This afternoon, as the House began preparations for a vote on the job-killing CLEAR Act, which the Congressional Budget Office incidentally estimates will bring about some $14 billion in litigation costs, dramatics ensued when Louisiana’s lone House Democrat put forth an amendment purporting to lift the deepwater moratorium that the rest of the delegation strenuously rejected as far too weak.

The CLEAR Act passed the House by a 209-193 vote this afternoon.

Rep. Charlie Melancon’s amendment  is described as imposing ”certain limits on the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling.  The moratorium would not apply to applications for permits to drill if the applicant has met safety requirements set forth in the National Notice to Leases dated June 8, 2010, and June 18, 2010.   The Secretary of Interior would have to make a decision on whether an applicant has complied within 30 days.”

Melancon’s amendment was panned by the state’s House Republicans. Rep. Bill Cassidy said he’ll vote against the amendment, while Reps. Steve Scalise and Charles Boustany spoke on the floor against it. That led Louisiana Democrat Party spokesman Kevin Franck to put forth the following release:

BREAKING: Louisiana Republican’s Set to Vote AGAINST Melancon Amendment to Lift Moratorium
On the House floor a few minutes ago Reps. Scalise and Boustany spoke in OPPOSITION to Charlie Melancon’s amendment to lift to moratorium on off-shore drilling. Melancon’s amendment is nearly identical to an amendment (S. 3588) introduced in the Senate by David Vitter. Developing…

What Franck didn’t mention is that Melancon’s amendment wasn’t so identical to legislation offered by his opponent in this fall’s Senate race. Vitter’s Senate amendment is S. 3588, which reads:

A BILL

To limit the moratorium on certain permitting and drilling activities issued by the Secretary of the Interior, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN PERMITTING AND DRILLING ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General- The moratorium set forth in the decision memorandum of the Secretary of the Interior entitled ‘Decision memorandum regarding the suspension of certain offshore permitting and drilling activities on the Outer Continental Shelf’ and dated July 12, 2010, and any suspension of operations issued in connection with the moratorium, shall not apply to an applicant for a permit to drill if the Secretary determines that the applicant–

(1) has complied with the notice entitled ‘National Notice to Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas Leases, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)’ dated June 8, 2010 (NTL No. 2010-N05) and the notice entitled ‘National Notice to Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas Leases, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)’ dated June 18, 2010 (NTL No. 2010-N06); and

(2) has completed all required safety inspections.

(b) Determination on Permit- Not later than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary makes a determination that an applicant has complied with paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall make a determination on whether to issue the permit.

Franck is correct as to the fact that Vitter’s section A and B are identical. But Melancon’s amendment has a good bit more to it. The amendment doesn’t just have an A and B. It has more sections, including a Section F, which reads:

“Nothing herein affects the Secretary’s authority to suspend offshore drilling permitting and drilling operations based on the threat of signficant, irreparable or immediate harm or damage to life, property, or to the marine, coastal or human environment pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.”  

Melancon’s release upon his amendment’s passage this afternoon (he declared it a “bi-partisan” vote, but only three Republicans voted for it on a 216-195 tally) said this:

The Melancon amendment would lift the deepwater moratorium on offshore drilling for companies that meet the new safety requirements issued by the Department of the Interior in the wake of the explosion. Specifically, if an application for a permit to drill complies with the “Notice to Lessees” 5 and 6, complies with any further safety measures recommended by the Secretary, and has completed all required safety inspections, the moratorium will not apply to the drilling application.

The Melancon amendment will also work to prevent another disaster from occurring and ensure companies are better able to respond to oil spills. The Secretary of the Interior will be required to report by October 31st to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on the status of:

(1) the collection and analysis of evidence regarding the potential causes of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig, including information collected by the Presidential Commission and other investigations,

(2) implementation of safety reforms announced by the Department of the Interior on May 27th,

(3) the ability of operators in the Gulf of Mexico to respond effectively to an oil spill in light of the Deepwater Horizon incident; and

(4) industry and government efforts to engineer, design, construct and assemble wild well intervention and blowout containment resources necessary to contain an uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons in deep water, should another blowout occur.

Melancon also gave a floor speech in support of his amendment, which in part read as follows:

The tragedy on Deepwater opened our eyes to the need for tougher safety standards for offshore drilling. For the need to strengthen the enforcement of both new and existing laws. And, for the need to protect workers who report their companies’ dangerous, and even illegal practices, to regulators, so that we can stop another accident before it happens.

But, an indiscriminate, blanket moratorium punishes the innocent along with the guilty for the actions and the poor judgment of one reckless company. If a rig meets all of the tough new safety requirements issued by the Department of the Interior, if it has been fully inspected and deemed safe, why should it sit idle – and the workers of that rig go jobless – until the arbitrary six month period is over?

People in Louisiana understand that this doesn’t make sense. Louisianians want more than anyone to prevent another disaster from happening in our waters. But, the irresponsible decisions and dangerous actions of one company shouldn’t shut down an entire sector of our economy, sending thousands of workers to the unemployment line. We need to fix the problems that led to this disaster in the Gulf, without paralyzing America’s domestic energy industry in the process.

That’s what my amendment does. Instead of a blanket moratorium, my amendment would allow drilling permits to be approved for those rigs that meet the new, tougher safety requirements issued by the Department of the Interior in the wake of the explosion.

Those 31 stalled drilling rigs directly employ some 1,400 workers. Hundreds of small businesses in Louisiana service those rigs, or, are in some way supported by the offshore oil and gas industry. According to research by Dr. Joseph Mason of Louisiana State University, under the current six-month moratorium, the Gulf Coast region will lose more than 8,000 jobs, nearly $500 million in wages, and over $2.1 billion in economic activity, as well as nearly $100 million it state and local tax revenue. And, that’s only if the drilling will start back immediately in 6 months.

But, you don’t need to be an economist to see the impact of the moratorium on south Louisiana. You just need to drive through coastal parishes like Lafourche and Terrebonne or to Grand Isle. Talk to people like Shelly Landry, who owns and operates her family’s grocery store on Grand Isle, who told me with tears in her eyes that the moratorium was shutting down the coast, hurting her business more than the actual oil spill. People like Ms. Landry are still learning to cope with the impact of the oil disaster, and now they feel they are being dealt a second blow – this time by their government.

Louisiana has a working coast, where people make good paychecks producing the domestic energy that drives our nation. They want to get back to work, doing jobs they love, jobs that provide a good life for their families.

But after that speech, Scalise and Boustany both slammed the amendment as insufficient to end the moratorium. Scalise took special exception to Section F, as did Boustany. In fact, after the two Louisiana Republicans expressed objection, Melancon retook the floor and asked for unanimous consent to revise his amendment to satisfy their concerns. Republican Doc Hastings objected, and the amendment was voted on. Melancon appeared visibly shaken while making the request; C-SPAN video of the exchange shows a staffer putting something in front of him. It almost appeared as though he wasn’t aware of what was in his own amendment.

And the amendment’s protections against arbitrary and dishonest action from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar are meager – as we saw above with Section F, they’re nonexistent - which is why the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association isn’t crazy about Melancon’s amendment at all. In fact, LOGA had this to say about it:

The Louisiana Oil & Gas Association strongly opposes this amendment to the CLEAR Act, which is soon to be up for debate. While the title of this amendment perceives to lift the ban on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, it in fact will grant overarching authority to the Secretary of the Interior.

Concerns center around “Clause B – Determination of Permit” located on page 2 of the amendment. As it is written, this language would grant the Secretary the authority to “make a determination on whether to issue” a permit. We believe a better structuring of this section should read that if an applicant complies with paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of subsection (a) the Secretary shall issue the permit.

In addition, we remain concerned regarding “Clause F” within the amendment, the “Savings Clause” located on page 3, lines 12-18 – We have concerns that this may codify the Secretary’s authority to suspend offshore drilling permitting and drilling operations. It is our position that the Secretary does not have the right to do so.

The Administration is taking the position that the moratorium is simply based on safety concerns. It is our position that applicants who apply for a permit and meet the proper safety requirement should be issued a permit. Although this language cannot be changed at this time, it is LOGA’s position that this legislation not pass as an amendment to the CLEAR Act.

The long and short of the passage of both Melancon’s amendment and the CLEAR Act as a whole is that a terrible bill has passed and thanks to Melancon’s amendment, which also passed, the law would now codify Ken Salazar’s ability to turn drilling on and off at will. If nothing else, this is an open invitation to corruption, as companies like BP who have already shown their willingness to buy politicians will be incentivized to bribe their way into the Gulf.

Cassidy wasn’t done making moves in his own right. In fact, the House GOP leadership has put his amendment to unconditionally lift the moratorium – which was beaten in a 26-22 committee vote two weeks ago thanks to the “no” votes of five “non-voting” delegates from Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands – forth once again as a Motion To Recommit.

Cassidy’s speech in favor of the motion to recommit was a spirited one…

In the aftermath of today’s debacle, Vitter put out a release trashing Melancon’s amendment:

“This amendment is nothing more than sleight of hand, otherwise it would have never gotten the vote of staunch drilling opponent Nancy Pelosi.  The meat and potatoes of the Melancon amendment keeps all the authority for drilling permits in the hands of the Obama administration who have made clear that they are putting politics ahead of sound policy,” said Vitter.  “I supported the rest of the delegation’s effort to defeat this amendment and wholeheartedly supported the alternative proposal by Rep. Scalise that would have immediately lifted this moratorium that is crushing Louisiana’s economy.”

Vitter’s release brought out more vitriol from Franck, who e-mailed this to Chad Rogers of The Dead Pelican…

Haha. Joke’s on you. The LA Oil and Gas Association’s main objection is to language that is identical to Vitter’s moratorium amendment. What’s next? Is Vitter going to run radio ads attacking himself?

As said above, to an extent Franck has a point – LOGA wasn’t crazy about Vitter’s amendment. But Scalise and Boustany both expressed objections to Section F, not Section B, and any reading of the amendment would reveal that the statutory power given Salazar makes everything else in the amendment purporting to end the moratorium meaningless. And that would call into severe question Franck’s credibility.

Meanwhile, another amendment to the CLEAR Act actually did succeed. Rep. John Fleming (R-Shreveport) managed to get some protections against the EPA taking over regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the natural gas industry.
 
“In Committee, the CLEAR Act was decorated like a Christmas tree with various items unrelated to the oil spill, one of which was the effort to require a leaseholder to disclose on a public website, proprietary information about hydraulic fracturing,” said Fleming.  “There is no doubt that this language was the first step in the liberals’ effort to have the natural gas industry fully regulated by the EPA – something that natural gas producing states, such as Louisiana, see as an intrusion into their authority and regulation.”
 
“An EPA takeover of the natural gas industry would stifle development, destroy jobs and reduce our supply of clean, natural gas, all at a time when our country needs more energy and more jobs,” continued Fleming. “I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who supported this important effort.”

As this article is being written, Election Day is 14 weeks away. The predominant chatter among political pundits is not whether there will be Republican gains, but the extent of those gains, and whether those gains can produce a Republican wave large enough to enable them to retake the House, the Senate, or both houses of Congress (which the Republicans did in 1994 and the Democrats did in 2006). However, speculation about the ultimate outcome can lead to unrealistic hopes. We would therefore like to use the 1994 landslide (and its effect on the composition of the U.S. Senate) to assess the extent to which conditions present in 1994 can be replicated in this year’s elections.

1994: That Was Then

While the 1994 GOP landslide resulted in a Republican pickup of 8 Senate seats (and control of that chamber for the first time since 1986), several pieces of the electoral puzzle had to come together. In fact, the Republican wave actually originated in November 1992 with the election of Bill Clinton. The immediate effect of that election was the creation of two Senate vacancies due to the resignations of Al Gore (D-Tennessee) and Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) to become President Clinton’s Vice President and Treasury Secretary, respectively.

The GOP caught another lucky break when in early 1994, David Boren (D-Oklahoma) resigned his Senate seat to accept a position as president of the University of Oklahoma.  Though these three vacancies (the Boren, Gore, and Bentsen seats) themselves made the difference in terms of Senate control, the Republicans’ good fortune did not stop there. It also didn’t hurt that four more Democratic incumbents decided to retire that year. Finally, the Democrats’ luck ran out: the Democratic landslide class of 1958 was re-elected every six years due to a series of favorable events (the 1964 LBJ landslide, a weak economy in 1970 in Nixon’s first term, Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976, 11% unemployment in 1982 during Reagan’s first term, and a lack of Republican focus on congressional races in 1988 while instead focusing on George H.W. Bush’s election). The fact that this “landslide class” of Senators was overwhelmingly (20-13) Democratic gave the Republicans plenty of potential targets, and the Gore/Bentsen/Boren resignations boosted that total even further to 22 Democrats and 13 Republicans.

All of the factors listed above helped the Republicans on election day: the 51-45% vote for Republican Senate candidates (52-45% for Republican House candidates) enabled them to sweep to victory by capturing all open Democratic seats and by defeating two incumbent Democratic senators. However, the landslide nature of this election enabled the GOP to re-elect all of their incumbents while simultaneously holding onto the three open GOP seats.

While the Republicans’ “perfect storm” gave them control of the Senate, landslides also have two side effects. First, there are always the “ones who got away”; as political analyst Charlie Cook says  “…almost always some candidates who looked dead somehow survive and others who were deemed safe get sucked down in the undertow. That’s the nature of these beasts…” - as impressive as this “perfect storm” was for the GOP, there were still five incumbent Democratic senators who were re-elected with less than 55%.

Second, and equally as important, landslides also have unforeseen side effects. In addition to the “ones who got away”, landslides tend to sweep in weaker candidates, who then have a tough time getting re-elected under more normal circumstances. This, in fact, is what happened with the 1994 freshman Senate class (and, arguably, the 1980 Republican freshman class as well): four of these “landslide freshmen” were defeated in 2000, and their defeats ultimately contributed to a deadlocked 50-50 Senate that George W. Bush had to face after he was inaugurated in 2001.

2010: This Is Now

The 1994 GOP landslide happened because of voter sentiment and a unique set of favorable circumstances. Can those circumstances repeat themselves this year ?

Presidential election creating vacancies – In this instance, history has repeated itself and then some; not only were both President Obama and Vice President Biden incumbent senators, but several of their cabinet picks (Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Ken Salazar as Secretary of Interior) were senators as well;

Retirements – In 1994, the lions’ share of retirements were on the Democratic side of the aisle. While the retirement of four Democratic senators (Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Evan Bayh in Indiana, Byron Dorgan in North Dakota, and the primary defeat of Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania) would seem to help Republican chances, the retirement of six Republican senatirs (plus a Republican primary defeat) make the picture less favorable to the Republicans this year;

Special circumstances – In 1994, Republicans benefitted from the resignation of David Boren of Oklahoma to take a university president’s job. While there were no such resignations in this election cycle, the death of  two veteran Democratic senators (Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts and Robert Byrd of West Virginia) has created additional open seat opprtunities, and the Massachusetts seat has already been captured by the Republicans in a major upset this past January;

A large Democratic Senate class up for election –The 1994 elections were for an overwhelmingly (22-13) Democratic Senate class. Though there is an abnormally large class of 37 senators up for election this year, Republicans don’t have as many targets, since they hold 19 of those 37 seats. That means that even in a perfect election cycle, there are four less Democratic targets than there were in 1994;

Incumbent losses – The defeat of two incumbent Democratic Senators in 1994 was one of several factors which helped the Republicans recapture the Senate. This year, the seat of Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) appears to be a close to guaranteed Republican pickup, and Republicans still hope to topple (four term incumbent) Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada;

The wildcards – In a ”perfect night” for the Republicans, the factors listed above  would mean that holding on to all 12 GOP incumbents, plus all seven open GOP held seats, would result in a Senate with 52 Republicans. However, we don’t believe that Republicans can capture Hillary Clinton’s senate seat, because both Republicans and Conservatives are fielding separate candidates in heavily Democratic New York. Similarly, Democrats have strong candidates in open seat contests in Connecticut and West Virginia who have consistently polled above 50%. And in Illinois, Kentucky, and Nevada, Republican nominees have committed early blunders that may or may not come back to haunt them in November. Therefore, we see a Senate made up of 46-49 Republicans. The only way to get to a majority is to expand the playing field by defeating more Democratic incumbents. About the only places where that is possible are in more liberal states like California, Washington, and Wisconsin, where incumbent Democrats (who, incidentally, were all elected in 1992) are currently running neck and neck against their GOP opponents.

The roadmap to a 51 GOP Senate

For the Republicans to have a chance of retaking the Senate (since Vice-President Biden can cast the tie breaking vote, “retaking the Senate” means a Republican delegation of 51 members), all of the following have to happen: (1) hold onto all 12 GOP incumbents (including Louisiana’s David Vitter) and 7 GOP open seats, (2) capture enough open Democratic seats and/or defeat enough incumbents to get to 51 senators. Where will those pickups need to occur ? Below is our list of those seats (in ascending order of difficulty), as well as the composite of poll results for the last 28 days:

(1)    North Dakota – Republican lead of 69-22% (open seat)

(2)    Arkansas – Republican lead of 58-33%

(3)    Indiana – Republican lead of 51-30% (open seat)

(4)    Delaware – Republican lead of 44-38% (open seat)

(5)  Colorado – (contested primaries on both sides are on August 10 – we will publish poll results then for this open seat)

(5)  Pennsylvania – Republican lead of 44-40% (open seat)

The next list of seats will determine control of the Senate. Republicans must capture at least four of these five seats:

(1)    Nevada – Democratic lead of 45-43%

(2)    Illinois – Democratic lead of 40-39% (open seat)

(3)    Washington – Republican lead of 46-45%

(4)    Wisconsin – Democratic lead of 47-42%

(5)    California – Democratic lead of 47-44%

The last list of seats should theoretically be pickup opportunities for the GOP, but a combination of weak GOP candidates and/or strong Democratic candidates means we aren’t currently counting on winning any of these seats:

(1)    West Virginia – Democratic lead of 51-35% (open seat)

(2)    Connecticut – Democratic lead of 54-36% (open seat)

(3)    New York (Hillary Clinton’s seat) – Democratic lead of 51-28% (open seat)

A final note needs to be added: a lot can still happen. 23 states still have not held their primaries. Scandals could abruptly change the context of the race in an instant, like a plagiarism scandal recently did in the Colorado Governor’s race. And external events (oil spills, foreign policy crises, the economy) can either bolster or savage Democrats’ chances.

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

In this episode – dueling Senate polls, no hookup for Traylor and the curious case of Joseph Cao.

WHO YOU GONNA BELIEVE? The Melancon campaign is crowing about a new poll they conducted which has their candidate within the margin of error, while another poll conducted for the National Republican Senatorial Committee says incumbent David Vitter maintains the same sizable lead he’s held throughout the race.

Melancon’s campaign uses Anzalone-Liszt for their polling, and this is not the first time they’ve come back with results which don’t track with independent polls on the Senate race. That firm has a reputation for fairly aggressive push-polling, leading to results which don’t particularly help the Democrat candidates and politicians who use them. A perfect example was the poll Anzalone released last year on health care, which led Democrats like Mary Landrieu to run around claiming that Americans were behind every aspect of Obamacare before voting for it.

In any event, according to the pollster Melancon has now pulled to within 44-43 of Vitter. That one-point margin shows some movement from a February release which had the challenger down 10 points. Anzalone said the poll was of 800 likely voters with a 3.5 percent margin of error.

Contrast those findings with those of the NRSC poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, which has Vitter leading Melancon by a 48-31 margin. Vitter leads the Congressman by 53-33 among the respondents who considered themselves most likely to vote. The sample size of the NRSC poll was 600 respondents.

The 17-point margin of the Public Opinion Strategies poll is pretty similar to a Rasmussen poll released June 29 which had Vitter ahead 53-35.

Vitter spokesman Luke Bolar was fairly dismissive of the Anzalone poll: “We already know Melancon bought and is using Hillary Clinton’s email list, so it’s no surprise he called Barack Obama’s donor list for this poll – but, it is a surprise how competive our campaign is on that list.”

TRAYLOR CONTINUES ROUGH PRESS: Following Monday’s Monroe News-Star story which laid out the morals charges of Vitter’s Republican challenger Chet Traylor, the reaction around the country has been pretty tough. While the previous narrative was that the former state Supreme Court justice could be an interesting challenger in the GOP primary, it seems the wagosphere is aiming to discard the Traylor candidacy now.

Take this from blogger Bill Pascoe, for example:

Over the course of my career in politics, I’ve run across candidates who were believed to be harboring secrets about their sex lives. To a man, they all seemed to think they were invulnerable — that is, they believed no one would find out. Being found out, they apparently believed, was for other candidates.

Some apparently believe that cuckolded husbands are so embarrassed by the episode, feeling that it is somehow their fault, that they will remain silent, and no one will be the wiser.

Moreover, in the case of Traylor’s paramours, there is a he said/he said element to the story. Traylor simply denies the timeline laid out by the senior Ellington.

So I can understand how Traylor could make the calculation that it was okay to go forward with a challenge to Vitter on the morality front. The Ellington men, he might have reasoned, would probably keep their mouths shut, and if they kept their mouths shut, no one would ever know.

It was a bad calculation, a wrong calculation, but understandable, if we presume Traylor falls into that camp who believes they are invulnerable.

What I cannot understand is how he thought news of the lawsuit filed against him would remain a secret.

He’s a former judge, for goodness’ sake. He knows lawsuits are public documents. And he knows there are reporters who do nothing but hang around the courthouse all day, waiting to see who files suit against whom.

And if he had any brains at all, he’d know that the moment he announced his challenge, the first thing a good editor would do is make sure his courthouse reporter scoured the files to see if he’d been on the receiving end of any lawsuits.

So by any reasonable assessment, it was clear the lawsuit filed by Ryan Ellington would become public knowledge in a matter of days, if not hours. And what do reporters do when they get their hands on a lawsuit? They call the guy who filed him to get background information.

Is it possible Chet Traylor believed a reporter could call his stepson and not learn of his affair with his stepson’s wife? And is it possible Traylor could believe his stepson’s claims would not lead to an interview with the stepson’s father?

Louisiana’s GOP voters may not care about Traylor’s moral lapses, if there are any. But they’re likely to care a good deal about his poor judgment.

Game over.

No  polling data is out on the GOP primary, and we won’t likely have any fundraising numbers to look at from Traylor’s campaign before the primary. But it seems like Pascoe, whose take is similar to that of the Times-Picayune’s Stephanie Grace, is right; Traylor isn’t a threat to Vitter at this point.

According to the Advocate, the lawsuit  the maybe-cuckolded Ellingtons have filed against Traylor goes to court Aug. 2. It’s hard to imagine how the public-relations nightmare the former justice has unleashed on himself will improve by what comes out of the courtroom.

CAO GETS SHOUT-OUT FROM OBAMA: It will be interesting if 2nd District Congressman Joseph Cao gets any benefit from his “yes” vote on President Obama’s financial regulation bill, or what effect Obama’s recognition of that fact today might have on the sometimes-wayward Republican’s tough re-election campaign. Seeing as though Cao is likely to get some three-quarters of the non-African American vote, which makes up 36 percent of the district’s population but probably more like 45 percent of the electorate on Nov. 2, the race is likely to be fought in the black community – and Cao needs some 30 percent of that vote to win.

A shout-out from President Obama today can’t hurt, even though it undoubtedly infuriates Cao’s base of voters who won’t like the financial regulation bill any more than they like Obama. But since those voters don’t really have an option and since they’re likely to turn out pretty heavily to vote in the Senate and Lieutenant Governor races, meaning they’ll already be at the polls, Cao probably finds himself in the bizarre position of being a Republican whose political future depends on abandoning his voters on an important issue.

In this update: rising scrutiny for Traylor, Cassidy mastering the influence game and Villere pulls Tea Party endorsement.

SPOTLIGHT SHINES HOTLY ON TRAYLOR: Republican Senate challenger Chet Traylor, whose primary campaign against incumbent David Vitter depends on his casting himself as the squeaky-clean alternative to Vitter’s checkered personal history, continues to get national notice as his two-week-old campaign continues. Today’s Daily Caller has a story by Steven Powell on Traylor and his prospects to unseat Vitter, casting those prospects in an uncertain light but quoting longtime Louisiana political wag John Maginnis in casting a Traylor upset as a potential win for the GOP.

Despite Traylor’s confidence in Vitter’s vulnerability, John Maginnis, a Louisiana political analyst and the publisher of LaPolitics Weekly, offers a different view of the situation.

“Vitter still has support among Republicans, especially the Tea Party, religious and business groups,” he said.

Vitter has the right stances on political issues to win among Republicans – which is why Traylor mirrors Vitter’s stances on the issues, Maginnis said. But the biggest fear haunting Republicans is that the Democrats may be sitting on another Vitter scandal to release right before the general election. This will be Traylor’s main line of attack.

Maginnis said the best-case scenario for Democrats is for Vitter to win the primary after a hard-fought battle.

“Democrats are hoping for Vitter to win, they just need Traylor to bloody him up a little,” he said. “The down side to a Traylor victory for Democrats would be Republicans carrying momentum into the general election.”

Maginnis says Traylor will need to raise $700,000 to mount a credible campaign against Vitter, who has $5.5 million in the bank. He also says that’s an attainable number.

But today’s Monroe News-Star probably shoots down Maginnis’ hypothesis. The story the paper tells about the former Louisiana Supreme Court Justice isn’t exactly one which would cast him as the good-guy alternative to Vitter’s black hat. It largely corroborates the words of our Walter Abbott, who first stated Traylor’s issues with marital infidelity last week, and fleshes out in somewhat gory detail the circumstances of Traylor’s relationship with the family of state representative Noble Ellington.

But Traylor has his own ethical questions that could threaten the upstanding image his campaign has opted to present. They include:

- His complicated romantic history, including allegations of affairs with two married women.

- A lawsuit filed by Traylor’s stepsons, who say Traylor has resisted efforts to collect information on the estate of their dead mother, Traylor’s former wife, Peggy McDowell Traylor.

Traylor contends he’s done nothing unethical in his personal conduct.

“I’ve done nothing I’m ashamed of,” he said.

“I’ve done everything I’ve done in the open.”

The two alleged romantic affairs themselves present a tangled family web.

State Rep. Noble Ellington, D-Winnsboro, said that Traylor was “significantly involved” in the cause of his divorce from Peggy McDowell, who later married Chet Traylor and became Peggy McDowell Traylor.

Noble Ellington said in an interview Monday that Traylor was “certainly part of the reason” for his divorce from his then wife.

Traylor denies the accusation and said Ellington and the former Peggy McDowell, who died last year, were separated before his relationship with McDowell began.

“That’s absolutely untrue,” Traylor replied when asked if he played a part in Ellington’s divorce.

Traylor is also currently involved in a romantic relationship with Denise Lively, the estranged wife of his stepson, Ryan Ellington, the son of Noble Ellington.

Lively and Ryan Ellington remain legally married, but both he and Traylor said the Lively-Traylor relationship began while Lively and Ryan Ellington were separated.

A few months after the death of Peggy McDowell Traylor, Chet Traylor began the relationship with Lively.

Ryan Ellington said a divorce with Denise Lively is pending.

Beyond those relationship problems, a new lawsuit also could raise further questions about Traylor’s image.

Ryan and Noble Ellington III, both of Winnsboro, filed a lawsuit against Traylor last month in Fifth Judicial District Court stating that in the months since the death of their mother, Peggy McDowell Traylor, in August 2009, Traylor has resisted efforts by the sons to collect information on their mother’s estate and to take possession of some of her property.

Noble Ellington III and Ryan Ellington’s lawsuit asks the court to compel Traylor to turn over bank records, their mother’s property and other relevant financial records.

Peggy McDowell Traylor died without a will.

Noble Ellington III and Ryan Ellington were appointed by the court as the independent co-administrators of their mother’s estate, some of which is shared as community property with Chet Traylor.

The lawsuit states that Chet Traylor “resists production” of financial records and “exhibits no cooperation with the court appointed administrators.”

After Ryan Ellington and Noble Ellington III issued a subpoena to Franklin State Bank in Winnsboro for financial records, Traylor filed a motion to quash the subpoena.

The Ellingtons’ attorney, Paul Spillers of Monroe, contends that Traylor has provided no legal basis for refusing to provide financial records.

It’s pretty damning stuff, and it’s also the kind of thing which is nearly impossible to hide. You can’t conduct a romantic relationship with a state legislator’s wife, not to mention the son of a state legislator’s wife as well (who also happens to be your stepson), and then run for the U.S. Senate without that coming out pretty quickly. And this stuff isn’t a secret in the northern part of the state. As James H. wrote in the Opinionated Catholic yesterday…

I have to admit I am a tad surprised they are being talked about openly in the newspaper so soon.

Not only did he screw around and cause the divorce of a State Rep and his wife but now is involved with his Step Sons WIFE.!! Sounds like a porn film. Maybe I am old fashioned but I find Vitter’s problems less objectionable compared to that.

None of this is really news to me as a North Louisiana guy but I suspect it might be news to other down south.

Traylor’s issues might be overcome in a different race, but it’s hard to see how his market positioning against Vitter will be successful given this baggage.

CASSIDY BUILDING AN EMPIRE: The Baton Rouge Business Report has a blurb on Rep. Bill Cassidy’s burgeoning influence operation up in DC, and the Baton Rouge Congressman’s strategic use of campaign funds to promote conservative candidates.

According to the piece, Cassidy just contributed $125,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and the political action committee he formed with the Baton Rouge accounting firm Postlethwaite & Netterville, CASS PAC, “raised more than $100,000 for the second quarter and is responsible for sending 66 financial contributions to 54 conservatives in races around the country.” CASS PAC, which stands for Continuing America’s Strength and Security PAC, has $60,000 left in the bank. Cassidy himself has $924,000 on hand for his campaign against Democrat Merritt McDonald, a contractor and former Baton Rouge Metro Council candidate.

VILLERE LANDS TEA PARTY NOD: Louisiana Republican Party chairman Roger Villere picked up a welcome bit of news in his campaign for Lieutenant Governor, as one of Louisiana’s largest Tea Party organizations announced an endorsement of Villere this morning. The Tea Party of Louisiana cited Villere’s low-tax, small-government platform as the reason for their backing.

“The Tea Party of Louisiana is pleased to endorse Roger Villere for Lt. Governor,” Tea Party of Louisiana Spokesman Chris Comeaux said. “For a quarter century, Roger Villere has served as a volunteer in the fight for less government and more freedom in Louisiana. As Lt. Governor, he will be a strong voice and lead the fight to usher in a new wave of conservative revolution in Louisiana,” Comeaux said.

“This is going to be a momentous year for those of us who value less government spending, reject government intrusion into business, want to stop socialized healthcare and believe in the Constitution as it was written by our founders,” Comeaux said.  “It’s time that we take our country back from career politicians who say one thing and then vote differently when they are in office. We are making it our mission across America this fall to shine the light of truth on those politicians who have made a career treating our tax dollars like their piggy bank.”

In this update: Vitter’s weekend of “teeing it high and letting it fly,” taking a look at the financial disclosures in the state’s Congressional races, and the media attention coming out of Butch Gautreaux’s Lieutenant Governor bid.

VITTER LETS ‘EM HAVE IT: On Friday, Sen. David Vitter was on Rush Radio WRNO-FM in New Orleans, a conservative talk station, discussing various political items, and got into an exchange on the subject of uber-lefty MSNBC host Rachel Maddow – whose mannish appearance has been the source of much commentary on the Right. The exchange was a rather lighthearted one, but it generated some controversy relatively immediately after the Senator quipped, in response to a reference to old pictures of Maddow which show her to be considerably more feminine than she currently is, that “it must have been a long time ago.”

The exchange, transcribed by the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, went like this:

MALE HOST: I wonder if Senator Vitter is ever going to post, like, maybe the video of the first time he was on the floor of the Senate. If I have to show the way I looked the first time I was on TV, you should do that too.

VITTER: We should go further back than that, how about high school yearbook?

MALE HOST: Oh yeah.

VITTER: De La Salle marching band.

MALE HOST: That’d be cool. Well you know, with Rachel Maddow they had that picture of her…

FEMALE HOST: Looking like a woman.

MALE HOST: Yeah it was really bizarre.

VITTER: [LAUGHS]: Must have been a long time ago.

ALL THREE: [HEAVY LAUGHTER]

Vitter sent Maddow a note of apology on Friday:

Dear Rachel,

Regarding my remark during a radio conversation today, I apologize.

The hosts made their comment and I obviously chimed in. While we do not usually agree on the issues, I do not think you deserved that comment.

Sincerely,

David

But Vitter has not apologized for another quip he shot forth on Sunday. The latter one took place during his appearance on Fox News Sunday, when the Senator accused the Obama administration of trying to move the Gulf Oil Spill “off the front page” instead of actually handling it.

 ”I’m afraid he’s decided to deal with this issue, at least politically, by not coming back here and trying to move it off the front page rather than dealing with the situation forcefully,” Vitter said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“He was coming here on a pretty regular basis. … He hasn’t done that in Louisiana since June 4. That’s personally disappointing to me.”

No word on either subject from either Vitter’s opponent, Congressman Charlie Melancon, or the Louisiana Democrat Party. Both usually seize on everything the Senator says, but so far they’ve been silent.

THE MONEY: After last week’s 2nd quarter campaign financial disclosures, some interesting analysis has come about and it’s beginning to look like relative newcomer Jeff Landry is in a rather commanding position in the most wide-open race in the state, the 3rd District House race.

Landry’s current stash of $379,000 puts him in a very strong position in comparison to his competitors – Hunt Downer on the GOP side and Democrat Ravi Sangisetty. Downer, despite a late start, claimed an impressive $279,000 in receipts against $35,000 in expenses and holds $244,000 on hand, while Landry has raised $495,000 and spent $116,000.

Sangisetty, however, claimed the greatest fundraising haul – $544,000. But he’s only got $283,000, due to the fact that the Democrat spent $261,000 without even having a primary opponent. That’s an extremely high burn rate under the circumstances, and reports that Sangisetty  spent $35,000 to commission a poll from an outfit from Florida last month (the results of which the campaign did not publicize, which isn’t a good sign) indicate the fiscal discipline might not be what the textbooks would call for.

Of course, the cash is flying in furious fashion in the other contested House race – that being the one in the 2nd District. Incumbent Joseph Cao is the raise-and-spend champion among the state’s congressional candidates, having reeled in $1.402 million so far and spent $1.042 million, with $359,000 on hand. Cao doesn’t have a GOP challenger, so he’ll await the results of the primary between Cedric Richmond (raised $493,000, spent $241,000, $250,000 on hand) and Juan LaFonta (raised $253,000, spent $223,000, $30,000 on hand).

The only other race set for a contest on Nov. 2 is the 4th District contest in North Louisiana. Incumbent Republican John Fleming has raised a healthy $1.16 million and spent $732,000 so far, with $433,000 on hand. Fleming’s likely Democrat challenger David Melville, a Baptist minister, has raised $77,000, $76,000 of which he still has on hand.

(Source: OpenSecrets.org)

GAUTREAUX GETTING PUBLICITY, SAYS MORATORIUM WILL BE OVER IN 30 DAYS: Democrat Butch Gautreaux, a state senator from Morgan City who by default appears his party’s standard bearer in the Lieutenant Governor’s race this fall, made news late last week by telling a local radio station he expects the Obama administration’s moratorium will be over soon.

Gautreaux said he is for “safe drilling” and that he understands President Obama’s concerns.

“But I don’t think six months are necessary, if the federal government has its resources together,” Gautreaux said. “As soon as they start inspections, I think they could be wrapped up in a matter of weeks.”

“We don’t need to lose more lives because we need to take care of the economics of the oil industry,” Gautreaux said. “We need to be respective of the lives lost, the families who have lost loved ones, and at the same time, the lives living aboard and working on these rigs, and their families who live without their loved ones 14 days more or less, out of every month.”

The senator stressed that he wants to see people, “back at work as soon as possible,” but conversely, the inspections should not be done, “recklessly.”

If Gautreaux has information others don’t, it’s going to increase his profile, obviously. But if he doesn’t, that statement will be fodder for his opponents in the upcoming.

Nevertheless, the Democrat is getting some media attention. A piece by freelance political writer Jeremy Alford on Gautreaux ran in the Houma Courier today outlining some of what Gautreaux is looking to do as the state’s Lieutenant Governor…

Gautreaux said the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent spill prompted him to jump into the fray.

“We have got to get past this,” he said. “One way is to begin promoting tourism within. We need people from New Orleans to go and visit Shreveport. We need people from Monroe to come and stay at a bed and breakfast in Terrebonne.”

As for the office, Gautreaux said he has big plans.

“The first thing I would do if elected would be to review all of the programs,” he said. “I already know there’s waste there. I would also run a more friendly office. I want to interact with the Legislature and reach out to stakeholders and bring in new ones like chambers of commerce.”

Gautreaux’s legislative Democrat colleagues Sen. Joel Chaisson (Destrehan), Sen. Eric LaFleur (Ville Platte) and Rep. John Bel Edwards (Amite) are helping him to raise money. A fundraiser with a minimum contribution of $1,000 will take place in downtown Baton Rouge for Gautreaux Wednesday.

In today’s update: more heat in the Vitter-Melancon campaign and the 3rd District tussle begins crossing party lines.

FUR FLIES IN SENATE RACE: After the Charlie Melancon campaign and Louisiana’s Democrat Party manned the bellows in an attempt to make a campaign issue of Sen. David Vitter’s friendly response to a Town Hall question Sunday on the issue of “birther” lawsuits, a POLITICO piece yesterday proclaimed that Vitter was crawfishing.

Long time readers of Lincoln Parish News Online (LPNO) know of our time-tested theorem of how more information often can be gleaned by things that ARE NOT revealed, rather than by what IS revealed. Who WASN’T at the meeting; what WASN’T said in the interview; who DIDN’T run for office; what the news article DIDN’T say – and so forth.

We have as the tagline of our newsblog: “What isn’t in the newspapers is often more newsworthy that what is.”

That theorem was again proved yesterday when Shira Toeplitz of Politico.com posted her hit piece on Sen. David Vitter.

What WASN’T in Toeplitz’s Article

This past Tuesday afternoon we received a call from Ms. Toeplitz wanting to interview us about the Louisiana Senate Race. Sure, we said. We’re in the news and opinion business and would be happy to oblige.

Her first question involved the so-called birther movement and the fact that Vitter mentioned the issue at a recent campaign event. We told Toplitz that we didn’t have any particular problem with Vitter’s comments and that many people felt that there was a “there” there on whether or not the President was a natural-born citizen.

She asked were we supporters of Vitter. We said, sure he had one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate and that he very much reflected our view on smaller government and less taxes.

Next, our conversation touched on the primary challenge of Vitter by former State Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor. We told her that in our opinion Traylor was not known outside the relatively sparsely populated area of Northeast Louisiana and that he had little chance of success.

We noted that Traylor’s campaign manager is Lev Dawson, a close political ally of notorious State Sen. Francis Thompson. And that’s a lot of political baggage to tote, we said.

We also mentioned that if Traylor tried to make an issue of Vitter’s alleged marital problems of a decade ago, then Traylor would open himself up to the same charges.

Toeplitz told us she had an on-the-record interview with State Rep. Noble Ellington earlier, where Ellington went into detail about that very issue.

Toeplitz chose not to write about that in her article.

Toeplitz also failed to include in her article any mention of her interview with Bibb Franklin of Rayville, a long-time conservative activist. Franklin told Toeplitz much the same thing we did – in his opinion, Traylor wouldn’t get much support and that Vitter had his base pretty much sewed up.

We called Toeplitz and Poltico’s Executive Editor Jim VandeHei to see if they wanted to comment on this news story. Neither had returned our phone call by post time.

Who Gets to Say What is News

Used to, when big-city newspaper or the TV networks did a story and told only part of the story, we conservatives just had to sit and stew. We had no way to correct the record.

That’s all changed with this new interweb thingy.

Appropriate here is this quote from New York Times columnist David Carr from a couple of years ago:

“I was taught when I was a young reporter that it’s news when we say it is. I think that’s still true — it’s news when ‘we’ say it is. It’s just who ‘we’ is has changed.”

Primary and Filing Status

On the primary front, it has been relatively quiet this month. The Alabama runoff has been the only election held since June 22, and it provided yet another example of voters (in this case, in the Republican runoff for governor) choosing someone other than the preferred candidate of the local political establishment, by an unambiguous 56-44% margin.

There has been more action, however, with Congressional/gubernatorial filings; in the past week, filing has concluded in Maryland, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and New York, for a total of 48 states (all but Delaware and Hawaii have concluded their congressional qualifying). Thus far, 37 House members (31 Republicans and 6 Democrats) will not have major party opposition; this list expanded by two when after the close of Louisiana’s qualifying, Democrats decided not to compete for the seats held by Rodney Alexander (R-Quitman) and Charles Boustany (R-Lafayette). (7/18 Editor’s updates: (1) As of press time, candidate filing has concluded in New York, but a finalized list of candidates is not yet available until sometime before August 9, according to their Board Of Election. We currently believe that four New York City Democrats will have no Republican opposition, and once we have the final list, we will revise the paragraph above; (2) We had incorrect dates for filing deadlines for Minnesota and Vermont, and in fact, their filing deadlines have passed)

While Congressional qualifying concludes, the only other electoral action this month will be the Georgia primary on July 20 and the Oklahoma primary on July 27. We are watching two races in Georgia - the governor’s race and a U.S. House race in the suburbs of Atlanta.

On the Democratic side of the governor’s race, we have yet another example (in addition to California, Iowa, Maryland, and Oregon) of a former governor wanting his old job back. Democrat Roy Barnes was defeated by a Republican when he ran for re-election in 2002 (incidentally, the victor was the first and only Republican to win that office since Reconstruction), and is seeking a comeback now that the Republican is term-limited. While he’s expected to win the Democratic primary easily, the more interesting race is the Republican primary. With this being an open seat race, a crowded field of seven candidates is seeking the nomination. What makes this race interesting is that it is yet another test of the power of the Sarah Palin endorsement, as she has thrown her support behind Secretary of State Karen Handel, who leads in a recent poll with 32%.

We are also watching a House race in the eastern suburbs of Atlanta. This majority black district has seen a series of contested Democratic primaries since 2002, and was the district that twice rejected former Congresswoman (and firebrand) Cynthia McKinney. The person who defeated her in 2006, Hank Johnson, is now in some political trouble himself: his two primary opponents have made hay over recent remarks he made in a committee hearing asserting that “…relocating Navy personnel to Guam would cause the small island to ‘become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize’…” . As a result, the picture they are painting to Democratic primary voters in that district is that he is “aloof and out of touch”, and that he “runs his campaign by press releases.”

Shortly after the Georgia and Oklahoma primaries, Congressional qualifying concludes in Delaware on July 30, and contested primaries return with a vengeance, starting on August 3. Throughout the month of August, 14 states (including Louisiana’s August 28 Congressional party primaries) will be holding primaries, and we have summarized those races below (7/18 Editor’s note: We have found out that Minnesota and Vermont have their primaries in August and not on 9/14, as we originally thought):

August 3: Kansas, Michigan, and Missouri – We are focusing on the Republican primary for Senate in Kansas. While throughout the election cycle, “political establishment” candidates have suffered defeat after defeat, Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin have been more successful in their endorsements whenever they weigh in on a race. And in Kansas, two Republican Congressmen are seeking the nomination for this open seat, and Sarah Palin has endorsed Todd Tiahrt, whose endorsement list is a “who’s who” of conservatives: Sean Hannity, Steve Forbes, the Tea Party Express, and Focus On the Family.

August 5: Tennessee: While the Kansas primary will be a test of the power of Sarah Palin’s endorsement, we are following a Democratic House primary in Memphis, Tennessee to assess how viable the use of the “race card” still is in black majority districts. In this situation, two-term incumbent Steve Cohen is a white liberal representing an inner city district that voted 78-22% for Barack Obama. His holding this seat for two terms has ruffled the feathers of the local black political establishment, so pugnacious former Mayor Willie Herenton (who is black) is challenging Cohen in the primary. Yet in this contest, the racial overtones have been counteracted by endorsements Rep. Cohen has received from both members of the Congressional Black Caucus and of President Obama.

August 10: Colorado, Connecticut, and Minnesota: The Colorado Senate race features contested Democratic and Republican primaries. The Democratic primary is an interesting proxy battle between President Obama and former President Clinton. This senate seat initially became vacant at the start of the Obama administration when former Senator Ken Salazar was appointed Secretary of the Interior. To fill the vacancy, Colorado’s Democratic governor appointed Michael Bennet, who was at the time the superintendent of Denver’s public schools. Though Bennet has compiled a generally liberal record and has the strong support of the Democratic establishment (including President Obama), some local politicians like former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff felt slighted, and Romanoff is challenging Bennet in the primary with the endorsement of former President Clinton.  This “national vs local establishment” subtext to this race seems similar to the Specter/Sestak race in Pennsylvania, except that Bennet has always been a Democrat who has worked within the political system, and he has (unsurprisingly) led in the polls throughout the campaign.

On the Republican side, the Colorado Senate primary is, like Kentucky and Nevada, another test of the strength of the Tea Party movement in Republican primaries. DA Ken Buck is running with Tea Party support. His main opponent is Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton, who is viewed as more of an establishment favorite.

August 17:Washington and Wyoming: In Washington, the GOP scored a recruiting coup when former state senator (and two time gubernatorial candidate) Dino Rossi agreed to run against three term incumbent Patty Murray, the “Mom in tennis shoes.” However, local Tea Partiers are not enthusiastic about his candidacy, and have rallied behind former Washington Redskins tight end Clint Didier. Didier also claims the endorsements of Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, so in a sense, this race is also a test of the power of the Palin endorsement. Washington State, however, is a more hospitable environment for political moderates and/or moderate Republicans, so we believe that Rossi will survive the primary and become the Republican challenger to Senator Murray.

August 24: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, and Vermont: In Alaska, Sarah Palin (and Tea Partiers, for that matter)  is supporting the insurgent candidacy of attorney Joe Miller against eight year incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the GOP primary. There is a personal aspect to this endorsement: former Senator Frank Murkowski (the incumbent senator’s father) was elected Governor in 2002 and promptly appointed his daughter to the seat. This appointment proved to be bad politics for both father and daughter. While Lisa was barely elected to a full term in a year George W. Bush was carrying Alaska with over 60% of the vote, Governor Murkowski was politically humiliated in his 2006 re-election bid. Not only was he defeated in the Republican primary by Sarah Palin, but he came in third place.

The Palin endorsement also is playing itself out in Arizona as well, although this time, Sarah Palin is endorsing the incumbent. In the Republican Senate primary, four term incumbent John McCain has stiff opposition from sportscaster/former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, and Hayworth’s candidacy is an outlet for Arizona Republicans who’ve felt that over the years McCain is not conservative enough. There is a very simple reason for Palin endorsing the incumbent: simple gratitude for McCain’s making her his running mate in his unsuccessful 2008 Presidential candidacy. Also on the ballot is the gubernatorial primary, which was effectively settled on the Republican side when formerly embattled incumbent Jan Brewer decided to enforce federal immigration laws on her own and has since attained hero status with conservatives across the country and in Arizona.

For months, the Republican primary for an open Senate seat in Florida was a marquee event, especially after Governor Charlie Crist saw his poll numbers steadily decline after embracing President Obama during a 2009 visit to the state. When he decided to change parties and run as an Independent (thus bypassing any party primaries), former House Speaker Marco Rubio effectively became the Republican nominee. The race took another twist on the Democratic side, however, when presumptive nominee, Kendrick Meek (a black Congressman from Miami) got a primary challenge from controversial billionaire Jeff Greene. This has been a hard fought 3 way race for several months now, and will continue to be competitive after the primary.

August 28: Louisiana Congressional Party Primaries: This is the last year that Louisiana will hold party primaries for Congressional races (this practice started with the 2008 election cycle and has never been very popular with voters comfortable with Louisiana’s open primaries). There are several races worth following, however. Keep in mind that only Republicans can vote in Republican Congressional primaries, while Democrats and/or unaffiliated voters can vote in Democratic Congressional primaries:

Senate – While both David Vitter and Charlie Melancon face two opponents each in their respective party primaries, we are most interested in the percent of the vote in each parish that Senator Vitter’s challengers will receive, since that vote represents the potential defections Senator Vitter may face in November to any of the 10 independent candidates running. What makes the Republican primary race especially interesting is the last minute entry of former Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor; his candidacy was borne out of disgust at Senator Vitter’s prior conduct with a prostitute, as well as assault charges facing one of his aides.

House – There are also several Congressional  primaries we are watching: (1) in New Orleans, can the Democrats unite behind a single challenger to vulnerable Republican freshman “Joseph” Cao, or will they be pushed into a runoff, thus giving Cao an additional month to campaign and raise money ?; (2) in New Iberia/Houma/Chalmette, three Republicans are seeking Democrat Charlie Melancon’s vacated House seat. Will the financial firepower of attorneys Jeff Landry and Hunt Downer put them in the runoff against each other, or can political newcomer Kristian Magar use his grassroots support to pull off an upset by making it into the runoff ?;(3) Three term incumbent Rodney Alexander is facing a primary opponent this year who is questioning his credibility as a conservative. Rep. Alexander similarly faced a more conservative primary challenger in 2008, and whipped him 90-10%. Will the challenger (Todd Slavant), with his Tea Party affiliations, make it a more competitive race in this anti incumbent year?

After the gauntlet of August primaries, all will be quiet on the political front until “Super Tuesday II” on September 14, when 7 states hold their primaries on that day. “Super Tuesday II” pretty much concludes primary season nationally, although Hawaii has a primary on September 18, and on October 2, Louisiana will have (if necessary) party runoffs for Congress, as well as “open primary” races for statewide (Lt Governor, PSC) and local (judge, school board, etc) races. And if no one in those local/statewide races receives a majority, they will have to compete in a runoff held on the same day as the midterm elections.

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

Today’s edition has continued nastiness in the Senate race between Charlie Melancon and David Vitter, a surprising poll result in New Orleans and candidates pulling endorsements.

JEFFERSON GOP ENDORSEMENTS: Yesterday we reported that the Jefferson Parish Republican Party had endorsed Hunt Downer for the 3rd District Congressional race, giving the Downer campaign a slight boost (only a sliver of Jefferson along the coast is part of the 3rd District). Downer’s opponent Jeff Landry had previously secured endorsements from party chiefs in Ascension, Iberia and St. Martin Parishes.

The Jefferson Republicans also endorsed Sen. David Vitter and incumbent Republican Reps. Steve Scalise and Joseph Cao, none of which was a surprise. What was also not a surprise but ranks as a significant endorsement was the Jefferson GOP’s choice of Louisiana Republican Party chairman Roger Villere, a businessman in Metairie. While Villere needs to attract support outside of the New Orleans metro area in his bid to become the state’s next Lieutenant Governor, there is a large pool of Republican votes in Jefferson Parish which can serve as a base for him as he works to secure a runoff spot.

LA DEMS HOWLING ABOUT VITTER “BIRTHER” STATEMENTS: On Sunday, Sen. David Vitter addressed a Tea Party rally, and he was asked whether he supports lawsuits demanding that President Obama produce a long-form birth certificate.

This is what Vitter said in response:

…with the crowd applauding the question, Vitter responded that although he doesn’t personally have legal standing to bring litigation, he supports “conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court,” according to a video of the event.

“I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it,” Vitter said, although he later cautioned that the matter could distract from policy issues.

“I think if we focus on that issue and let our eye off the ball … I think that’s a big mistake,” he said. “I’m not dismissing any of this. I think first and foremost, we need to fight the Obama agenda at the ballot box starting this fall.”

And here’s the video of the exchange:

The AP story that resulted from Vitter’s statement says that “Such claims about Obama’s birth certificate have been discredited,” and also that “Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed the president’s citizenship, and his Hawaiian birth certificate has been made public, along with newspaper birth notices published when he was born in 1961.” While there is truth in the assertions made by AP reporter Ben Evans, they also ignore the fact that Obama has not produced an original copy of his “long-form” birth certificate and they fail to mention allegations by Tim Adams, a senior elections clerk in Honolulu in 2008 who claims the city does not have a birth certificate on file for the president.

In any event, Vitter’s Democrat opponent seized on his statement in an effort to score points.

“While Louisiana families are suffering from the biggest man-made disaster in history, David Vitter is trying to score political points by perpetuating a completely debunked conspiracy theory,” spokesman Jeff Giertz said.

Giertz’ statement was followed by a release from Louisiana Democrat Party communications director Kevin Franck yesterday, which said the following:

Two days after reports surfaced that U.S. Senator David Vitter endorsed law suits challenging the citizenship and legitimacy of President Barack Obama, not a single Louisiana Republican has criticized Vitter’s embrace of the so-called birther movement.

“All Louisianans should be outraged by David Vitter’s support of this nonsense conspiracy theory, and it’s telling that not a single Republican has spoken out against it,” said Louisiana Democratic Party Executive Director Renee Lapeyrolerie.

As reported by numerous media outlets, Vitter told a crowd gathered for a tea party event on Sunday that he supports conservative organizations who argue that President Obama was not born in the United States.

After Vitter’s birther comments were reported, Governor Bobby Jindal announced that he will remain neutral in the U.S. Senate race, according to The Hill. Last week, former Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor entered the race to challenge Vitter in the August Republican primary.

“Louisiana families deserve to know if Republican leaders agree with David Vitter peddling this absurd right-wing fairy tale or if  they have the fortitude to stand up to the fringe birther movement,” Lapeyrolerie added.

Whether Adams’ allegations are true or whether Obama was actually born in Honolulu, as Evans asserts, or even whether Vitter properly fits in the “birther” camp – the senator never said he believed Obama was born elsewhere, he just said that if some conservative groups wanted to pursue the matter in court they should knock themselves out – it’s pretty clear Franck’s release is off-base in demanding that the state’s Republican political figures censure Vitter for failing to denounce “birtherism” when presented to him by his constituents. The piece in The Hill the Louisiana Democrat release references as a citation to imply that Jindal was frightened off a Vitter endorsement because of the “birther” video says no such thing. In fact, it hardly supports Franck’s release at all. Amid what largely amounts to an introduction of Vitter’s Republican challenger Chet Traylor, it says:

Meanwhile, at least one prominent Republican is staying out of the primary — for now. A spokesman for Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said he’s not focused on the race while oil continues to spill into the Gulf of Mexico.

“There will be time to discuss endorsements in the coming months,” Jindal spokesman Kyle Plotkin said in an e-mail.

Jindal has appeared at Vitter fundraisers but has not made a public endorsement.

The Louisiana Republican Party, however, has been “very actively supporting” Vitter, according to spokesman Aaron Baer. “We’re going to continue to do that.”

Washington Republicans are also standing by Vitter.

“We fully support Sen. Vitter,” said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “His numbers have only grown stronger as the election cycle has gone on.”

SHOCKER – CAO WITH GIANT LEAD IN POLL: Joseph Cao is sitting on a surprisingly massive lead against state rep Cedric Richmond, according to an internal Verne Kennedy poll conducted for the Cao campaign at the end of May. The results of the Kennedy poll were made public in a National Journal article Monday.

The poll places Cao at a 51-26 advantage over Richmond, including a 67-13 margin among whites and, most surprising of all, 39-36 among blacks. It also finds that Cao has a 54 percent approval rating among his constituents.

These numbers would fly in the face of conventional wisdom, which indicates that Cao is facing a colossal uphill fight against an African-American Democrat in a district which is 64 percent black and over 70 percent Democrat. But if it’s true that Cao has 67 percent of the white vote and 39 percent of the black vote in hand, even if all the undecideds break against him he will still manage a 51-49 victory if voter turnout in the race conforms to the demographics of voter registration. And that would be something of a surprise.

Kennedy tells the Cao campaign he doesn’t believe black turnout in the district will be higher than 57 percent, which is a reasonable assumption given that the rest of the ballot in the 2nd District this fall doesn’t include anything which would serve to energize the black community. Charlie Melancon has historically received good numbers in the black community, but not to the extent that he’s a particular “draw” among that demographic. And further, the Lieutenant Governor’s race doesn’t contain a single candidate with a record of appealing to the black community.

Given that, Cao might be able to get by with anything more than a third of the black vote in the race. That he’s receiving a number above that would pose a major challenge to the conventional wisdom. But the race will certainly be one the national Democrats will focus on in an effort to claw back a seat in a district which might be their only chance to reclaim from Republican hands in this cycle.

The gauntlet was thrown down earlier this week, as National Journal reports…

“Rep. Cao has done anything he needed to in order to stay in good graces with his national Republican benefactors and try to block President Obama’s agenda in a district where voters strongly support it,” said DCCC spokesman Jesse Ferguson. “The moment Cao voted against historic health insurance reform was the moment we knew our Democratic nominee will be successful in November.”

As Johnny Carson used to say – some “wild, weird stuff” is going on.

SANGISETTY RELEASES BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Louisiana 3rd District Democrat congressional candidate Ravi Sangisetty seems like a proactive guy. One might argue he’s a bit too proactive.

Sangisetty sent out a release today containing a copy of his birth certificate, without any explanation for why the campaign would put it out.

DOWNER CLAIMS JEFFERSON PARISH ENDORSEMENTS: A release today by 3rd District Republican candidate Hunt Downer boasts that he has the support of the GOP establishment in Jefferson Parish.

Downer excited the crowd several times to thunderous applause as he declared “our Constitution is under attack and I’m ready to fight back. Send me to Washington and I’ll defend the American Dream for my granddaughter and your kids.”

The group consisted of the Jefferson Parish Republican Executive Committee, the Jefferson Parish Republican State Central Committee, and Jefferson Parish Republican elected officials.

“I am honored to have this group’s endorsement going into the Republican Primary on August 28^th. We must not rest until the failed liberal policies of the Obama administration are repealed. I look forward to fighting for our people and our Constitution as a Congressman,” Downer said.

Downer recently announced a blistering fundraising pace of nearly $8,000 a day since he entered the race in late May. Downer is a retired Major General of the Army and former Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives.

Most of Jefferson is in Steve Scalise’s 1st District, with some of it in Joseph Cao’s 2nd District. The part of Jefferson in the 3rd is the coastal areas, largely including Grand Isle and Lafitte.

Jeff Landry, the other major Republican candidate in the race, has claimed the endorsement of several national conservative groups – including the Family Research Council and Americans For Prosperity.

MELANCON CONFIRMED IN VANCOUVER: The David Vitter campaign and the National Republican Senatorial Committee are both pushing the Charlie Melancon/trial lawyer convention angle as hard as they can this week, and that push got a bit more pronounced when after Melancon stonewalled the question of whether he did in fact make the trip to Vancouver yesterday the NRSC found video of him up there…

David Catanese’s POLITICO piece yesterday on the topic set the scene nicely: