the open seat in the very red district; and the Lafayette-Lake Charles district (LA-07), where African-American state Senator Don Cravins is challenging extremist clown Charles Boustany.

Oh, and the Baton Rouge district (LA-06)... which could well flip back Republican. Let me tell you why. First, let me say that in May I mentioned how African-American legislators in Louisiana have grown increasingly frustrated over the state and national party ignoring them in favor of conservative white Democrats. The threats to bolt the party helped Cravins get at least lip service support from the Democrats, although they certainly seem to be putting all their effort behind conservative white Carmouche even though both districts have PVIs of R +7. The other Democrat mentioned in that May story was Michael Jackson-- and Jackson is bolting and could very well cause Cazayoux to lose his recently-won seat.

A little history. After Richard Baker retired in February, there was a Democratic primary that Don Cazayoux won. His main primary competitor, a far more progressive state Rep, Michael Jackson, backed him in the general election and Cazayoux was able to scrape out a victory for two reasons. First the GOP ran an extremist lunatic widely regarded as a quasi-KKK candidate. And second, Jackson was able to deliver the East Baton Rouge African American precincts that backed him in the primary, to Cazayoux.

The problem is that real Democrats in the district have been dismayed to see Cazayoux get into Congress and vote with the Republicans again and again. He hasn't been voting long but his record is already astonishingly bad-- the 8th worst of any Democrat in the House. On substantive issues where there is a strong partisan divide, Cazayoux scores a dismal 37.50 out of 100, right between worthless reactionaries Heath Shuler (NC), Jason Altmire (PA), Brad Ellsworth (IN) and Dan Boren (OK). He voted to keep the Iraq occupation going and he voted for retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretaps. Jackson opposes the war and opposed the FISA bill. He thinks Cazayoux has swung way too far to the right. He's running as an independent.

Local Dems are fretting that Jackson will split the vote and allow Republican state Senator Bill Cassidy-- a conservative but not as insane and extreme as Jenkins, the maniac Cazayoux beat in May-- to slip in. That isn't how Jackson sees it at all. He thinks the two conservatives will split the right-of-center vote and allow a forward-thinking progressive to slip in. There are two pro-war candidates running and one who opposes the war. And, remember, this isn't a primary; Jackson is running as an Independent. All it takes is a plurality in November to win the seat. Jackson has as much a chance to win this seat as either Cazayoux or Cassidy-- and he'd make a far better member of Congress than either of them.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE 3 LOSSES FOR THE GOP IN THE RECENT SPECIAL ELECTIONS

Stender & Hall, beneficiaries of Republican Party disintegration

The other day I was working on our Carney campaign and I pulled up the Progressive Punch Chips Are Down table that shows the relative adherence to Democratic positions on key substantive matters. Predictably, Carney was way towards the bottom of the barrel with a 41.54 score, one of the half dozen Democratic freshmen voting again and again and again with the GOP on key issues. But then when my eyes drifted down into GOP territory, I noticed there was a Democrat who was voting far worse than Carney, even worse than perennial Dixiecrats John Barrow, Nick Lampson and Jim Marshall. Look at this chart. It shows Don Cazayoux voting more frequently with the GOP than 3 Republicans-- and virtually tied with Michael Castle, a mainstream conservative from Delaware. In fact, Cazayoux's voting record, so far, has more in common with Mean Jean Schmidt's, Patrick McHenry's, Tim Walberg's and the other most extremist Republicans than he has with even moderate Democrats like John Salazar (CO), Jim Cooper (TN), or Blue Dog caucus chair Mike Ross (AR).



I warned friends of mine who were working for his election that they would need to keep an eye on him after the election because it seemed likely that he would be prone to vote exactly how Woody KKKpecker, the neo-fascist he defeated, would vote. And he has.

That said, it has been even more than a great joy seeing the Republican Party thrown into a death spiral of dismay, panic and finger-pointing after the losses of the 3 special elections won by Cazayoux and 2 other conservative Democrats, Bill Foster (IL) and Travis Childers (MS). I say more than a great joy because one sees concrete political results of the Republican debacle every single day. Yesterday the minority leader of the Westchester legislature, Republican George Oros, abandoned his challenge to progressive freshman Congressman John Hall.

In a “Dear Friends” letter to supporters, Oros said he felt he could win a primary, but, citing recent Republican defeats in special congressional elections elsewhere, he has concluded the odds of winning in November, this time around, are slim.

The GOP-- at all levels-- has been plagued with recruitment problems, unable to find plausible candidates to run even in once solidly Republican districts. They have had to settle for self-funding vanity candidates and for wild-eyed ideological firebrands in race after race. Even in high profile races for the U.S. Senate they've been stuck with largely lackluster second and third tier non-contenders. In Arkansas, the four very mediocre Democrats who make up that state's Democratic congressional delegation will all waltz back to their seats without a single challenge between them.

And this morning's CQPolitics reports that in New Jersey, a state where the GOP has been suffering in more than most states from Republican top tier candidates passing on runs this year, another race to hold a Republican seat looks like a lost cause. Today a p.r. agent, the daughter of a failed GOP politician and a couple of hackish also-rans will meet in a bitter primary-- after half a dozen actual contenders dropped out of the race-- to determine which Republican will be beaten by Democratic state Senator Linda Stender in November.

At stake is a House general election race that projects to be one of the nation’s most competitive this year. The Democrats are making a strong push to take over the seat that four-term Republican Rep. Mike Ferguson left open with his surprise decision to retire, announced last November.

It is likely that Republican primary voters, out of step with mainstream Americans, will pick the wildly right wing extremist p.r. agent, Lenny Lance, over the more mainstream conservative daughter of Christine Todd Whitman, guaranteeing a blow-out for the Democrats in November. Previously rated as "Leans Republican" (Bush won here with 53% in 2004), CQPolitics didn't even wait for the primary results to come in to upgrade the race to "No Clear Favorite," which, for a timid, conservative organization means: "Landslide for the Democrat No Matter Who Wings the GOP Primary."

HEAVY HANDED DCCC POLICIES COULD BITE THEM IN THE ASS-- IN LOUISIANA

I closely watched the votes rolling in last Saturday in Louisiana's special election. All night Woody KKK-pecker was ahead. It looked like there was little chance Don Cazayoux will be able to overcome his formidable lead in the mostly white suburbs. Finally there was nothing left but the East Baton Rouge precincts-- many of them solidly working class and mostly African-American. Cazayoux hadn't done well in these precincts in the primary. They were all taken by state Rep. Michael Jackson, a respected and admired African-American lawmaker with deep ties to the community. But once those precincts started rolling in late in the evening, Woody KKK-pecker and his friends had no choice but to pour the Pabst back into the cans and save it for another day. The race started tightening, then Cazayoux took the lead and them-- POW!-- KKK-pecker was roadkill. The final vote was 49,702 (49.2%) to 46,741 (46.3%). And Don Cazayoux was in the House voting for Barney Frank's and Maxine Waters' housing reform bills that-- if they get by McConnell's planned filibuster in the Senate and Bush's threatened veto-- will start to help thousands and thousands of American families whose homes are in jeopardy after being victimized by predatory lenders licensed for economic mayhem by Bush-McCain anti-regulatory ideological mania. My guess is that the voters of East Baton Rouge are happy that they turned out in big enough numbers to help pass this legislation.

It might not happen again. The election was to fill out the rest of corrupt lobbyist Richard Baker's unexpired term. In November Cazayoux will have to stand for re-election. The Republicans have promised to go beyond the Klan to find a candidate this time and will look for a mainstream conservative instead of a modern day night-rider. But as a genial and hard-working moderate-to-conservative incumbent, Cazayoux shouldn't have that hard of a time holding on to the seat. He's on the correct side of every issue that means anything this year, especially the economic ones that mean the most. The problem isn't the Republican. It's the voters in East Baton Rouge, his winning margin.

Michael Jackson says that the Louisiana state Democratic Party and the DCCC goons in Washington backed Cazayoux in the primary and hampered his ability to raise campaign funds. That's standard operating procedure for the Inside the Beltway party petty tyrants when they want to knock off a progressive or grassroots candidate. Jackson says he's thinking of running as an independent, which would doom Cazayoux's re-election shot. And Jackson isn't the only African-American Democratic lawmaker in Louisiana not feeling the love from the Democratic insiders club. State Senators Don Cravins, Jr. and Lydia Jackson agree. Cravins: "For many, many years, the African-American community has been very supportive of Democrats, and many of us feel that has not been reciprocated." Cravins in pondering a run as an independent against Republican Charles Boustany and Lydia Jackson may decide to run as an independent for the seat being vacated by Republican closet queen Jim McCrery.

Louisiana has only one black member of Congress: U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, a Democrat who represents a majority black district.

...Though he said the Democratic Party supports him as a state senator in a majority black district, Cravins said he worries that financial and organizational help would evaporate once he ventures into a congressional district that is majority white.

"When an African-American candidate runs in a majority white district, race is always an issue," said Cravins.

Cravins' father-- Opelousas Mayor Don Cravins Sr.-- ran for Congress in 2004 and lost, and at the time, Cravins Sr. criticized members of the Democratic Party for not providing enough support for his candidacy.

...Sen. Lydia Jackson, D-Shreveport, also said she is weighing a run as an independent for the 4th U.S. Congressional District seat being vacated by retiring U.S. Rep. James McCrery, R-Shreveport. She said she has some problems with the way the party has been recruiting and supporting candidates.

"Looking at the demographics for the 4th, it just makes sense to consider the independent route," she said.

I'll bet Mary Landrieux is working something out right now and my guess is that at least one of these candidates will be a well-supported Democrat running in November.

GOP CLAIMS THEY KEEP LOSING SPECIAL ELECTIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE CRAPPY CANDIDATES RATHER THAN CRAPPY POSITIONS

Click to see who's fightin' who

Republicans, starting with Tom Cole, are just not getting the message from the Specials. Republicans are losing-- not just long shot races in Massachusetts and California, but the ones they should be winning with no problems, open seats in disproportionately red districts. Their reactionary policies are not what Americans want to hear; their messaging is atrocious; their strategy-- Reverend Wright-- is worse. But party officials are blaming everything and everyone but themselves. Yesterday it was all about how if they could have only spent more millions on smearing Don Cazayoux as though he were a participant in some kind of Pelosi-Obama-Wright cabal they would have won. When they started dumping millions of dollars into cynical and idiotic ads Cazayoux was ahead 49-46%. When the ballots were counted 3 weeks later, Cazayoux won 49-46%-- and the GOP and their shady front groups were out several million dollars.

In today's CongressDaily there are a couple of stories, one from pollster Charlie Cook and one from Erin McPike, dealing with the GOP inability to deal with reality. As usual, Cook, is propping up his GOP pals and making the excuses for them that they want out there. Straight from Cole's spin factory, Cook tries to make the collapsing Republican Party look lie just another tough day at the country club. "It is very easy, often tempting, to over-interpret the meaning of a special congressional election. Many read great importance into the results of a single congressional district and try to extrapolate that meaning to 434 other districts for the next election. The truth is that there are often unique or local circumstances that play an important role in determining the outcome of the election. They don't call these contests 'special' for nothing."

No, they don't. And no one ever called Charlie Cook a pathetic and disingenuous hack without reason. There's a war going on inside the Republican House caucus and Cook's pal, NRCC head Tom Cole, is a Mississippi mile millimeter from being ignominiously dumped overboard. There is no love lost between Cole and Minority leader John Boehner. One of his allies says Cole is "wrong. If it's a national referendum on the GOP, that's bad, because people don't like us right now."

Even Cook admits that it's "tempting, if one is on the losing side of a special election, to rationalize the outcome, to focus exclusively on the unusual circumstances and deny larger truths that emerge from that or from a pattern of special elections." He then goes on to parrot the spin from the Cole camp in regard to Saturday's catastrophe, namely that it was all the terrible candidate's fault:

Republicans got saddled with a candidate who, to a certain extent, was the Pelican State's answer to Florida's former Rep. Katherine Harris.

Just as Harris couldn't lose a statewide primary and couldn't win a statewide general election, longtime conservative activist and former state legislator Woody Jenkins was very difficult to beat in a closed GOP primary but entered into a general election with a walk-in closet of political and personal baggage.

Jenkins came in on the short side of the 49-46 percent race, but a weekend in Baton Rouge last month convinced me that few thought Woody would win even then, though few thought he would lose badly either-- the district is too Republican for that.

A generic Republican would have outperformed Woody.

Similarly, the GOP loss in March of Illinois' 14th District-- formerly held by Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and which President Bush won with 54 percent in 2000, 55 percent in 2004-- also featured another statewide loser of a Republican nominee, dairy magnate Jim Oberweis.

Oberweis brought his own complete set of Samsonite into the race, Democrats dubbed him "the Milk Dud," and the voters went with now-Rep. Bill Foster, D-Ill.

In both of these cases, again, there were unique circumstances: tough GOP primaries produced weak, ideological candidates.

Had Republicans been able to nominate better candidates in each case, they might have held onto the seats. To their credit, the National Republican Congressional Committee folks understood from the beginning that they faced significant challenges in both districts.

This is laughable spin. Doug Thornell of the DCCC sounds like he is peeing in his pants when he points out that his Republican counterparts "have painted themselves into a corner with a batch of flawed candidates out of touch with their districts. That, coupled with an extremely tarnished brand, a nonexistent message, a president with historically high disapproval numbers, and a nominee campaigning for a third Bush term makes their climb all the more arduous in November."

A week from today there's another Special (MS-01) pitting conservative Democrat Travis Childers against exactly the kind of cookie-cutter, or in Cook's terms, "generic," Republican they think they can win with. And maybe they can. The district, after all, has a PVI of R +10 and if they can't hold onto a seat in a district that Republican they might as well fold up the tents right now. Cook/Cole notes that Democrat Travis Childers beat the generic Davis in the primary (which he was just 410 votes away from the magic 50% that would have mooted the need for a runoff) because it "was a nonpartisan election, and their parties were not on the ballot."

Cole insists on sticking with his losing strategy of running superfluous negative advertising but he is already setting up excuses in case it doesn't work again. Cook presages next Wednesday's spin:

As is often the case, there are unusual circumstances besides the nonpartisan nature of the election in this district. Davis is from the section of the district comprised pretty much of Memphis, Tenn., suburbs. Childers is from the non-Memphis, or one might say anti-Memphis, part of the district. This situation has a lot more to do with geography than partisan politics.

But even Cook, albeit way at the end of the story, had to admit that Cole's spin about why his Louisiana strategy was sound, is absolute nonsense. "Much is being made of the fact that Republicans aired advertising tying the Democratic candidates in Louisiana and Mississippi to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, and his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, despite the fact that there is no evidence that either Democrat ever met Obama or Wright. [Cole's team is] arguing that the ads took what would have been a Democratic runaway election and turned it close. Democrats are arguing that the ads didn't work. I never saw any polls showing a Cazayoux landslide. Indeed, the polls in the closing weeks were fairly close to the actual election result."

And even though the tsunami of discontent hasn't hit the Senate side yet-- only because there have been no Specials there-- the NRSC's hapless chair, John Ensign, is also desperate to do some spinning of his own. He claims the victories in 2006 by Jim Webb (D-VA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jon Tester (D-MT), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) were not won on a populist Democratic message. "I don't think anybody in their right mind thought that they won on that... They won on an unpopular president. You combine the war, George Bush and the scandals, and those all combined to make a very tough Election Day for us." Poor fella... two years later, the war is worse, the GOP senators, lead by Miss McConnell are more rubber stampy and completely obstructionist, Bush is far more hated than he was in 2006 and scandals? You want scandals? As I was sitting down to write this, the entire Alaska Republican Party is in jeopardy of going to prison on corruption charges and this morning the FBI was raiding the home and the office of corrupt Bush hack Scott Bloch. Wall Street Journal: "Federal Bureau of Investigation agents raided the Office of Special Counsel here, seizing computers and documents belonging to the agency chief Scott Bloch and staff. More than a dozen FBI agents served grand jury subpoenas shortly after 10 a.m., shutting down the agency's computer network and searching its offices, as well as Mr. Bloch's home. Employees said the searches appeared focused on alleged obstruction of justice by Mr. Bloch during the course of an 2006 inquiry into his conduct in office."

Newt Gingrich is working from different motivations and isn't spinning as furiously as Cole, Boehner and Ensign. He wrote in today's Human Events that, in effect, Charlie Cook should pull his head out of Tom Cole's ass and get a grip:

Republican loss in the special election for Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District last Saturday should be a sharp wake up call for Republicans: Either Congressional Republicans are going to chart a bold course of real change or they are going to suffer decisive losses this November.
The facts are clear and compelling.

Saturday's loss was in a district that President Bush carried by 19 percentage points in 2004 and that the Republicans have held since 1975.

This defeat follows on the loss of Speaker Hastert's seat in Illinois. That seat had been held by a Republican for 76 years with the single exception of the 1974 Watergate election when the Democrats held it for one term. That same seat had been carried by President Bush 55-44% in 2004.

These two special elections validate a national polling pattern that is bad news for Republicans. According to a New York Times/CBS Poll, Americans disapprove of the President's job performance by 63 to 28 (and he has been below 40% job approval since December 2006, the longest such period for any president in the history of polling).

A separate New York Times/CBS Poll shows that a full 81 percent of Americans believe the economy is on the wrong track.

The current generic ballot for Congress according to the NY Times/CBS poll is 50 to 32 in favor of the Democrats. That is an 18-point margin, reminiscent of the depths of the Watergate disaster.

While we're waiting for Cole and Ensign to spin that, here's a little message for them:

BAD NEWS FOR THE GOP: NO ONE CARES ABOUT REV. WRIGHT BUT YOU

More than Hagee or Wright, THIS is the relationship on voters' minds

After Woody-KKKpecker (R-LA) got his ass whooped in Louisiana Saturday-- in one of the reddest districts in America-- the Republican Party immediately put out a press release insisting their losing strategy was correct and that they would continue using it. Next week we'll see if it works any better in an even redder district (PVI- R +10) in northern Mississippi, where Democrat Travis Childers squares off against another cookie-cutter wingnut a week from tomorrow.

In today's NY Times Ad Nag and Marjorie Connelly report some stats that Tom Cole and his coordinating buddies in the GOP front groups might want to consider carefully before dumping another $4 million into MS-01 whining about Obama's former preacher. "A majority of American voters say that the furor over the relationship between Senator Barack Obama and his former pastor has not affected their opinion of Mr. Obama... [M]ost Americans said they approved of the way Mr. Obama had responded to the episode and considered his criticism of Mr. Wright appropriate." What we do care about are the issues that drove the Democratic victory in Baton Rouge Saturday: the catastrophic Bush Regime economic policy agenda. And there's bad news here for the two huckstering presidential panderers too. John W. McCain and Hillary R. McClinton better pay attention to the NY Times/CBS News poll as well.

[A]n overwhelming majority of voters said candidates calling for the suspension of the federal gasoline tax this summer were acting to help themselves politically, rather than to help ordinary Americans. Mr. Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, has made the suspension of the gas tax a centerpiece of her campaign in recent days.

Before this poll came out, we got an e-mail from an old DWT correspondent we haven't heard from in a while, Tony Guzzi, the man who first introduced us to Paul Hodes and has captured the Lieberhound on film in some compromised situations. Tony was listening to "Looking For A Leader" from Neil Young's Living With War album and it moved him to write.

MISSED OPPORTUNITY

-by Tony Guzzi

“Looking for a Leader. Maybe it’s Obama, but he thinks he’s too young.”- Neil Young


Obama took the bait. He made a rookie mistake. The pundits, experts, wingnuts and village idiots dangled it out there like a fat earthworm on a hook. “There’s really nothing else he can do. He’s either going to do nothing and let the Rev. Wright thing drag him down or he can denounce him and cut all ties. It is his only choice.” And Obama, feeling the pressure from the Establishment and the talking morons, bit on the hook. For now, he has been reeled into the Big Boat, far away from Change We Can Believe In. The sad truth is, no matter which of these supposed ‘choices’ he made, there is a snowball’s chance in Hades that the Wright ‘controversy’ is going to go away. The Matthews, Russerts, lizard face Andrea Mitchells and their ilk will never let go of Wright and would be more than happy to arrange a pay per view steel cage death match between the ex-Marine and the junior Senator. They smell blood in the water and plan to pour salt on the wounds until somebody screams in pain. It’ll probably be me. The deck is stacked and Obama needs to think bigger.
 
Indeed, there was an opportunity in this most recent Wright escapade and the mistake Obama made was in not recognizing the faux choices laid out for him by the smart people, probably even some in his campaign. There was another choice. In his speech in Philadelphia, Barack Obama said all he needed to about Rev. Wright. For an oh-so-brief moment in the afterglow of the next morning, there was commentary about how ‘he spoke to us like we were adults.’ Imagine that. There was a little gem for some astute staffer to hold onto and want to be sure that the Campaign repeated. Speak to the ‘American People’ like they were adults using coherent sentences and logically formulated ideas.
 
The choice then, and the opportunity was, for Obama to remind Americans that Rev. Wright’s supposedly offensive comments-- whatever they were, I think he said “God Damn America”, oh the heresy!-- are protected under the 1st Amendment to our Constitution. Remember that document that built our Nation? Judging by the lines I witnessed recently stretching around the block at the National Archives in D.C., I would say that those folks surely do.

Obama’s true choice was to stand up and state that while he may or may not agree with some of Reverend Wright’s views, his Right to espouse them, whether from a pulpit or the Press Club, is protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and as President he would be sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. Something our current occupant has chosen to forget.
 
He could have taken the opportunity to illustrate for Americans the egregious double standard regarding the endorsement of McCain, an endorsement that he sought and gladly accepted, by Pastor John Hagee who made some truly despicable “chickens coming home to roost” comments of his own, after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. In his case, it was God that was doing the roosting as punishment for the sinners of New Orleans. Why isn’t there a Pastor Hagee ‘controversy’? If Obama had made the courageous choice today, that would have been Change I Could Believe In. Unfortunately, however, Obama took to the path of ‘renouncing’ and ‘distancing’ and all the other marketing swill that this whole God Damned primary season has become. By doing so, he is trying to ‘appease’ the Establishment, but as we all know, appeasing Fascists never works out. Realistically, how long before someone questions his loyalty to Wright, or a Fox News crawl blares, “Did Obama flip-flop on Rev.Wright?”
 
Reverend Wright, for reasons of his own, or someone else’s, has decided to take his ‘opportunity’ to speak to the American People and until nobody else invites him, will probably continue to do so. You can’t really blame him. This is his chance to get his message heard. As an ex-Marine who served his Country and defended the Constitution, unlike so many chickenhawks currently populating our Government, Wright must feel he has earned his free speech. How inconvenient it must be for those who don’t want to hear what he has to say. To be honest, I heard it and I wasn’t offended. I’m trying to figure out which comment Sean Vannity found most offensive, that the U.S. may have introduced the AIDS virus into urban communities or the snipe at the draft dodging Cheney.
 
The opportunity missed for Obama, and the opportunity hopefully to come for him again, is to use the spotlight and his God given eloquence to speak to us as adults and Americans and remind voters of the Rights bestowed to them in the Constitution. Scream it out if he has to. Drown out the ignorant and inane rantings of so many blathering fools. The rabid partisan attacks designed to marginalize Wright and Ron Paul and even Jimmy Carter are testimony to the veracity of some of, if not all of, what these men are saying. The truth always gets hit hardest. Oddly enough, aren’t Wright and Paul saying some of the same things? 9/11 was partly to blame on blowback for U.S. Policies in the Middle East? Seems like an opportunity to me. Who will Ron Paul endorse? Might want to start some coalition building right there.
 
Speaking the supposed unpopular view takes courage and leadership. This is what Obama has said he would do. He would unite the Country by providing truth and by reaching across the aisle. There seems to be plenty of opportunity for that. This could very well be the last Presidential election where the candidates are still able to talk to the voting public, before Corporate Campaign Awareness kicks in and then we won’t have to be looking for a Leader, he will be given to us.

WILL TOM COLE RESIGN AS HEAD OF THE NRCC?

Will they run the same failed strategy in Mississippi? Probably

The big news this morning isn't that the Republican Party is demonstrably crumbling, as proven by the actual loss of an actual congressional seat in an actual hard-core GOP bastion (PVI- R +7). Don Cazayoux, running on all Democratic economic issues andagainst the occupation of Iraq, beat a Bush rubber stamp wannabe, Woody-KKKpecker. But instead the media is all abuzz about the tea leaves to be read in Guam, the relevance of Eight Belles vs Big Brown, and, of course, Rev. Wright, Rev. Wright, Rev. Wright, Rev. Wright, Rev. Wright; I almost wish Nancy Grace could find some kidnap victim again. Finally, though, this morning the NY Times took note of the mind-blowing loss for the GOP last night in Louisiana.

A Democrat took an open Congressional seat long held by Republicans in the conservative district around Baton Rouge in a special election Saturday, giving the party an early boost in its quest for an increased majority in the House of Representatives.

Don Cazayoux, a state representative, defeated Woody Jenkins, a small-newspaper publisher and former legislator long associated with religious-right causes in Louisiana, by 49 percent to 46 percent, in a tight race for a seat left open by the retirement of Richard Baker, a Republican.

Mr. Cazayoux portrayed himself as little different from Mr. Jenkins on social issues, overcoming the Republicans’ depiction of him as a “liberal” in lock step with figures like the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Barack Obama, who shared billing with him in a barrage of Republican attack advertisements.

The two parties saw the Louisiana race as an important test for the fall, given how safe the district has been for Republicans for more than three decades. Democrats viewed a potential victory as a measure of Republican vulnerability; Republicans saw it as an indication of how difficult it might be to defend more than two dozen open seats in play in November.

Actually, Cazayoux's campaign was all about the differences-- on Iraq and on economic issues, the two categories voters most care about. Yes, he's an anti-choice Catholic and, like many or even most western and southern Democrats he's "pro-gun." Big whoop; the GOP and a thinly veiled front group spent several million dollars trying to tie Cazayoux to Nancy Pelosi and... believe it or not, Reverend Wright!

Yet when voters went to the polls yesterday, Reverend Wright wasn't on their minds; the Bush Economic Miracle was. As were Iraq, the Republican Culture of Corruption and the revulsion Americans everywhere feel for Bush and the rubber stamps who have enabled him. The NRCC issued a desperate attempt to spin this catastrophic loss into a... well, into a justification for their pitifully failed strategy.

Let's go over the GOP press release, since this is the thinking that we can expect to hear for the next 6 months as the McCain campaign continues to sputter and then, inevitably dies a miserable death, dragging the whole party down with it. Paragraph one:

There is something to be learned from tonight’s results. When Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were introduced into this campaign, Don Cazayoux was leading by a large margin in the polls. Since then, Republicans saturated the Baton Rouge airwaves in an effort to nationalize this contest and make the election about the real life consequences of a Barack Obama presidency and a continued Pelosi-run Democratic Congress. In that time, Republicans made substantial ground.

Three weeks ago there was an open primary and Democrat Don Cazayoux took 49% while Woody-KKKpecker got 46% of the vote in one of the most Republican strongholds in America. Yesterday, after the GOP spent whatever they could scrape together to poison the airwaves in an attempt to link Cazayoux with Rev. Wright-- something of absolutely zero interest to anyone who isn't a die-hard Rush Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter fanatic-- and when the votes were counted, Cazayoux had 49% and Woody-KKKpecker had 46%. So what, again, was there to be learned? Paragraph two:

This election speaks to the potential toxicity of an Obama candidacy and the possible drag he could have down-ballot this fall. We have already seen this impact another congressional race as a Democratic candidate for Congress in Mississippi is denying that he was ever endorsed by Barack Obama. In fact, he has referenced any mention of it by Republicans as an “attack.” And, across the country, Democrats in swing districts still refuse to publicly endorse the candidacy of Barack Obama.

Some Democrats favor Obama and some Democrats favor Clinton. They're in the middle of a hard-fought primary. The Republicans, their front groups and their corporate media allies have thrown all they could into the ridiculous meme that Rev. Wright= Obama= Candidate X. No traction whatsoever. The Democratic leaning precincts in East Baton Rouge were energized and turned out massively for Cazayoux yesterday not despite Obama but because of Obama (and Clinton) and because they don't want to see another 4 years of the Bush Regime in the form of a John W. McCain presidency with another rubber stamp Republican Congress. And most of all, they turned out because they agree with the Democrats-- Obama, Clinton, Cazayoux-- on the key issues and disagree with Bush, McCain and Woody-KKKpecker on those same issues... and won't buy into "let's change the subject and remember how racist we are." Take a look at Cazayoux's TV ad. And now watch the GOP ad that lost their man the election. Paragraph three:

By nature, special elections tend to be competitive and their results are not always a harbinger for the November elections, but what we do know is that a Democrat was clearly favored to easily win this election before Republicans invoked the names of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. This should come as a warning shot to Democrats. The elitist behavior of the Democratic frontrunner and the liberal and extremist positions that he and his fellow Democrats in Congress have staked their claim to, do not appear to be as salient as they once hoped.

Apparently the people who came up with the NRCC's failed strategy are desperately trying to keep their cushy jobs. "A Democrat was clearly favored to easily win this election?" I don't think so. It was 49-46% going into it and 49-46% coming out of it, despite all the millions of Republican dollars and despite all the lies and smears-- and in a district where the Democrats didn't even run a candidate in 2002, ran one who got 19% of the vote in 2004, and didn't bother running one in 2006! They talk about "the elitist behavior" of Obama, a middle class man of mixed ancestry who worked his way through college and, based on his intelligence and talent, has risen to the top in his field. He is elitist? And this from the party controlled by multimillionaires in exclusive, isolated, all-white countryclubs-- whose presidential candidate owns 8 homes and married an heiress with her own jet? That's not elitist? No one is buying their crap anymore-- except for people who are too feeble to be able to reach for the channel changer and get O'Reilly off the screen.

TODAY'S CONGRESSIONAL RACES IN LOUISIANA (UPDATE: CAZAYOUX BEATS KLANSMAN)

Don Cazayoux spells impending disaster for GOP

There were two congressional runoffs today in Louisiana, one to fill the seat that opened when Bobby Jindal became governor and one to fill the seat that became open when Richard Baker made it official and admitted he is a lobbyist. The first CD, the one formerly represented by Jindal, is expected to vote heavily Republican, which is a damned shame, since there is an actual progressive in the race, Gilda Reed. The people there still favor the war in Iraq and Confederate ideals. The 6th CD, centered around Baton Rouge, looks like a toss-up. Don Cazayoux is a conservative Democrat and Woody Jenkins is a neo-fascist Republican. The Secretary of State's website keeps releasing unofficial returns as they come in. So far only 9 parishes have reported (out of 505) in the first CD and only 6 parishes out of 512 in the Baton Rouge race, so the figures are meaningless. I'll be updating throughout the night.

Meanwhile, you can vote too-- but not on these races. Should Vito Fossella, Staten Island's drunken congressman, go to jail for breaking the law? Vote here.

With 64 precincts reporting Jenkins leads 8,978 (55%) to 6,688 (41%); too early to be sure if this means anything.


UPDATE ONE: KKK CANDIDATE PULLS AHEAD IN BATON ROUGE

With 20% of the parishes reporting it's Jenkins with 13,237 (52.7%) and Cazayoux with 10,936 (43.6%).


UPDATE TWO: THERE'S GONNA BE SOME HAPPY KLAN DRAGONS TONIGHT

With about half the precincts counted, Jenkins has 27,457 votes (51.6%) and Cazayoux has 23,308 (43.8%) but... the biggest Democratic precincts of East Baton Rouge haven't reported yet.


UPDATE TROIS: AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRECINCTS OF EAST BATON ROUGE ARE REPORTNG NOW

The race is tightening as Jackson's primary supporters come in big for Cazayoux. With 121 of East Baton Rouge's 314 precincts now in, it's Jenkins with 29,841 (48.9%) and Cazayoux with 28,350 (46.4%)


UPDATE FOUR: IT'S ALL UP TO EAST BATON ROUGE NOW

Virtually all votes are counted in the KKK-heavy areas and all that's left to count are the Democratic strongholds of East Baton Rouge. Any Klansmen who were breaking out the rum and coke or Pabst Blue Ribbon, hold off. Only 156 of East Baton Rouge's 314 precincts are in and Jenkins can still lose this. Right now it's Jenkins with 34,428 (49.1%) and Cazayoux with 32,400 (46.2%).

UPDATE FIVE: CAZAYOUX PULLS AHEAD

The East Baton Rouge precincts are flooding in now and Cazayoux has pulled ahead of Klansman Woody Jenkins.-- 49,312 (49.2%) to 46,282 (46.2%) It is OVER!


UPDATE: FINAL VOTE

Don Cazayoux- 49,702 (49.20%)

Woody Jenkins- 46,741 (46.27%)

The GOP and GOP front groups spent over $4 millions to hold on to this red, red seat. They failed. Do you think it will stop them from blocking veterans' right bills and children's health care? I doubt it. Speaker Pelosi and DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen had every right to gloat tonight. CVH: "For the second time this cycle, Republicans were reminded that 'all politics is local.' House Republicans tried to nationalize this election, illegally coordinated with Freedom's Watch, used false and deceptive special interest smears, and funneled nearly a million dollars into a district that Republicans held for more than three decades. Don won by focusing on the concerns of LA-06 voters -- good paying jobs, affordable health care, and better education."

Nancy P: "Louisianans embraced Don's positive message of strengthening America's middle class by investing in education, creating jobs, making health care more affordable and bringing our brave men and women home from Iraq. His ability to work across party lines and build consensus will be a wonderful addition to the New Direction Congress. Don Cazayoux's victory this evening proves once again that Americans across our country want real solutions and reject Republicans' negative attacks."

YOU ROOTIN' FOR ANYONE IN THE MISSISSIPPI CONGRESSIONAL RACE?

Travis Childers has a "D" next to his name but...

Earlier today we posted about how reactionary Democrats are putting the whole country in serious jeopardy. Blue Dogs are no less a danger to progressive values and to our country than are radical right Republicans. The post happened to have been about how Blue Dogs like Chris Carney are pushing the spineless House Democratic caucus towards the right, but next year at this time, the post could well be about Travis Childers.

The run-off election to fill the seat (MS-01) abandoned by Roger Wicker when he was appointed U.S. Senator following Trent Lott's decision to fulfill his life's dream and become a school teacher sleazy lobbyist, is May 13. In the first round Democrat Travis Childers came in first with 49% and Republican Greg Davis came in second with 46%. It's a heavily red district in northern Mississippi where Kerry managed to carry a mere 37% of the vote, worse than he did statewide. The district is 71.3% white, whereas the state of Mississippi is 60.7% white. The PVI of Mississippi's first CD is R +10. When Ken Hurt challenged Wicker here in 2006, he only got 34% of the vote. So to find Childers the front runner is miraculous. Should we be jumping up and down and cheering for him? Sending his campaign cash so he can run more TV spots (like this one):



I watched it originally because I had read how he was running away from an association with Barack Obama. The GOP has been trying to claim Wright= Obama= candidate X (in this case Childers). Had Childers responded by calling Davis out on it and slapping him down, maybe I would have felt good enough about him to root for him. But he didn't. And I won't-- especially after hearing what about himself he chose to emphasize in his own ad:

I'm pro-life and pro-gun

Who needs Republicans when you have Democrats like Travis Childers? Some Democrats will argue that he is better than Davis on many issues-- which is true. He is. Some of our progressive friends are promoting him as "an economic populist who supports S-CHIP, opposes CAFTA and wants us to withdraw our troops from Iraq in 12 to 18 months." I like all that.

But what I don't like can be found right here. Scroll down 'til you find Dan Boren (D-OK), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), John Barrow (D-GA), Nick Lampson (D-TX) and Jim Marshall (D-GA). This 5 reactionaries are each "better" than the Republicans they ran against. But each, since getting into Congress, has voted more frequently with the right-wing Republicans on substantive issues than they have with Democrats. Even worse, they have pulled the Democratic majority right-ward. Travis Childers will fit in somewhere between Joe Donnelly and Jim Marshall.

If he wins, I'll be happy to see the GOP sink further into a morass of demoralizing, debilitating fear of impending doom. But that isn't worth a single prayer-- not when I'm sending every good vibe I've got out to real Democrats like the ones on this list. Some of these men and women are also in prohibitively red constituencies. Not one is running away from Obama or from core progressive values. And, as we mentioned before, the race in Baton Rouge (run-off on Saturday) is nearly identical, although I gather Cazayoux isn't quite as reactionary as Childers, and not as anti-Democrat as the NY Times article makes him out to be. This morning's CQPolitics reminds us that the GOP is battling against the odds to hold onto this seat. And, as usual, they're playing dirty. Here's something I got from one of Cazayoux's supporters:

They claim wrongly that the only reason we have a chance of winning in this ruby-red district is because our candidate has rejected the Democratic party and its issues.

Cazayoux's campaign signs say: "Don Cazayoux-- DEMOCRAT for Congress". True he's pro-gun and pro-life, but he's focused his campaign on solid Democratic issues-- expanding health care, against CAFTA and Columbia free trade deal, strongly pro-union, increased funding for public education.

What about Iraq? The candidates in this race are diametrically opposed. Don's website says: "I believe we need to change directions in Iraq and bring our troops home responsibly and with honor"

Woody Jenkins, his Republican opponent, says on his website "Woody supports the Surge in Iraq and continued efforts in Afghanistan and opposes a fixed timetable for withdrawal. U.S. military action should be guided by ground commanders not politicians."

The reporter apparently went to one candidate forum and was shocked that Don didn't sing a love ballad to Pelosi and Obama for the audience. Like any smart candidate, he deflected the question by saying the he owed his allegiance to his constituents first, not national party leaders. But he certainly didn't disown them.

The article goes on to say that Don "spoke approvingly of Senator John McCain." People at the forum told me all that he said was that he wouldn't reject McCain's gas tax without further study. Wow, I guess that means he really loves John McCain.

UPDATE: GOP SLANDER ADS BEING PULLED OFF TV STATIONS

The swiftboat-like GOP front group, Freedom's Watch, is the one running the race-baiting ads deceptively tying conservative southern Democrats like Childers and Cazayoux to Rev Wright. TV stations are loathe to reject ads but this one was found so outrageous that Baton Rouge's top station, CBS-affiliate WAFB-TV, took it off the air. And today we hear that a station in Memphis, WHBQ, FOX 13, did the same thing with the Freedom's Watch attack ad against Childers.

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.

THE BAD NEWS TRAIN ROLLING TOWARDS ANOTHER RED DISTRICT? LA-06 TURNING BLUE?

A spate of recent Special Elections have been more than catastrophic for the Republican Party. They've pointed to a tsunami of resentment-- if not outright hatred-- for the GOP brand. Voters realize it isn't just Bush and Cheney, but all the enablers and co-conspirators who have been so damaging to our country. And voters are responding appropriately-- even in deeply red parts of the country. A state Senate seat in upstate New York that hasn't elected a Democrat since before McCain was born-- actually since before McCain's mother was born-- did just that on February 26. And the same night a central Florida district gerrymandered specifically to be a safe home for Republicans saw an unbelievable upset when Tony Sasso beat his big-spending GOP rival to replace GOP toilet trawler Bob Allen. And then came McCain's big play to keep Denny Hastert's GOP heartland seat red. Oberweis, the RNCC, and McCain spent a ton of money but still lost to a Democratic political novice.

Today's CongressDaily warns that "Republicans hoping for a respite from the bad electoral news that the special election in Illinois' 14th District brought last month should seek cover. Things might get worse before they get better." By worse they're referring to the Baton Rouge, Louisiana seat Richard Baker is trading in to go work as a lobbyist (LA-06). Normally it would be considered a very safe red district with a PVI of R+7. But on top of the public's overall disdain for Republicans, there has been a demographic shift in the district after Katrina and the Republican wound up with the worst possible candidate, someone associated win voters' minds with the KKK.

Before 2005's Hurricane Katrina, the black population accounted for 33 percent of the district's residents. That's a very high number for a Republican-held seat. In fact, there are only two other Republicans that sit in seats with a higher percentage.

Since Katrina, however, that percentage in Baker's district has likely risen. While official numbers haven't been compiled districtwide, the numbers in East Baton Rouge County, the seat's largest county, should be enough to give Republicans pause. In 2000, blacks made up 40 percent of the county's population. Today that number is 46 percent.

But causing the most angst among Republicans isn't the demographics of the seat, or even the current atmosphere that seems to be poisonous to the party. It's their likely nominee.

When Baker announced his retirement, there weren't too many high-profile Republicans that were looking at running, at least publicly. The favorite of the establishment early on appeared to be former Baker's chief of staff, Paul Sawyer.

But his name didn't have the cache Republicans were hoping for. In a short special election contest, name ID would play a huge role. Into that void came the well-known, or some would say, notorious, Woody Jenkins, a former GOP state senator and 1996 Senate nominee.

In that Senate race, Jenkins had the distinction of being one of the two most conservative candidates in the race. The other conservative was former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. So right off the bat, being associated with Duke as the field's two conservatives did Jenkins no favors.

Jenkins lost to Mary Landrieu in a very bitter general election which left the public with the impression that he is an extremist loon who cut a deal with the KKK. "Jenkins couldn't shake the image of being out of step with the state. In fact, it seems that 'ultra conservative' couldn't be written in news stories unless Jenkins was attached to it... Sawyer tried to use some of this background to his advantage when he aired a TV ad right before the primary alleging that Jenkins had a business relationship with Duke and tried to cover it up." It didn't do Sawyer much good but it helped remind voters how extreme right Jenkins is. And now he has to face a very well-known, right-of-center Democrat in the general election on May 3rd. The DCCC recruited anti-choice reactionary state Rep. Don Cazayoux. This race should cost the NRCC whatever small amount they have left in their pilfered treasury.

SHAKEUP IN LOUISIANA? UH... NOT MUCH

Electorally, Louisiana is unlike any other state in the Union. They have their own rules and set of bizarre electoral regulations. Sometimes I find the state so frustrating that I'll look at all 49 others before trying to figure out what's up in the Bayou (State). On top of that, the Democrats are as reactionary and corrupt as the Republicans so it barely matters which party's candidate wins anyway. Every single member of the state's House delegation is a reactionary. The least reactionary member, William Jefferson-- in a solidly Democratic New Orleans-based district-- is one of the more corrupt members of a very corrupt body. After Jefferson's Progressive Punch score of 84 (which is actually more moderate than reactionary overall, although considering the district he should have a score in the 90s), the next highest score is an out and out reactionary, Charlie Melancon (71.37-- between Melissa Bean and Jim Matheson, if that gives you an idea of how right-wing he is). The Republican members are, predictably, to the right of Attila the Hun. And one of the worst of all is the dean of the GOP delegation, Richard Baker (4.39). Look at that voting record! And if you did down a little, you'll notice he voted with Bush and Cheney on every single Iraq-related bill without one exception. Today's Roll Call announced that he'll probably be resigning from Congress to take a high-paid job as a glorified lobbyist, pushing pro-hedge funds legislation. Really revolting. I guess nothing every came of that revolving door crap they keep talking about on the Hill, huh?

Baker earlier this month told The (Baton Rouge) Advocate that he would make a decision about the job before today, and, if he decided to take it, would step down within a month to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. [A little late for that, no?]

The development will come as welcome news for Democrats, who are rallying behind the candidacy of state Rep. Don Cazayoux. But while Baker's departure sets up a scramble among potential GOP replacements, the district has been solidly Republican.

Baker will become president of the MFA [Managed Funds Association]at a time when the industry is
facing heightened scrutiny from a Democratic-led Congress looking for new sources of funds to meet their own pay-as-you-go budget rules.

The House in December passed a bill that would have limited the ability of hedge fund managers to defer taxes on their pay by keeping it in offshore shelters. The provision, aimed at helping cover the
cost of alternative minimum tax relief for middle-class taxpayers, is likely to be resurrected this year.

Most financial services lobbyists said Baker is more than up for the challenge.

Elected in 1986, he has served since 2001 as the top Republican on the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises.

...[O]ne Democratic financial services industry lobbyist, speaking on background, questioned the MFA's decision to hire a Republican. "Democrats are going to expand their control in both the House and Senate and have a better than 50 percent chance of winning the White House. So why they're hiring a Republican mystifies me."

Back in Baker's district, Democrat Cazayoux has already been lining up support among state and national party leaders and, just last week, officially announced his intention to challenge Baker.

"We're getting a lot of encouragement and we're exciting about running for the seat," said Cazayoux. "He would have been a tough opponent and certainly we take the news with optimism."

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Kyra Jennings said the DCCC had already targeted Baker, and was trying to persuade Cazayoux to run "when Baker was heavily stating that he was not leaving.

"So we think a special election in this seat presents a great opportunity for Democrats," she said.

...Baker's Baton Rouge-based 6th district has historically been reliably Republican territory, with President Bush winning it with 59 percent of the vote in the 2004 election and 55 percent in 2000. In 2006, with no Democratic opposition, the district re-elected Baker with 83 percent of the vote.

But this time around, with a Democrat in the race and thousands of potentially new Democratic voters who moved into Baton Rouge after Hurricane Katrina, it remains to be seen whether the district's traditional voting patterns will play out in an open-seat race and special election.

Anyway, Brownsox over at today's DKos sees some reason for optimism in Baker's probable just confirmed resignation. Last year we were all about MORE AND BETTER DEMOCRATS. Screw that; this year what I care about is just the BETTER Democrats. Leave the "more" to Emanuel and Pelosi and the DCCC. I'm not going to get too worked up over a reactionary Democrat like Don Cazayoux replacing Baker and, after he votes to have the Democrats (Pelosi, Emanuel and Hoyer) organize the House, reverts to voting very much like Baker on key substantive issues. Better than a Republican? Sure. But I'd rather put my energy into real progressives who will be part of the solution to our problems, not someone who is likely to hold back progress.

Of course, on the other hand, it's less likely that a Democrat, even a reactionary one, would spew out the racist hatred that Baker was famous for (not that the hedge fund industry gives a damn):
"We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." Good luck and Godspeed, Republican warrior.