Blog Banter - Not only has Mickey Kaus commented on the Louisiana GOP tactic of attempting to "dampen" black voter turnout, but his "Backfill" addition to his initial posted comments has pointed to a Washington Post article that speaks about a flyer supposedly distributed by the Louisiana GOP in black public housing projects which read, in part: "Vote!!! Bad Weather? No problem!!! If the weather is uncomfortable on election day (Saturday December 7th) Remember you can wait and cast your ballot on Tuesday December 10th." While there is no evidence as of yet to decisively link this flyer to the state GOP, I have no doubt that the Louisiana GOP is capable and willing to do this. Any group so intent to try to suppress voter turnout by posting election day signs saying as much, would also not shy away from the more vile (but anonymous) flyers discussed above. And this outrage will linger in the minds of Louisiana's significant black voting population for a long, long time. Has the GOP buried itself in Louisiana? I think so. It will be a while before it can recover.

Liberal Lighthouse - Regarding the entire Republican strategy of suppressing black voter turnout nationwide, John B. Judis has an excellent piece in The New Republic addressing this very topic. It is must reading for putting the Louisiana GOP's tactics in a national context.

Blog Banter - Finally, Mickey Kaus has risen to the challenge and commented on the Louisiana GOP's tactic of exploiting an intra-party rift between Cleo Fields and Mary Landrieu to try to get black people to stay home and not vote. Kaus never really denies that the effort by the Louisiana GOP was intended to suppress the black vote. He calls the move "cynical" (whatever that means in an election context - I would call it patently "dishonest") and actually passes it off as an improvement for the GOP in terms of, apparently, its history of suppressing the black vote. Is Kaus admitting the GOP has a sordid history of doing worse to suppress the black vote? In any case, Kaus's analysis itself is cynical in that it whitewashes (pun intended) the clear intent of this tactic. As a good citizen of the world's greatest democracy, Kaus should instead be advocating the strengthening of turnout for all eligible voters - something that a vibrant democracy needs, and something that has sadly been on the decline all throughout the US. And Kaus makes no mention of the GOP bribery of people to hold aloft the signs, which is another level of "cynicism" altogether. I have to give Kaus credit for addressing this issue, though his dismissal of it so cavalierly is disappointing. Where's Andrew Sullivan in all of this?

Kingfishery & Kingcakery - The Times-Picayune ran this story on the signs paid for by the Louisiana Republican Party which attempted to discourage black voter turnout. The Louisiana Republican Party spin on this is almost laughable, if it weren't so pathetic. Still no comments on this despicable election-day behavior by Sullivan or Kaus.

Lagniappe - To all those critics of the New York Times, Andrew Sullivan first among them, let me just note that of the following reporting done on yesterday's Senate run-off election in Louisiana, only the New York Times took up the issue of the Louisiana Republican Party's attempts to discourage black people from voting in the election. There is no mention of this scandal in the election reports of The Washington Times, the UPI, the Washington Post, and the AP. I don't know how the Wall Street Journal reported on the election since only paid subscribers can access its story; but I'd bet almost anything it says nothing about this scandal. As someone who saw this outrage first-hand, I can tell you that the New York Times is neither exaggerating nor fabricating this story. But what is even more scandalous is that this very newsworthy aspect of the election has been buried or ignored by all BUT the New York Times. Will conservative media outlets and pundits comment on this outrageous anti-democratic electioneering behavior by the Louisiana Republican Party? What will Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan have to say? We'll see ...

Kingfishery & Kingcakery - Something I witnessed today while driving down the streets of the City of New Orleans really drove the point home to me of the sleaziness and downright evil of the Louisiana Republican Party, and of Suzanne Haik Terrell's failed Senate Campaign. As I drove past the intersection of Washington and Carrollton Avenues, which is in a predominantly poor black part of the City, I noticed an election day sign all along the neutral ground (our name for a "median") that read in large print: "Mary, if you don't respect us, don't expect us." In small print at the bottom, the words read: "Paid for by the Louisiana Republican Party." When I saw this sign, I was incensed. It is perhaps the most despicable, desperate, and dare I say racist, last-minute election campaign tactic that I have ever seen.

For one, the Louisiana Republican Party was trying to tap into the intra-party division that has existed between some influential and well-known black Louisiana democratic politicians and Mary Landrieu. No matter how the state Republican Party can try to spin this slogan, its meaning and intent is all too clear. The slogan is trying to say that black folk should not vote for Mary Landrieu because of her "disrespect" of black constituencies as some of her black critics have claimed. Why is this sign so despicable? First, the sign is not attempting to promote a candidate or an idea, as most campaign signs posted on election day tend to do, but rather to deliver an ad-hominen attack on a candidate. Second, the state Republican Party is itself "disrespecting" black voters by pretending to speak on behalf of black people - or at least passing the sign off as coming from black voters disaffected with Mary Landrieu.

As anyone in the State of Louisiana knows, the Republican Party by far does not represent the state's black voters. And, furthermore, any disappointment with Mary Landrieu felt by the black population is because Mary's positions have been seen as MORE aligned with traditional conservative (i.e. Republican) policies that do not attend to the needs of the black community. The state Republican Party's pretending to reflect the complaints of Cleo Fields and other black critics of Landrieu is bad enough, but its purpose of "using" black discontent for its own selfish ends of getting Terrell elected, and not truly in advocacy of the legitimacy of the complaints of Landrieu's black critics, is downright morally wrong.

Even worse, though, is that the hope of the slogan was to boost Terrell's chances by discouraging black people to vote at all. How else can one interpret the "don't expect us" part of this slogan? In my mind, the signs were a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise black voters by encouraging them to stay home instead of casting a vote for a "disrespectful" Democratic candidate.

The Democratic Party is often accused by Republicans of using the "race card" in unseemly ways. This sleazeball and race-baiting slogan, placed where and when it was, makes the Louisiana State Republican Party no different. In fact, it almost seems worse because the state Republican Party has absolutely no interest in the policy directions and political attentions that would "respect" the black community in the ways that Cleo Fields and Landrieu's other black critics would "expect."

[UPDATE 12/8/2002 12:42AM CST: I just read the New York Times story on this election. The article comments on this tactic of discouraging black voter turnout. I just can't believe anyone would want to discourage citizens from participating in the electoral process. Energizing and turning out your own base is one thing, telling people likely not to vote for you to stay home is another. What the article points out that I didn't realize until now is that the Louisiana Republican Party also paid black people $75 a pop to stand on corners and hold up these despicable signs. Disgusting.]

Kingfishery & Kingcakery - Well, well, well. Not only has incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu decisively defeated Republican candidate Suzanne Haik Terrell in the last remaining US Senate race, but Democrat Rodney Alexander has defeated his opponent (Fletcher) in the only other contested Congressional race for a seat in the House of Representatives. What does this mean? A couple of things from where I sit. First, it means that the Democratic Party nationally is far from defunct. Today marks the great U-Turn in the fortunes of the Democratic Party. When you couple this stunning victory with the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Economic Advisor Larry Lindsey, and the fact that the entire national Republican party - all the way up to President Bush - placed their influence and reputations on the line in this election, the future appears ominous for Republicans and for GW's reelection. So, the first meaning is the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party and a glimpse of hope to national democrats that may spark some energy in the national party. Louisiana democrats beat the national Republican party machine. Second, negative campaigning can go too far. Terrell's deplorable attack ads and the nastiness of her campaign turned people off and may have even converted some moderate voters who have tended Republican in past elections to cast votes for Landrieu. I think Landrieu's negative campaign was just as deplorable, but I think voters probably felt she was driven to this in order to defend her personal and professional reputation. Landrieu's campaign was, in effect, a defensive reaction to Terrell's primary campaign. So, the second meaning is the failure of Republican campaign strategies to go to the extremes in negative campaigning. Personally, I'm pleased with the outcome of the election, especially since I'm a liberal from Louisiana. And I'm pleased to see the national Republican Party humiliated in this way. People tend to remember the last moments of any process, and the last moments of the 2002 US Congressional Elections went to the Democrats. Democrats should take heart from this and Republicans should worry.

Liberal Lighthouse - E.J. Dionne, Jr. is quickly becoming one of my favorite columnists. His latest piece in the Washington Post discusses something that I have noticed and felt for some time now: the myth of a liberal media. Dionne makes a good point that mainstream media is likely to represent the privileged professional and intellectual classes, which tend to tilt leftward on social issues, but moderate/conservative on business/economic issues. Furthermore, "mainstream" news media is no longer what it was 20 years ago. In fact, it strikes me for the first time that most people's news comes not from the National Print Media (i.e. The New York Times or the Washington Post), nor increasingly from network news channels, but rather from local newspapers, radio, cable television networks, and the internet - all of which tend to be dominated by conservative voices. In fact, the impact and presence of the shrill conservative tirades against the "liberal" media would seem to indicate that conservative voices are getting more "press" than they would lead you to believe - if not in the few, big, liberal-leading media outlets, at least in the majority of other media outlets that the average person sees much more regularly. I can tell you that down in the Big Easy, hardly anyone cares about or reads The New York Times, but significant numbers listen to Rush Limbaugh on the Crescent City's most important Talk Radio Station. Just an observation linked to Dionne's thoughtful essay; and I'm finally glad that someone in the "liberal" media is finally taking this myth of "liberal" media bias head on.

The Weak in (National) Review - Let me refer you to David Frum's Diarrhea for December 6, 2002, (Maybe I shouldn't poke fun at a person's diary in such a mean way in the Rush Limbaugh manner; but, oh well ... it is public ... and I am in a mischevious mood ... and it is published in National Review - but, really, this is all in fun and I bear no ill-will or malice towards Frum.) In this online weblog, Frum compares Bush's speech on the occasion of the lighting of the national tree with that of Clinton. He glories in the fact that Bush clearly professes his faith, and implies that Clinton's more "tolerant" (Frum's own characterization) speech is somehow atheistic ("rests on a belief in nothing at all"). While I am all for the need to recapture meaning in ritual religious festivities - as opposed to the meaningless term "holiday" (i.e. a day off from work) - where appropriate, I think Frum is way out of bounds to claim that just because Clinton speeches tended to be inclusive, Clinton (and those who think Clinton's approach is appropriate) are somehow ashamed of who they are and what they believe - unlike Bush. First of all, this is very presumptuous. I don't see how Clinton's personal faith has anything to do with a national public speech. Couldn't Frum admit that Clinton, or anyone for that matter, could be firm in his/her faith without always broadcasting it whenever a religious "holiday" comes around? Secondly, how does Frum explain the clear reference to Christianity in Clinton's speech: "the land where a homeless child grew up to be the Prince of Peace." Clinton's speech does not "rest on a belief in nothing at all" - but rests on the recognition that many Americans have many faiths - which, in my mind, is the more appropriate symbolism to be projected in a public speech by a President elected by Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc. Frum is proud that Bush is not "ashamed of who he is and what he believes." Why, then, does Frum feel the need to explain that Bush is "a man of religious tolerance"? If there is no shame in professing one's religious identity publicly and exclusively, why the need to also demonstrate "tolerance." Perhaps Frum is recognizing implicity that a public speech made by a President at a "national" event should be for all American Citizens of All Faiths, and that it is not a personal reflection for Bush's personal faith.

Liberal Lighthouse - For a full run of "Bushisms" - and some great laughs - check out this compilation by Jacob Weisberg. Some of my favorites, just to get you warmed up:

"'I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will.'—Speaking about Saddam Hussein, Manchester, N.H., Oct. 5, 2002 (Thanks to George Dupper.)"

"'There's no bigger task than protecting the homeland of our country.'"

"'The trial lawyers are very politically powerful. … But here in Texas we took them on and got some good medical—medical malpractice.'"

May you have fun with the rest of the list!!!

Lagniappe - On the latest in Iraq, I just don't understand the Bush Administration's secretiveness and its obfuscation. For one story on the recent events, see this New York Times story. For those who don't trust the "ultra-liberal" New York Times, a more conservative take on the same story can be read at The Washington Times. If the Administration has clear and damning evidence against Saddam, why won't it come clean with the American public? The Washington Times says that the Bush Administration doesn't want to "tip its hand." But what would it be tipping its hand towards? The weapons inspectors are in Iraq. Surely the Inspectors and the Bush Administration can time such a release of information so that the inspectors can hit these sites as soon as the information is made public. Iraq would have no time to hide anything, and any refusal to permit inspections or to delay access would be a clear violation of the UN resolution and a sign of Iraqi prevarication - which the Bush Administration claims Iraq has been doing all along. Furthermore, now that it looks as if the Bush Administration will probably act unilaterally anyway, and that war is a foregone conclusion, why is not tipping the hand so important? I just simply don't understand it. It makes no rational sense. The only thing the US public is left with is (1) either blind trust of our own government, which seems willing to share information with a UN in which it has no faith and whose cautious stance it can't tolerate, but not with the American public against which the Iraqi threat is very real and which seems to be itching for some face time with Saddam, or (2) that it simply doesn't possess hard evidence of Iraqi lies about weapons of mass destruction, but just anecdotal evidence. Come on, Bush, don't pull a Saddam and hide things even from your own people under the guise of "national security" concerns. Come clean.

Blog Banter - Andrew Sullivan has posted a critical commentary in his "Daily Dish" for Tuesday, December 3, 2002, on the Krugman column that I addressed in my previous post. Thanks to Andrew for pointing me to the original WSJ article that Krugman is responding to, as well as to the E.J. Dionne Jr. article in the Tuesday, Nov. 26, Washington Post that Sullivan claims Krugman ripped off. After reading all the relevant articles, I must agree to some extent with Sullivan that Krugman's column isn't really an original and really does borrow from Dionne's piece, which is clearly the more superior critical economic analysis. However, I see nothing wrong with rehashing the same line; and I find it perfectly believable that Krugman and Dionne can get incensed by the same parts of the article without having read each other's pieces. Pundits repeat outrages all the time. Perhaps Andrew takes offense that Krugman didn't give Dionne his due; but I would say that, though the basis of each of the two columns is the same, the points that each is trying to make are quite different. Krugman is playing up the notion of taxing the poor even more so that they can come to "despise" an intrusive and abusive government, but Dionne focuses more on the economic fallacies of the argument. In any case, I still think Krugman's overall argument is valid, and while Krugman may have exaggerated that the WSJ editorial calls for tax increases on the poor, it is certainly implied. And this is where Andrew Sullivan is a bit disingenous. He claims the article is actually arguing that "any further reductions in net taxes should be avoided." But that is simply not true. The picture that the article paints is one of the "context" in which a Republican Congress and Presidency consider further tax relief. Much like the article never explicitly says that taxes on the poor need to be raised, the article never says that taxes on the wealthiest income earners should not be reduced further. The difference is that the former is certainly implied, while the latter is not implied at all. And here Krugman is more honest than Sullivan. The WSJ article calls for a reconsideration of the "two-tiered" tax system, preferably - if the tax burden disparities based on income level pointed out in the article mean anything - in a way that "corrects" the imbalance in who bears the tax load burden. In other words, the reconsideration of this "two-tiered" tax system should more fairly and properly equalize the tax burden born by the different income groups, and this effectively means reducing the share of the tax bill borne by the top income earners and increasing the share borne by the bottom income earners. It is my reading of the article that, by painting a picture of an apparent growing disparity between who pays more of the share of the national tax bill and who pays less, in order for those wealthy who are footing an ever greater percentage of the tax bill to get some tax relief, the issue of those who have a disincentive to care about further tax cuts because they don't pay income taxes, needs to be resolved. And that resolution is a zero-sum game in which tax cuts for the "overtaxed" need to be balanced by a growing income tax stream from those "undertaxed." This is the real gist of the article, and Andrew Sullivan refuses to recognize it. For him to say that the WSJ is arguing against more and deeper tax cuts for the top income earners is simply absurd - especially since the purpose of the article is to address a tax system that "undermines the political consensus for cutting taxes at all." The goal is not to prevent further tax cuts, but just the opposite - to create an environment more supportive of further tax cuts, which will only happen if those who currently don't pay income taxes have a future tax bill to complain about, too.

Liberal Lighthouse - As much as conservatives despise him, Paul Krugman has a scathing column that exposes the true colors of the "tax cut" conservative crowd in a Wall Street Journal editorial. I haven't read this WSJ editorial because I don't subscribe to the newspaper and, as the WSJ commodifies everything, the average Joe unwilling or unable to pay for a subscription doesn't have the privilege of being enlightened by this newspaper's opinion. In any case, I don't think Krugman would make up a story as damning as this one without some concrete proof to back it up. The gist is that wealthy conservative "tax cutters," sick and tired of having to shoulder a tax burden that is seen as excessive, and under the delusion that people who live on below-poverty-line incomes do not cough up a significant portion of their meager incomes in taxes (whether income, payroll, or sales taxes), want to punish these poor folk by eliminating the tax breaks that they get just for being poor. Krugman's point seems solid to me. Regardless of how you feel about who gets more or less screwed by the tax code, it just doesn't make sense that tax cutters would argue that an effective increase in taxes on the poor somehow fits the logic of a "tax cutting" philosophy - unless, as Krugman claims, the reality for such people is a "tax cut" for the wealthy only. You'd think that fiscal conservatives would applaud the fact that some portion of the population doesn't pay income tax, as it keeps more disposable income in the market. Anyway, Krugman's biting sarcasm is appropriate, and the hypocrisy of conservatives as being pro-growth, anti-tax, and the "real" growth option for the poor is clearly exposed.

Kingfishery and Kingcakery - Landrieu and Terrell are campaigning hard for the senate run-off. I'm a Landrieu supporter, so maybe this is wishful thinking, but it seems to me that Landrieu is coming off as more sympathetic and competent in the last few weeks of this runoff period. Let's see if this translate at the polls. Much will depend on the turnout. For the latest on the campaign, take a look at the most recent Times-Picayune article that can be found here.

Lagniappe - I've already missed a day! So much for resolutions!! Actually, I would have posted, but I just forgot. I guess it's just getting back into the habit. Well here I am today, posting at least this little bit. I've got more in store, though, so be ready!

Kingfishery and Kingcakery - While I'm not so keen on the negative campaigns being run by both Mary Landrieu and Suzie Terrell - they're equally repugnant in my view - I think that Suzie Terrell has dug a grave for herself by attacking Mary Landrieu's religious convictions. Regardless of one's political position on the abortion issue, judging another's religious faith commitment doesn't sit well with voters. First, we people of faith recognize that religion is personal, private, and protected. We also tend to be loathe to judge the value of another's faith, lest our "weakness" in faith be likewise judged, and especially since such judgment is reserved ultimately and exclusively for the Higher Power - and not some holier-than-thou like Suzie Terrell. It is not for us sinners to cast stones. Suzie Terrell took a cheap shot, and we all recognize it as such. What's worse for her is that, in my mind, she also came off as presuming to play God with Mary Landrieu. Archbishop Hannan MIGHT get away with something like this, but Suzie Terrell's credentials in the faith don't even approach the authority that Hannan carries with him. From the political perspective, what we do know is that Terrell has certainly lost a few votes because of the presumptousness and smugness, not to mention the "spiritual" meanness, of her statement. Shame on Suzie.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano - Andres Oppenheimer has a great analysis of what I have termed Mexico's "Paradox of Dependence and Nationalism" in the context of the 21st Century reality. Oppenheimer discusses Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Jorge Castañeda's recent call for Mexico to resolve this "paradox" by trashing the outdated revolutionary anti-US rhetoric and by embracing positively Mexico's affinity for and bond with the United States. While I applaud Castañeda's attitude, what he proposes may be psychologically undesirable if not impossible for Mexican society. Subordinate and dependent states, in order to maintain some semblance of identity distinct from the regional hegemon, often times have only rhetoric to work with. The reality is also that Mexico is "not" the US, and sometimes the only way to make this distinction is simply by espousing the "anti-US" line. This anti-US rhetoric is not really to be "against" the US, but to be distinct from and independent of the US. Even still, Castañeda's comments mark an incredible change in the rhetoric of Mexico's independent history and its relationship with the US.

Lagniappe - Well, it has been almost two weeks since my last post. What good is a weblog if it's not kept up?? I have resolved to post something every day - at least a couple of sentences or a quick link to something interesting, if not a really substantive entry. I do need to give myself an out if I find that I am unable to get myself to a computer with internet access, which does happen on occasion. However, those moments are generally infrequent and so I should be able to post entries for at least 330 of the 365 days of the year. Let's see how good I am at keeping resolutions!

The Weak in (National) Review - Speaking of National Review (see my previous Lagniappe post), I'd like to comment briefly on the creeping hopes of the pro-life movement as expressed in Georgia lawyer Adam G. Mersereau's Guest Comment for the online version of the magazine. The point of his whole article is typical of conservative misreading of the abortion issue in American society. He thinks that the real issue dogging the hopes of conservative pro-lifers, even in the current favorable political environment, is this silly notion that people will be skittish about outlawing abortion because doing so would go against the core conservative advocacy of less government regulation of an individual's private life. Let me set Mersereau straight. The skittishness that he detects among the general American public regarding outlawing abortion is not the issue of government intrustion into private life. Rather, it is the issue of criminalizing something that many people, even pro-lifers, have a hard time criminalizing. This fact is oh-so-clear if one just pays quiet attention to this aspect of the debate. For example, in Louisiana's current Senate runoff race, Suzie Terrell is painting herself as a strong anti-abortion candidate, in part to counter the fact that her name appeared on a Planned Parenthood Conference program as one of its leaders/organizers/sponsors. But, in spite of Terrell's wish to pass herself off as a strong anti-abortion candidate in a relatively conservative state - even advocating a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion - she refused to follow through logically on her position when asked how women who might have "illegal" abortions in violation of the constitution should be treated/punished. Why? Here's why ... Note: I'm the father of two lovely little girls, ages 4 and 2 months. I cannot even fathom terminating a pregnancy knowing the joy that my children bring me. That's me. But sometimes I look in the mirror and ask myself this very simple question: "If either of my daughters were ever to come to me, with tears flowing and seemingly inconsolable, and tell me that she had an abortion, would I look at her as a murderer and a criminal? Would I look at her as if what she had done were no different than if she had walked up to an unsuspecting child on the playground and slit his throat? Would I feel the legal obligation to turn her in to the law for prosecution on a murder charge?" My answer: "Absolutely not!!!" And I think that my reaction is probably typical even for most pro-lifers. So, what does this honest reflection tell me? Well, for one, it tells me that I don't equate abortion with murder. Two, it tells me that no matter what my moral position is on the issue, I cannot accept criminalizing it. Three, it tells me that I can be anti-abortion morally, but pro-choice legally - and that there is no inconsistency with this position. This is the rub for conservatives on the issue. This is why there is general skittishness in the American public about outlawing abortion. It's not because of some silly "government-off-my-back" attitude. It's not even, to demythologize the more radical pro-choice stance on abortion, really about protecting a woman's right to control her own body to the exclusion of consideration of the fetus/unborn child. Nor is it about the moral question of whether abortion is right or wrong. It's just simply about not making the woman who has an abortion a criminal under the law. Simple as that. Any pro-lifer who says his/her own daughter should be held as a criminal (much less a murderer) for having had an abortion will at least be consistent in his/her position, though (in my opinion) one terrible, horrible, insensitive heel of a parent, unworthy of even being called a loving parent.

Lagniappe - A month since my last post. My how time flies and events change. It seems that Democrats are in some disarray and Republicans are gearing up for at least two years of unfettered policymaking. A quick read of the pages of National Review - at least the online version - reveals a bit of hopeful glee that the conservative agenda will transform US society and culture. We'll see. Conservatives are used to saying how unfair and discriminated against they are, how much the "liberal" media and just about anything else has misunderstood and mistreated them. Well, now, that whining isn't going to get very far anymore. If Republicans and their conservative agenda can't seem to carry through over the next two years, the "beseiged" line simply won't work. I'm actually looking forward to watching the Republicans first muddle through the startling reality of absolute, hegemonic control over all three branches of government, and then bumbling about trying to figure out how to govern in the midst of such power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I can tell you right now, it ain't cake for single party dominant governments to rule, especially in a political culture that values the "balance" of power - and even has a soft spot for the accountability of "gridlock." Good luck, Bushies. As they say, be careful what you ask for, you just might get it! We liberals will be watching closely - and, you can bet your bottom dollar, we will be savoring the role of loyal opposition to the ruling party and the immunity that it provides.