Thursday, January 29th, 2009
Washington, DC

COULD INDEPENDENT VOTERS
BRING DOWN SENATOR DAVID VITTER?

An ongoing battle within the ranks of the Louisiana Republican Party may well determine whether Louisiana US Sen. David Vitter receives his party's nomination for the coming 2010 senatorial election. The question for the party faithful is whether or not to allow independent voters to vote in GOP congressional primaries and runoffs. Look for the Vitter forces to strongly oppose any such movement. The issue will be brought to a head next month.

Vitter is in all-out effort to be the darling of conservatives, both nationally and in Louisiana. His reasoning is twofold. First, he wants his conservative philosophy to be the focus of the coming campaign, not personal peccadilloes thrust upon him for the past two years. As far as being accused of being too conservative for his home state, that serves Vitter’s agenda well. He feels he is playing to a favorable crowd, since Louisiana continues to be a stronger conservative Southern state. Only Alabama gave fewer votes to the new Democratic president than Louisiana. Vitter is quite willing to fight turf battles over philosophical issues in an effort to put his personal problems aside.

Secondly, Vitter is hoping to block off any potential challengers on the right. His particular concern is former Louisiana state representative Tony Perkins, who presently heads up the Family Research Council in Washington DC. Perkins ran for the U.S. Senate in 2002 as a protégé and former campaign manager of another senatorial candidate, Woody Jenkins. Perkins has built quite a conservative power base in Washington, and has become a major media spokesman for conservative family values. He has been approached by key national Republicans who feel Vitter may have an uphill fight in his reelection efforts, and some party operatives are trying to entice Perkins to come back home and take another run.

In the first few weeks of the new administration, Vitter has become the "slash and burn" loyal opposition, and has introduced a litany of conservative legislation. He was the only member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote against the confirmation of Hillary Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State. The vote was 16 to 1, and in the final vote on the floor of the Senate, Vitter was only one of two votes against confirmation.

Much of the legislation he has introduced in recent weeks is a rehash of previous bills pushed by Vitter. He apparently is trying to make the point that he is "the man" when it come to being the lonely, virtuous crusader on behalf of what he perceives to be solid hits on Southern values. His bills and resolutions are fairly predictable. Abortion -- he's agin’ it. Public prayer -- he's for it; stem cell research -- nope!; homeschooling –yep!; drugs -- against; death penalty -- for; illegal immigration -- against; protecting the American flag – for. This is not to belittle any of these issues, many of which have dominated conservative debate for years. Vitter seems to be lumping them into one fireball of conservative values so as to give virtually no wiggle room for a political opponent on the right.

But there could be a stumbling block in the Vitter master plan. A meeting of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee takes place on March 14th in Shreveport. An effort will be made to allow independent voters to cast ballots in any future GOP congressional primary. Louisiana Democrats opened up their primary process last year to independent voters, and feel this is a good way to recruit new voters and expand the party's voting base. The reasoning makes sense. If an independent voter makes his or her choice in a party primary, the odds are they will stay with that choice through the general election.

Independents are the fastest-growing group of new registered voters in the state, with a present total number of 640,725. As Republican state central committee member Mike Bayham stated in offering the resolution to bring in independent voters: “It is haughty and unwise for the GOP to keep independents from voting in Republican congressional primaries when Democrats permit it. You are ignoring a large group of conservative Independents that are part of the party's voter base. We need to do everything we can to keep them."

But will independent voters who are allowed to vote in a Republican primary be more or less likely to sign on to the Vitter conservative agenda? Some think not, and feel such changing of the process allows room for a primary challenge to Vitter. It’s no secret that Secretary of State Jay Dardenne is eyeing a challenge to Vitter, and he would certainly benefit by new and less doctrinal voters being allowed to vote in the Republican primary.

So what initially is looked on as an internal party effort to increase voter participation may turn into a donnybrook between the incumbent Republican Senator and the current Secretary of State over who gets the edge in the 2010 Republican primary. If Dardenne's forces behind the scenes are successful in pushing through a more open process of participation, look for the first term Secretary of State to kick off a much more aggressive effort in both fund-raising and name recognition throughout 2009.

And remember folks, this is just a Republican primary. Just as Senator Mary Landrieu was profiled as the most vulnerable Democratic senator in 2008, Vitter has the same target painted on him in 2010. And you thought 2008 was a banner political year in Louisiana. Just hang on.
*******

“In Louisiana, we love to have political fights, and they generally rough and tumble fights.”
Mike Callagan

Peace and Justice
Jim Brown



Jim Brown’s weekly column appears in a number of newspapers and websites throughout the State of Louisiana. You can read Jim’s Blog, and take his weekly poll, plus read his columns going back to the fall of 2002 by going to his own website at http://www.jimbrownla.com.
Jim also has a new book out on his views of Louisiana. You can read about it and order it by going to www.jimbrownla.com. .
Jim’s radio show on WRNO (995 fm) from New Orleans can be heard each Sunday, from 11:00 am until 1:00 pm.

Bush fails to Pardon Edwin Edwards-

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

WHY DIDN’T PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH
PARDON EDWIN EDWARDS?

For months, political insiders in both Louisiana and Washington had been predicting that former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards would be pardoned by President George Bush in the final weeks of his term in office. There were a number of signs to give the former governor and his supporters high hopes. Key political figures in both parties had petitioned the White House in behalf of a pardon. But as the final hours of the Bush presidency came to an end, no pardon was signed.

Former Louisiana Gov. Dave Treen had made it almost a mission in life to get Edwards released. He had written and made numerous calls to the White House, and personally lobbied the older and younger President Bush. A number of other key political operatives of both parties also actively join the effort. Some months ago, I was told by both a former high-ranking member of the Louisiana congressional delegation, as well as one of the major Republican fund raisers for the President that Bush had contacted each of them and gave assurance that before he left office, Edwin Edwards would have his sentence commuted to time served. That would allow him to be immediately freed from prison.

The now former president had been quite stingy with his pardoning power during his two terms in office. He granted less than 250 pardons out of more than 10,000 requests. This was the lowest number granted by any president who served in the past century. So he wasn't one to give favors to begin with.

Bush's pardon list also does not include many high-profile cases. The pardon docket was loaded with well-known controversial figures who, in many instances, hired high-priced former Bush staffers willing to plead their case. Besides Edwards, other well known applicants included:

Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan – He was convicted of political corruption in 2006, and is presently serving a 6 1/2 year sentence. Both Ryan and his wife are in ill health, and were strongly supported in their pardon efforts by members of the Illinois congressional delegation.

Former Republican congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham from California - He pled guilty in 2005 to conspiracy and tax evasion, and is serving an eight-year sentence. He presently has prostrate cancer.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr. - He was the former White House chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, and was convicted of making false statements and perjury. Bush commuted his sentence some months ago, but a number of staffers in the White House were hoping that Libby would get a full pardon before Bush left office.

Former junk bond king Michael Milken - He pled guilty in 1992 to six tax and securities-related felonies, and served 22 months in prison. He has been involved in extensive philanthropy in the past 15 years, giving millions of dollars for cancer research. Many thought Milken was a slam-dunk to be pardoned.

The one exception in considering controversial cases was the commutation of two former US border patrol agents in Texas. They were two guards from El Paso and were sentenced to more than 10 years in jail for shooting an unarmed Mexican drug smuggler in the back as he was fleeing across the Rio Grande. The agents went on to cover up the crime, hiding their shotgun casings in the river to hide the evidence. There was strong conservative support for commuting the sentences of these two agents, particularly from Bush's home state of Texas. Justice Department officials were quoted in the Los Angeles times as saying that Bush made a mistake. "There was obstruction of justice, and they shot a man in the back. I'm speechless. These are terrible clemency cases."

Why was George Bush so reluctant to pardon a number of people who he had been close to in public life? Bill Clinton, as we saw, would have pardoned many of those who requested it in a New York second. But that had to be the problem. Clinton was castigated from the day he left office, and still receives criticism over his wide ranging list of pardons granted in the waning days of his presidency.

Edwards was just one of many high profile and controversial pardon requests Bush had to consider. He wasn’t willing to take the heat and go through all the second guessing that Clinton still faces today. As should be expected, Blush is concerned about his dwindling legacy. His popularity as he leaves office is lower than any president in recorded history.

Edwin Edwards got caught in the weight of just too many high profile requests. In the final days of his presidency, Bush’s key aides no doubt told him to "punt" on the Edwards commutation, and let him serve the additional 2 1/2 years. Bill Clinton would have pardoned Edwards, and he still may have a shot with the new democratic president. After all, the federal guidelines in the Edwards case called for a five-year sentence, and the judge gave him 10. He has served six years so far, so his release date (serving the required 85% of the sentence) is June of 2010.

So what does retiring George Bush say to many of his own strong supporters who he had given assurances to that Edwards would be pardoned? Simple. He can go back in Louisiana history and find solace in the comments of former Louisiana Gov. Earl Long. When Uncle Earl was serving as the state's chief executive back in the 1950s, he decided to renege on a campaign promise to a group of loyal supporters in a deep South Louisiana parish. One of Long’s key aides reminded the Governor that he had given his word, and asked what he should tell this group who wanted an answer. Long didn’t miss a beat: “Just look them in the eye, and tell them I lied."
********
“The folly which we might have ourselves committed is the one which we are least ready to pardon in another.”

Joseph Roeux

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s weekly column appears in a number of newspapers and websites throughout the State of Louisiana. You can read Jim’s Blog, and take his weekly poll, plus read his columns going back to the fall of 2002 by going to his own website at http://www.jimbrownla.com.
Jim also has a new book out on his views of Louisiana. You can read about it and order it by going to www.jimbrownla.com. .

Jim’s radio show on WRNO (995 fm) from New Orleans can be heard each Sunday, from 11:00 am until 1:00 pm.

Bush fails to Pardon Edwin Edwards-Why?

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

WHY DIDN’T PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH
PARDON EDWIN EDWARDS?

For months, political insiders in both Louisiana and Washington had been predicting that former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards would be pardoned by President George Bush in the final weeks of his term in office. There were a number of signs to give the former governor and his supporters high hopes. Key political figures in both parties had petitioned the White House in behalf of a pardon. But as the final hours of the Bush presidency came to an end, no pardon was signed.

Former Louisiana Gov. Dave Treen had made it almost a mission in life to get Edwards released. He had written and made numerous calls to the White House, and personally lobbied the older and younger President Bush. A number of other key political operatives of both parties also actively join the effort. Some months ago, I was told by both a former high-ranking member of the Louisiana congressional delegation, as well as one of the major Republican fund raisers for the President that Bush had contacted each of them and gave assurance that before he left office, Edwin Edwards would have his sentence commuted to time served. That would allow him to be immediately freed from prison.

The now former president had been quite stingy with his pardoning power during his two terms in office. He granted less than 250 pardons out of more than 10,000 requests. This was the lowest number granted by any president who served in the past century. So he wasn't one to give favors to begin with.

Bush's pardon list also does not include many high-profile cases. The pardon docket was loaded with well-known controversial figures who, in many instances, hired high-priced former Bush staffers willing to plead their case. Besides Edwards, other well known applicants included:

Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan – He was convicted of political corruption in 2006, and is presently serving a 6 1/2 year sentence. Both Ryan and his wife are in ill health, and were strongly supported in their pardon efforts by members of the Illinois congressional delegation.

Former Republican congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham from California - He pled guilty in 2005 to conspiracy and tax evasion, and is serving an eight-year sentence. He presently has prostrate cancer.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr. - He was the former White House chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, and was convicted of making false statements and perjury. Bush commuted his sentence some months ago, but a number of staffers in the White House were hoping that Libby would get a full pardon before Bush left office.

Former junk bond king Michael Milken - He pled guilty in 1992 to six tax and securities-related felonies, and served 22 months in prison. He has been involved in extensive philanthropy in the past 15 years, giving millions of dollars for cancer research. Many thought Milken was a slam-dunk to be pardoned.

The one exception in considering controversial cases was the commutation of two former US border patrol agents in Texas. They were two guards from El Paso and were sentenced to more than 10 years in jail for shooting an unarmed Mexican drug smuggler in the back as he was fleeing across the Rio Grande. The agents went on to cover up the crime, hiding their shotgun casings in the river to hide the evidence. There was strong conservative support for commuting the sentences of these two agents, particularly from Bush's home state of Texas. Justice Department officials were quoted in the Los Angeles times as saying that Bush made a mistake. "There was obstruction of justice, and they shot a man in the back. I'm speechless. These are terrible clemency cases."

Why was George Bush so reluctant to pardon a number of people who he had been close to in public life? Bill Clinton, as we saw, would have pardoned many of those who requested it in a New York second. But that had to be the problem. Clinton was castigated from the day he left office, and still receives criticism over his wide ranging list of pardons granted in the waning days of his presidency.

Edwards was just one of many high profile and controversial pardon requests Bush had to consider. He wasn’t willing to take the heat and go through all the second guessing that Clinton still faces today. As should be expected, Blush is concerned about his dwindling legacy. His popularity as he leaves office is lower than any president in recorded history.

Edwin Edwards got caught in the weight of just too many high profile requests. In the final days of his presidency, Bush’s key aides no doubt told him to "punt" on the Edwards commutation, and let him serve the additional 2 1/2 years. Bill Clinton would have pardoned Edwards, and he still may have a shot with the new democratic president. After all, the federal guidelines in the Edwards case called for a five-year sentence, and the judge gave him 10. He has served six years so far, so his release date (serving the required 85% of the sentence) is June of 2010.

So what does retiring George Bush say to many of his own strong supporters who he had given assurances to that Edwards would be pardoned? Simple. He can go back in Louisiana history and find solace in the comments of former Louisiana Gov. Earl Long. When Uncle Earl was serving as the state's chief executive back in the 1950s, he decided to renege on a campaign promise to a group of loyal supporters in a deep South Louisiana parish. One of Long’s key aides reminded the Governor that he had given his word, and asked what he should tell this group who wanted an answer. Long didn’t miss a beat: “Just look them in the eye, and tell them I lied."
********
“The folly which we might have ourselves committed is the one which we are least ready to pardon in another.”

Joseph Roeux

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s weekly column appears in a number of newspapers and websites throughout the State of Louisiana. You can read Jim’s Blog, and take his weekly poll, plus read his columns going back to the fall of 2002 by going to his own website at http://www.jimbrownla.com.
Jim also has a new book out on his views of Louisiana. You can read about it and order it by going to www.jimbrownla.com. .

Jim’s radio show on WRNO (995 fm) from New Orleans can be heard each Sunday, from 11:00 am until 1:00 pm.

An Incomprehensible Death in New Orleans

Thursday, January 15th, 2008
New Orleans, Louisiana

TAKING A YOUNG LIFE IN NEW ORLEANS
WHERE EVEN GOD CAN BE WRONG.

Little Ja’Shawn Powell was two years old, and lived in New Orleans with his mother. His father, a guy named Danny Platt, came to pick up Ja’Shawn for a visit last week. The boy, according to his mother was really excited. “Oh, my daddy’s here," he beamed as he ran to the door. “Daddy, daddy, daddy.” His mother said: “He was so happy.” Then his daddy drove off, took a knife, slit this little boy’s throat, and allowed the toddler to bleed to death.

It's impossible to make any sense, or even find the words to define such a ghastly act. Horrifying, shocking, sickening, abhorrent, repugnant; no thoughts can describe such a dastardly deed of unspeakable horror. Platt claims he had "a whole bunch of reasons" for taking this little boy's life. He said "I had a lot of pressure on me." But he denied that one of the reasons was the $4000 in back child support he owed to the boy's mother. Hogwash. He did it to keep from paying the money.

In a city that has the highest per capita murder rate in the nation, where multiple killings often happen on a daily basis, a town that is rated as one of the five most dangerous cities in the world, it is still incomprehensible to imagine that a father could take a knife and plunge it into the throat of his two-year-old child.

Times Picayune columnist Jarvis Deberry has written several excellent articles on the tragic death of this little boy. And he raises the question posed in the book of Genesis as to whether a father could kill his own son, even at the urging of God himself. According to the scripture in the first book of the Bible, the Jewish patriarch Abraham was told by God to kill his son Isaac to show obedience to God. It was a test, and when God was apparently satisfied that Abraham would undertake such an appalling act, he called out for Abraham to stop.

DeBarry raises the question of just how his own father, a deacon in his church, would respond if, like Abraham, he had been asked to sacrifice his one and only son. But for years, I have been troubled by a separate question. How could a loving God even put one of his followers to such a test? Why would any being, God or man, force such a horrendous choice?

Bob Dylan poignantly and pointedly asked the same question on the title track of his “Highway 61 Revisited “album that came out in 1965. Now follow the symbolism here. Highway 61 runs from Duluth, Minnesota all the way down to New Orleans. It was a major transit route to get out of the Deep South, particularly for African Americans traveling north to Chicago, St. Louis and Memphis, as the highway followed the Mississippi River Valley for most of its 1400 miles. The song puts to the test the moral dilemma of killing one’s own son at the request of the Almighty.
Dylan raises the same concerns about God's actions that I have felt for years. The lyrics say:

Oh God said to Abraham, Kill me a son"

Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin me on"

God say, "No." Abe say, What?"

God say, "you can do what you want Abe but

The next time you see me comin’ you better run"

Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killing done?"

God says, "Out on Highway 61."

So when America's poet troubadour picks a location to symbolize one of the most heart wrenching choices posed by God to man, a choice by the way that I personally think was dead wrong for God to pose in the first place , the heart and soul of the dilemma runs right through the Crescent City.

Since the killing of little Ja’Shawn, there have been a series of other family killings in New Orleans. Just a few days ago, a son killed his 73 old mother, who was a member of her church choir. He stabbed her repeatedly with a butcher knife and robbed her. Why? He needed money to buy drugs.

Oh there have been protests. The Silence is Violence organization marched again on City Hall as some 5000 people had done two years before. But only about 50 people showed up. Has the resiliency of this city been beaten down so much that so few feel this is anything that can be done?

New Orleans is a city where I was educated, where I have worked and lived off and on for some fifty years. It’s a real tragedy to see the will and the hopes of so many locals seem to slowly drift away. And let’s face it. No outside help is going to sweep in to solve the city’s massive list of problems.

New Orleans needs political leadership, increased community activism, more public dollars into law enforcement, and a renewed focus on juvenile delinquency. All this can make a difference and all this needs to be done. But it all begins right here at home, on Highway 61.

********
“There are many things worth living for, a few things worth dying for, and

nothing worth killing for.” Tom Robbins

Peace and Justice.

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s weekly column appears in a number of newspapers and websites throughout the State of Louisiana. You can read Jim’s Blog, and take his weekly poll, plus read his columns going back to the fall of 2002 by going to his own website at http://www.jimbrownla.com.
Jim also has a new book out on his views of Louisiana. You can read about it and order it by going to www.jimbrownla.com. .

Jim’s radio show on WRNO (995 fm) from New Orleans can be heard each Sunday, from 11:00 am until 1:00 pm.

Bad Deal for Louisiana Taxpayers

Thursday, January 8th, 2008
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

LOUISIANA TAXPAYERS ARE THE LOSERS
IN PROPERTY INSURANCE SCHEME

In days of old, Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. When it comes to insurance, the Louisiana Legislature and the Insurance Department do just the reverse. They apparently think it is better to take from every taxpayer, rich and poor alike, and give away public funds only to homeowners, who are more likely to be a little better off. If you don't own a home, either by choice or because you cannot afford to, your tax dollars are taken out of the state general fund to be given away as a gift to those fortunate enough to be a homeowner. It's Robin Hood sticking it to the little guy.

The Louisiana insurance Department is ballyhooing the giveaway program as homeowners getting part of their insurance premiums back. Headlines in several of the state daily newspapers bought in to the Department press release by stating that “Homeowners may get rebate on Insurance.” But this was a misleading fiction, since there was no rebate involved. Homeowners were not getting a rebate on what they had paid for insurance. What they were getting was a handout of state general funds from the legislature. Great if you qualify for the handout. But it’s a giveaway for only a certain class of people, and completely inconsistent with the prudent expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars.

This ill-conceived program was the brainchild of the Department of Insurance and was sold to the legislature in 2006 as a hook for getting major insurance companies to sell property insurance in the state. The legislature set aside $100 million for grants to go directly to new insurers. Few companies were interested, and only a handful of insurers applied, most of who were planning to enter the property insurance market in Louisiana anyway. Why not take the freebie. But after two years, the program has proven to be a bust, with less than 30% of the allocated monies being given away.

So in an effort to blunt the outrage of numerous homeowners over the highest homeowner insurance costs in the nation, the giveaway program has been dangled as a way to pacify the criticism. But the funds are not a portion of insurance premiums being returned to policy holders. State general fund money is being used that is paid into the state treasury by all taxpayers; whether they are homeowners are not. Since the roads are crowded, why not give a grant to all bicycle commuters? How about a check from the state treasury to everyone who has a driver’s license? They pay the highest auto rates in the country. The same illogic applies.

There may well be constitutional problems here also. Has the legislature gone beyond its authority by arbitrarily passing out state funds to a singled out group of citizens who have no direct relationship as a group to the source of the funds? In other words, it is not legal to give preferences to a whole group of citizens just because they own a home. The money they will receive does not come from the insurance premiums that they have paid, but is a gift from the general fund that every citizen, homeowner or not, pays into. So is it legal to favor a single class? The courts will no doubt have to figure this out.

And if such a program was fair to begin with, about the worst possible way to give homeowners special consideration is to send them a check, which is the method being proposed by the Insurance Department. Think of the huge cost involved in preparing and mailing out checks to every homeowner in the state. Conservative estimates to prepare the hundreds of thousands of checks is well over $15 million. That’s on top of the seventy one million dollars that will come out of the state treasury.

One way is to give the homeowner a tax credit is to allow for it when a state income tax form is filed. An even better suggestion is to mandate that ever insurance company selling property insurance in the state reduce the amount being charged by fifty dollars, which is the proposed refund. The burden would then be put on the insurance company to apply for the state funds that are being made available. No postage, no work effort by public employees, no cost. Maybe this is just too simple for a state agency to undertake (or understand), but there are a number of more efficient ways to skin this cat than are presently being proposed.

When all is said and done, this poorly though out proposal started out as nothing more than a “share the wealth” program for a select few insurance companies that turned out to be a bust. Now, to placate disgruntled homeowners in the state, tax dollars will flow from the many to help the select few. No other state has even considered such a program. And it is no secret why. It’s bad public policy. But hey. Huey Long is looking down with a smile on his face.
************
“Well, fancy giving money to the government
Might as well put it down the drain
Fancy giving money to the government
Nobody will ever see the stuff again.”
--Sir Alan Patrick Hebert

Peace and Justice.

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s weekly column appears in a number of newspapers and websites throughout the State of Louisiana. You can read Jim’s Blog, and take his weekly poll, plus read his columns going back to the fall of 2002 by going to his own website at http://www.jimbrownla.com.

Jim also has a new book out on his views of Louisiana. You can read about it and order it by going to www.jimbrownla.com. .

Jim’s radio show on WRNO (995 fm) from New Orleans can be heard each Sunday, from 11:00 am until 1:00 pm.