The remarks were made after a town hall meeting in Jonesville.

Vitter, originally a co-sponsor of the bill, came out against the legislation yesterday, along with twelve other senators. The announcement was made on his Facebook page with this statement:

I won’t be supporting the Protect IP Act (PIPA or SOPA as it’s called in the House of Representatives) because, though I’ve been pushing hard on both internet freedom and national security concerns, they still haven’t been fully addressed. It’s a real mistake to press forward with a flawed bill now. It will only endanger ever properly dealing with the very real problem of internet piracy.

Legislators withdrawing support coincided with a protest Internet black-out by Wikipeida and several other high-traffic sites–which believe that the bill would lead to censorship on the web–so I asked him how much the protest played into his decision.

Vitter also said that former-Sen. Chris Dodd, who now serves as head of Motion Picture Association, didn’t lobby him to support PIPA. It had to be asked.

Toward the end of the video, the senator discussed his feelings about the Republican presidential field. I knew, of course, that he wouldn’t endorse any particular candidate, but I wanted to press him a little to see how much he would say.

I also asked him if he thinks the candidates are being treated fairly by the Main-Stream-Media–something of a rhetorical question, at best:

Most of the things discussed at the townhall were local issues—like what could be done about FDA restrictions on turtle farming –but there were things talked about of interest to a wider audience, such as Obama nixing the Keystone XL pipeline, that I might post later.

President Obama often speaks of his concern for this affected by the Gulf oil spill, but the restrictions and provisos he has attached to the permitting progress has slowed the economic recovery.

Although no part of the country is immune to a self-imposed energy freeze, the Gulf of Mexico region is particularly vulnerable. Here’s why:

Read more: Industry Statistics Compiled on Anniversary of BP Oil Spill Highlight the Importance of Sen. Vitter’s Challenge to Obama Administration | NetRight Daily.

(Washington, D.C.) - U.S. Sens. David Vitter (R-LA), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Jerry Moran (R-KS) this week introduced legislation that amends the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to limit birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, legal resident alien or active member of the U.S. armed forces.

“America’s illegal immigration problem is clearly out of control. Recent news reports have highlighted the growing popularity of ‘birth tourism,’ and new websites are advertising birth packages for pregnant foreign visitors who want to give birth in the United States to ensure automatic citizenship for their newborn children,” said Sen. Vitter. “This practice is not mandated by federal law or the Constitution but is based on what I believe is a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14^th Amendment.  This policy is incompatible with both the text and the legislative history of the citizenship clause.”

Read more: Vitter Introduces Bill to Limit Birthright Citizenship

House District 101

In this race in New Orleans East to fill a vacancy left by the election of (term limited) Cedric Richmond to the US House, there was little suspense as to the outcome. Attorney/SUNO administrator Wesley Bishop collected an impressive array of endorsements from Mayor Mitch Landrieu to Cedric Richmond, and just about every other elected official in Orleans Parish. He received 75% of the vote in a low turnout race that only saw an 11% voter turnout.

Senate District 22

Continue reading at http://winwithjmc.com/archives/2330

John Couvillon is a political consultant. His company is JMC Enterprises of Louisiana, Inc. with expertise in the data analysis aspects of political campaigns, such as poll sample development/analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy, and demographic consulting. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

//

Jindal’s activity in hitting the campaign trail for Republican candidates outside Louisiana coupled with his current book tour have generated a narrative among many in the state’s chattering classes that he’s too busy burnishing national credentials to care about the state. Fair or not, that narrative is beginning to take its toll.

Pinsonat’s numbers indicate a significant drop in Jindal’s support, as his approval rating has plummeted from 68 percent in April 2009 to 55 percent at present. His negatives have risen from 30 percent to 43 percent in that time frame.

Worse, Jindal has experienced a six-point drop – from 61-37 in April of this year to 55-43 at present – in the last six months. That indicates slippage of the sort which could well make the governor ripe for a major Democrat challege if it isn’t addressed.
 
Jindal, in fact, has now fallen to fourth place among Louisiana’s statewide officials in approval. Treasurer John Kennedy, who has been touring the state touting a plan to cut $1.6 billion from Louisiana’s budget while Jindal has been promoting his book, is now viewed favorably by 61 percent of the public. Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, a Democrat, sits at 60 percent – indicating that if you can stay completely out of the headlines people will consider that a sign of competence. And recently re-elected Sen. David Vitter is now at 56 percent approval – which would indicate that it may have been a mistake for Jindal to have neglected to endorse Vitter’s re-election.

Jindal remains more popular than Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu (54 percent) and new Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne (51 percent), but only slightly. In comparison to Landrieu, SMOR finds the Governor’s election prospects are quite similar:

When respondents were asked if they would vote for Landrieu:
·     36 percent said they would definitely vote to re-elect her.
·     22 percent said they would consider someone else.
·     40 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else
·     2 percent said they didn’t know or would or wouldn’t respond
 
When asked if they would vote for Jindal:
·     39 percent said they would definitely vote to re-elect him.
·     23 percent said they would consider someone else.
·     35 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else
·     3 percent said they didn’t know or would or wouldn’t respond

It’s widely thought that Landrieu is extremely vulnerable to a Republican challenge when her term expires in 2014. There is speculation, in fact, that Jindal might be the challenger. Pinsonat’s numbers indicate he has quite a bit of work to do before mounting a campaign to dislodge another statewide incumbent.

More items from SMOR’s release indicate that Jindal might be able to turn his slide around by taking a harder line on government spending – and making a major show of it in the process as Kennedy has done…

Almost half – 46 percent – of all respondents disapproved of Jindal’s travel to other states. Among Republicans, 28 percent disapproved of the travel while 28 percent also said they would consider voting for someone other than Jindal.
 
As the governor touts his accomplishments on a national stage, survey results indicate many Louisiana residents are unhappy with the conditions of roads, elementary and secondary education, higher education, management of state government, lack of job opportunities and public health care.
 
A significant number of respondents – 39 percent – said conditions in Louisiana were getting worse, while 19 percent said conditions were getting better. Jindal’s out-of-state traveling is affecting his popularity back home, especially when so many respondents have a negative outlook toward the most vital functions of state government.
 
State Treasurer Kennedy has a solid job performance rating of 61 percent and a relatively low negative rating at 19 percent. His advocacy for reducing the number of state employees was popular among respondents. Nineteen percent of respondents said they didn’t know enough about him to rate his job performance.
 
Meanwhile, a mere 8 percent of respondents said they believe an unclassified political appointee or state executive making more than $175,000 per year is justified. Twenty-four percent said such compensation is unjustified, while 64 percent said a salary of more than $175,000 for such employees was outrageous. The results portend what could be a contentious issue in the 2011 legislative session.
 
Seventy-two percent of respondents said they did not believe their tax dollars are being spent wisely. This indicates difficulty for advocates of higher taxes to avoid deep cuts to programs. Sixty-two percent of respondents said they think the state’s financial crisis is caused by too much spending, while 32 percent said they believe the state does not have enough revenue.
 
Respondents also do not favor balancing the state budget by raising income or sales taxes, or by increasing taxes on businesses. About two thirds said they favor raising taxes on cigarettes.
 
Sixty percent of respondents, particularly Republicans, opposed raising gasoline taxes to fund new highway construction. According to the results, many believe Louisiana highways are bad and that the state is wasting the taxes they already pay. Also, 68 percent consider suspending tax exemptions a tax increase.
 
A state senator’s recent proposal to offset higher-education budget deficits by raising state income taxes for middle- and upper- income households was unpopular with respondents with 64 percent opposed.
 
When asked which sector – health care or higher education – respondents preferred to protect from budget cuts, 55 percent favored protecting health care while 28 percent favored higher education.
 
Democrats want health care protected more than higher education three to one, and Republicans are evenly split.
 
Fifty-eight percent of respondents agreed with Treasurer Kennedy that Louisiana has too many state employees.
 
Sixty percent of respondents favor keeping the so-called Bush tax cuts in place, while 31 percent want those cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year. This is not surprising in light of how 60 percent of all respondents want the state budget cut without raising taxes.

Louisiana’s other Senator, Republican David Vitter, is less convinced.

Vitter sent a letter Sunday to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declaring that the drilling permit logjam continues. Vitter said he doesn’t expect an end to the “Permitorium” when the Obama Administration gets its act together on several “big-picture issues.”

The letter followed a Saturday phone conversation between Vitter and Salazar in which the unresolved regulatory issues were front and center as topics of conversation. “I look forward to meeting with the secretary today to focus again on these issues. We don’t need vague happy talk; we need concrete answers,” Vitter said.

“The secretary’s positive comments and the handful of new shallow water permits are nice. But they don’t solve the problem; they don’t break the logjam,” Vitter said. “The Obama Administration needs to resolve at least five big picture issues to put people back to work in a major way.”

Vitter’s letter to Salazar reads as follows:

November 21, 2010

The Honorable Ken Salazar
Secretary of the Interior
1849 C St., NW
Washington, DC 20240

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FACSIMILE
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUESTED

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Thank you for our telephone conversation yesterday about permitting new oil and gas drilling. I welcome your recent positive comments, the handful of new shallow water permits being issued, and your trip to Louisiana Monday. But I don’t think any of this will end the drilling permit logjam.

To end the logjam, the Administration must address, directly and concretely, the big picture issues which have created mass uncertainty and slowed the process to a virtual standstill.

With that in mind, I would ask that you address the following issues directly and concretely during your visit Monday:

1. ADEQUATE BOEMRE STAFFING. Both you and Director Bromwich have recently stated that BOEMRE does not have adequate staff to ramp up permitting. What are you doing immediately to change this? And what additional budget authority are you requesting to expand on and make permanent those changes?

2. NEPA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS. What is the exact status of your review of the use of NEPA Categorical Exclusions? If use of Categorical Exclusions is cut back, how will you avoid major delays in permitting? And if Interior uses Environmental Assessments (EAs) for exploration plans, how will Interior justify a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) conclusion?

3. NTL-06. It is clear that the current version of NTL-06 is unworkable and is frustrating the permitting process. How and when will this change?

4. REGULATORY CERTAINTY. When will the entire universe of new rules, notices, etc. be defined? Director Bromwich has indicated that there is no end in sight in this regard, which defeats any hope of regulatory certainty.

5. DEEPWATER. Any hint of recent progress seems to be focused on shallow water. When will we see a significant number of new permits issued for deepwater exploration and drilling?

I look forward to your direct and concrete responses to these issues on Monday.

Sincerely,

David Vitter
United States Senator

While hindsight is always 20/20, these are just three of the critical mistakes that Charlie’s inner circle should have caught, and should serve as a lesson to anyone trying to run for political office…

All politics is local, except when it’s not.

We all know the saying referenced above. At the end of the day voters will vote based on what the issues that they feel affect them the most. It’s a fundamental concept that dictates most human behavior and in politics this usually translates into candidates trying to connect with voters on the local level. This is why most platforms include bullet points on crime and cost of living- issues that typically poll high with voters. Charlie’s issue however, is that while he attempted to brand himself as the homegrown candidate, he woefully neglected the national issues that voters perceived to be a direct threat to their livelihoods. The best example goes back to the very beginning of the health care debate in Louisiana. Every Congressman and Senator in Louisiana held at least one town hall to discuss healthcare. Except Charlie Melancon. For a candidate trying to make the argument that he is more in touch with his constituents than his competition it was ironic, if not downright hypocritical, to stay away from the fray. I have to assume that this is a decision that he may regret, because it ultimately displayed ignorance in what voters cared about this cycle.

Supporting the President… sort of…

American politics works in dichotomies. You’re a Republican or a Democrat. You voted for a bill or you didn’t. While we can argue about whether or not voters understand or appreciate the nuances that sometime arise in the Beltway, each election usually provides the same lesson: You have to pick a side. Melancon should have understood that you cannot rate an unpopular president with an “A” (even if just for effort) and try to criticize him for unpopular policy like the deepwater moratorium. Sure, being a Democrat, Melancon had to make sure he didn’t upset his base and his financial backers but it’s always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. In other words, focus on making sure your message is what voters want, and worry about the fallout with your buddies outside the state later.

On the other hand, let’s assume that Charlie truly supported the president and publicly distancing himself completely would be too much of a compromise of his fundamental beliefs on policy. If that’s the case don’t be apologetic and don’t waffle. You’re not going to out Republican a Republican (especially David Vitter) so change the discussion, which leads me to critique, number three…

If know you have to go negative, do it first.

Negative campaigning is one of the biggest trick bags for any campaign. There are countless elections that are won and lost because of negative campaigning that went awry. However there is one fundamental rule that seems to hold true. If you know you have to go negative, make sure you’re the first out the gate. In Melancon’s case he allowed Vitter to pound away at him for over a year on issues like healthcare and the stimulus. The negatives on Vitter were no secret, so waiting until the last moments of the campaign to use them allowed Vitter to frame Charlie and make his message look more reactionary than informative- which may have been the ultimate death nail.

It’s possible that this is all academic; perhaps the biggest mistake was running against a red meat Republican during a climate that heavily favored the embattled Senator. Maybe there was nothing the Cajun Congressman from Napoleonville could have done to win, but the mistakes on the campaign trail were glaring and should serve as a lesson to those that run in the future.

Continue reading at  http://winwithjmc.com/archives/2088

John Couvillon is a political consultant. His company is JMC Enterprises of Louisiana, Inc. with expertise in the data analysis aspects of political campaigns, such as poll sample development/analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy, and demographic consulting. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

Remember this?

“Any woman that knows anything about David Vitter’s record on women, God help her if she votes for him.”

Well, the AP’s exit polls on the race say God has some helping to do.

Exit polling conducted for CNN and The Associated Press suggests Melancon’s strategy of trying to attract women voters by focusing on Vitter’s 2007 prostitution scandal and the legal troubles of a former aide was an abysmal failure. According to the polls, Vitter overwhelmed Melancon among white men, 71-24, but fared even better among white women, who supported the incumbent by a margin of 74 percent to 20 percent.

Assumedly, Vitter’s numbers among black women were less rosy; he got 11 percent of the black vote overall (which is still a pretty good number for a Louisiana Republican), and one might imagine he probably didn’t even get 11 percent of the female vote in the black community. Even so, it appears Vitter got close to 60 percent of the women’s vote in this state.

What a complete and total repudiation of the Melancon campaign that its core strategy of demonizing Vitter in an effort to beat him with an army of female voters resulted in his getting blown out by his intended victim among his audience of choice.

Utter, complete, total failure. Not only is Melancon finished in politics – whoever crafted that strategy for him sure ought to be as well.

WINNERS

1. David Vitter. Three years ago this guy was political dead meat. Tonight, he’s one of the strongest Republicans in the Senate. Vitter’s 57-38 blowout of Charlie Melancon tells us three things. First, his DC Madam scandal is over. Done. Melancon’s camp never did get the message that the people of Louisiana heard about it, processed it and decided it was none of their business. You can say we’re permissive of scandal here, and maybe you’re right. But at the end of the day, what the electorate decided was that they’re more interested in what Vitter can do to represent them than what he does in his personal life – or did 10 years ago.

Vitter will also return to a Senate that, while it didn’t flip to the GOP, will be far more heavily populated with ideological cohorts than the one he left for the campaign last month. The Rand Pauls, Pat Toomeys, Mike Lees, Marco Rubios and Ron Johnsons of the world will be much more likely to stand with Vitter than with Lindsey Graham, and as a result Vitter will find himself with more allies come January.

2. Jay Dardenne. Dardenne’s campaign was low-key, despite being blamed for “attacks” on Caroline Fayard. That was a ridiculous charge, as the Republican merely pointed out a few facts about Fayard’s history and background that were not of a personal nature. She’s a lefty, despite what she attempted to cast herself as. Dardenne also did a nice job of generally limiting his campaign to things the Lt. Governor actually does. It’s clear the voters responded positively. Dardenne won a 57-43 race which was several points higher than his people expected.

3. Jeff Landry. For a first-time Congressional candidate, Landry’s 64-36 blowout of Ravi Sangisetty in the 3rd District race was definitely impressive. Landry annihilated Sangisetty in the debates and he outworked the Democrat on the campaign trail, as the parish-by-parish numbers attest:

• Ascension: Landry, 61-39
• Assumption: Landry, 58-42
• Iberia: Landry, 71-29
• Jefferson: Landry, 75-25
• Lafourche: Landry, 68-32
• Plaquemines: Landry, 69-31
• St. Bernard: Landry, 67-33
• St. Charles: Landry, 64-36
• St. James: Sangisetty, 55-45
• St. John: Sangisetty, 56-44
• St. Martin: Landry, 72-28
• St. Mary: Landry, 65-35
• Terrebonne: Landry, 63-37

Sangisetty is from Terrebonne, which should give an indication of how big a win this was. And despite the nastiness of the race, there was an impressive 41 percent turnout in LA-3. The narrative we were sold was that Landry was toxic and a wider electorate would reject him. That narrative was a lie; Landry won huge majorities in 11 of the 13 parishes in the district. He’s got a big future in Louisiana politics, though it’s pretty clear he’s going to have to wade through nasty campaigns every time he gets a race.

4. Cedric Richmond. Richmond’s 65-33 destruction of Joseph Cao was the biggest surprise of the state’s races, though given the size of the margin one wonders if it didn’t reflect an implosion on the part of the Republican incumbent. But Richmond did what he did without getting help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which thought about making a buy for him and ultimately opted not to. He clearly benefited from street money Caroline Fayard’s campaign spent in New Orleans.

Richmond’s race also indicated something not dissimilar to Vitter’s victory; namely, that voters in tonight’s Louisiana elections are more interested in how they’ll be represented in terms of policy than in the personal histories and/or failings of their politicians. Vitter survived the DC madam scandal because a large majority of Louisiana’s voters approve of his conservative Senate record, and in like manner Richmond won despite a rather frightening ethical record because at the end of the day the majority of the voters in New Orleans want a typical Congressional Black Caucus member, and he’s certainly that.

5. Charles Boustany. Boustany might be the biggest beneficiary of the GOP House takeover, as he’s set to take over a subcommittee in Appropriations. That, of course, could be good for Louisiana as a whole – though it’s unlikely anybody is getting much pork in the next Congress given the public mandate for fiscal discipline shown tonight. But Boustany isn’t alone; Steve Scalise is expected to get a key spot on the Steering Committee and Rodney Alexander is expected to get a subcommittee chair in Ways and Means. John Fleming is also in line to pick up a spot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which would increase his profile and also give the folks involved in the Haynesville Shale play a larger voice in fighting federal efforts to strangle natural gas production through regulatory enslavement.

LOSERS

1. The Fayards. To have spent the kind of money the Fayard campaign spent on a special-election Lieutenant Governor’s race, when the job comes up for re-election next year, is enough to put her at the top of this list. But to have gone through that much money and lost, and to be left with the questions about how the campaign was financed which remain in its wake, make tonight a very, very bad night for Louisiana’s premier Democrat campaign funding family.

Caroline Fayard did create some name recognition for herself in this race, which it was clear she was trying to do. But getting trounced 57-43 after a poll earlier this week showed her just eight points down indicates she perhaps underperformed.

And at the end of the day, accusations of money-laundering from her father through the Louisiana Democrat Party to her campaign are likely to haunt Fayard and perhaps hamper her future political prospects. She’s likely to be back, but it’s clear voters were not comfortable with what they saw from the Fayard family. And a 14-point spread says it’s not just that she was a Democrat running in a Republican year.

2. The Louisiana Democrat Party. The Fayard campaign-finance issues are likely to land the state’s Democrats in a pickle with the state Board of Ethics, which raised lots of questions particularly when the party failed to file 48-hour reports in the two weeks prior to the election after the money-laundering issue was raised. That amounts to a cherry on top of the otherwise devastating results for the Democrats – who, it appears, don’t seem to be competitive almost anywhere. They failed to even run candidates in the 1st and 7th Districts, and outside of Richmond no Democrat congressional candidate did better than Ravi Sangisetty’s 36 percent.

We’ll have to do a full count tomorrow, but the number we’ll be looking for is how many parishes were won by Democrat candidates tonight compared to Republicans. From the looks of it, that’s going to be a very lopsided number. And that indicates the Democrats aren’t competitive on a statewide level anymore. What this portends for next year will be interesting; they’ll have a tough time mounting challenges to any statewide races save for Attorney General, which Buddy Caldwell will be a favorite to hold.

3. Charlie Melancon. We didn’t see his concession speech live, but we’re told it was an exercise in bitterness, bile and classlessness. If that’s true, then it’s of a piece with the shameful way Melancon conducted himself in the last debate, in which he acted like he was trying to start a brawl rather than offer leadership to Louisiana through the Senate seat he was running for.

Melancon’s campaign was a joke, frankly. He sent Anzalone Liszt out to push-poll the people of Louisiana and lie to the voters (and prospective donors) about the state of the race, he failed completely to offer a vision for the state he’d present as our senator, he couldn’t offer us anything more than hookers and troubled Vitter staffers and he told a lot of provable lies throughout the campaign. For him not to own up, after it was over and the result was a surprise to no one, to the fact that the voters soundly rejected what he had to offer indicates that despite what he repeated time and time again about Vitter’s ethics the reality is that there might be more questions about the former sugar-cane lobbyist and Edwin Edwards crony from a character standpoint than about his intended victim.

Melancon’s next stop is likely Washington, where he’ll probably land some cush gig as the Undersecretary of Bass Fishing in the Department of Nothing. One would hope so. After his performance in Congress over the past year and the way he embarrassed himself in this campaign it’s unlikely he’ll be able to pull a Billy Tauzin or John Breaux and cash in as a lobbyist. And as for ever getting elected to office again, he can flat-out forget it.

4. Bobby Jindal. Jindal spent a great deal of time and effort outside of Louisiana working for gubernatorial and senatorial candidates, and as best we can tell he actually managed to pick a decent number of winners with his endorsements. But if Jindal’s goal in all that galivanting was to boost his national stature, outside of making himself the subject of a FOIA request from Democrat National Committee opposition researchers to the Pentagon it doesn’t appear he put himself on the map as a presidential or vice-presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, a lot of hay was made about Jindal’s lack of endorsements for Vitter, Dardenne and the state’s GOP congressional candidates. As it turned out, none of them needed the governor to pitch in, other than perhaps Joseph Cao (who was probably helpless anyway). Jindal could argue that he didn’t hurt anybody by not endorsing, and that’s probably true. But he didn’t help anybody, either, and a governor is supposed to help to build his state’s party. Jindal clearly didn’t do that, and there will be a lot of ruffled feathers for him to smooth over – and he’ll have to set about doing it immediately.

Because Jindal is going to have a massive budget fight on his hands. And in state treasurer John Kennedy, who is the most ambitious politician in Louisiana, he now has an adversary with designs on his job and a nose for media attention. The more contentious that budget fight gets, the more Jindal might think he would have liked to have gathered and/or strengthened allies among the state’s politicians and their supporters.

5. Joseph Cao. Re-election was always going to be a heavy lift for Cao, and when Fayard made the runoff and spread street money all over New Orleans it got a lot tougher. So the fact that he lost tonight isn’t necessarily all that terrible a disgrace.

But when you get beat 65-33, you can’t sugar-coat it. That’s a mudhole being stomped in your butt. It’s hard to even analyze such a poor performance. Maybe at the end of the day, you just can’t pull black vote in LA-2 unless you’re black. It sure doesn’t look like Cao could despite his effort at doing so.