Blogging Louisiana

The National Debt: Where Are We Going Under Obama?

2009-11-12T00:10:00.007-06:00

I just want to post this image from Willisms.com, which I think says more than anything I could write about where we are going with Obama and the deficit.

Any doubters out there?

Goodbye Justice Bardwell

2009-11-03T23:58:00.003-06:00

Though I am usually uncomfortable using such terse language for a blog post title upon the occasion of the resignation of a public official as I have done here, in this case I am going to make an exception and simply say "goodbye and good riddance" to Justice Keith Bardwell upon learning the news that he has resigned.

Louisiana does not need to find itself immersed in a divisive debate on race such as the one I saw getting underway following Justice Bardwell's decision not to marry an interracial couple a few weeks back. By "divisive" I refer to one founded at least in part upon animosity of a nature I do not regard as conducive to achieving progress in race relations in Louisiana, which Bardwell's conduct unfortunately makes clear is a goal we must still pursue today, in 2009.

Justice Bardwell offended all who care about the equality of the races in his decision to ignore the law as it has existed for over forty years, which ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's Loving v. Virginia decision of 1967 has guaranteed the right of interracial couples to marry under the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause. And if I may add, he has also offended love, which may not strike many as a significant matter for public discussion, but which I include as a matter of civil decency. Love between a man and a woman cannot be viewed as bound or restricted by race. I was offended.

Be in no doubt, Louisiana still must confront troubling issues of race and the Bardwell affair is not the only one from recent memory which makes this clear. We also must deal with that big ugly skeleton sitting in our closet; the abandonment of the displaced New Orleanians in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, whose fate cannot be explained outside the context of race. The controversy surrounding Bardwell will pale into insignificance when compared with what happened after Katrina. But we must face both of these issues, as well as so many others.

The Convention Center in New Orleans, September 2005
A black mark on the conscience of Louisiana that still must be confronted

If Louisiana is going to have a productive discussion on race it must entail a comprehensive and courageous review of all matters which impact race relations on the part of all parties involved. This would of necessity require an examination of the root causes of the economic impoverishment of the African-American community within our state, which naturally will entail a broader discussion of economic policies developed for the entirety of Louisiana. We must address education, citing both its failures and successes and develop workable solutions to improving the advancement of African-Americans in a manner which does not promote alienation between the races as its consequence. Economic reform and improving education must go hand-in-hand, because the only workable solution will be one which produces both an economic revitalization of our state so as to offer real opportunities in employment to those who are prepared to take advantage of them along with the necessary job skills which constitute that preparation.

And then there will be the confrontation with the many myths which do so much to define and aggravate antagonism between the races in Louisiana, such as the one regarding the future of children of interracial marriage which surfaces with Bardwell. Those myths are numerous and I am tempted to write they exist on all sides, but I would prefer to state simply that they exist. We must leave behind the notion that there are "sides" in this process. If we ever are to become one we must stop thinking that we are two.

I will be addressing many of the issues which relate to economic and educational reforms in this blog over time. I am only just getting started, but I fully intend to cover a wide range of topics which I think may be integrated within a discussion on race. I cannot get to them all, at least not within any reasonable amount of time, but I will remain open to discussing any topic which might be suggested to me by readers who comment here, provided of course that it is raised fairly, by which I mean outside the boundaries of polemical discourse.

And I definitely will discuss what happened after Katrina. I remain quite angry about the way in which the facts of that story, such as they are available to us at this point, have been suppressed to this point in time. This will require an investment of effort on my part, but I am committed to getting it done.

As a closing note here, I would like to go back and refer to my earlier post on the Vitter-Melancon campaign and a final comment I made about how I saw the Bardwell affair as a matter which would be introduced into the campaign by some who intended to promote racial animosity on behalf of Melancon. Based upon what I have seen in the immediate aftermath of Bardwell's resignation, I have hopes that this may not come to pass in the way in which I feared at first. With that in mind, I will change course and skip that topic since I might find myself only aggravating a situation which hopefully might be cooling at this moment. Let us hope that is what develops now that Justice Bardwell has resigned his office.

Jacob Sulzbach

Discussion of Quin Hillyer's Article on Dave Treen at the American Spectator Site

2009-11-01T14:29:00.000-06:00

I've decided to come in and put up a special short blog post containing details of the comments posted at the American Spectator web site by readers of Quin Hillyer's excellent article on Dave Treen, which I linked earlier on this site.

One very informed reader of Quin's article made an interesting and responsible comment with respect to Treen's forgiveness of Edwards and his ultimate decision to seek a pardon for the now-jailed former governor:

. . . However, Treen is wrong to call for Edwards' release because Treen has forgiven him. Treen can forgive Edwards' personal abuse of him, but Edwards not is in prison for that. He is in prison for crimes against the public welfare, and Treen does not have standing to forgive those wrongs.

The above comment obviously displays a high standard of civic morality, which I think most could appreciate.

But I posted the following reply to show my own approval of Treen's actions:

. . . And with respect to your final comment about Edwards' "crimes against the public welfare"--I cannot argue that either. But as a Louisianian who fought "all things Edwards" for decades, for which I endured no small amount of anguish at the hands of his organization (including violence), I will disagree with your comment about Treen's forgiveness of Edwards and his recommendation of a pardon for him.

Treen's real success is that he led the way for Louisiana in the creation of a new political culture which rejected Edwards and all he stood for in the public eye--as well as the myths Edwards embodied, much in the tradition of Huey Long. Even Mary Landrieu has called down Louisiana Democrats for their ties to Edwards on occasion. If you have lived Louisiana politics as I have, you would know the significance of this accomplishment. It is huge.

Treen's request of a pardon for Edwards represented a desire on Treen's part to build a consensus in Louisiana for facing some of the toughest problems we must deal with as a legacy of years of corruption and "mythical" politics (if I may use the term). It deals with our tax structure, the harmful effects of casino gambling, damaging workmen's compensation laws written by organized labor, the popular myth of maintaining a high homestead exemption (lowering property taxes on homeowners) so that "the wealthy will pay their fair share," which has done so much damage to the costs of doing business here, and more.

What was really behind Treen's call for a pardon for Edwards was a desire to get the ear of Edwards' former supporters and allies to "fix things." At bottom, it was an attempt on Treen's part to make the political peace in Louisiana so that a true consensus for reform could emerge. We have taken some small steps towards building that consensus as a consequence of Treen's forgiveness alone.

The one trait which can be seen as evident in all Dave Treen's conduct is the placement of the interests of Louisianians above all else, no matter how hard it may have been to do so.

P.S. -- I lose no sleep over Edwin Edwards rotting in jail.

There is so much in our political culture in Louisiana which does not translate well outside of our state. I think that is an important lesson to keep in mind.

Jacob Sulzbach

The War on Corruption in Louisiana Politics: The Legacy of David Treen

2009-10-30T06:26:00.000-05:00

David C. Treen, 1928-2009

Louisiana has lost one of its very best. Early Thursday morning former Governor David C. Treen passed away in Metairie's East Jefferson Hospital of complications from a respiratory illness. It is a very sad moment which should give Louisianians an opportunity to pause and ponder the meaning of the public life of one of the finest servants ever to step forward and sacrifice for our state. It is important that we appreciate the invaluable contribution to Louisiana's political culture Dave Treen leaves as his legacy.

Dave Treen waged war on political corruption in Louisiana.

Our great state was changed forever in 1979 when, for the first time since the Age of Reconstruction, Louisiana voters elected a Governor who was not of the Democratic Party and chose then Republican Congressman David Treen over Public Service Commissioner Louis Lambert. The event made the two-party system a reality in Louisiana and we took a significant step to address the inherited burden of corruption run rampant through our state's political life; corruption so profound that it practically had been institutionalized openly in the era of Huey Long. But Dave Treen confronted it squarely and did more than any other man to make that confrontation a political process in and of itself and, it must be mentioned, a process which incorporated well-intentioned Democrats within it. It was a noble achievement.

Treen's start in politics came as a three-time unsuccessful candidate for Congress running against Hale Boggs for Louisiana's second district congressional seat. The Republican Party of Louisiana was still quite tiny at that time, numbering approximately 2% of registered voters in the state, and Treen's near win in 1968 set off a reaction among Republican organizers, many of whom saw vote fraud -- the bane of Louisiana politics for Republicans -- as a determining factor in his defeat and urged a challenge of the results before the Congress. Treen did not contest the election, and in part privately blamed his loss on backers of independent American Party candidate and former Alabama Governor George C. Wallace, whose supporters joined with many local Democratic Party organizations in the district who backed both Wallace and Boggs. But the consequence was that Treen made a name for himself. He was the only Louisiana Republican who ever ran for a significant office as a viable candidate.

There are not many Louisianians who either remember or have learned of the state's political climate in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Political corruption was an extremely sensitive issue that put Louisiana in the national spotlight. It began with a series of articles investigative journalist David Chandler of Life Magazine wrote detailing the influence of the Mafia in Louisiana state government and expanded when then Governor John McKeithen asked for a legislative investigation into Chandler's charges that became an open circus. Chandler had reported that Mafia-sponsored corruption in Louisiana state government was so pervasive that Mafia boss Carlos Marcello practically ruled in Baton Rouge. The investigation accomplished nothing, except for the fact that political corruption was a topic on every concerned citizen's mind in our state.

And then came the 1971-1972 gubernatorial campaign. It was like no other the state has seen before or since and Dave Treen's candidacy put the Republican Party on the map statewide, moving it beyond a few urban centers where voters of a more cosmopolitan background had registered themselves with the GOP. The campaign was in large part helped by the organizing genius of then Republican Party State Chairman Charles DeGravelles, who had been a Louisiana Republican activist since the 1940's, when African-Americans dominated the party. DeGravelles expanded the party's reach into over thirty parishes where no organized Republican leadership had existed previously and many of the activists he brought into the political process arrived with an enthusiasm for Dave Treen, who stood out in their minds as someone who would finally face and stand up to the worst of corruption in Louisiana politics and government.

I was a witness as a teenager to the way in which Treen activated one particular Republican who decided to jump in whole hog in an attempt to help set the state right--my late mother. I was only thirteen living in Eunice when Treen lost to Boggs in the controversial election of 1968 and I remember how my mom called local parish Republican leader P.J. Gomer, who had been trying to get her involved, to ask what had happened. P.J. came over about a week later carrying a stack of newspapers with relevant articles, along with a crate of sweet potatoes and a large pack of boudin, and sat down with my mom to show her what had transpired. My mom signed on and took over the leadership of a Republican Party registration drive in St. Landry Parish immediately and her activism remained constant for the next several years.

My late mother, Jacqueline Stevens Sulzbach, with Dave Treen at a Petroleum Club luncheon in Lafayette in 1971 during the gubernatorial campaign

In January, 1971 our family moved to Lafayette when my father was transferred from Eunice following an oil industry merger. My mother's activism in St. Landry Parish already had brought her to the attention of Charles DeGravelles, who recommended her to then Lafayette Parish Political Action Committee Chairman Jesse Brown for the post of Parish Coordinator for the party, to which he appointed her immediately and our family became transformed politically as the gubernatorial campaign dominated everything in our lives. Most of what my mother did had little to do with Lafayette; she actually worked more closely with Charles DeGravelles in helping to organize the Treen campaign across much of southern Louisiana. And the constant refrain that was spoken by all who joined was "let's clean it up this time!" I myself worked diligently as a teenage activist for Treen, along with many others my own age; stuffing envelopes, passing out literature at campaign events, distributing yard signs, and everything else political.

Treen's loss to Edwin Edwards in February, 1972 was not unexpected among Louisiana Republicans, who were not nearly as demoralized at the outcome as one might expect given the 57.2%-42.8% split in the vote. What was much more important was that the race was competitive statewide. There had even been a full Republican ticket of fellow candidates running in tandem. Treen carried twenty-seven of the state's sixty-four parishes and was quite close in many others. The election also set the stage for the next thirteen years of Louisiana politics, which were dominated by Edwards and Treen, two figures who stood for diametrically-opposed visions of the state and its future, which demonstrates forcefully Treen's significance to the era. And I submit that the judgment of history is not with Edwin Edwards, a point I take great pride in writing today.

Treen's defeat in the gubernatorial election in 1972 nonetheless created real political capital for him. He won the third district congressional seat later that year, becoming the first Republican to be elected to Congress in the twentieth century. His election also alerted the Democratic Party to the changing political landscape in Louisiana and during Edwin Edwards' first term in office they moved within the state legislature to rewrite the political rules so as to prevent a surging Republican Party of Louisiana from moving closer to power. In order to prevent Republicans from getting the guaranteed final face-off with a Democratic Party nominee the state's "Open" or "Jungle" primary system was implemented. The law was aimed at Dave Treen more than anyone else.

As Edwards' second term drew to a close Louisiana once again entered another landmark political season in the 1979 gubernatorial campaign; the first competitive race under the Open Primary law. Edwards had only faced token opposition under the new format in 1975. In contrast to the veritable circus atmosphere of 1971, when eighteen candidates of all flavors competed, the campaign to succeed Edwards attracted some of the state's very best and it was surprising for its issues-oriented focus, a phenomenon we miss greatly these days.

There were real heavyweights in the mix. The highly-competent and business-friendly Lieutenant Governor Jimmy Fitzmorris, legislative geniuses E.L. "Bubba" Henry and Edgar G. Mouton, charismatic Cajun Secretary of State Paul Hardy, and Public Service Commissioner Louis J. Lambert all threw their hats into the ring along with Treen, who was the only Republican. Treen's dominance of his own party turned the Open Primary hypothesis of keeping Republicans out of a final face-off for the Governorship on its head--it was the Democrats who divided themselves and split their numbers. And though the first round voting had Treen leading the field, the real action was in the fight for second place and the runoff spot. In a highly controversial turn of events, Jimmy Fitzmorris led the remaining candidates after Treen on election night only to learn that he was in third place when the votes were "retabulated" days later when the voting machines were opened. Republicans, who were overwhelmingly convinced Fitzmorris had been robbed--we had seen it before--had to stand by on the sidelines this time and watch while another round of electoral improprieties played itself out.

What followed was a turn of events of historic proportions. Fitzmorris lost his suit to overturn the results and, showing a resilience of personal character we Republicans will never forget, he then endorsed Dave Treen. The other three Democrats; Hardy, Henry, and Mouton all followed suit soon afterwards. The "Gang of Four" endorsements, strikingly unusual for their bi-partisanship even in their own day, but even more so from our present perspective, finally brought to fruition a goal Republicans had pursued under Dave Treen's leadership for over a decade; the realization of a common consensus among all Louisianians that political corruption had to be confronted. Yet even with such broad bi-partisan appeal, Treen still only won the runoff narrowly, but history had been made.

Treen's one term as Governor definitely marked a divergence from precedent, but three things worked against him politically: the oil boom ended soon after he took office, bringing a decline in state revenues along with it; Treen had a habit of maintaining hard-nosed policy positions, especially on environmental matters, which made more enemies for him than friends; and Edwin Edwards worked steadily at preparing his own return to office throughout Treen's term, and with great effect. Treen lost to Edwards in a 1983 rematch in which money flowed into Edwards' campaign at unheard-of rates, and Treen pretty much retired from public life afterwards.

But there were real accomplishments during Treen's tenure in office for which he deserves to be remembered. He made a genuine attempt to reach out to African-Americans while Governor, appointing more blacks to state government positions than any chief executive who preceded him. He demonstrated true fiscal integrity when he avoided spending an early budget surplus and dedicated it to lowering taxes on businesses. And perhaps above all else, he had a record on environmental issues that was nothing short of outstanding.

Soon after Treen entered office, Louisiana learned that the Tate Cove chemical waste dumping site near Ville Platte contained buried yet leaking containers with dangerous contents, including dioxin, which threatened the valuable Chicot Aquifer. Treen moved to get it cleaned up quickly and broadened the effort with budgetary support for cleaning up over fifty other sites around the state. He was primarily responsible for the creation of Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). He negotiated a matching funds agreement with the federal government to buy up land in Louisiana's Atchafalaya Basin that never bore the full fruit that was intended owing to the decline in state revenues following the oil collapse. He was the first Governor to address the problem of coastal erosion, dedicating $35 million to a trust fund in an attempt to come up with ideas on how to address the danger. He moved to protect sea turtles who were threatened by the use of small mesh nets in the shrimping industry; an act for which Edwards mocked him in the 1983 campaign with his famous quip "turtles don't vote, shrimpers do."

Taken together Treen's policy positions on environmental matters generated far more enemies than friends for him, but I submit they constitute a worthy record, maybe even better than simply worthy when compared with other governors. And I still view the opposition of many environmentalists to his reelection in 1983 as nothing short of betrayal.

Treen considered political comebacks at various times later in life, but he only actively campaigned again on one occasion, which was the special election to replace Bob Livingston for Louisiana's first district congressional seat in 1999, losing to David Vitter by just over 1,800 votes.

Treen is also to be remembered for returning to the political stage in 1991 to endorse his former rival Edwin Edwards when he faced David Duke in the runoff election for Governor. In fact, the entire Treen family can take pride in themselves for their direct confrontation with and strident opposition to all things Duke. It is a worthy record.

But Dave Treen's greatest and most enduring accomplishment in public life will always be his success in confronting corruption and unethical politics in Louisiana. Given that we have made real progress in these areas over the past forty years, it is a noble legacy.

The war on corruption in Louisiana politics was a cultural struggle for the hearts and minds of Louisianians. It was founded upon a call to reject an antiquated way of doing the people's business. It required years of dedicated effort and the perseverance to endure one setback after another along the way. But Louisiana has in large part adopted the new ideas of civic virtue in the public conduct of its state officials and it was Dave Treen who led the way.

May God keep you close Dave Treen. Louisiana owes you so much.

Jacob Sulzbach

A quick note on the passing Dave Treen - American Spectator Article by Quin Hillyer

2009-10-30T06:00:00.000-05:00

I will have my own post published in remembrance of David Treen coming up shortly, but for now I wish to direct everyone to an article posted at the American Spectator site by Quin Hillyer, "Dave Treen, Political Builder."

Quin Hillyer gets it.

More to come.

Jacob Sulzbach

The SMOR Poll and Melancon vs. Vitter: Where Are We Going?

2009-10-27T08:02:00.000-05:00


Charles Melancon		David Vitter

Last week the Southern Media and Opinion Research (SMOR) polling firm in Baton Rouge released the results of a public opinion poll which gauged current sentiment among Louisiana voters for next year's U.S. Senate contest between Republican Senator David Vitter and his Democrat challenger, Representative Charles Melancon. The poll was conducted October 4 - 7 among 600 Likely Voters across the state.

Head-to-Head: Vitter Currently Has a Double-Digit Lead

The results of the current head-to-head matchup are no surprise.

Melancon vs. Vitter: Head-to-Head
Candidate	Support
David Vitter	47.6%
Charles Melancon	35.8%
Don't Know/Won't Say	16.6%

Since polling on the race first began last March, Vitter's support has remained steady, between 44% - 48%, depending upon which pollster's results you use. Melancon's general trend is down from a high of 41% in March, though the recent polls from both SMOR and Rasmussen have him rebounding from lower numbers in July, when he took an obvious hit from growing dissatisfaction among Louisiana voters with Obama's policies, something that is made clear in the current SMOR survey, when respondents gave their opinions on a variety of issues, including the stimulus plan and health care reform.

Plenty of Room for Melancon to Grow His Approval Numbers

Things do begin to get a little interesting when you look at the approval ratings for the two candidates, which show that Melancon is not very well known, since Vitter has both higher approval and disapproval numbers.

Melancon and Vitter: Approval/Disapproval Ratings
Candidate	Approval	Disapproval	Don't Know/Won't Say
David Vitter	57.1%	37.4%	5.5%
Charles Melancon	35.8%	22.7%	41.5%

The conventional wisdom generally offered as analysis of the poll's results is that Melancon has "room to grow." Southern Media and Opinion Research pollster Bernie Pinsonat made the comment immediately upon release of the survey and it has been posted all over the web. With 41.5% of respondents not having an opinion which either approves or disapproves of Melancon, it certainly suggests that there is plenty of room for Melancon to raise his approval numbers, which puts Pinsonat's take in perspective. But just how much of a chance does Melancon have to grow his actual support among voters?

What About the Goose Egg?

Growing a candidate's approval numbers and growing support at the ballot box are not the same thing. Unless the context of a campaign is so exceedingly negative that the majority of voters feel they must vote for the candidate they dislike least, the usual pattern is that first a candidate gains approval with the electorate and then he gains their support once he convinces them he is worth their vote. The results of the SMOR poll show that the latter option is not now open to Charles Melancon.

Melancon and Vitter: Favorables with Louisiana Voters
Candidate	Approval	Support	Approval - Support
David Vitter	57.1%	47.6%	9.5%
Charles Melancon	35.8%	35.8%	0%

That goose egg says it all. Melancon's approval and support ratings are exactly the same. He must change the current electoral calculus completely to create an opening. With no additional body of approving voter sentiment above his support numbers on his side and Vitter dangerously close to a majority, Melancon has no choice but to bring down Vitter's approval numbers, and hopefully, from Melancon's perspective, Vitter's support as well. This means that Melancon must go after the approval rating first, since there is a larger proportion within the Louisiana electorate who approve of Vitter than have now committed themselves to voting for him. In other words, voter support for David Vitter is encompassed within a larger body of the electorate who approve of him. At the very least Melancon must contain Vitter's current support where it is, which means reducing the numbers of the more sizeable group, i.e. those who approve of the sitting Republican senator.

Lowering Vitter's approval ratings and containing his support where it is now implies the obvious strategy of raising Vitter's negatives with Louisiana voters, which is an even more dangerous task for Melancon for two reasons: 1. Vitter's approval rating is 21.3% higher that of Melancon, who likely will be unable to raise his own approval ratings to any sizeable degree at the same time because; 2. Negative campaigning is not a strategy which creates approval for a candidate. Therefore, we may conclude that the nature of the campaign Melancon is preparing will be extremely negative given the dramatic difference in their approval ratings. And this outlook is reinforced significantly when one examines the attitudes of Louisianians to those issues in national politics which should form part of an issues-oriented senatorial campaign and which in no way favor Melancon.

From the Perspective of Louisiana Voters: Is it Obama or the Issues?

It is practically a drumbeat as sounded within the communications media. Vitter's strategy for the campaign is to tie Melancon to Obama, who has a disapproval rating of 54% in the SMOR poll. This could imply that the intended linkage is personal, tied to issues, or both. One of the interesting things about the survey is that it gives us an opportunity to set the personal aside for now, and examine the attitudes of Louisiana voters to several major issues of national interest at the moment, whether they may be pending or already decided. There are four which we could examine; the president's stimulus plan, health care reform, the labor union "card check" legislation now pending, and the "Cap and Trade" proposals within energy reform legislation. I want to set "Cap and Trade" aside for now, since there is some unity among Louisianians in opposition to the proposal, and focus on the other three, which do draw distinct divisions between Vitter and Melancon.

Issue No. 1: The Stimulus Package

Q: Which of the following statements do you think is more accurate?

a. The stimulus package passed by Congress has stimulated the economy and created jobs.

b. The stimulus package has done little to stimulate the economy but has caused the national debt to increase dramatically.

c. Don't Know / Won't Say

Issue No. 2: Health Care Reform

Q: From what you have heard or read, do you favor or oppose the Obama Administration's health care reform position?

a. Favor

b. Oppose

c. Don't Know / Won't Say

Issue No. 3: Labor Union "Card Check" Legislation

Q: Legislation is being proposed in Congress that would do away with workers voting privately by secret ballot in union representation elections. Instead, workers would check on a form whether or not they want to be represented by a union. How each worker voted would be made public. Which would you prefer a secret ballot or making a worker’s vote in public?

a. Secret Ballot

b. Vote in Public

c. Don't Know / Won't Say

What the above charts show is that there is exceptionally strong opposition among Louisianians to three key policy initiatives President Obama has either proposed or supported during his first year in office. The numbers opposed range from a low of 58.2% with respect to the Obama health care reform plan to a high of 75.8% on labor union card check legislation. Thus do we come to the reality of the attitudes Louisianians have towards the president, whose disapproval numbers are only at 54% -- President Barack Obama is more popular among Louisiana voters than his policies.

The SMOR poll's revelation of President Obama's success in overcoming at least some of the widespread opposition to his policies must suggest that that there are flaws in the notion that the dislike of Louisianians for him is entirely personal or racial. No president occupying the White House who urges legislative initiatives which generate such strong reactions from Louisiana voters should expect that his own approval ratings will not suffer as a consequence.

And now that we have arrived at the centrality of issues to Louisiana voters with respect to the Obama Administration, we must again return to the senatorial campaign and ask ourselves just how negative must Charles Melancon become in order to close the gap with David Vitter? Melancon is on the wrong side of the preferences of Louisiana voters in each of the three major issues just discussed. Obviously the answer is very negative. So what makes him think that it is possible? I believe the only logical answer to that question is that Melancon and those in his campaign believe they are going to get help. But from where will that help come?

Part of it is already in place. Much of the news media in Louisiana is now playing ball promoting the notion that Vitter's strategy is centrally focused on tying Melancon to Obama, which leaves the potentially personal and/or racial nature of the president's unpopularity in play while ignoring the evidence of opposition to specific policies. Just see Stephanie Grace's recent commentary in the Times-Picayune on the significance of the SMOR poll for an example. It is about Obama's disapproval rating and the disagreement of Louisianians with the direction in which the president is leading the country. There is no reference to the specific issues the poll examined, which does not do anything to help integrate them within the debate of the senatorial campaign.

If the remainder of the news media keeps a discussion of policy out of the campaign, while leaving the personal and racial aspects of Vitter's tie Melancon to Obama strategy in place they will preserve an opportunity for Melancon to wage the kind of negative campaign the numbers presented above show that he must make or fail completely. That personalization of Vitter-Obama conflict also opens the way to let the wolf in the front door of our home state. There are already indications that a negative campaign against Vitter of a far more poisonous kind may now be developing from outside Melancon's organization, but which is clearly intended to help him, which focuses on race and will attempt to use the Bardwell affair to dangerous effect.

In my next blog on the Vitter-Melancon campaign I will introduce some aspects of this developing campaign of promoting racial animosity on behalf of Charles Melancon and where it may take us.

Jacob Sulzbach

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

There is extended documentation of the SMOR poll up at BayouBuzz.com.
The use of the category names "Approval" and "Disapproval" represent the following combinations of categories as presented in the original poll results for question no. 2: "Approval" refers to the addition of percentages for "Excellent" and "Good"; "Disapproval" refers to the addition of percentages for "Not so good" and "Poor."

An Introductory Post

2009-10-22T03:15:00.000-05:00

It is almost a surprise to me personally that I am creating this blog, because I had no thought of it as recently as one week ago. I mention this because opening a blog is usually the sort of thing one plans with some forethought. I have at times in the past thoughtfully considered that it might be a good idea to have a Louisiana blog, since I have been showing up at other sites to post commentary on a variety of topics relevant to Louisiana, especially matters of political interest. But as of today, October 22, 2009, I have concluded that the amount of personal time I have dedicated to blogging commentary on Louisiana elsewhere has been of such a length that I should do it within my own site.

By way of personal introduction, my name is Jacob Sulzbach. I am 54 years old and I work as an independent software and internet applications developer in Lafayette, Louisiana. I am rather well-educated I think, since I have three college degrees, coming from a background in liberal arts. I am fluent in French and Spanish and I have lived and traveled abroad more than the average American, including nearly a year I spent as a younger man in Colombia.

It is fair to say that I am a political animal. I am a dedicated fiscal and economic conservative, but I also am very much opposed to what I call "cultural conservatism," which I personally describe as a fixation upon matters of identity and conscience which from my perspective is usually backwards-looking in temperament. Though I certainly have my own views on subjects that fall within the scope of conscience, I think it neither decent nor wise to associate myself politically on such matters as abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, and other litmus tests of personal thought which I feel deny the bedrock principle of conservative ideas, which is respect for the liberty of the individual and especially respect for his or her autonomy of thought. Simply put, I trust everyone to handle their consciences in a manner that best befits their own pursuit of happiness. I intend to let everyone think as they want free from personal judgements by me. I hope to be treated the same way, but I am astute enough to know that I should expect that on occasion within commentary posted by readers of this blog that will not be the case.

I also think it is a corrupting effect of cultural politics in general, no matter the political orientation one may follow, to judge people on the basis of their identity, which includes their personal background, and affiliation. This is actually a more serious problem among the liberal left than it is with conservatives in my opinion, since no one can dissent from the left without being attacked for their identity or affiliation, but cultural conservatives make this mistake as well. I view this as especially important with respect to immigration issues, a matter which they have thus far failed to confront realistically, at least as I see it. Conservatism must be rethought so as to return it to bedrock principles, leaving the cultural warfare to the left.

But be in no doubt that when it comes to politics and government, I preach the doctrine of fiscal and economic conservatism. I think you will be hard-pressed to find a more strident fiscal and economic conservative than me, which is something I expect will surface in this blog over time.

Politically, I am a Republican, something of which I am very proud in Louisiana, where the Democratic Party has been a historically corrupting institution of near gargantuan proportions. I also am proud to say that I am a supporter of Governor Bobby Jindal, who has done so much to bring rationality to our state, which is only just learning the meaning of the word.

I intend to cover a variety of topics here. The general scope of what I will present will be my opinions on matters which are either exclusively of local concern here in Louisiana or national issues which may impact us in some way. I live in Lafayette, the center of both Cajun Country and the oil industry in our state. I know the oil industry well, as I am both the son and grandson of petroleum engineers. I only worked within it briefly, for a few months before I first entered college, but I have been around it all my life. I anticipate that there will be opportunities for me to comment upon it in this blog.

I also on occasion will offer my personal commentary on cultural issues affecting Louisiana, which has a very rich cultural environment indeed. This could cover everything from music to food to history to God knows what.

If you are not from Louisiana and you are just arriving to this blog, please accept my sincere invitation to come down to visit and tour our great state. Forgive me if this sounds like a tourist promotion, because I guess in a way it is that, but we have much to offer the rest of the world. For one; our food just rocks! And it is actually much more diverse than you might think if you have never visited us. We have unique musical styles here as well and again the diversity is the heart of what one might treasure when experiencing it. Our history is quite unique and there is so much to learn if you have a penchant for knowing the past so as to explain the present. We have some unbelievably beautiful wilderness areas as well. The Louisiana swamps and marshlands are brimming with wildlife and scenic wonders, though it pains me to say that the threats to their preservation are marked, a matter I will most certainly address as they are dear to my heart.

I love Louisiana for so many reasons that it would be impossible for me to put them all into one blog entry. What more can I say?

And perhaps I should also mention that I am a devoted fan of the New Orleans Saints, to whose fortunes my happiness has been so hopelessly attached that I can only imagine it is by the curse of some voodoo priestess unknown to me. The Saints will most certainly surface in this blog.

I invite you to read at your leisure and feel free to comment.

Jacob Sulzbach

Open Format for Posting Comments

2009-10-22T02:00:00.000-05:00

I am entering this special blog post to set the rules, such as they are, for posting comments on this blog site.

I have set the Comments settings to enable "Anyone" to post, no log-in is necessary.

Comments will not be moderated before posting. You should see them immediately.

I will not censor comments based upon line of argumentation. It is okay to disagree with me and to do so fervently if you wish. I believe in free speech and I have my own reputation for strident argumentation.

But comments will be censored if:

1. You use profanity of a serious or purient nature. By serious I mean using profanity to abuse anyone. And purient nature speaks for itself. I suggest that everyone learn to use the symbols keys "!@#$%^&*" etc.

2. You use the "F" word.

3. You abuse another poster in what I regard as a hurtful manner. I alone will decide what constitutes "abuse of a hurtful manner" when comments are directed at another poster. You may abuse me all you wish.

4. You enter spam into a comment. This site is for discussion, not commercial promotion.

Jacob Sulzbach