Presidential – (1144 delegates to win) Romney 107,  Santorum 45, Gingrich 32, Ron Paul 9, Huntsman 2, Perry 2

The Republican Presidential contest is back to square one, so to speak.   Despite the fact that three of the four contests held this past week were in  states Mitt Romney carried in his 2008 Presidential quest, he only managed to  carry Nevada, and even then, he essentially matched his 2008 showing.

Continue reading at http://winwithjmc.com/archives/3928

This cat’s runnin’ for Railroad Commissioner in Texas. His political consultant is Brent Barksdale, who’s the same guy we got that Donkey Whisperer ad for Roger Williams from.

Barksdale might ought to go see Chuck Norris about runnin’ him for president. If Norris ran, he’d want ads like this…

In 2010, Nancy Pelosi starred in $75 million worth of negative ads that helped Republicans win control of the House and wrest the speaker’s gavel from her.

Now, the relative handful of moderate Democrats left say the fear of a rerun helps explain why so many of their breed are headed for the exits and why others ignored the pleas of party leaders to make comeback bids in 2012.

Three of the four leaders of the moderate Democratic Blue Dog Coalition have announced that they will retire at the end of this year. The latest to leave is Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), who got a country butt-kicking when he ran against Pelosi for House Democratic leader after the last election.

The argument, made by several sources who called POLITICO without solicitation, goes like this: Even if a moderate can withstand a bad lot in redistricting, raise millions of dollars and overcome ads warning of a second Pelosi speakership, his voice will be ignored in the next Congress.

“What I think is really lost here is a lot of the retirements were preordained the minute Nancy Pelosi decided to run again for speaker,” one retiring centrist said in an interview last week.

The article goes on to quote the Hard Left as saying that Pelosi’s raised $25 million for the Democrats and oh-by-the-way nobody’s going to bring her up again in House races because they’ll be too busy attacking Obama.

Yeah, right.

Mitt Romney (assuming he’s the GOP nominee) will be too busy attacking Obama. Mitt Romney isn’t running against whoever the Democrat nominee in Shuler’s district will be. The Republican running in that district will certainly beat up on Pelosi – because after all, the reason it’s an open seat is that Shuler threw up his hands. The idea that’s not relevant to such a House race is a laughable bit of delusion, to be sure.

One wonders if the guys from Bell Biv Devoe knew about Pelosi when they wrote this one…

Girls from the Moonlight Bunny Ranch—who know a thing are two about trains—are planning to caucus for the Texas congressman who would like to like to see prostitution made legal in other states the way it is in Nevada.

They are supporting the presidential hopeful by “Pimpin’ For Paul”:

The girls will also be taking money for Paul at caucus places and, really, from anyone who might not support him but wants to have a good time.

So far, the Paul campaign hasn’t said much about these voters or done much to solicit their support. That’s not surprising, because I don’t see Nevada’s brothel voting bloc going to people like Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum.

I don’t think that Newt Gingrich trying to tap into it would serve him very well either, especially after the Herman Cain endorsement.

Now, Trump will apparently be endorsing Mitt Romney.

This is terrible news for some in the Romney camp. One of whom, the Washington Post’s pet conservative Jen Rubin, will need an industrial strength crowbar to get her foot out of her mouth after what she wrote this morning under the impression Trump was going for Newt…

Herman Cain, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Sarah Palin and now, it seems, Donald Trump have lined up behind Newt Gingrich. It’s convenient to have a candidate like Gingrich who attracts the unserious, the unpresidential, the uninformed and the unpalatable all in one convenient locale. It saves the time and effort needed to determine who is a credible Republican and who is not (Gingrich supporters). The move is yet another boost for Rick Santorum, who definitely is in the category of responsible and credible candidates (whatever you think of his views) and has been struggling to wean the base off its attraction to Gingrich.

Referring to this December report on the least desirable endorsements (“According to a Marist poll, 79 percent of New Hampshire voters say getting Trump’s support would make them less likely or no more likely to vote for him or her”), Jesse Benton, spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), e-mails me, “Poor Newt. Based on the polling I’ve seen, he stands to lose 5 points from this circus act.” As for Trump, Benton cracks, “I didn’t think it was possible for Trump to lower his credibility, but somehow, he just did.”

There is a weird commonality among Cain, Trump and Gingrich — an unseemly pattern of behavior with women. Perhaps that’s simply one manifestation of their egomania. And all of these pro-Newt characters share a penchant for extreme, nasty rhetoric with a disdain for productive governance. This is all about THEM and their PR machines.

Oops!

Rubin’s piece goes on to tout Santorum’s candidacy…

Now, it seems, is precisely the right time for Santorum to push his way past Gingrich and make the pitch to conservative voters that he’s not merely the only consistent conservative alternative to Romney, he’s also the only one who’s not a joke. Really, what’s next for Newt — a Duke Cunningham endorsement from a jail cell?

Naturally, of course, much of this East Coast Establishment love for Santorum – with the exception of our buddy Quin Hillyer, who sincerely thinks he can win despite all the evidence to the contrary – is so much strategy. The Rubins among us – to include the editors of National Review, who gave us Romney, Santorum and Huntsman as acceptable candidates and declared the rest to be rubes and hucksters – know that if the conservative movement is presented with a pro-life statist like Santorum who happily argues gay marriage on the campaign trail, Romney easily secures the nomination. Gingrich at least offers enough sizzle to make the election interesting, for whatever faults he might have.

But Trump’s endorsement of Romney is, as Drew M. at Ace of Spades notes, hilarious. Not just because of what it does to Jen Rubin, though that’s part of it.

The walk-back on that should be spectacular! Look for it to include phrases like “Trump was surprisingly statesmanlike”, “the two business tycoons remind us of the best of America” and “Mitt is sooooo adorable!”

Keep in mind, I have an excellent track record of predicting Rubin’s hackery. Take this stuff to the bank or the prop-bets window.

I don’t care who you are supporting, Mitt and Trump the day after Mitt says “I don’t really concerned about the very poor”? Thank you Jebus! I need a laugh like this.

You just know at some point there will be an awkward joke from either Trump or Mitt about how compared to The Donald, Romney is practically middle-class. It’s going to be great.

And finally…Mitt’s going to be there with Trump. I can’t wait to see how he handles the “so are you a birther like Mr. Trump?” question.

“It’s going to be a much tougher battle than most people think for Republicans to beat Obama,” Teepell told the Baton Rouge Press Club. “It’s a steep, uphill climb.”

Teepell is now a partner in On-Message Inc., an Alexandria, Va., political consulting company. He has worked for the Republican Governors’ Association and on political campaigns around the country. He continues to serve as a political adviser to Gov. Jindal.

The president should win his base states along the Pacific Coast, the Northeast and much of the Midwest, Teepell said. He added that would get Obama 246 of the 270 electoral votes that he needs to win re-election and he could get the rest by winning Florida or Ohio. If he loses those two states, Teepell said he could get his votes in New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa.

Voters often forget popular votes aren’t the final determining factor in presidential elections. In 48 states and in the District of Columbia, the presidential candidate who gets more than 50 percent of a state’s popular votes gets all of its electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska elect two of their electors statewide and the rest by congressional district, which means those who voted for losing candidates still have a voice in the outcome.

Louisiana has eight electoral votes, two for its U.S. senators and six for its U.S. House members. The state lost a House member this year because of slow population growth.

The state of the national economy, which has always been a major factor in determining who becomes president, could cause Obama some problems, according to Teepell. However, a recent uptick in the economic picture tends to favor the president.

Another plus for Obama is the nasty campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. The major contenders have served only to hand the president ideal issues on a silver platter. You can be sure Obama’s well-heeled and well-oiled campaign organization has been taking notes throughout the process.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like this,” Teepell said. “It’s quite a mess.”

Mitt Romney won an impressive victory Tuesday in the Florida presidential primary, and political analysts said he has the money and momentum on his side. However, the conservative wing of the party doesn’t like him. They continue to pin their hopes on former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has a number of built-in negatives. And Gingrich stubbornly refuses to step aside.

Obama also has problems, but the longer the Republican nomination process continues the less likely his negatives will hurt his re-election chances.

The president’s State of the Union address, for example, was designed to “divide and conquer.” It would have done Louisiana Gov. Huey P. Long’s “Share the Wealth” program proud. Long’s motto was, “Every Man a King.”

Long said 2 percent of the people owned 60 percent of the wealth. Does that sound similar to what we’ve been hearing lately? And, like Obama, Long’s solution was to tax all incomes over $1 million. Here is Obama’s message:

“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by,” the president said. “Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

Obama’s decision to cancel NASA’s Constellation space program and the impending plans to reduce the size of the military are other troubling developments. Members of Congress haven’t been innocent bystanders in these decisions. The unwillingness of both sides to work together has also passed along tremendous federal debt to our children and grandchildren.

However, the president has had some major successes. They include the killing of Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders and fulfilling his promise to bring American troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. He also scores points when he says “Washington is broken” and he wants to restore the basic goals of owning a home, earning enough to raise a family and putting a little money away for retirement.

Independent voters always decide elections, and Teepell said they aren’t happy campers. His company polled voters in 50 “battleground congressional districts.” Teepell said 71 percent of independents believe the nation is on the wrong track. However, he said he thinks that will give Republicans an advantage in House and Senate elections more than it will help the eventual GOP presidential nominee.

Most of us already knew the down-and-dirty pursuit of the Republican nomination has played right into Obama’s hands. When it’s finally over and the state of the national economy in November will have a lot to say about the final outcome in the presidential race. For now, as Teepell said, the president has the upper hand.

Jim Beam, the retired editor of the Lake Charles American Press, has covered people and politics for more than ÿve decades. Contact him at 494-4025 or jbeam@americanpress.com.

Naturally, this is being considered a gaffe. Romney has been raked over the coals all day for it, even by people who have been supportive of his campaign. National Review’s Jonah Goldberg…

I get the point he’s making. It’s a point that Bill Clinton won the presidency with — but with language that attracted voters. Romney’s language won’t do anything of the sort. And the concern is, after nearly a decade of running for president, if he can’t get this stuff down now he never will…great politicians on the morning after a big win, don’t force their supporters to go around defending the candidate from the charge that he doesn’t care about the poor. They just don’t.

Goldberg’s gripe with Romney wasn’t that he disagreed with what he said, and we agree (more on that in a moment). Goldberg’s gripe was that Romney just isn’t all that good a politician.

And that’s a very fair gripe.

No sooner did Goldberg slap his forehead about the supposed gaffe than Romney started crawfishing…

“No, no, no, no,” Romney said. “You’ve got to take the whole sentence, all right, as opposed to saying, and then change it just a little bit, because then it sounds very different. I’ve said throughout the campaign my focus, my concern, my energy is gonna be devoted to helping middle income people, all right? We have a safety net for the poor, and if there are holes in it, I will work to repair that. And if there are people that are falling through the cracks I want to fix that.”

He continued…

“I’m sure there are places where people fall between the cracks,” Romney said. “And finding those places is one of the things that is the responsibility of government. We do have a very ample safety net in America, with Medicaid, housing vouchers, food stamps, earned income tax credit. We have a number of ways of helping the poor. And yet my focus and the area that I think is the greatest challenge that the country faces right now is not, is not to focus our effort on how we help the poor as much as to focus our effort on how to help the middle class in America, and get more people in the middle class and get people out of being poor and becoming middle income.”

The exchange was disappointingly weak, if perhaps defensible in a he’s-a-moderate-trying-to-play-conservative-so-you’ve-got-to-expect-a-certain-degree-of-suckage kind of way. But next came Romney’s complete capitulation…

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney renewed his support Wednesday for automatic increases in the federal minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, a position sharply at odds with traditional GOP business allies, conservatives and the party’s senior lawmakers.

“I haven’t changed my thoughts on that,” the former Massachusetts governor told reporters aboard his chartered campaign plane, referring to a stand he has held for a decade.

He did not say if he would ask Congress to approve the change if he wins the White House this fall.

Naturally, the idea of automatic increases in the minimum wage based on inflation is quite possibly one of the stupidest ever to issue forth from the mouth of a Republican candidate for public office. Newt Gingrich, upon hearing about it, immediately seized upon the opportunity – calling it “a very dangerous idea.”

And the Club For Growth lambasted Romney as well. In a statement, CFG President Chris Chocola said…

“Indexing the minimum wage would be an absolute job killer. Mitt Romney’s proposal is anti-growth and would harm our economy. It’s disappointing to hear that the leading candidate for the Republican nomination believes that the government can set the price of labor better than the free market.”

The fact is, nobody brings up a family on minimum wage. And nobody makes minimum wage for long; if you get a job at minimum wage it’s almost always your first job and it’s a menial, low-value job. The point of those jobs is that in most organizations if you can demonstrate for six months to a year that you’re capable of showing up on time every day, doing the simple tasks assigned to you in that minimum wage job without royally screwing up and avoiding behavior that will makes your boss want to fire or kill you, you’re going to get a raise and a promotion – or if not, you’ve qualified yourself for a better job someplace else.

And further, minimum wage earners are almost always second or third incomes in their households. Minimum wage jobs are the onramp into the labor force for young people, and particularly uneducated young people – half of all minimum wage earners are under 25. By raising the minimum wage you make it more difficult for low-skill individuals to get a job, and that makes them more likely to end up as the “very poor” Romney isn’t concerned about.

A bit of backup to the above assertions…

Schiller examined data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth between 1998 and 2006, when the federal wage remained static, to determine the characteristics of minimum wage earners between the age of 33 and 50 and their families.

What he found will surprise you: In close to 95 percent of families with children where an adult worked a job paying at or below the minimum wage, the spouse worked as well. And more often than not, the spouse wasn’t working a minimum wage job.

Consider this finding: Among all adults with children who earned less than $10,000 a year, almost half had a spouse that earned more than $40,000 a year. Another 27 percent had a spouse earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year.

In other words, three out of four adult minimum wage earners who are supporting children are in households earning substantially more than poverty-level wages.

Further, these adult minimum wage earners aren’t stuck in neutral. Schiller’s research shows 95 percent of them also earned more than the minimum wage during the period studied.

Back to the original statement, Romney actually – unwittingly, as it turns out – opened up a philosophical discussion that could well have been very attractive to the GOP electorate he’s going to have to start closing the sale with if in fact we’re going to be stuck with him as a nominee (something we aren’t as sure about as everybody else is, but let’s largely leave that aside for the purposes of this post).

As Goldberg notes, a skillful politician could have turned the statement about the “very poor” into such a discussion in such a way that the media’s portrayal of it as a “gaffe” would have fallen away very quickly.

What would have been far preferable to his immediate retreat into the hills would have been a statement on the campaign plane along these lines…

“Look, I’m aware of the fact that because I’ve been successful I’m supposed to apologize for that and I can’t say anything Democrats will portray as insensitive to people less fortunate than I am. Except that there’s such a thing as reality out there which doesn’t match up with this Kabuki dance that political wisdom imposes on us as Republicans and apparently me in particular.

“The fact is, we’ve got the richest poor in the world. We all know that. Americans living in poverty have more stuff than middle class people in other countries that are supposedly wealthy have. Think I’m kidding? Think I’m out of touch? OK, how about the fact that 92 percent of poor people in this country have a microwave. 80 percent have air conditioning. Three quarters own a car. Two-thirds have a DVD player. Half own a computer and better than half of the poor families in this country who have kids own an XBox or some other kind of video game system. Not to mention that a third of them have plasma TV’s. Well more than half of them have cable TV or a satellite hookup. Go to France or Spain or Italy, which generally speaking are considered to be fairly well-off countries with social safety nets our friends on the Democrat side say we should emulate, and somebody who has all those things would probably be considered wealthy, not poor.

“And it’s not just about stuff our poor folks own. Our poor folks eat better than almost anybody else in the world. Less than 20 percent of poor people in America report a single night in the past year when they went to bed hungry because they couldn’t afford anything to eat, and for kids that number is only four percent. And more than two-thirds of poor people in America have more than two rooms per person living in their home. Better than 40 percent of poor people in America are actually homeowners. On average, poor people in America have more living space in their homes than the average middle class folks in Sweden, France or the UK.

“Poverty in America is about $22,000 for a family of four. That’s basically the median household income in Greece, the Czech Republic, Iceland, New Zealand and Israel, none of which are places we consider to be particularly horrible to live in. Our poor live basically as well as middle-class people in those countries.

“So no, I’m not that concerned about the plight of America’s poor people. What I am concerned about is that we’re getting more of them because our government is conducting policy that will wreck this economy and we need a new president to fix that. And I’m particularly concerned, as I said this morning, that our middle class is having a bigger and bigger problem getting ahead and becoming wealthy – which is what I was taught America has always been about.

“One of the key questions in this race is whether we’re going to be a country going forward which lives and dies by its lowest common denominator, which is Obama’s approach and what you have in Europe – and it’s pretty clear that approach doesn’t work if you see the basket-case economies they’ve got over there, or a country which cherishes competition and excellence and opportunity and success, which is what has worked for us for over 200 years. And as I said this morning you won’t get back to the latter unless you focus on the middle class, because the middle class has always been the driver of our economy and our prosperity.

“Everybody get that? Can we move on now?”

The problem is that it takes somebody with some political chops to pull off a statement like that. Conservative Republican voters could hear Romney say it even in the wooden way he says most of what he says and still perk up their ears and think to themselves “Hey, maybe there’s something to this guy after all,” but the lefty media would beat him to death with it and call him insensitive.

But if Romney would get a bit of Gingrich in him he could use that to his advantage. Let’s not forget what happened earlier this month. The PJ Tatler put this best…

He lost South Carolina because Newt Gingrich ripped CNN’s John King in half on stage and turned to the audience, blood still dripping from his bare hands, and shouted “Are you not entertained?”

Exactly. There is absolutely nothing wrong, if you’re a Republican presidential contender and particularly if you’re considered the East Coast Establishment’s GOP candidate, with taking a Louisville Slugger to the temple of some unsuspecting Democrat propagandist from CNN or ABC News or the New York Times. Lay in wait for questions about how out of touch you are, and then pounce on the fact that the only way for these poor people you supposedly don’t care about not to be poor is for the economy to grow fast enough that somebody is desperate enough for help they’ll have to hire them.

But Romney doesn’t say anything nasty. At least not in person; he buys TV ads for that.

Instead, we get proposals for more free money for people who aren’t voting Republican thanks to this harebrained idea about raising the minimum wage – which would almost assuredly lower the average household income of poor Americans from 22K to something less than that since a lot fewer of those households would have multiple incomes.

Sen. Jim Demint, who has endorsed Romney in the past, was disgusted with his floundering today…

“He needs to address it. Because I know he does care about the poor. But I think he was trying to make a case that they’re taken care of. But, in fact, I would say I’m worried about the poor because many are trapped in dependency, they need a good job; they don’t need to be on social welfare programs. I think he needs to turn that around because — the middle class is key, and we have to focus on that. And, really, the problem with the middle class is not successful people, it’s politicians — but the key to making our country successful it to get everyone on that economic ladder.”

Charles Krauthammer thought the whole mess was pathetic as well…

Mark Steyn was no more complimentary…

Romney’s is a benevolent patrician’s view of society: The poor are incorrigible, but let’s add a couple more groats to their food stamps and housing vouchers, and they’ll stay quiet. Aside from the fact that that kind of thinking has led the western world to near terminal insolvency, for a candidate whose platitudinous balderdash of a stump speech purports to believe in the most Americanly American America that any American has ever Americanized over, it’s as dismal a vision of permanent trans-generational poverty as any Marxist community organizer with a cozy sinecure on the Acorn board would come up with.

And Erick Erickson delivered a hammer blow which might well be prophetic if this kind of insincere incompetence isn’t remedied…

It is days like today that make me thankful I think they all suck. At least I’m thankful I’m in the firmly not Romney camp.

…

So much for the GOP condemning class warfare. Romney’s folks are going with it too. Where Obama goes for “fair shares”, Romney wants to focus only on those hurt “most.”

But the coup de grace came late today when, to mitigate the damage, Romney reminded everyone he supports automatic hikes in the minimum wage — a truly conservative position.

The National Review sure does know how to pick them. Glad they’ll be defending him in the general. I’m not sure I’ll waste my time. Sure, I’ll vote for him. But I think I’ll focus on House and Senate races so when the buyers remorse sets in on those who backed Romney we’re not completely screwed down ballot.

But whether you think this mess was a gaffe or a colossal missed opportunity, it definitely showed that if this is what passes for “electable” in the GOP field we need to ignore Florida’s result from Tuesday and throw electability out of the mix in selecting a candidate – because if we don’t have a candidate any more skilled than this we should accept the fact that whatever deal Obama made with the devil Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to worked like a charm, and our chance of beating Obama rests solely with the incumbent stepping on his crank and not with anything our guy can do. And in accepting the fact that we only win if the Democrats gak the thing, our choice should be driven solely by an examination of who best expresses our philosophy in word and deed.

Fact is, that isn’t Romney. Like Krauthammer said, Romney can’t even talk the talk much less walk the walk as a conservative. And his entire raison d’etre as this supposed inevitable nominee is that he’s the best politician of the group and has the most appeal, which this freshman-level goof indicates is a raisin of a raison, indeed.

And if the sample greatly differs from the electorate, the poll is worthless.

What does the electorate look like? Well, if Rasmussen is correct then there should be more Republicans than Democrats.

The number of Republicans in the country inched up half a percentage point in January, while the number of Democrats dipped to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports (32.5%).

During January, 35.9% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 35.4% in December and the highest number of Republicans measured since December 2010.

So a proper sample should be 36-33 Republican, with 31 percent independents – again, if Rasmussen is correct.

How do the latest presidential polls stack up to that model?

Well, a week ago there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll which had Barack Obama with a 48-42 lead over Mitt Romney. The sample on that poll? 44 percent Democrat, 37 percent Republican, 15 percent independent among the 1,000 respondents.

Just a 10-point swing to the Democrats on that sample.

And two weeks ago, Public Policy Polling put out a survey which gave Obama a 49-44 edge over Romney. That sample? 41 Democrat, 35 Republican, 24 independent. Just a nine-point swing from what the electorate actually is if Rasmussen is to be believed.

One has to be a premium subscriber to Rasmussen Reports in order to get the crosstabs on his latest tracking poll which has Obama ahead of Romney by a 47-43 count, and Gallup’s latest poll which has Obama and Romney tied at 48 doesn’t show its sample by party identification, but based on the other polls in the past couple of weeks it’s not unreasonable to question those samples as well.

But for future reference, any polls showing Romney – or Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, for that matter; we’re referencing the Romney results since at this point he seems to be performing better than the other two in a general election poll – trailing Obama needs to be scrutinized on the basis of its sample. Because if that poll shows more Democrats than Republicans when the actual electorate has 3.5 percent more Republicans than Democrats in it at present (again, if Rasmussen’s numbers are accurate), it’s not a reliable reflection of public opinion.

Even though (from a delegate count perspective, anyway), the Republican Presidential race is only 6% “complete”, the conclusion of the Florida primary is a signal that the nomination contest has entered into a new phase.

Continue reading at http://winwithjmc.com/archives/3922

Of course, two of those incumbents will be facing off against each other. Jeff Landry and Charles Boustany, both Republicans, were thrown together in Louisiana’s new 3rd District in last year’s redistricting process and the resulting battle will likely be the top electoral story in Louisiana this fall.

So far Boustany appears to have the upper hand, at least in terms of finances. His fourth-quarter disclosure statement has him holding $1,270,797 in cash on hand after raising an impressive $1,141,075 in the fourth quarter (Boustany reports having spent $431,607 during the period). True to his reputation for being popular with the K-Street crowd Boustany got a whopping $524,143 in PAC money for the fourth quarter, which was 46 percent of his total fundraising. A good deal of Boustany’s PAC cash is coming from medical associations (he’s a doctor)…

Landry’s figures are more modest. He holds $534,147 in cash on hand as of Dec. 31, having raised $714,327 and spent $178,935 in the fourth quarter. Only some $131,296 of that came from PAC’s, which is just 18 percent of his fundraising (compared to Boustany’s 46 percent) but a perusal of his top donors shows that while Boustany is raising lots of money from the medical profession Landry is the favorite of the offshore and maritime service industry…

The Boustany-Landry mashup looks like the only one of the state’s congressional races to contain any real drama, as the majority of the delegation have healthy war chests.

Republican John Fleming is rumored to have a Democrat opponent brewing in the 4th District, though none have come forward yet. Fleming raised the largest amount outside of Boustany in the fourth quarter, with $797,315 coming in. Of that figure, all but $171,500 came from individual donations rather than PAC’s – the $622,776 from individual donors was the highest of any of Louisiana’s delegation in the fourth quarter. Fleming’s advocacy of natural gas drilling clearly has won him friends in that industry, though he’s also doing quite well from the medical profession (Fleming is also a doctor)…

Fleming spent $461,942 to raise those dollars, though, so his cash on hand figure of $436,125 is a little less than Landry’s – though as of right now it’s probably unlikely that Fleming will draw a Democrat opponent in Northwest Louisiana who can match the war chest Boustany is building to hit Landry with.

The third doctor in Louisiana’s congressional delegation, Bill Cassidy of the 6th District, is building a very sizable war chest in preparation for a probable Democrat challenge (though no opponent has come forth just yet) in the fall. Cassidy raised $879,816 in the fourth quarter and spent just $283,311, leaving him with a monster stash of $1,485,576 to lead the way for the state’s congressional delegation.

Cassidy is something of a cross between Boustany’s K-Street success and Landry and Fleming’s individual-based fundraising, as he reeled in $333,612 – or 38 percent of his 4th quarter take – from PAC’s. Cassidy’s fundraising profile is similar to Boustany and Fleming, though, in that the medical profession and oil and gas lead the way for his war chest…

While the two incumbents from the New Orleans area – Steve Scalise and Cedric Richmond – hadn’t filed their 4th quarter disclosures by press time, Louisiana’s other congressman Rodney Alexander appears to be struggling to build a war chest that would give him protection against a challenge from either the Democrats or another Republican. Alexander has only $89,851 in the bank as of December 31, which is not only far and away the worst figure among the state’s delegation but one of the puniest stashes in all of Congress.

The interesting thing about Alexander’s figure is that he didn’t fail to raise money in the 4th quarter – with $580,471 coming in he did reasonably well considering his largely rural and poor district. His problem is his burn rate. Alexander spent $492,669, more than anybody else in the delegation – even more than Boustany and Landry, who are running against each other.

Alexander’s fundraising contains a healthy 32 percent from PAC’s ($186,731), and it’s no surprise that agricultural interests and lobbyists (he’s on the House Appropriations Committee) figure prominently in his fundraising mix…

So far, though, nobody has come forth to challenge Alexander regardless of that inviting $89,000 figure.