Well this will be different

This is from Stephanie Grace's column on the new governor.

Asked why he’s a Democrat, Edwards had this to say:

“Well, because I still believe that government has a role to play in improving people’s lives. And that you can’t do everything for everybody, both because it’s inappropriate and because it costs too much, but within reason, we ought to be helping people have a better life. And I don’t believe in a laissez faire approach to that.”

If you're looking for reasons to be optimistic about the incoming governor, this interview is a good place to start.  Edwards also talks about how a Democrat can win statewide office in supposedly "red" Louisiana.

“We are an extremely populist state, but there are some bellwether issues,” he said. “If you’re not pro-life and if you’re not pro-Second Amendment, too many people in Louisiana will not hear the rest of your message. And so you can be 100 percent in sync with them, but they’re never going to support you. And it just so happens that I am pro-life; I am pro-Second Amendment. I’m very populist in some ways as well. And that message was successful.”

Lamar picked out the same two quotes in today too but I wonder if his readers will draw the right conclusion from them.  Throughout the campaign, Edwards told supporters that he would not allow his opponents to "Out-gun me or out-God me." Lamar's article recommends that Democrats seeking statewide office in the future incorporate this tack into their strategy.

If Democrats in Louisiana are wise, however, they’ll take a few pages from their new governor’s playbook. They will need to resign themselves to the fact that they cannot win on some of the same hot-button issues that animate the national party.

There are twice as many pro-life voters in Louisiana as there are pro-choice voters. While the majority of Louisiana citizens favor specific and sensible gun control policy, a candidate who is perceived to be against the Second Amendment couldn’t win dogcatcher. I am not suggesting that Louisiana Democrats abandon these important issues, but if they are to win, they must become more sophisticated about how they define themselves and how they are defined by others.

Lamar is making a subtle point about political messaging. But I'm a little worried that, even though Lamar explicitly writes, "I am not suggesting that Louisiana Democrats abandon these important issues,"  some might read this analysis and determine that, at this moment when reproductive rights are more tenuous than they've been in decades, the smart thing is for liberals to STFU about it. 

That would be a shame because it would be a cowardly and morally indefensible retreat on a crucial question of women's health, not to mention their very status as persons and citizens.  Even John Bel's own preferred image of his brand of "populism" doesn't square with that. 

Other ideas Edwards champions also fit the populist approach. He wants to raise the state minimum wage to $8.50, $1.25 over the federal level, and disputes claims that most people who make the base amount are teenagers. His poster child is a single mom who works at a gas station, has to maintain a household and has to feed a family. The next time you fill up the tank and buy snacks, he suggested, look at the person behind the counter and ask, “How long would she have had to work to do what you just did?”

More importantly for students of Louisiana politics, it doesn't even accurately reflect the new governor's approach to policy. John Bel Edwards's personal beliefs and his "brand" as a candidate might conform to the Pro-Life label, but that doesn't mean his administration will pretend we live in the Dark Ages. 

Take, for instance, his appointee to head the Department of Health and Hospitals. 

Benjamin Clapper, director of Louisiana Right to Life, and the Rev. Gene Mills, head of Louisiana Family Forum, say the discrepancies between two résumés of Dr. Rebekah E. Gee may not disqualify her from being secretary of the state Department of Health and Hospitals — and at this point, neither opposes her nomination — but it raises questions.

Gee was named Tuesday by Gov.-elect John Bel Edwards to spearhead his efforts to expand Medicaid. Her appointment must be confirmed by the state Senate.

“I haven’t spoken to her,” Clapper told The Advocate on Thursday, shortly after announcing issues with her résumé. “I’m saying this is what’s out there. This is what her past looks like.”
He discovered that Gee’s 2007 curriculum vitae, while a clinical scholar with the University of Pennsylvania, included a February 2003 speech at the National Abortion Rights Action League that was not included in her 2012 résumé with the LSU Health Sciences Center.

The lectures listed on Gee’s 11-page LSU résumé go back only to 2006.

“I hope it was a matter of a failure to disclose rather than an intentional effort to advance what may be viewed, and will likely be viewed, as a hostile DHH secretary,” said Mills, who will release past statements from Gee on Friday that he says indicate that the nominee has aggressively advocated for access to abortions.

“I find it ironic that the most pro-life state in the nation has received, somewhat in a clandestine fashion, a very aggressive advocate for the abortion position. I find that not coincidental,” Mills said.

Governor Edwards hasn't even spent a day in office yet and Gene Mills is already pissed. This is going to be different.

Just because they're after you doesn't mean you're not paranoid

You know, if you really wanted to, you could make a strong argument now that President Obama is running a frightening and repressive.. hell,  un-American, even... administration and I wouldn't complain too much about it. At least I wouldn't complain so long as you kept to the actual frightening and repressive policies the President is pursuing. Like, for example, persecuting whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. Or mandating that all federal employees actively snoop and snitch on each other's personal lives. Or indiscriminately killing people with flying robots.

But even when encouraged by Bobby Jindal to "put on your big boy pants" and make an effective case against the President, Republicans can't even seem to figure out which leg goes in first.  Instead of focusing on the actual scary things the administration is doing, Republicans prefer to fixate on the actually not so scary things they imagine it does.

Take their so-called IRS scandal, for example.  It took a while for someone to finally say so, but clearly this was never about partisan political persecution.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service’s screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency said Monday.

An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides “tea party,” lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms “Israel,” ”Progressive” and “Occupy.” The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.

In a conference call with reporters, Danny Werfel said that after becoming acting IRS chief last month, he discovered wide-ranging and improper terms on the lists and said screeners were still using them. He did not specify what terms were on the lists, but said he suspended the use of all such lists immediately.

“There was a wide-ranging set of categories and cases that spanned a broad spectrum” on the lists, Werfel said. He added that his aides found those lists contained “inappropriate criteria that was in use.”

Werfel’s comments suggest the IRS may have been targeting groups other than tea party and other conservative organizations for tough examinations to see if they qualify. The agency has been under fire since last month for targeting those groups.

I don't mean to downplay the significance of this too much. It's probably not the IRS's finest hour.  But it's also not a deliberate attempt at political retribution. What was going on here was an attempt to catch up with the post-Citizen's United universe of money in politics (Not to mention outright fraud.)

An instructive case in this was provided a few years ago by Lamar's look at how Gene Mills' Louisiana Family Forum appears to shuffle money between its tax deductible 501c3 and its politically active 501c4.

It’s not an insignificant amount of money. The LFF is apparently spending six figures every single year on consulting services that are not disclosed. This begs the question: Who is getting paid? And while the nuances in the tax code between 501c3s (tax-deductible non-profits) and 501c4s (advocacy arms) may seem impossibly labyrinthine, it’s actually quite simple: Under the current tax regime, a 501c3 that effectively operates as a lobbying group may attempt to shield itself from exposure by setting up a 501c4, as long as the 501c4 raises its own funding. The problem for the Louisiana Family Forum, insofar as I see it, is that it’s engaging in an obvious shell game, operating its 501c4, almost entirely, with the tax-deductible donations it receives from its 501c3. You can do that, no doubt, but there is no obvious advantage: Every penny that a 501c4 receives from a 501c3 is subjected to laws that govern 501c3 expenditures. Or, at least, it’s supposed to be.

I need to be careful here: I am not accusing Mr. Mills or the Louisiana Family Forum of doing anything illegal. I’m merely suggesting that they’re being shady, that, to me, it appears as if the organization has, for years, acted like it has something to hide– whether it’s shielding the full disclosure of hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting services or ineptly exploiting the distinctions between 501c3s and 501c4s. But more importantly, I strongly believe that, as a matter of public policy, we should not provide a tax advantage to a small, politically-connected cabal of powerful lobbyists who pretend as if their alleged religious convictions entitle them to special treatment under the law.

LFF was precisely the kind of new animal the IRS was trying to figure out. And there were hundreds more like it. It just happened that many of these new creatures most of them, in fact were right-ish flavored politically. 

The IRS did not only pick on conservative groups. It also flagged liberal groups, using word searches for “progressive” in their names, though fewer. Data just released of 175 approved applications reveals that about 122 were conservative and 48 liberal or simply publicly involved, with six indeterminate. Right-wing or conservative groups, however, were responsible for more than 80 percent of the roughly $260 million spent by 501(c)(4)s on the 2012 election cycle.

Though some of the 300 groups under investigation complained about IRS harassment, tax experts and former IRS officials contacted by the New York Times said the groups’ actions “provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.”

None of this will stop Republicans from continuing to play victim, though.  Just like today's Supreme Court decision to nullify Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act won't stop them from pushing through a whole new raft of voter suppression measures next year even as they cry the whole time about "voter fraud."

Louisiana has a Gene Mills problem

Down in New Orleans it's easy to ignore the Louisiana Family Forum  but they do more damage than you may realize.  From Clancy Dubos' Legislative session re-cap:

The lobbying arm of the state’s evangelical Christians is now the first and last word on gambling bills (LFF got Jindal to veto three such bills in short order), and probably a lot more. Some lawmakers reportedly were summoned to meet with LFF leader Gene Mills on the 4th floor of the Capitol — home of the governor’s office — leading to speculation that LFF is now an extension of Team Jindal … or is it the other way around? LFF played a huge role in crafting Jindal’s education “reform” package as well. Witness the little-known Bible school in Central Louisiana that wound up with more than 300 of the 5,000 total available vouchers — more than doubling its enrollment.

It will be interesting to see what happens to LFF once Jindal is gone.  I don't think Mitt will put him on the ticket but he would be in line to become Secretary of Volcano Monitoring or some such thing in a Romney administration.