-->

Tuesday, November 08, 2016

Rigging the Election Guide Part Two: The #lasen swamp

On Election Day 2016 there are over twenty candidates in the race to replace retiring U.S. Senator and noted disgrace to humanity David Vitter. Only two of them can qualify for the runoff, of course. And at this stage, everything we've seen in the polling indicates that one of them will be the dripping mound of animated smarm known as John Neely Kennedy. Kennedy is a despicable person. But he's got the highest job approval and name recognition among this field. And he's the only candidate who has successfully run for statewide office. As difficult as it is to stomach, he's always had the clearest path to the runoff among Republican candidates. So the game really is about who squeezes into that other slot.

Louisiana political convention tells us that spot should go to the strongest Democrat.  In fact, that is still the most likely outcome Tuesday. But it isn't a lock.  Early in the year Democratic poobahs were busy figuring out how to replicate their series of happy accidents winning strategy from the 2015 governor's race. 
Handwerk said the party’s current inclination is to attempt to mimic the gubernatorial race — to come up with a strong, possibly lesser-known candidate to rally behind early while Republicans battle each other for a spot in the runoff.
Yeah that didn't happen. This is the case because of a split among Democratic power brokers initiated by the increasingly exasperating candidacy of Caroline Fayard.

The Fabulous Fayards

Why is Fayard in the race? At first it seemed okay. For a while, a popular parlor game involved figuring a way to game the abnormally large field into a double Democrat runoff. This became an especially tantalizing  prospect after David Duke jumped in.  The now infamous Raycom poll even had Duke polling at 5 percent. If that's a reliable number (it probably isn't) it was thought the presence of Duke and other fringe candidates might have captured enough of the Republican vote in the Year of Trump to deny even Kennedy a runoff spot. But that was always a long shot and the math never really worked out.  Duke is still running as a spoiler. But he's probably there to spoil somebody besides Kennedy. More on that in a bit.

Early polling showed Fayard didn't have the numbers to compete. Her campaign was always light on substance anyway. To illustrate this, I refer you to political consultant Lamar White's endorsement of her in this September 2 blog post. The points on which Lamar makes his argument for her are these.

1) She is relatively young. 
If she is successful, at 38, she would be the youngest woman ever elected to the United States Senate. All told, 116 different people have been elected to the Senate in their thirties; not a single one of them was a woman.
2) She hold a prestigious degree.
Caroline is an Ivy League graduate; she finished at the front of her class at one of the top five law schools in the country.

3) She's worked with and for powerful people.
She’s worked at one of the most successful financial institutions in the world (and even at the White House). She’s taught law at Loyola in New Orleans, and as a lawyer, she’s worked on some of the biggest environmental damages cases in American history. Last year, she helped her brother launch a new airline company. A friggin airline company.
LOL "A friggin airline company," exclaims a breathless Lamar there.  Does Donald Trump have one of those?  Also the "successful financial institution" was Goldman Sachs.

4) Caroline represents "a new generation of leadership in Louisiana" whatever the hell that means.

At no point does Lamar say anything specific about what Senator Fayard's agenda is for a tenure in the US Senate. What constituencies does she represent?  Who will she fight against? Lamar doesn't say.  All that matters to him here is the personal profile. The post most reminded me of an old Gambit cover story by Jeremy Alford where then rising star Bobby Jindal was celebrated for his "Geek Appeal" rather than substantively analyzed for his policy agenda. As if to drive home the geek cred point, the post is accompanied by a podcast where Lamar interviews Fayard. See, she's cool. She'll come on this website and chat with us.

Lamar is a friend so I don't want to be too harsh here. I hope if he reads this he takes it as constructive criticism.  But in recent years, especially, he seems to base more of his political pronouncements on his personal knowledge of the individual candidates. Too many of his endorsements can be summarized as "I've met candidate so and so and they were very nice to me."  That's great. But it's not helpful to most readers. If anything, this personality based approach represents the opposite of "new generation" style politics.  It's just a repackaged version of good ol' boy networking. (Fayard is not an ol' boy, though, so I guess it's #woke.)

Anyway back to the race. Once it became apparent that she wasn't an early contender, it made more sense for Fayard to drop out, endorse Campbell, "unite the party" so to speak, and let the Democrats claim their default runoff spot. That didn't happen, though. It's a curious thing. Again, I'm not sure why Fayard stayed in the race. But I'm pretty clear on the effect of her being there. And her behavior in the meantime has ranged from plain embarrassing to downright suspicious.

And the Fayards are a suspicious lot to begin with. I've pointed you over to AZ for some background on this previously.  Calvin and Caroline Fayard have played dubious roles profiteering off of the BP settlement and Wisner trust disputes.  Caroline likes to call this "taking on BP" in her campaign ads. It's nothing of the sort, of course. Hilariously, she won't even endorse the state's attempt to sue the oil and gas industry over coastal erosion. But we've covered that already too.

Here is a more recent AZ post reminding us that Calvin Fayard was among the brigade of Uptown New Orleans aristocrats who, during the post-Katrina aftermath, barricaded themselves in their mansions behind their own guns and private security while taking verbal pot shots at the "demographics" of the city. This is from the Vanity Fair article Jason quotes.
Some of the city’s richest residents stepped into the breach, taking security into their own hands. In New Orleans’s upscale Uptown neighborhood, well-heeled and well-armed property owners, sometimes with security guards to assist them, kept possible looters at bay, carrying firearms openly in their neighborhoods and looking after neighbors’ homes and valuables—even keeping a close watch on friends’ irreplaceable art collections. Attorney Calvin Fayard—one of the region’s major political fund-raisers for the Democratic Party, and the owner of the so-called Wedding Cake House, one of the city’s grand mansions—would remain at home and on guard with a coterie of like-minded friends. Some would use their powerboats to rescue the marooned. Their neighbors would dine on gourmet food from nearby specialty stores. Some would bathe in their stagnant swimming pools. One or two would take the opportunity to fly by helicopter to the office to shred potentially sensitive business documents—to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands, should law and order break down altogether.
You might remember some of the other members of this A-Team.  Here is Ashton O'Dwyer in 2005 being interviewed from his stronghold.
In rich white enclaves like Uptown, residents are wary of sounding racist. But with their deep business and family connections, they say they are determined to ensure the new city will be very different than the old one, which for so long has been associated with crime, poor schools and corruption.

"Whatever you do, don't put people back in the city who are criminals and who are incapable of, or unwilling to, help themselves," said Mr. O'Dwyer, a volatile, white 57-year-old lawyer.

"What was once unacceptable in polite, respectable society has not only become commonplace over the past 30 years of Negro rule in this city, but it has become acceptable and I am not going to stand for it any more," said the fifth-generation New Orleans resident. "If we return to the same old, same old . . . I'm outta here."
And this is Jimmy Reiss. 
The new city must be something very different, Mr. Reiss says, with better services and fewer poor people. "Those who want to see this city rebuilt want to see it done in a completely different way: demographically, geographically and politically," he says. "I'm not just speaking for myself here. The way we've been living is not going to happen again, or we're out."
So these are the Fayards.  This is the world they come from.  And here is how they've applied these values to their political activities.  Caroline was a contributor to former Louisiana Congressman Richard Baker. Baker famously declared after Katrina that God had "cleaned up public housing" in New Orleans. That's pretty well in keeping with the Fayard ethos as laid out above. But there's more.

Much has been made in the news (even today, in fact) of the Fayards' close associations with the Clintons. In 2008 Calvin Fayard was a big time fundraiser for Hillary associated with a group calling themselves "Hillraisers." You may recall that after Hillary lost the nomination to Barack Obama, some of these people had a difficult time reconciling themselves to that fact. Fayard was among them.  Here he is at a McCain/Palin fundraiser aimed at courting disappointed Democrats. Fayard and his "liberal Democrat" friends were especially awed by Sarah Palin.
John Coale, an attorney in Washington, D.C. who is married to Greta Van Susteren, has worked with John McCain on tobacco legislation, and includes Nancy Pelosi among his friends, estimates he single-handedly brought in "50 percent" of the people who attended the fundraiser. He, too, was upset at how "Obama and Howard Dean and the crew" handled the situation as Clinton faced misogyny. He also questioned Obama's fitness for the job: "I've met with Obama three times… I think he was full of platitudes then and he's still full of platitudes now."

"I'm a liberal Democrat," Cole continued. "Sarah Palin just reinforced the reason I'm for McCain. I think she probably has more experience [than Obama], but I think it's appalling the way she has been treated," referring again to perceived sexism.

Calvin Fayard, another lawyer in New Orleans, said he "came away a lot more comfortable" with Palin after meeting her. "She struck me as being very energetic, very knowledgeable, and at least in touch with the rest of the world."
Oy! Here is an NYT account of the same event. 
More than 1,000 people paid $1,000 each for tickets to the main fund-raiser. Nearly 250 people who contributed $25,000 got dinner beforehand with Mr. McCain. 

The reception for former Clinton supporters, which also was attended by Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, was spearheaded by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a former telecommunications entrepreneur and “Hillraiser” who brought in more than $100,000 for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign; Calvin Fayard, also a former Hillraiser and longtime Democratic donor from Louisiana, and Miguel Lausell, a former senior political adviser to the Clinton campaign from Puerto Rico.
The Hillraisers and the PUMA movement they spawned went on from their infatuation with Palin to other such luminous achievements as spreading (possibly initiating, actually) the disgusting racist "Birther" movement against Obama which, in turn, became a primary vehicle by which Donald Trump entered our national political discourse.  So it turns out we have Calvin Fayard, who is now spending his own money and calling in political favors from within the Landrieu-Carville orbit to push his daughter's Senate candidacy, to thank for a lot of things.  Just keep all of that in mind as we look at how Caroline has conducted her campaign, particularly where it concerns her David Duke fixation.

Usually we talk about David Duke's maneuverings with special attention to his grifting.  Sure, he's a deplorable white supremacist. But the actual reason he even shows up above ground is because he has a nose for money.  The most likely reason Duke is in the Senate race is because one way or another someone is paying him to be there. Recall that when his name first came up as a possible candidate this year, Duke was rumored to be entering as a challenger to US Rep Steve Scalise. At the time we speculated that perhaps some Democrat leaning jokers were attempting to highlight Scalise's controversial association with Duke by placing the two of them together on a ballot much the same way they once tried to run a porn star against David Vitter. At the last minute, though, Duke suddenly found himself running for Senate.  What happened there?  Did he find a more generous patron? 

On the other hand, Duke's motivation for running could be as simple as Duke thinking he could pull in a few extra donations or online followers by attaching his brand to Donald Trump. That's reasonable. Not doubt he has benefited from doing just that.

Similarly, Caroline Fayard has benefited from attaching her brand to David Duke.  Remember, Duke has never polled any better than 3 to 5 percent. But Fayard, has treated him as though he were her principal opponent. From the moment Duke entered the race, Fayard leaped at the opportunity to make the fringe candidate who deserves nobody's attention the center of her campaign. She was the most aggressive at throwing herself into the national media circus Duke inevitably generates.  Here she is on the Maddow show back in August soliciting donations.   All of the candidates tried some version of this, of course. But Fayard has themed the bulk of her advertising and fundraising appeals with the Duke bogeyman.  

The Fayard campaign's most reprehensible use of Duke was a disgusting attack on Foster Campbell that distorted his words and one photograph into an easily disproven lie that Campbell is in some way allied with Duke. Once the lie was exposed, Fayard was roundly shamed for it in the press. Here, for example, is Stephanie Grace giving her the whatfor.  The Alliance For Good Government even withdrew its endorsement of her.  A lot of the people her campaign had drawn into its corner began to feel like they had been used.

But then Fayard doubled down. Refusing to back off from the absurd assertions of her ads, she continued running them. Even more shockingly, she stood by them in person during the second debate at Dillard. Had Duke himself not been on the same stage ranting about Jews, Fayard's bald faced lie would have been the evening's low point by far.

There are people who insist, though, that Fayard's internal polling shows her morally indefensible strategy is working.  Even if they're correct (and we'll know soon enough) that won't necessarily put her in the runoff.  It will keep Campbell out, though.  I hope they're real proud of that "win" if they get it.

Given her, lack of experience in government, her poor positioning in the polls and her campaign's lack of substance, we've often asked why the heck Fayard is even in this race. Her behavior over the final weeks of the election suggest her sole purpose may be to deny Campbell a slot in the runoff.  I don't know enough to say why that is happening.  But I've tried to make it clear that the Fayards aren't exactly trustworthy.  And if it turns out they have friends of friends in common with friends of friends of another candidate well... a lot of these people have friends is all I'm saying. The Fayards are friends and neighbors with wealthy plutocrats who wanted New Orleans ethnically cleansed after Katrina.  That Caroline wants us to think of her now as the anti-Duke is a staggering insult.

Buying in/Buying out

David Duke doesn't have any friends, of course.  But, as we said, he does like money. Cue Clancy. 
Clancy DuBos, a political commentator who has covered Mr. Duke for decades, dismissed the media attention as “cheap headlines and click bait.”

“He’s not in this to win the Senate, he’s in this to make money,” he said.
I continue in my disappointment that no one else has asked about his angle in those terms. It's a natural thread to pull on given what we know about Duke.  He is and always has been a hustler. But he's only one of twenty something candidates here which makes him a hustler among hustlers. So while we're asking why Duke might have been bought out of a congressional race and into the Senate race, we should ask about some of these other transactions as well.

Duke isn't the only Republican angling for the hard core Trumpista vote.  And this has to be frustrating as hell for sandwich magnate John Fleming. Back when he announced his candidacy, on December 7, 2015 (a day that will live in infamy) Fleming had to figure he would be the most extreme right wing nut in the game. Fleming has devoted his tenure in Congress to making a name for himself as a petulant Tea Party insurgent. He has frothed frequently against Obama's health insurance reforms. His hard stance against reproductive rights is so out of touch with reality that he shared an Onion article about an "Abortionplex" thinking it was actual news. Most embarrassing to him and to the entire flood prone state of Louisiana was his vote against relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy.

And still Fleming can't corner the market on reactionary assholery.  Not with Duke hanging around. And not with Rob Maness flanking him among Trump supporters as well. Maness is more flamboyantly pro-gun and pro-life than Fleming but adds just a bit of the populist skepticism of Republican establishment policies with regard to war and Wall Street that puts him slightly more in tune with Trump's schizophrenic messaging than Fleming is.

The Fleming campaign actually attempted to buy Maness out of the race last month. Not unusual, that. What was unusual was Maness' choice not to take the money and instead run to the papers with the story. What is he getting that is better than whatever Fleming offered?  It's hard to say.  We did notice that he's had a few TV ads running paid for by something called "Warrior PAC."
Warrior PAC, which is being run out of California, is backing retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness. It has raised $10,000 from Bo Reily of the William B. Reily Company in New Orleans and has roughly that same amount in the bank. PAC director Robert San Luis said via email that Reily has also paid for polling. 
You may know the William B. Reily Company as Reily Foods, a century old New Orleans based grocery distributor. It owns several well-known brands most notably Luzianne tea, CDM coffee, and Blue Plate mayonnaise... which is amusing to those of us who have been in the habit of pronouncing Maness's name the way New Orleanians sometimes say, "Mah-nezz."  It's also funny to think that Maness didn't sell out to the Sandwich Man because he already had too much Mayonnaise money.

But here's the other thing about the Reilys.  They're not just a prominent New Orleans family. They are a Prominent New Orleans Business Family. To get a sense of this, please take a minute to peruse this January obituary of Boatner Reily III The CV portion of it really gains momentum toward the end. 
Reily also served on the New Orleans Aviation Board.

He attended Metairie Park Country Day School, Woodberry Forest School in Virginia, Yale University and Tulane, from which he graduated in 1950. He was a captain in the Rex organization for 10 years and reigned as Rex in 1982.

An avid runner, he started the Rex organization’s “royal run” around Audubon Park on Mardi Gras morning. In that inaugural run, he wore running shoes painted gold and decorated with colorful ribbons.

Reily was a major contributor to Tulane. The Reily Family Foundation contributed to the Tulane Hospital and Clinic for the construction of the Reily Foundation Pavilion, which opened in 1991, and was a major contributor to the Reily Student Recreation Center.

Cowen said he met Reily when Cowen was interviewing for the president’s job at Tulane.

“He asked incredibly perceptive questions and was extraordinarily kind in the delivery of those questions and listened with great intent,” he said.

Cowen said he often met with Reily in the first years of his tenure leading Tulane. “He provided great insight to New Orleans, its culture and the university,” he said.

He called Reily, the Reily family and its foundation “one of the pillars of Tulane University for generations. They’ve been incredibly generous philanthropically and with their time.”
Rex captain, GNOF founder, Tulane benefactor, personal friend of Scott fucking Cowen. That's all very pleasant.  One more thing about that, though.  While it's certainly believable that these blue bloods and their scions would be enthusiastic Tea Partiers, they prefer to identify as patricians.  The Reilys just don't have all that much in common with the typical Maness voter. In fact, they're actually a lot more like.. the Fayards. But we'll come back to that.

First let's note that one candidate actually was successfully bought out of the race.  His name is Abhay Patel. He dropped out on October 20. See, during the course of the campaign, Patel happened to make a friend.
But during campaign appearances, Patel had an opportunity to visit with (US Rep. Charles) Boustany. He found that he and the Lafayette Republican shared many of same pastimes – they both are avid readers who enjoy talking history – and both see the world through a similar political prism.

"Though we are not in the position we hoped to be in, I am committed to working tirelessly to ensure that we elect a conservative Republican to the United States Senate," Patel said of his endorsement of Boustany.

“I found him a very bright, very articulate young man,” Boustany said in an interview, recalling their first encounter at a Jefferson Parish GOP function.

“Abhay Patel’s passion and knowledge for conservative values, small government, and the Constitution have impressed me over that last several months. His campaign has been focused on ideas and substance rather than platitudes and lip service," Boustany said.

Patel, a lawyer, said he and Boustany talked about creating a committee that could advise Boustany on who to recommend for federal judges and prosecutors in Louisiana; what kind of positions a conservative lawyer would take.
How sweet. They got along famously. I hope Boustany kept the receipt.

Boustany in the Bayou

Oh yeah. Hey, by the way, Charles Boustany is also a candidate here. Did you forget?  He's not out of the running by any stretch. In addition to Patel's backing, he also enjoys the endorsement of the Times-Picayune as well as the always influential Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand. Stephanie Grace even gave him something of a compliment during the final debate when she described him as the "policy wonk in the mix."  Of course, if the policy you are wonking about involves protecting his friends' right to exploit virtual slave labor, or voting 60 times to repeal Obamacare, it's difficult to see that as a positive.

Boustany has two paths to the runoff. One of those would be going through Kennedy.  And he has tried this. His direct attack on Kennedy, this ad featuring an adorable pug and Kennedy's all around sliminess, was the best produced by any campaign. But, as we said at the outset of this post, Kennedy's slot is pretty well entrenched. If Boustany can't edge him out of the runoff, then Plan B is edge out everyone else. How would someone like Charles Boustany go about accomplishing that?

Well, first of all, let's remember that the seemingly mild mannered bespectacled Boustany is actually something of a heavy.  This is where Ethan Brown's Murder In the Bayou is instructive. I say this, not so much because of the book's allegation that Boustany may have been a client of some of the murdered prostitutes in Jennings. I can't really speak to the veracity of that. Having read the book, though, I'd say his connection to the Boudreaux Inn and its operators is more than just circumstantial.

We don't have time to get too far into it here but I do recommend the book. It's disappointing to see the political press brush this off. Their oft-repeated mantra that Brown's chapter on Boustany is "unsourced" is flat out untrue. Brown cites testimony by witnesses interviewed by the task force investigating the murders, ex-employees of the motel, a high profile drug dealer he interviews, as well as, yes, some anonymous sources.  But even anonymous sources are.. you know.. sources.  Unfortunately the media herd tends to steer clear of stuff like this while they're in campaign mode. Maybe they'll come back to it at some point.

What Brown clearly shows, in any case, is that Boustany field rep, Martin Guillory, was running the motel during the peak of its infamy and that he was familiar with the victims and several of the suspects. It's also obvious that Guillory was more than just a bit player in Boustany's world. And that's really the point here.
Boustany's power base in Southwest Louisiana is tied up with a decades-old system dominated by corrupt and brutal Sheriffs along the I-10 drug route. Brown's book focuses on Jeff Davis Parish but the problem is more widespread. Not only is it conceivable that the Congressman's political operation would connect to these criminals somewhere along the line, it's actually more difficult to imagine that it wouldn't.

Boustany is tough and shrewd. He's also backed by people who are themselves tough and shrewd. Newell Normand is one example. Sheriffs like this guy, I guess. He's also the only candidate who we're pretty sure has successfully manipulated the field. It's interesting that Patel can be bought out by Boustany but Maness can't be bought out by Fleming. Duke, perhaps the most corrupt person in the race, apparently can't be bought out by anybody.  Meanwhile the Fayards who just happen to be in the same category of plutocrat as the Maness-backing Reilys are stubbornly running interference against Foster Campbell.

It would be a stretch to tie all of that together into one conspiracy.  That's not really what I'm trying to say. It's just that sometimes the maneuverings of different but similarly interested parties accidentally work toward the same purpose. In this case, it is pretty neat the way all of that lines up in a way that could clear Fleming and Campbell out of Boustany's way, isn't it?  He might not make it, but Boustany certainly is an interesting character. Watch out for that guy.

Rigging Accomplished

Blue dog

I fucking hate Blue Dog. He's the perfect avatar for this dismal election.  Anyway I'm gonna finish writing this Senate post and then we'll have some whiskey or something.  Have fun smashing the patriarchy.  Also, if you are on Twitter, please consider our exit poll.


Monday, November 07, 2016

Rigging the election guide: Part One

Y'all, I've got soooo much to say about the Senate race that I sincerely hope I get to before tomorrow. But this is Revenge On 2016 Week and, well, I have been watching a lot of sports and drinking a lot of beer and stuff.  Yesterday, I watched the Saints get back to .500 over at Varg's gallery.  After that we hit the GBV show at Republic.

Bob

Because we were mushed so close to the stage, a person we made friends with snagged the setlist.

GBV setlist

So there's a lot going on.  All I can do is promise to try.

But there's more than just that Senate race on your ballot. And, even if you live in Jefferson Parish, it turns out you have to wait in line to vote just like everybody else. So it's a good idea to go in prepared. I expect everyone knows what they're going to do about the Presidential race by now. Besides we already know that Trump has a lock on Louisiana and that Clinton has a lock on the election overall so I won't bother with that.

Instead, let's take this time to look at some of the down-ballot questions. In Orleans Parish, this means a charter change affecting the Inspector General's office. And statewide, there is a slate of six constitutional amendments to consider.  Stuff like this is often the least sexy and most time consuming part of the ballot if you haven't been following along.  Luckily there's a wealth of information out there to help you study up real quicklike.  Here are some essential links.

The non-partisan Public Affairs Research Council puts out an excellent guide to the constitutional amendments including detailed arguments for or against each of them.

The Louisiana League of Women Voters guide also provides its own analysis of all the ballot items as well as candidates' answers to a questionnaire.  Not all of the candidates send in responses, unfortunately. But it's still a good look the candidates and issues.

Here is NOLA.com's hub for everything it has run on the candidates and issues this year.

And here is The Advocate's version.

And, of course, not to be missed is Anitgravity's  "NEW ORLEANS HARM REDUCTION NETWORK PRESENTS: ANTI-OPPRESSION/ ANTI-BS VOTING GUIDE" which is certainly a mouthful to say but absolutely essential reading. If you do not like B.S., oppression, or harm, (and who does?) this is the guide for you.

Anyway so here's what you're voting on.

The charter change divorces the Independent Police Monitor from the Inspector General's office. This is a settlement between IPM Susan Hutson and the IG Ed Quatreveaux worked out primarily by City Councilman Jared Brossett last year after Quatreveaux tried to have her fired. The disputes are over budgetary and bureaucratic territory mostly. But there is also, at least, the appearance that Quatreveaux placed his thumb on the scale on behalf of NOPD a few times and thus directly interfered with the IPM's mission.

The gist of this is the IPM can likely operate more freely without Quatreveaux  involving himself. Besides, everyone involved wants this split to happen and there's no compelling reason to vote against it.

As to the constitutional amendments, those are actually easy this time.  Just go ahead and vote against all of them.  You can follow the links above if you want a more in-depth argument, but here's one or two lines on each.

C.A. 1 adds mandatory educational or experiential requirements for parish Registrars of Voters. Its effect, especially in rural parishes, could complicate the process of hiring competent people to fill these offices.  It's also just plain not necessary.

C.A. 2 allows college and universities boards to hike tuition at their discretion without legislative oversight which they quite clearly will do. It will make higher education less affordable and less equitably accessible.  Naturally a whole mess of wealthy conservative donors and PACs are all for it. 
About $100,000 of the pro-tuition change PAC's contributions came from the Louisiana Flagship Coalition, a nonprofit set up in 2010 to support LSU and push for Louisiana's most prominent university to have autonomy from the state Legislature.

The flagship coalition is run by Reilly and Grigsby and has Flores and Bollinger on the board. Roy O. Martin -- a current member of the state Board of Regents -- is also involved with the group, according to the organization's tax forms filed in 2014.

Flores, head of Freeport-McMoRan, Inc.'s oil and gas division, also put up $100,000 of his personal money to push Amendment 2 on the Louisiana ballot, even though he lives in Texas. Reilly donated $67,550 worth of free advertising on digital billboards his company owns throughout the state. Bollinger Shipyards contributed an additional $5,000.

Other notable contributions included $5,000 from the University of New Orleans Foundation and $10,000 from Todd Graves, founder of Raising Cane's, according to campaign finance forms filed with the Louisiana Ethics Administration.

Three of the four men leading this effort are also some of the largest contributors to conservative causes and Republican candidates in Louisiana.


C.A. 3 is the result of a compromise stumbled into during the legislative session. What was originally an effort to raise revenue by eliminating the federal deduction on state corporate taxes was knocked back to a theoretically "revenue neutral" measure that exchanges that deduction for a flatter set of corporate tax brackets.  Actually this is hard to pin down but proponents still insist this is a net gain fiscally.  I am skeptical.  I do think doing away with the deduction is a good idea.  I'd prefer not to couple that with a corporate tax break, though.

C.A. 4 is kind of a "Blue Lives Matter" but for property taxes bill.  It offers a tax exemption for spouses of police or fire or military service personnel killed in the line of duty. It sounds nice and patriotic as well as charitable but it's a strange and improper use of tax policy.  Here, also, is a bit from the Antigravity commentary on this amendment with which I concur.
Where are the bills that protect, honor, and advantage the protesters who were attacked by police and National Guard in Baton Rouge this summer? Where’s the ad valorem property tax exemption for the family of Alton Sterling (may he rest in peace)? We need better ways to support our heroes.
C.A. 5 is compelling in principle.  It proposed to create a "revenue stabilization trust fund" which would mitigate the fluctuating revenue effects of Louisiana's fossil fuels based "boom and bust" cycle. We've actually written about this quite a bit.  But I'm not convinced this plan actually accomplishes what is says it does.

C.A. 6 is problematic because it would undo the specific will of the voters in myriad circumstances under which they have approved dedicated funds for various purposes. It also encourages legislators to act lazily and irresponsibly during the budget process which is something they need little more of.

In Orleans, there are also a handful of neighborhood improvement and/or security district parcel fees. Those are always bad news. If you see one on your ballot, vote against it.

So there's your cheat sheet to the boring stuff. Yes on the charter change. No on everything else. That should rig things up nicely.

Now.. about that Senate race....

Later tonight. I'll try.

Humble suggestion for Gambit's New Orleanian of the Year

Stuart "Neil" Fisher
The increasingly bizarre litigation over the World Trade Center building appeared to quickly unravel Monday (Nov. 7) when neither the man behind the lawsuit nor any lawyers representing his company showed up in court to pursue the case.

Two Canal Street Investors' case against the city of New Orleans challenges the lease of the 33-story building to a Four Seasons hotel development team with plans for a $360 million renovation after a competitive bid process last year.

Stuart "Neil" Fisher, the Florida real estate investor who owns Two Canal Street Investors, didn't show up in Orleans Civil District Court for a hearing on whether the case should be dismissed -- 14 days before the case is scheduled for trial.

The hearing comes after Fisher, who has a track record of failed deals and bankruptcies, claimed a Jordanian investor named either Amjed Abu Neil or Amjed Neel and a Florida man identified only "Mr. Ed" had joined the company, according to attorneys defending the case.

"Mr. Ed, like the horse?" said Judge Tiffany Chase on Monday, referring to the 1960s TV show featuring a talking horse named Mister Ed, drawing laughter from the courtroom.

"Some of the things that have happened in this case -- you could not make it up," Chase said.
The judge has certainly got that right.  I wouldn't be surprised if Fisher's original plan was to show up in court wearing a hat and fake mustache and say he was actually this "Amjed Abu Neil" character.  Turns out what he actually did was even stranger.  After, apparently, faxing documents for the hearing to the wrong office, he spent the rest of the day attempting to submit them via Facebook.
Even though he didn't appear in court, Fisher posted documents to his Facebook page as the hearing was happening. He posted photos of himself last week that show him in the French Quarter, although he commented that he wasn't in the city at that time.

At one point last month, Fisher said in an email that he had resigned as president. He then posted a meme of the actor Arnold Schwarzenegger with the words "I'll be back. Soon."
This trial is set to begin (or be thrown out) November 21. 

Anyway, Fisher has managed to delay Mitch Landrieu's showcase development project for an entire year in spectacularly entertaining fashion.  He deserves some sort of recognition for that. Or, at least, he should get his $10 back.

Last day on Earth

Enjoy it.

We'll try and get a couple of election guides up today.

Sunday, November 06, 2016

Don't throw Bebe out with the bathwater just yet

Ok so he didn't beat Alabama. But I don't think that result should be seen as a dealbreaker for Ed Orgeron in his bid to keep the LSU job.  Let's wait and see how the team responds to the tough loss before we decide on that.

Besides, Orgeron's team played a hell of a game last night. They were clearly up for it. They played hard. And mostly, they played smart. Two wasted timeouts were the glaring exception to that but otherwise the team didn't make the kind of mistakes that indicate they weren't prepared. They played toe to toe with the top ranked team in the country.  The game broke on one Alabama drive extended by a questionable late hit call and which culminated in a touchdown run aided by several uncalled instances of holding. That's tough. But the point is they showed up.

The question that affects Orgeron now is can he get them to show up again.  Getting the team focused after a loss like that to face a daunting series of opponents is arguably a truer test of the coach's mettle anyway.  Let's keep watching. 

Saturday, November 05, 2016

Time to draw the line



The Revenge On 2016 Tour is well on its way. There is no stopping this train.  The universe owes us a staggering debt this year and we mean to collect.  In fact, we've already begun.

First we got together in the Superdome to drink the Seahawk tears.

Then we got to see the Greatest World Series Of All Time come to its happy end.

There's more to come, though. We've got a whole hit list to punch through culminating in Trump's staggering humiliation on Election Day.  God grant us the sta-mi-nah.

Next up, Bama.
This is Fournette’s week. It’s his game. It’s his last shot, more than likely, to achieve a goal that the NFL draft-eligible junior made three years ago. It’s his final crack at big, bad Bama and coach Nick Saban, whom Fournette knows well from his days as a sought-after recruit.

It’s a chance at revenge for the worst outing of his college career last November in Tuscaloosa.

“I just think he’s going to play angry this game,” left tackle K.J. Malone said. “He played angry against Ole Miss and you saw what he did, but I think he’s got more fire this week, and I love it. People doubted him after the (Alabama) game last year, but I know he’s one of the best players in the country, and I really think he’s going to prove it this week.”

The fire this week is there. Interim coach Ed Orgeron earlier this week called him the “most motivated guy on the team.”

“His want-to to have success against Alabama,” Orgeron said, channeling the man he replaced, “is as high of a player as I’ve seen.”

Fournette and safety Jamal Adams gave an impassioned, fiery speech to the team after practice Wednesday, Orgeron said. Earlier in the day, Fournette tweeted, “Remember they told me that we will fail.....”

Fournette did not speak to reporters this week or last week. His meetings with local media have been limited since last year's loss to the Tide.

Who is getting lifted up?

These are some of the comments tweeted out of yesterday's City Council budget hearings by NOLA.com reporter Greg LaRose. They are from Mark Romig's presentation concerning the New Orleans Tourism Marketing Corp.'s budget and goals. None of this showed up in either paper's account of the hearing each of which focused on the "spirited seniors" in the audience there to comment on the Council on Aging portion of the meeting.  If you want, you can always go watch the whole six hour meeting for yourself but it's nicer when the reporters report for you.

Anyway here's what you would have learned had you happened to be following along on Twitter.  The city's Tricentennial is coming. To help you celebrate, plans are already underway to launch the next marketing slogan and hashtag everyone is sure to love.


Get ready to be toast, everybody.  In the meantime, try not to get too over-fested.

The plague of festivals and mini-festivals arises from the unrelenting pressure to grow the number of annual visitors regardless of the costs. Other "destination cities" are beginning to grow wary of this practice.
But can tourism be too much of a good thing? When all the undoubted benefits are outweighed by the sheer aggravation, when numbers and money, the measurable things, are eclipsed by less quantifiable downsides, such as congestion, jobs that remain low-paid and insecure, and a deterioration in life quality for permanent residents?

One European city thinks so, and is daring to challenge the conventional wisdom that tourism is the bright white hope of a modern economy. The new Mayor of Barcelona, Ada Colau, was elected with a mandate to clip the mighty tourist industry’s wings. The last straw for residents, it seems, was the large number of young visitors fuelling a night-time economy deemed ever more antisocial. That, and the magnet that favourite areas of the city offered to petty criminals who saw tourists as easy prey.

The mayor has now declared a moratorium on new hotel licences and moved to clamp down on unregistered and illegal apartment-lets. The night-time economy will be subject to tougher policing. Business is already blaming her for killing the goose that laid the golden egg. But is she? Or is it rather a matter of the residents’ reclaiming the city as their own?

Unfortunately none of the decision-makers among our city's leadership is asking these sorts of questions. Instead we press on with schemes to jam as many visitors in as we possibly can going so far, even, as to open up the process by which our very neighborhoods are converted to de-facto hotels.  Nevermind the burdens this places on neighbors or on housing costs. We need to grow this tourism biz even more.
We keep doing this because we continue to labor under the notion that somehow we're going to figure a way everyone can "reap the benefits."



But that's not going to happen anytime soon.  Not without major reforms.  The following is from a NOLA.com article about tourism and its impact published back in August. It's a helpful reference when we're talking about the return on our "investment" in the industry.
The web of local subsidies has grown so complex that few know the full extent to which tourism in New Orleans benefits from tax support. 

Hotel stays, the single largest source of the subsidies, are subject to a dozen taxes, each established under a different state statute or city ordinance to benefit one of eight different entities. Some of the taxes are further broken down and redistributed among the recipients, obfuscating the true scale of the dedications and who benefits from them.

The BGR study estimated that the hotel taxes generated $165.9 million in 2015. After accounting for all the pass-throughs and levels of distributions, the watchdog group estimated that about $126.8 million -- 76 percent -- went to tourism-related entities. The remaining 24 percent went to public services such as city government, transportation and education.

No other major American destination city devotes a smaller share of its hotel taxes to local government than New Orleans, according to a recent study by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. On average, the 17 cities in the study dedicated 65 percent of hotel taxes to basic services. New York dedicates 100 percent to its city government.

In addition to the hotel taxes, there are other special taxes and local sales tax exemptions that benefit tourism that were not included in BGR's examination. When they are included, the total dollar value of tourism subsidies was an estimated $154 million in 2015.
At present there is no plan to disentangle this web of revenue streams in a way that will allow us to "lift our people with tourism," according to LaToya's invocation.  But we're going to keep on growing the business in the meantime.  Because reasons.

So who is getting lifted up?  It sure isn't municipal government. As all those angry seniors can attest, the mayor's budget has cut most agencies receiving general fund dollars by five percent in order to shift more money to so called "public safety" priorities such as hiring another 400 police officers.  In addition the mayor is seeking to raise money directly off the backs of residents through a regressive tax on alcohol and an even more controversial proposal to double the number of traffic cameras in town.  The mayor says the budget this year is "balanced on a knife's edge."  And wherever we look, we find the poorest and most vulnerable among us are stuck with the pointiest ends of that knife.

Meanwhile, the Convention Center has all sorts of money it can't figure out how to spend.
While business has remained flat, the taxes received by the convention center have steadily risen. A decade ago, it collected $25 million annually. It's now up to $59 million, mostly from dedicated hotel/motel taxes.

Records show the center has amassed a reserve of $222 million. The reserve accumulation comes from an annual budget surplus, $25 million in 2015 - the Morial Convention Center doesn't spend all the money it takes in, even as the city itself pinches pennies to pave streets and pay police.
So while we're shaking down motorists and asking seniors to sacrifice, all of this public money under the Convention Center's purview is going where?  Right back into the tourism industry, of course. Which is to say it's going into the hands of the city's wealthiest oligarchs.  
Now the Convention Center wants to grow again. It plans to spend $175 million on a new project that includes creating a headquarters hotel.

“There will be entertainment, housing - we want the people who work there to live nearby - restaurants, attractions that are uniquely New Orleans-kind of attractions,” Johnson says. He envisions "a real 'Mardi Gras World' that the guy from Peoria that's down here in July, he can really experience Mardi Gras in a real, professionally done, multimedia interactive experience.”
Nevermind that "Mardi Gras in July" monstrosity for a sec.  Here's what the hotel project is all about. 
Things seemed to be falling into place when the Convention Center's board in early 2015 began negotiating with a group led by the Dallas-based Howard Hughes Corp. and local developers Joe Jaeger and Darryl Berger.

Hughes is an experienced national retail developer and owns the nearby Outlet Collection at the Riverwalk. Jaeger and Berger are both successful local hotel developers.

Johnson anticipated that the negotiators would reach an accord last summer and the Convention Center board would vote on whether to award the development team exclusive leasing rights, perhaps by the end of last year.

That still hasn't happened. "We're still slogging through it," Johnson said last week. "As you can imagine, it's very complicated."

It's unclear precisely what's holding things up.

One stumbling block, Johnson said, is that both sides are trying to get comfortable with the massive level of public and private investment contemplated. Although a deal has not been finalized, the board's vision for what should happen on the tract "is still intact," he said.

Johnson added that the discussions are complex and weighed down by a myriad of factors, including ironing out traffic plans and zoning changes. "We keep attending to those in hopes that we can eventually find a way to be able to accommodate everybody's concerns," he said.

Berger had a similar take, saying the deal has a lot of moving parts. "In a nutshell, it is complicated, to say the least," he said.

But he added that he expects an agreement by the end of the year, with plans being drawn up in 2017 and construction of a hotel beginning the year after that. Berger acknowledged some parties to the discussion are feeling "a bit of frustration" but said he personally is not. 
It's stalled a bit for the time being but Berger doesn't sound too discouraged. The "moving parts" referred to there involve a coordination of complicated zoning changes  and traffic planning in the works to create something the poo-bahs are calling the Trade District. Long time followers of your humble Yellow Blog may recognize this portion of our Noligarchs Map as "Jaegertown."



To this end, the Convention Center has been granted even more power to siphon off public money.
The Louisiana House unanimously approved legislation Tuesday (April 26) granting the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center new taxing authority to expand upriver with a 1,200-room hotel and entertainment district.

The bill state Rep. Walt Leger sponsored would open the way for the Convention Center to use tax increment financing, typically with a special sales tax that pays for infrastructure for a new commercial development.
Berger and Jaeger may be feeling "a bit of frustration" with the pace of things but it looks like their money is on the way. If you're a real estate developer, it certainly helps to have friends in high places willing to bend the rules in order to "incentivize" your business.  Donald Trump knows this. And look how well he's done.   But among those of us worrying whether we're about to be evicted by Airbnb or fined by an unaccountable traffic robot, it's difficult to gin up much sympathy.

Meanwhile, the Convention Center's bounty is being put to use to "lift up" some of the city's "culture bearers" after all. I'm pretty sure Ti Martin considers herself a culture bearer, anyway.
The former Louisiana ArtWorks building at Howard Avenue and Carondelet Street may soon change hands again for the second time in two years.

The likely buyer: the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, whose governing board voted Wednesday to move ahead with plans to purchase the nearly 94,000-square-foot building a block from Lee Circle for $8 million.

The likely tenant: the New Orleans Culinary and Hospitality Institute, which bought the building in 2014 but has faced numerous delays in getting its planned project off the ground.

The institute is backed by a group of culinary and hospitality industry leaders, including restaurateur Ti Martin of Commander's Palace and chef John Besh.

It paid $6.2 million for the five-story building with the idea of opening a world-class culinary teaching facility in it, but the onetime furniture store remains vacant.
So this "Institute" of restaurant barons bought a building for $6.2  million which they are about to sell for $8 million in public funds. They propose to parlay that into a public-private "workforce development" scheme to churn out more minimum wage workers to supply their businesses.  That way they'll turn an even more  efficient profit as even more tourist dollars are extruded through the machine during the Tricentennial Toast and beyond.

Meanwhile the bulk of the city's bills will be collected from residents through the most brutally regressive of means until many of us can't afford to actually live here anymore. No problem for the NOligarchs, of course. That just means more room to grow that tourism business that keeps lifting them higher and higher. This is why they have to build their "Mardi Gras In July" thing.  Hope everybody enjoys that.

Friday, November 04, 2016

They should have let them in the room

These kids would have done a better job of running that debate than John Snell did, anyway. Good to see no one was charged.

Six people who were arrested after protests broke out Wednesday night over the inclusion of David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, in a televised U.S. Senate debate at historically black Dillard University had their charges dropped Friday morning.
Another thing I'd like to clear up about this whole incident. I'm seeing a lot of people comment about Raycom's decision to close the debate off from press and public.  People seem to be under the impression that this had something to do with Duke. It didn't. 
The decision to hold a closed debate was made in September, when Raycom first approached Dillard about renting Georges Auditorium for the debate. At that time, the candidates who would be invited to participate were yet to be determined.
This still isn't a defense of the policy. I can't figure out why anyone would want to stage a forum like that. But it's worth remembering there was a similar situation at Ruston during the Governor's election last year.  
The televised gubernatorial debate being hosted by Louisiana Tech University and KTBS-TV in Ruston on Oct. 15 will have some unusual features that will keep media and the public out of the same room of candidates.

The restrictions include shooting the debate without an audience present, even though the debate is being held inside the Davison Athletics Complex, a facility that's designed to handle large crowds. And despite the debate being held in what's described as a "banquet-type room," most of the media covering the debate will be sequestered in a second-floor room where candidates can choose to appear after the debate for interviews and reaction.
Re-reading that story, I wonder if anyone ever found out who was responsible for setting the policy at the time.  No one questioned for the article wanted to own up to it. 
All four campaigns said they did not request barring a live audience or having media present in the room before, after or during the debate. Neither did KTBS, whose news director Randy Bain said would have proceeded with the debate with or without an audience or the media present.

Asked whether Louisiana Tech officials negotiated with campaigns to prohibit an audience, Bain said, "I cannot answer that question because I was not part of that discussion." Louisiana Tech officials did not return two messages left seeking comment on Thursday and Friday, respectively.

"When we went out there they let us know they weren't going to have an audience and we were fine with that," Bain said. Asked about why the media isn't allowed in the debate area, Bain said, "once again, that was Louisiana Tech. They wanted a controlled atmosphere in that studio area."
Who was "they"?

They're building more nice things for rich people

Everything in this story that has to do with "affordable housing" is just pure nonsense and I suspect most of the players involved know it.
Edwards Communities, an Ohio-based residential development company, is applying for a property tax break from the Industrial Development Board to build an apartment complex along the Lafitte Greenway with ground floor business space. Mike Sherman, a local attorney representing the developer, confirmed Wednesday the request is in the works. Terms of an upfront payment from the developers in lieu of taxes (PILOT) have not been established.

The Mid-City complex has also been approved for a so-called density bonus. Following negotiations with the city that culminated this week, Edwards Communities can add 110 apartments -- bringing the total to 382 -- for setting 14 of them as affordable units.

"Through the approval process, we heard loud and clear ... that to meet a pressing community need, it was critical to address affordable housing," a company statement said.
Those 14 set aside units aren't going to "meet a pressing need." They're going to help these developers secure tax incentives and political goodwill from the stupid so they can build nice things for rich people.  We've been talking about this for so long now it's become boring.  It's just trickle-down housing policy, if that even.  Mayor Torres is going to be psyched, though.

Something went right

Every now and then the coastal science is not as depressing as it could be.
There aren't many state projects that come in under budget and over-deliver, but the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is touting one that should have every resident excited about large-scale sediment diversions that will be installed in Plaquemines Parish in the next decade.

Thirty years ago, in 1986, the state implemented the Louisiana Crevasse Project by cutting three crevasses in natural levees on Pass a Loutre Wildlife Management Area. The state had budgeted $300,000 for the project, but the contractors spent only $88,000 of that allotment.

The project was funded with state revenues through the Coastal Environment Protection Trust Fund, but no one knew at the time exactly how successful it would be, according to a department news release.

In their wildest dreams, they wouldn't have predicted this. The crevasses were expected to produce land for 10 to 20 years, but are still delivering positive gains today and are now expected to be land-builders for at least the next decade. To date, the cuts have built 760 acres of marsh at a cost of only $115 per acre.

Thursday, November 03, 2016

Overdue Cracker Jack prize

Here you go, Harry. Sorry about the wait.



Also the Saints tweeted out this old ad today.

Already losing next year's state budget fight

The governor's budget task force released its long awaited recommendations yesterday and they are underwhelming.
"There are no surprises," said Gov.John Bel Edwards when asked about the task force report in an interview Wednesday morning (Nov. 2).

The task force has returned to several concepts and ideas floated previously with little success in the Louisiana Legislature. It suggests eliminating the state federal tax deduction for income taxes or restricting federal itemized deductions on income tax payments.

The task force said the Legislature should also look at phasing out an expensive state business inventory tax and tax credit which benefits local governments. It recommends an automatic sunset on all business incentive programs, and the elimination of those tax credits programs which don't work. It also suggests changes to the state's industrial tax exemption that are similar to those already being implemented by Edwards.

Furthermore, the task force said Louisiana shouldn't retain a sales tax hike it passed last spring, which gives the state the highest sales tax in the nation right now. Instead, it should lower the sales tax rate, but continue to tax a larger range of services that it is currently taxing temporarily  -- such as business utilities and custom software. New services -- such as internet transactions and purchases -- should also be subjected to sales tax, according to the group.
The sales tax ideas seem ok depending on what specific pennies actually stay clean when the legislature gets a hold of this. The income tax stuff depends too much on bank shot proposals that limit federal deductions but also flatten the tax brackets. There's a suggestion that the overall effect is progressive but I'm skeptical.

A better idea would have been to reinstate something  like the Stelly plan which lowered sales taxes on essentials like food and raised upper income tax rates.  But the governor  (who voted to repeal Stelly when he was in the legislature) was never on board with that.

It also looks like a wasted opportunity to gain an advantage on obstructionist Republican lawmakers whose ideas have just been thoroughly discredited.
Louisiana raised over a billion dollars in taxes just last spring in order to prop up the state's shoddy finances, but House Republicans blocked the governor from ginning up even more revenue. At the time, the House Republican leadership said staff had evaluated the new taxes too conservatively -- that more tax revenue would come in than estimates showed.

In the end, the tax estimates didn't end up being conservative enough. Louisiana has less money coming into its coffers than either the Republicans or the governor expected.

"It is sort of an 'I told you so' moment," the governor said, adding: "They could have gotten a jump on the things that the task force is recommending because they are many things that we had before the Legislature at the time."
See when that happens, when you get a new "I told you so moment" where your lying opponents have been proved fucking wrong you're supposed to play that hand. This would mean, at least, that you don't come back to the table with the same conciliatory package they obnoxiously rejected last time.

But that's exactly what the task force is offering now. We were asked to believe during this year's sessions that this was the best we could expect from them in the "emergency" budget gap situation. This task force was supposed to come up with bolder, more long term solutions to the state's fiscal problems. This is a lame attempt at that if it's even an attempt at all. Next year's legislative session is going to be a fight. The Governor looks like he is already trying to lose it.

Wednesday, November 02, 2016

Wednesday Night Debateball

Not sure how to handle this Senate debate tonight since it's playing opposite Game 7 of the Greatest World Series Of All Time. The debate only runs an hour this time. And it's on CSPAN. So you can watch it on demand later if that's how you want to hack it.  It's less fun to tweet that way, though.

But somebody has to pay attention to this debate.  With so few witnesses, it will be difficult enough as it is to verify that it's even happening.   
The only spectators allowed in 400-seat Georges Auditorium will be the production staff and five guests from each campaign.

“We just elected to have a closed production,” said Vicki Zimmerman, Raycom’s regional news director.

When asked if Duke was the reason, she said, “I’m not going to elaborate any further than I already did.”
As I'm typing this, I can look over at Twitter and see a group of Dillard students are at the campus now protesting against David Duke's inclusion. They seem particularly focused on University President Walter Kimbrough.  For his part,Kimbrough (AKA @HipHopPrez on Twitter) has questioned Duke's invitation himself.
Dillard University President Walter Kimbrough on Wednesday accused the host of the U.S. Senate debate of manipulating poll results to ensure white supremacist David Duke would qualify to increase TV ratings.

"Pretty clear polling rigged as (Donald) Trump would say for ratings," Kimbrough said in a tweet. "Any protests become part of reality show masquerading as news #WakeUp".
 
The debate, featuring six candidates, will be held at Dillard University, a historically black university. In an interview Kimbrough softened his stance about the poll being "rigged," but he maintained "it's a valid question to ask, when the latest poll comes out and (Duke is) at 2 percent," he said referencing a recent poll by the University of New Orleans. 
"It's a valid question to ask," he's just throwing that out there. But, hey, he's got a point.  Any debate that refuses to put totally legitimate candidate Kaitlin Marone on the stage has to be considered "rigged." The fact that they're trotting Duke out there is just further evidence that democracy is in peril.

I do hope the protesters make an effort to disrupt the debate.  Anything is better than having to watch that field of dead weight candidates recite their stupid scripts for an hour. Here's what that looked like last time, in case you missed it. An outburst or two from the crowd might liven that up.  Duke, himself, will just be an oddity. 

Speaking of which, here is an Esquire article out today about Duke's (mostly unwelcome, it seems) presence at this year's Deutsches Haus Oktoberfest.
It was 6 p.m. on Friday, October 21, and Duke was late. Jan, a young, white cop with a crewcut, was standing stoically near a beer vendor when I asked if he'd seen the candidate. "Have you seen him lately?" he shot back, his eyebrows raising. He says it seems like Duke has had a lot of work done, "but it's not good work. He looks like he just got out of a coffin, he looks like a corpse, that's the nicest way I could put it."

He wasn't making fun of Duke when he said this. He wore a pained expression and a faraway gaze, as if recalling some kind of science-fiction trauma he couldn't quite make sense of. "He's a weird-looking person," he said, shaking his head, "I couldn't get past that." When Duke was here last week, Jan explained, a couple of his colleagues talked to him, but he couldn't stomach it, so he just walked away. He sighed. "I don't know how you're gonna do it."
The good news is after this election is over, Duke will have to go back to his crypt and stay there until the next comet comes by or whatever. In the meantime, he's out there grossing people out. But that's nothing out of the ordinary in 2016. 

Regarding that, the Esquire reporter also spoke to Edwin Edwards who had the following to say about Duke and about how is appeal relates to Donald Trump's.
"He's a very intelligent fellow, if a person with his philosophy can be intelligent," Edwards told me over coffee in his home office in Gonzales. Edwards is 89 now and five years out of prison, with a 38-year-old wife, Trina, who he met while behind bars (she wrote him letters), a three-year-old son, Eli, conceived using his frozen sperm, and two donkey-sized collies, Brooke and Belle. "We didn't have a very acrimonious election," he told me. When he was asked at the time if he and Duke had anything in common, Edwards famously replied, "we both have been wizards beneath the sheets."

"When he ran against me and whenever he was running, he always capitalized not just on people who didn't like the race problem, but people who didn't like government, as Trump is doing," Edwards told me. "He has captured, in my opinion, the attitude of many people in America who just are fed up with the government."
That's a very important point by Edwards.  The Duke phenomenon in the 1990s wasn't just some freak show.  It represented a massive section of the GOP coalition. I wrote a longish thing about this last January, in fact. Back then David Duke didn't present himself as some "alt-right" character. He ran as a Republican and tailored his rhetoric to dovetail with the platform tenets of the party's mainstream.  This was remarkably easy to do. That fact, moreso than Duke's past (or "baggage" as Steve Scalise termed it) was the most disturbing and revelatory aspect of his political career. 

Similarly, Trump's success exposes many uncomfortable truths about the present day Republican party that aren't going to just disappear after Trump loses next week.  All the "serious" people are mortified by Trump, of course. But here's Oyster writing a few months ago to remind everyone of the seemingly obvious point that Trump did, in fact, win the nomination.
Sure, in retrospect, the 'conditions' were right. After all, outsiders Trump/Cruz/Carson garnered most of the primary vote. The anti-establishment sentiment was there. Plus, the GOP was due for a comeuppance, as it had played with fire for too long, having whipped its fringe elements into fury (over the existential peril of illegal immigration) and never really 'delivering.' There's also widespread anxiety due to macro-economic structural faults in our late-stage capitalism. (Will we ever grow again at a fast clip without a bubble? A discussion for another time).

But don't let anyone tell you this was inevitable or obvious in hindsight. For Trump, an unelected rookie, to successfully reinvent the rules of national campaigns on his own terms, overcome apparent blunder after blunder, and crush establishment choices like Jeb, Walker and Rubio as well as maverick Ted Cruz (the conservative's conservative)... that's just bananas. Not to mention that party mandarins, conservative media 'thought leaders', Super Pacs, and even other candidates allied to defeat him. Trump was heavily outspent in early primaries, but he won anyway.

How are we to understand this?

Well, we'll take some time to unpack this important moment in American political history. Let's quell the urge to understand too quickly or reflexively fit Trump into old models or agendas.

Tonight, I will offer one analytical tool that I think may be useful. Ask yourselves— would Trump have been successful if he eliminated the xenophobic and racialist appeals in his rhetoric and (scant) policy talk? My view is no. He could've changed almost anything else about his platform and candidacy (and often did). But the blunt warnings of Mexican invaders, thieving Asians, and the black president in league(?) with foreign terrorist cells... etc were the MOST vital components to his successful primary run.
Oyster is telling us two things there, actually. He's telling the campaign's success is due to both the the "conditions" present in the electorate and the unique qualities (I hesitate to say talents) possessed by the candidate.  This is the case in any election. But what all of this also says is that in 2016, the Donald Trump campaign moved enough Republicans to the polls to make him the nominee.

In my view the questions that raises about the party and about the state of U.S. politics this year than it does about the freak show are more significant and enduring than the freak show of Trump's personage. It's important that we don't remove the character from its context.

Otherwise we end up with idiot Democrats who run ads based on the fact that her opponent was once physically touched by one of the freaks and expect voters to impute some sort of meaning from that. Which is why Oktoberfest was a dangerous place to be this year. (This is from the Esquire piece.)
Harbison was far from the only one shooting sickened looks in Duke's direction at the festival. When he tried to shake the hand of Catherine Farnsworth Gensler, a 53-year-old teacher from Duke's hometown, she glared up at him like he was some combination of an ISIS fighter and a Maroon 5 band member. She refused to extend hers, but he grabbed it anyway. "I don't support him," she told me, and then she turned to him. "I don't support you, I'm sorry." Duke seemed startled. "What?" he asked. "I don't support you," she said. "That's fine, that's alright," he told her. "But I'm gonna get a lot of votes. I think I'm gonna win this time."
We can only hope Ms. Gensler never runs for office against Caroline Fayard because that will definitely come back to haunt her if she does.

Baby Cakes or GTFO

It's a goddamned travesty that the new out-of-town ownership group of Kenner's AAA baseball club doesn't appreciate the charm, local history behind, and general popularity of the Zephyrs nickname.  Their PR campaign built around the ill-advised renaming has been a complete disaster.  None of the finalists make any sense.  Which is why we've been pushing everyone to vote for Baby Cakes.  If you're going to have a ridiculous name, you might as well have a strange and silly one at the same time.  Anyway, we'll know in a couple of weeks.

Tuesday, November 01, 2016

Aspen you shall receive

These few paragraphs are from a column last week by Patrick Armstrong in Mid-City Messenger. Pat has been following, with growing trepidation, Mayor Landrieu's proposed amendments to the city Master Plan. Pat describes an administration in such a rush to make land use processes easier for developers that it's ignoring its obligation to promote open democratic decision making.
Instead of waiting on the public to get involved, technocrats consolidate and automate the process. The “experts” get to make the decisions, and if the public misses their chance to provide input, they should have been paying closer attention. Technocratic solutions remove the mess of democracy and make things easier, quicker, and cheaper for those who are most invested and connected and knowledgeable about the process. If the voters don’t like it, they can participate on election day – if they even show up to the polls.

Proposed amendments to Chapter 15 double down on resident non-participation by consolidating the big, messy, difficult democratic process into management by one small office at City Hall. Even if every city employee in that office has the best of intentions at heart, how long will it be before the sheer weight of this process demands less access from the public, and more decision making at the top?
That sounds bad. But what's it this all about, exactly? Well, it's a lot of stuff. If you want to read through all of the proposed amendments they're here on the city's website.  But what Patrick is most concerned about is the Chapter 15 neighborhood engagement process. Here's an Advocate guest column by Keith Twitchell explaining what that's all about.
Equally unquestioned is the utter disregard for community voice, as exemplified by both the process and the specifics. The most gratuitous example is the mayor’s proposal to completely write the Community Participation chapter in a way that eliminates all reference to a community-based civic engagement structure. Instead, the mayor wants to put resident participation completely under the control of the Neighborhood Engagement Office.

Given that it has only been two years since New Orleans got its first-ever community participation structure, the City Planning Neighborhood Participation Plan (NPP), why propose something that would limit engagement and the public’s voice? Though it has room for improvement (something the Planning Commission is working on right now), and will only reach its full potential when it is part of a comprehensive community participation structure, the NPP has already demonstrated on many occasions that bringing neighborhoods and developers together in a formal process benefits both.

Moreover, the administration’s reason for denying community voice is breathtaking in its solipsism and circular reasoning. In essence, they are saying “we didn’t give the people what they want, therefore they don’t want it.” This is like saying “I didn’t give you food, therefore you are not hungry.”

On top of this, the mayor has heard directly from the people that they want more community participation, not less. At a Neighborhood Roundtable last summer, with the mayor present, Chief Resiliency Officer Jeff Hebert was specifically asked if the process of developing the city’s Resilience Strategy might provide an opportunity to move forward on establishing a formal, communitywide, community-based civic engagement structure. The entire roomful of nearly 100 neighborhood leaders broke into applause in support of the question.

Thus the argument is not only specious, but flies in the face of direct evidence to the contrary. And throughout the administration’s amendments, the theme is to move away from a community-included approach to planning and development, and move toward a technocratic, top-down, “we know best” philosophy.
Hardly surprising given everything we know about how this mayor operates. We need only refer to his recent big-footing of the process over short term rentals for the most obvious example. But there are more and this Master Plan process is particularly egregious. The October slate of public meetings on this have passed  but there will be more to follow.  Here's one that takes place in the middle of the day on Election Day. Can't imagine an overflow room at that time.  Anyway note the purpose of these changes and the wording.
The Mayor’s Office of Resilience and Sustainability (ORS)  is recommending major changes to the Future Land Use map to open up development opportunities and a mix of uses and housing types in Gentilly. The suggestions of the ORS aim at preparing adaptable infrastructure for landscape in flood risk and loosening up Future Land Use categories, in shifting from a value of the preservation of current neighborhood character and use over to the continued viability of neighborhoods.

The ORS said in a report that current Future Land Use categories in Gentilly are likely too restrictive for incoming residential and commercial demand that the City expects to see in public funds more than $140 million.

A meeting about these zoning changes will take place on Nov. 8 at 1:30 p.m. in the Homeland Security Conference Room 8E16 in City Hall, located at 1300 Perdido Street. Those who can’t attend the meeting can send comments to  cpcinfo@nola.gov.
In other words, their policy goal is to give up worrying about the needs of the people who live here currently and shift priorities over to the demands of future investors. In the opening to Patrick's column, he starts off with a tongue-in-cheek bit about "technocrat" as an epithet.
Technocrat. Noun. An obscure insult used to describe a politician who promotes progress through innovation and technology at the expense of the way things have always been done. The term is most often seen on the left or liberal side of the political spectrum to describe Democratic elected officials deemed insufficiently protective of liberal or progressive interests and who attend the Aspen Institute a few times too many.
Sure, har-har. It's that that us dirty lefties might lay off a bit if  only they'd give us a moment to catch our breath.  For instance, here's today.
Mayor Mitch Landrieu has nominated author and former Time Magazine editor Walter Isaacson to New Orleans' Planning Commission, according to a statement from the mayor's office.

Isaacson, who also served as CEO of CNN, is currently the CEO of the Aspen Institute of Washington, D.C., and splits his time between there and New Orleans.

A native of New Orleans who once shucked oysters on Bourbon Street, Isaacson is also known for being Apple founder Steve Jobs' biographer and for his 2014 book, "The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution."
In other words, these critical matters of democratic process vs technocratic gentrification will be deliberated on by a part time resident who is the literal CEO of the freaking Aspen Institute. How are us jokers and doomsayers supposed to even keep up?  It might start to get funny again when Mayor Torres replaces Isaacson and the entire CPC with an app.  But let's not give away all of our ideas now. 

There's a difference between being a hack and having an opinion

Stephanie Grace wants to de-hackify the news.  
Politico ran a good opinion column calling for the whole system that puts partisans like Brazile on news shows to come crashing down. I agree. They fill air time, but what value do they add, what useful information to they give to voters?

Institutions across the board are in for some soul-searching after this most dispiriting election season, and cable news outlets are among those that are overdue for it. And if Brazile's bad-faith act prompts such a reevaluation, well, maybe she will have provided a service for television viewers after all.

Yes, that is all true. But it's important to add a finer point to this. The problem isn't with news organizations hiring commentators who actually... you know... believe things and therefore make comments commensurate with those beliefs. The problem is that they're putting party insiders, career PR operators, and actual campaign employees in those positions instead.

"Bias" is fine. Every person has preferences.   In fact we would expect a person who makes a career out of following and writing about politics to have very strong opinions. Otherwise, what the fuck are they even doing there? We've said over and over again on this blog that the purpose of politics has nothing to do with finding magical "solutions" that would work perfectly for everyone if only they'd stop being so uncivil.  Politics is about competing interests who have to fight everything out all the time.  So it's not necessary for a pundit to pretend to complete neutrality. That is how "both sides" false equivalences happen, actually.

But there's a difference between a commentator's natural biases and the out and out con job perpetrated on the audience when paid shills are presented as arbiters of the debate. That's what we're seeing more and more of this year. (In state politics too. More on that later.) It doesn't rise the level of being The Problem with politics in 2016. But it should stop.

Unskew the freakout

People want there to be Presidential election drama in the final week.  Don't buy it. Donald Trump is still going to lose and he is going to lose bigly. Everyone knew how they were going to vote months ago. The only thing that's changed in that regard is now a lot of people have already voted. Today is the final day of early voting in Louisiana, by the way. But there's nothing that can happen in the closing week of the campaign that "changes the game." We already know everything we need to know.

We know that the mainstream political press and the Democratic party are an unholy interlocking hack factory.  We know that the Republican party is entirely in the throes of a proto-fascist irrational hate movement.

Mostly we know that America hates these candidates.  We know that one candidate is the product and indeed living embodiment of the corrupt and bloodthirsty American financial and military imperial system currently grinding the lives of the poor into dust both at home and abroad.  We know the other is a literal piece of poo. 

We also know the institutional party duopoly doesn't afford us a viable alternative. Sure there are an idiot and a chiropractor getting some attention but the system is such that neither of them is in position to disrupt the dismal reality of the race, let alone win tangible gains for themselves or their supporters.  Vote for whoever you want, of course. I'm not one of these Democratic hacks trying to shift the blame for their own candidate's crappiness onto the presence of third parties. Don't listen to those people. But just don't expect your single protest vote to change the world either.

Anyway, despite the clickbait and ratings gambits you're going to see all week, the election is not tightening. Despite what the Democratic hack pod people tell you, we are not in danger of electing Orange Hitler. They seem to have failed to listen to their own President's advice to stop freaking out.



So do that. Keep calm. Go vote. Enjoy watching the Trump people throw an impotent fit next Tuesday.  If you're feeling down about the fact that we're electing Mothra in order to stop Godzilla, you're right.  But that just means next week it will be time to go to work shutting down Mothra. Plenty time for that later.