by Carl Bernofsky

In running her 2010 campaign for Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana, Caroline Fayard lists honesty as one of the attributes she will bring to the position. As candidate, she has invited the public to examine what they might expect if elected to that high political post.  Following, are two claims made directly by her or by her campaign, and readers can judge for themselves whether they misrepresent the facts.

Claim A:

“She … worked in both the White House and Congress…”

At the age of 16, Fayard was a congressional page in the Clinton administration, sponsored by Representative Billy Tauzin.  By 1997, she had worked her way up to become head intern to Hillary Clinton’s Social Secretary.  Members of the Fayard family had contributed $4,000 to Tauzin’s reelection campaign in 1994-95.

Claim B:

“She … was later appointed to the faculty of Loyola University, New Orleans, College of Law and served there until 2009.”

In 2007, Fayard received a two-year Westerfield fellowship as a “Writing Fellow” which entailed limited teaching duties to first-year law students.  The fellowship was primarily designed to provide an opportunity for “scholarly writing and publication.”  Her mother, Cynthia Felder Fayard, is a member of the Society of St. Ignatius, whose members support Loyola University of New Orleans with individual lifetime giving of between $100,000 and $1 million.

A Penchant for Gambling

Fayard’s Financial Disclosure Form for Lt. Governor reveals a variety of ownership interests in real estate and other businesses that include gambling.  Her filing “shows nearly $32,000 in income [in 2009] from video poker truck stop investments: Paxtor Inc. and Safari Investments, LLC, both in Hammond.”  She is an officer of Safari together with Chalyn Cynthia Fayard (her sister) and Robert A. Maurin, III (her first cousin once removed).  Safari currently owns 20% of Lucky Dollar Casino, which shares Video Poker License No. 4701512880 with T & D Ventures, LLC, also doing business as Lucky Dollar Casino.

Other business interests of Fayard’s include Andante, LLC, Arbor Towne, LLC, and Felyard Investment Group, LLC, of which she is an officer, and Calvin C. Fayard, III (her brother) is agent.

The Money Go-Round

The head of the Fayard family is Caroline Fayard’s father, Calvin C. Fayard, Jr., a prominent Louisiana attorney.  Her step-mother, Frances Gray Fayard, is also an attorney.  Political fundraising has been one of the Fayard family’s favorite activities, and former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton are among those who have benefited from the family’s largesse, for which the Clintons in later years expressed their gratitude by supporting Caroline Fayard’s political aspirations.  Frances Gray Fayard’s home state, like Bill Clinton’s, is Arkansas.  She had worked in the Clinton administration as Frances Gray.

Bill Clinton and the Clinton-Gore ’96 Primary Committee PAC each received $1,000 toward Clinton’s presidential primary bid from Calvin Fayard in May, 1995.  In 2000, Hillary Rodham Clinton ran for the U.S. Senate, and according to CampaignMoney.com, “Calvin Fayard D” [Calvin Fayard Jr.] of Denham Springs, Louisiana, individually contributed $11,988 to her primary campaign on Oct. 10, 2000.  Because of the legal limitation to individual contributions, it is assumed that this figure includes other members of the Fayard family.  Caroline Fayard’s individual contribution on Oct. 18, 2000, was $2,000. She was 22 years old in 2000.

On Oct. 10, 2000, Calvin Fayard was host to a “Hillary 2000 Reception” for approximately 40 people at his private residence in Seaside, Florida, where he introduced Hillary Clinton, who spoke and responded to questions from her audience.  The affair also included a photo reception with the guests. Calvin Fayard was alledged to have “rented, leased and borrowed practically every car and limosine in the area to shuttle guests that flew in from all over the country on rented and leased jets and planes.”

On Sept. 1, 2004, “fund-raising of a political kind took place … at the ‘Wedding Cake House,’” the restored home of the Fayards on St. Charles Ave. in New Orleans.  Although a complete guest list is not available, “The hosts were Danny Becnel, John Coale, Frank Dudenhefer, Walter Dumas, Glastone Jones, former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus, Dickie Scruggs, Hugh Sibley, and Bill Wheeler.”  Some of the hosts were Calvin Fayard’s associates.  The special guest, former President Bill Clinton, remarked “that in comparison to the Fayard mansion, when he lived in Washington he lived in public housing.”  The cost of attending that Democratic Party fundraiser at the Fayard mansion with President Clinton was $10,000 a head.  The affair made Fayard’s “Wedding Cake House” look more like a “reception hall,” which the tax abatement given to the home in January, 2004, prohibited.

On May 18, 2007, another private campaign fundraiser for Hillary Clinton was held at the home of the Fayards.  “An invitation … indicates ‘donors’ would pay $1,000 apiece to get into the event; joining the ‘host committee’ cost $2,300 per person.”  The “Wedding Cake House” is owned by Andante, LLC, of Denham Springs, Louisiana, purchased in May, 2001 for $1,435,000.  It is listed as a commercial, not a residental property in New Orleans City Council documents of tax appeals for the 2009-2010 period.

In 2007, Hillary Clinton was the recipient of $27,600 from the Fayards when she campaigned again, this time for the U.S. presidency where the stakes were much higher.  Calvin and five other family members each gave the maximum, $4,600.  In August, 2008, $11,500 was returned to the Fayards, suggesting that part of the initial contribution was considered a loan.  That same year, both Calvin Fayard and his wife Frances Gray Fayard were considered fundraisers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

When one considers the fund raising events that the Fayards sponsored, it is understandable why the Clintons were so accommodating when the Fayards needed their help in Caroline Fayard’s race for the Louisiana Lt. Governor’s position in 2010.  “Fayard used her ties to Clinton and used the former president to record robo-calls in the days leading up to the election to help get out her Democratic vote.  Clinton also appeared for her at a New York fundraiser.”  A notice of this fundraiser at the Bryant Park Hotel states that contributions are limited to $5,000 per person. 

The Duval Connection

Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., a long-time friend and colleague of Calvin Fayard, was appointed by President Bill Clinton to the federal bench of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1994.  Representative Billy Tauzin played a pivotal role in Duval’s nomination for the federal judgeship. When asked on his appointment disclosure forms to list the names of attorneys with whom he had been involved in litigation within the last five years, Duval included Calvin Fayard, Jr. Of Denham Springs, Louisiana. During that period (1966-1994), Duval had been in private practice in Houma, Louisiana, and was parish attorney for the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government in Louisiana (1988-1993).

Cathryn Caroline Fayard, who is Calvin Fayard’s daughter by his first wife, Cynthia Sue Felder, was born in 1978 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  After earning a bachelor’s degree in government from Dartmouth College in 2000, she worked as an “investment banking analyst” for Goldman Sachs and Company until 2002 and then went on to the University of Michigan Law School, receiving her law degree in 2005. In 2004, she was a Summer Associate for the Washington, D.C. law firm, Williams and Connolly, and following her graduation from law school in 2005, she became a law clerk for her father’s “good friend,” Judge Duval.  Following the one-year clerkship with Duval, she worked at the Springfield, Louisiana law firm of Fayard & Honeycutt, which is headed by her father.  Although Fayard states that she is in “private practice,” she apparently has not worked independently as a lawyer without the guidance of a family member or a long-standing friend of the family.  The only public address currently found for Cathryn Caroline Fayard in Springfield is the same as her father’s business address.  Moreover, Fayard’s campaign headquarters has stated that she is not in “private practice,” and they were unable to furnish contact information about such practice.  Nevertheless, at the age of 32, Caroline Fayard now aspires to the second highest political position in Louisiana, that of Lt. Governor.

Another of Judge Duval’s recent judicial clerks is Ravi Sangisetty, who also has developed political aspirations.  Sangisetty’s legal work has centered on post-Katrina litigation involving Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), homeowners insurance, and the National Flood Insurance Progam.  Not only does he and his family live in Houma, Louisiana, but he now works for Duval, Funderburk, Sundbery, et al., the former law firm of Judge Duval, now headed by the judge’s brother, C. Berwick Duval.  Sangisetty is seeking to occupy the House seat vacated by Representative Charlie Melancon of Louisiana’s Third Congressional District.  Among Sangisetty’s top contributors during the 2009-2010 election cycle were Duval, Funderburk et al. ($10,100), Duval & Shearer and Duval Funderburk (each $4,800), Fayard & Honeycutt ($4,150), and Sangisetty for Congress ($3,450)  Caroline Fayard also contributed $2,650 to the Sangisetty campaign as did Judge Duval’s sister-in-law, Alexis A. Duval, who gave $4,800.  The financial contributions to the Fayard and Sangisetty campaigns point to an apparent effort by the Duvals, Fayards, and Clintons to enhance their political power base in Louisiana.

Caroline Fayard and Ravi Sangisetty have both made it to the run-offs that will be held on election day, November 2, 2010.

Carl Bernofsky is the publisher of TulaneLink.com, where this piece originally appeared. The research and insights of Shirley Bernofsky are gratefully acknowledged.  Corrections and suggestions should be addressed to the author at tulanelink@aol.com.

“Under no circumstances will I vote for Jay Dardenne for Lt. Governor,” Griffon, as quoted by the Dead Pelican, said. “I can’t look in the mirror if I vote for Jay Dardenne… We’ve got to get rid of the RINO’s in the Republican party!”

Griffon is perfectly welcome to stay home on Nov. 2, then.

Because while it’s a perfectly satisfactory sentiment for conservatives to seek to purify the Republican Party, if you haven’t accomplished that by the time the general election rolls around it’s too late.

Conservatives, if in fact Dardenne wasn’t an acceptable standard-bearer, should have galvanized around another candidate. There were options; Sammy Kershaw cast himself in a conservative light but for a few ideas he offered which sounded like public projects, Roger Villere ran a campaign based almost solely on the concept that he was a conservative alternative to Dardenne, Kevin Davis called himself a conservative though few believed him outside of St. Tammany and Jefferson Parishes and even Melanie McKnight sounded conservative notes. Combined, their vote was larger than Dardenne’s.

Let’s not forget that Dardenne garnered a lot of conservative vote as well, because while his record in the state legislature might have been mixed from an ideological standpoint Dardenne has contributed to the movement in other ways. John Robert Butler’s piece last week about his work to purge the voter rolls after Katrina, for example, is a must read – Dardenne helped to restore the integrity of the electorate and changed Louisiana politics in unmistakable ways, and he did it in a professional way without causing the kind of hue and cry one would expect from the Professional Left. It’s the kind of thing a competent, non-corrupt public official can accomplish, and that should have value to conservatives in and of itself.

But more than that, while a “RINO moderate” may be a maddening politician to have to support, the fact that he’s moderate means he can be influenced. The attitude that purging the party of moderates is a smart thing to do is misguided; the aim of such a sentiment is more properly described as insisting upon a set of principles to guide the actions of those the Republican Party elects. And such guidance doesn’t come just on Election Day, as Griffon seems to forget. If he wants conservative governance – and it’s unclear exactly how that would manifest itself out of the Lieutenant Governor, anyway – then he needs to stay in constant contact with those who need pressuring to provide it. Pulling a lever every four years is hardly sufficient to preserve the quality of our government.

The choice for Lieutenant Governor is quite clear. Whatever Dardenne’s ideological failings, he’s still a right-of-center or, at worst, a centrist candidate. And he’s in a runoff with the farthest-left candidate to have entered the race in Caroline Fayard.

Fayard is now running around with the line that she’s a John Breaux centrist or a Blue Dog Democrat, and maybe she is. Charlie Melancon calls himself that, and he votes with Nancy Pelosi 84 percent of the time.

So, who does a Blue Dog Democrat associate herself with? Well, one way to gauge that is to research candidates said Blue Dog donates money to. And in Fayard’s case, we don’t see a lot of centrism. From OpenSecrets.org:

Fayard also donated $1,500 to GOP congressman Richard Baker in 1993, when she was 15 years old. She was 16 when she threw $1,000 at Cleo Field’s 1994 congressional campaign. Amazing political involvement for a high school kid; you wouldn’t think that money actually came from her trial-lawyer father Calvin Fayard, would you?

But wait. There are a bunch of donations from a “Cathryn Fayard” which appear to be the same person…

There are a few GOP donations in there, but centrists generally don’t give money to Dollar Bill Jefferson and John Kerry.

The Fayard family’s political donations are worth a post all to themselves. Caroline’s trial-lawyer father Calvin’s donations to Harry Reid in the current cycle, for example, would call into question the “centrism” of their political leanings; the outlays are reminiscent of the New Orleans fundraiser for Reid Mary Landrieu had planned in December – just after the infamous Louisiana Purchase on Obamacare - before public outcry forced its cancellation.

The point is that Fayard ought to represent the absolute worst candidate for conservatives to see on the ballot – she’s a trial lawyer, spawned by trial lawyers, who has been throwing money at lefty politicians practically since before she could drive. She’s also a former Clinton intern – and made enough of an impression that the former president came down to do a fundraiser for her this year, a Goldman Sachs apparatchik and a clerk for Federal Judge Stan Duval, who is perhaps best known for his injunction stopping Louisiana from issuing “Choose Life” license plates in 2000 (before Fayard clerked for him) and in so doing throwing the issuance of all personalized plates involving sports teams and schools, etc., in the bargain. That idiotic decision was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.

Regardless of what you might think of Dardenne, if you’re a conservative Fayard ought to give you the creeps. That’s a political career which needs to be strangled in its well-appointed crib before it results in terrible effects for the state; we can’t afford another Mary Landrieu or Kathleen Blanco in the Lieutenant Governor’s office.

And statements like the one Griffon made this morning make it clear that personal pique with Dardenne’s “unreliable” voting record is more important to him than the strategic failure turning the No. 2 office in state government over to a left-wing Democrat would be. This kind of idiocy shouldn’t go unchallenged.

“Under no circumstances will I vote for Jay Dardenne for Lt. Governor,” Griffon, as quoted by the Dead Pelican, said. “I can’t look in the mirror if I vote for Jay Dardenne… We’ve got to get rid of the RINO’s in the Republican party!”

Griffon is perfectly welcome to stay home on Nov. 2, then.

Because while it’s a perfectly satisfactory sentiment for conservatives to seek to purify the Republican Party, if you haven’t accomplished that by the time the general election rolls around it’s too late.

Conservatives, if in fact Dardenne wasn’t an acceptable standard-bearer, should have galvanized around another candidate. There were options; Sammy Kershaw cast himself in a conservative light but for a few ideas he offered which sounded like public projects, Roger Villere ran a campaign based almost solely on the concept that he was a conservative alternative to Dardenne, Kevin Davis called himself a conservative though few believed him outside of St. Tammany and Jefferson Parishes and even Melanie McKnight sounded conservative notes. Combined, their vote was larger than Dardenne’s.

Let’s not forget that Dardenne garnered a lot of conservative vote as well, because while his record in the state legislature might have been mixed from an ideological standpoint Dardenne has contributed to the movement in other ways. John Robert Butler’s piece last week about his work to purge the voter rolls after Katrina, for example, is a must read – Dardenne helped to restore the integrity of the electorate and changed Louisiana politics in unmistakable ways, and he did it in a professional way without causing the kind of hue and cry one would expect from the Professional Left. It’s the kind of thing a competent, non-corrupt public official can accomplish, and that should have value to conservatives in and of itself.

But more than that, while a “RINO moderate” may be a maddening politician to have to support, the fact that he’s moderate means he can be influenced. The attitude that purging the party of moderates is a smart thing to do is misguided; the aim of such a sentiment is more properly described as insisting upon a set of principles to guide the actions of those the Republican Party elects. And such guidance doesn’t come just on Election Day, as Griffon seems to forget. If he wants conservative governance – and it’s unclear exactly how that would manifest itself out of the Lieutenant Governor, anyway – then he needs to stay in constant contact with those who need pressuring to provide it. Pulling a lever every four years is hardly sufficient to preserve the quality of our government.

The choice for Lieutenant Governor is quite clear. Whatever Dardenne’s ideological failings, he’s still a right-of-center or, at worst, a centrist candidate. And he’s in a runoff with the farthest-left candidate to have entered the race in Caroline Fayard.

Fayard is now running around with the line that she’s a John Breaux centrist or a Blue Dog Democrat, and maybe she is. Charlie Melancon calls himself that, and he votes with Nancy Pelosi 84 percent of the time.

So, who does a Blue Dog Democrat associate herself with? Well, one way to gauge that is to research candidates said Blue Dog donates money to. And in Fayard’s case, we don’t see a lot of centrism. From OpenSecrets.org:

Fayard also donated $1,500 to GOP congressman Richard Baker in 1993, when she was 15 years old. She was 16 when she threw $1,000 at Cleo Field’s 1994 congressional campaign. Amazing political involvement for a high school kid; you wouldn’t think that money actually came from her trial-lawyer father Calvin Fayard, would you?

But wait. There are a bunch of donations from a “Cathryn Fayard” which appear to be the same person…

There are a few GOP donations in there, but centrists generally don’t give money to Dollar Bill Jefferson and John Kerry.

The Fayard family’s political donations are worth a post all to themselves. Caroline’s trial-lawyer father Calvin’s donations to Harry Reid in the current cycle, for example, would call into question the “centrism” of their political leanings; the outlays are reminiscent of the New Orleans fundraiser for Reid Mary Landrieu had planned in December – just after the infamous Louisiana Purchase on Obamacare - before public outcry forced its cancellation.

The point is that Fayard ought to represent the absolute worst candidate for conservatives to see on the ballot – she’s a trial lawyer, spawned by trial lawyers, who has been throwing money at lefty politicians practically since before she could drive. She’s also a former Clinton intern – and made enough of an impression that the former president came down to do a fundraiser for her this year, a Goldman Sachs apparatchik and a clerk for Federal Judge Stan Duval, who is perhaps best known for his injunction stopping Louisiana from issuing “Choose Life” license plates in 2000 (before Fayard clerked for him) and in so doing throwing the issuance of all personalized plates involving sports teams and schools, etc., in the bargain. That idiotic decision was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.

Regardless of what you might think of Dardenne, if you’re a conservative Fayard ought to give you the creeps. That’s a political career which needs to be strangled in its well-appointed crib before it results in terrible effects for the state; we can’t afford another Mary Landrieu or Kathleen Blanco in the Lieutenant Governor’s office.

And statements like the one Griffon made this morning make it clear that personal pique with Dardenne’s “unreliable” voting record is more important to him than the strategic failure turning the No. 2 office in state government over to a left-wing Democrat would be. This kind of idiocy shouldn’t go unchallenged.

The agriculture lobby loves it.  The politicians who have benefited, and continue to, from that lobby’s money love it.  We’re told that it’s a “green” renewable fuel that offers many benefits to the environment and society.

It’s all a lie.

Ethanol contains less available energy on a volumetric basis than does gasoline.  That means engines burning it run less efficiently and deliver fewer miles per gallon than those burning pure gasoline.  Gasoline/ethanol blends, “gasohol,” produce more hydrocarbon emissions and nitrogen oxides than do pure gasoline.  And it releases more carbon dioxide, the ultimate green sin.  According to a study by scientist Marcelo Dias de Oliveira, who looked at the “big picture” environmental impact of ethanol, considering the land destroyed by planting, the water consumed for irrigation, and the aforementioned increase in air pollutants emitted, ethanol does more harm than good.

That is certainly the case along the Gulf coast, where a dead zone occurs annually and has been growing larger every year.  That dead zone, or hypoxic area, where there is less than 2 parts per million of dissolved oxygen in the water, is mostly caused by nitrogen and phosphorous, primary fertilizer constituents, being flushed down the Mississippi River from Midwestern farmland along the Mississippi River Valley.  The increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorous encourage the growth of algae, and dissolved oxygen is depleted.  Corn is one of the major crops grown in the states that drain into the Mississippi, especially since the federal government began subsidizing it for the production of ethanol.

This all began in 1978, during the Carter administration.  The country was caught up in the Persian Gulf War, Carter’s presidency was in trouble, and America was crying to reduce her dependency on Middle Eastern oil.  (Sounds familiar)  Carter was approached by the CEO of food giant Archer Daniels Midland, a Mr. Dwayne Andreas, who convinced Carter that the best way to make America energy independent was to convert her appetite for transportation fuel from gasoline to ethanol.  Carter bought into the concept, and convinced Congress to pass a tax exemption for ethanol.

But Andreas wasn’t satisfied.  Ethanol was well established elsewhere, especially in Brazil where ethanol was being produced from sugar cane syrup, and ethanol could be imported more cheaply than it could be purchased from domestic sources.  So Andreas convinced Carter and Congress to impose a tariff on imported ethanol.  In exchange, Archer Daniels Midland promised to build a new ethanol from corn facility in Des Moines, thus greatly improving Carter’s fortunes in the Midwest.

Archer Daniels Midland became America’s powerhouse in the ethanol business.  Congress and the environmental movement became wild about ethanol, with the environmental movement praising it as bringing the country a step closer to cleaner air.  Politicians from the corn belt similarly praised the corn farmers from their districts, and in 1980 Congress passed an income tax credit for gasohol producers.

Then in 1991 the EPA imposed its Clean Air Act, which set limits on the amount of polluting hydrocarbons that could be contained in fuel emissions.  As we’ve noted, gasohol releases more such hydrocarbons than pure gasoline, and the Clean Air Act would have outlawed it.

George Bush, the elder, quickly received a $400,000 campaign contribution from Archer Daniels Midland, and Bush soon announced that ethanol was exempt from the Clean Air Act.  Bush lost to Clinton, and Andreas, who had contributed heavily to that campaign as well, was at the inauguration.

Clinton repealed Bush’s exemption and replaced it with a mandated ethanol component in gasoline.  Though that mandate was later stricken down, gasohol was America’s transportation fuel.  By 1995, Archer Daniels Midland was producing 60% of the ethanol used to produce it.

Ethanol is an inefficient fuel that is harmful to the environment, both as a direct air pollutant and as an indirect water pollutant.  It would not be cost effective in a tariff and incentive free market. 

We haven’t even touched on its impact on the cost or supply of food as farmers converted to varieties of corn better suited to ethanol production, and we haven’t touched on the damage it does to elastomer components in vehicle engines, or to small stationary engines (lawnmowers) that may sit idle for months at a time.

Nonetheless, the EPA is considering, under pressure from the agriculture lobby, increasing its required 10% ethanol blend requirement in gasoline to 15%.  That’s right – Lisa Jackson’s EPA is considering increasing the required amount of carbon emitting ethanol in gasoline while also attempting to impose carbon emission limits on industry by rote because the Senate can’t pass Cap & Trade.

The consideration should be on removing the requirement all together, along with the incentives that make it profitable.

For as any twenty-one year old can tell you, there are much better uses for grain alcohol than to burn it in your car engine.

Cheers!

Connecticut – Two races caught our attention here. In the Republican Senate primary, former WWE CEO Linda McMahon won her primary with 49% of the vote against two weaker candidates. And “netroots” favorite Ned Lamont, whose claim to fame was his upset of Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in 2006, fell far short last night in his effort to become Governor.

Georgia – In the Republican runoff for Governor, former Congressman Nathan Deal is ahead by about 2,500 votes. He narrowly defeated Secretary of State Karen Handel, who quickly conceded to Deal and urged Republicans to get behind his candidacy. What was interesting about this runoff was that it was a battle of endorsements: while Handel was one of several “grizzlies” who had Sarah Palin’s endorsement, Deal countered with endorsements from Mike Huckabee (who carried Georgia in the 2008 GOP presidential primary) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (who represented the Atlanta suburbs in Congress for two decades, and thus helped Deal get crucial votes from that area of the state). The closeness of the race and the ensuing recount will benefit the Democrats somewhat, as its nominee, former Governor Roy Barnes, won without a runoff. Additionally, the fact that Deal will have to address a congressional ethics investigation (some think this is why he abruptly resigned from Congress back in the spring) and an apparent federal grand jury probe will surely be brought up by the Democrats in the general election campaign.

Minnesota – The Democrats narrowly nominated a more liberal candidate, Target heir (and former one term senator) Mark Dayton. Unlike his primary opponents, there is little doubt about where Dayton stands on economic issues: his own website plainly states “…You can read my lips: Tax the rich…”

Colorado – This was the primary last night that held everyone’s attention. In addition to the fact that the contested races at the “top of the ballot” (Senate Republican, Senate Democratic, and Republican Governor) were all decided with less than 55% of the vote, there was a proxy fight between Obama and Clinton in the Senate Democratic primary.

(8/12 update) On the Republican side of the Senate contest, this was yet another race (after Kentucky and Nevada) where the establishment Republican candidate (Lt Governor Jane Norton) lost to a candidate (DA Ken Buck) who had Tea Party support. The Republican primary was a nasty fight, with insults traded back and forth about masculinity and high heels. On the Democratic side, appointed Senator Michael Bennet won his primary 54-46%. This was the first time that a candidate supported by Obama (former President Clinton endorsed Bennet’s opponent) won a contested primary, although it didn’t hurt that Senator Bennet was well funded: while Bennet’s opponent had to mortgage his house to raise enough money to compete in a final ad blitz, Bennet was able to counter this action with a $300,000 personal loan. There is also a final factor that aided Bennet that has only recently been discussed: most of Colorado’s counties conducted the primary election using only mail-in ballots. Because 2/3 of the vote was already cast a week ago, it’s possible that a good portion of the Bennet vote was already cast while he was riding high in the polls, thus limiting the impact of the “ad blitz” Bennett’s opponent funded by mortgaging his house.

One more thing about Colorado which is worth mentioning: there is now a second black Republican (the first was Tim Scott in South Carolina) who has been nominated to run for Congress. City councilman Ryan Frazier is challenging a two term Democratic incumbent in the Denver suburbs in a district that voted 59% for Obama. This is a race where we believe the Democrat is vulnerable because of his down the line support for the Democratic agenda.

(It’s also worth noting that last Thursday’s primaries in Tennessee showed limited appeal of using the “race card” in districts with a heavy black majority, as incumbent Democrat Steve Cohen defeated former Mayor Willie Herenton in a 79-21% landslide, with the aid of President Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus.)

After this latest round of primaries, 15 more states still have to conduct their primaries (Louisiana has its Congressional primary on August 28, and its “regular” primary on October 2). Washington and Wyoming have its primaries next week, and on August 24, there are four primaries (Alaska, Arizona, Florida, and Vermont) and the Oklahoma runoff.

As a final thought, the predominant media has asserted that the Republicans’ nominating weak candidates means this will be a better year for Democrats than thought. If this were an ordinary year, this would likely be a true statement – voters are normally reluctant to vote for candidates who aren’t “safe.” This year, however, voter unrest over the economy and the perception that they are being ignored by a Congress that is instead more interested in passing legislation favored by its activist base means that the more predominant emotion will be one of “throwing out the bums.” In “throw out the bums” elections, the bar is considerably lowered for challengers, since they merely have to make the election a referendum on the status quo.

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.

Thought #1: Putting this year’s turnover in perspective

While the fact that (so far) four incumbent Congressmen have lost in their primaries might be indicative of an anti incumbent election, this number actually pales in comparison to 1992. In that year, a combination of “The Year of the Woman”, a sluggish economy, the House banking scandal, and reapportionment contributed to the primary defeat of 15 incumbents (12 Democrats and 3 Republicans). When you combine the 15 primary defeats with the 70 who retired and the 30 incumbents who were defeated on the same day that Bill Clinton was elected and Ross Perot took an impressive 19% of the vote as a third party candidate, you come up with a sizable freshman class of 115 (21.5% of the membership of Congress).

Thought #2: Current year landslides = retirements for the next election cycle

Landslide elections tend to create a retirement wave in the following election cycle, especially if there has been a power shift. For instance, the 1994 GOP landslide caused 64 Congressmen (37 Democrats and 27 Republicans) to retire before the 1996 elections. Similarly, the 2006 Democratic landslide (which itself claimed 28 GOP incumbents) caused 37 Congressmen (31 Republicans and 6 Democrats) to retire before facing the voters again in 2008.  The 2008 Democratic landslide (which claimed 19 GOP incumbents) initially produced a wave of Republican retirements, but after parts of the Democratic agenda (“cap and trade”, card check, healthcare reform) became more controversial with voters, Democrats began to retire as well. Currently, 52 Congressmen (28 Republicans and 24 Democrats) have chosen to retire, and filing has yet to close in 10 states representing about 80 Congressional seats. Should the GOP capture one or both houses of Congress, it’s not inconceivable that you would see a wave of Democratic retirements in 2011-2012 like there was in 1995-1996.

In fact, what is not generally remembered from the 1996 elections is that it claimed 19 GOP incumbents like the 2008 elections did. Those defeats, however, did not enable the Democrats to regain control of Congress in the same year that Bill Clinton was re-elected because the previous (1994) election cycle was a GOP landslide, and in its aftermath, 37 Democrats were scared into retiring. This population of retirements  (especially those in the South) created enough pickup opportunities for the GOP to maintain control of the House that year.

Thought #3: The ghost of future retirements

Regardless of what happens this fall, two realities ought to cause heartburn for the Democratic majority in the near and long term future. In the near term, the Democratic senators elected in 2000 and 2006 elections (and who twice helped put the Democrats in control of that chamber) will face the voters in 2012. And the fact that that 23 of 33 Senators in the 2012 re-election are Democrats means the GOP has a good chance of retaking the Senate in 2012 even if they fall short this year. In the longer term, the fact that Democratic incumbents are repeatedly re-elected also means that their mortality will eventually catch up with them. Currently, of the Congressmen seeking re-election, 60 (39 Democrats and 21 Republicans) are between 70 and 79 years old, and 13 (9 Democrats and 4 Republicans) are at least 80 years old.

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.

Former President Clinton has sent out a fundraising letter on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee under his own name warning that Republicans are trying to “derail’ President Obama’s agenda.

Not much unexpected there.

But along with the letter, Clinton has included a flyer from the DSCC that’s bound to raise eyebrows.

“DSCC funds go towards efforts to unseat far-right Republican senators like admitted sinner David Vitter…” the flyer says, referring to the Louisiana senator who admitted patronizing a prostitution service when he was in the House.

Vitter has been a Clinton foe for a long time, calling on President Clinton to step down in 1998 because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

In 2009, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 16-1 to approve President Obama’s nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State.

Casting the sole “nay” vote was Vitter, who was concerned about Bill Clinton’s “multimillion dollar minefield of conflicts of interest.”

Next time, Clinton — an admitted sinner in his own right — might want to check the small type in campaign material he distributes.

As if Slick Willie gives a crap…