Down in the ultra-conservative southwest corner of Louisiana, Democrats are celebrating the special election that will send State Rep. Donald J. Cazayoux Jr. to the U.S. Congress, yanking away a seat that had belonged to the GOP for 33 years.
However, some Democrats are celebrating more than others. Why? That’s almost impossible to figure out from the Washington Post story, which buries and blurs some crucial information that makes this vote more logical.
Here’s some crucial info near the top:
With all precincts reporting, State Rep. Donald J. Cazayoux Jr. had 49 percent of the vote to Woody Jenkins’s 46 percent, overcoming a barrage of ads from GOP committees that tried to paint Cazayoux as an ally of Obama, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, and of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Democrats said the result in the Baton Rouge-based district showed that an anti-Obama campaign has its limits and that they are poised for very large gains this fall.
“These Republicans can run, but they cannot hide. Our candidates have proven that they are competitive, that they are viable. This is clearly adding up to a very bad year for Republicans,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Well, that depends. It could be that Republicans are in trouble if they have to run against candidates like Cazayoux in culturally red or purple parts of the country.
But how many other candidates like him are available? And what was the cultural and political formula for this candidate? That’s what is hard to find out in the Post report. You read and read and read and then near the very bottom there is this:
Cazayoux, who now becomes a Democratic superdelegate to help decide the party’s presidential contest, has declined to say whether he will support Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the race. In the campaign, Cazayoux distanced himself from Pelosi and other leading party figures, espousing conservative positions on gun rights and abortion.
He did what?
Sure enough, Cazayoux is a Democrat who, though he is a superdelegate, will almost certainly be allowed nowhere near a speaker’s platform during hearings on the party’s platform. Why? Here’s the tell-tale press release from April 22:
Today, the Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) announced their endorsement of Representative Don Cazayoux’s bid for election in the 6th Congressional District of Louisiana. The organization cited Cazayoux’s consistent support for pro-life issues in making the endorsement. …
In its endorsement of Cazayoux, the DFLA cited his strong support for the right to life. As a state representative, Cazayoux offered one of the strongest pieces of pro-life legislation in the Louisiana legislature and has a consistent pro-life record. As a supporter of the partial birth abortion ban, working to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions and a supporter of restrictions on abortion, he will be a strong voice in the U.S. Congress for pro-life democrats.
It’s interesting to note that there is no mention of an outright ban on all abortions, only to his positions on compromise positions — “restrictions.” So his position may be nuanced, but still closer to the majority of conservative and moderate (and a surprising number of liberal) Democrats than to the position carved into the platform.
The Post buried a strong element of the story. The Politico’s hard-news report was much better, stating soon after the lede:
Cazayoux portrayed himself as a culturally conservative candidate in the Republican-minded district, citing his opposition to abortion rights and gun control measures and tough talk on border security. … (The) NRCC and conservative groups repeatedly attacked Cazayoux on taxes, saying he would vote to raise taxes if elected to Congress, but the effort failed to dissuade voters from backing the Democrat.
In other words, he was an economic populist and a cultural conservative. And try to count the churches in that YouTube piece promoting his campaign.
That’s part of the story — a big part.
 | Posted at 1:52 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (6) |
May 5, 2008, at 5:55 pm
Doug Kmeic is a constitutional lawyer strongly opposed to abortion on a moral basis. He supports Barack Obama. The implications of your comments is that readers assume that a man is liberal if he is Democratic. Many of us who are left of center assume that if Barack Obama is elected that we will be moving to the center rather than the left during his presidency. If Obama is to be successful as a president, if he lives up to his campaign pledges, he will have to behave in some circumstances more conservatively than would be his natural inclination. I have no knowledge where that might be but since Doug Kmeic is supporting him, I suspect he sees some intellectual coherence with Obama. If abortion is going to stop being an albatross around America’s neck we will need to find a common ground. Mr Cazoyoux and Mr Obama may be that pathway.
May 5, 2008, at 7:46 pm
Not too many decades ago there was a strong “dixiecrat” wing of the Democratic party. It sounds like that is re-emerging.
Taking a step back, I’ll note that the Democratic party has been supporting quite a few relatively culturally conservative Senatorial and Congressional candidates recently. I suspect the result will not satisfy those on either extreme: those who want government-funded unrestricted access to abortion and those who want to try all women who get abortions for murder.
May 5, 2008, at 9:17 pm
JERRY:
Please name a major, mainstream, religious or political leader who wants abortion laws to focus on the action of the woman, not the abortion provider.
May 5, 2008, at 11:46 pm
Terry,
That was a softball question delivered over the middle of the plate. Or perhaps taking your question literally, by your use of the word focus, you dodged the ultimate question: if abortion is murder than what do you do with a woman who is a murderer or perhaps is part of a conspiracy to commit murder? If there is no punishment, then how logically is that different from punishing a woman who conspires to kill a newborn? I’m using the word “murder” in the lay rather than legal sense since in the legal realm you have murder, manslaughter etc.
Google abortion criminal history punish woman sentence to find examples such as:
http://www.theinterim.com/2007/nov/05considering.html
I won’t put additional URLs in my post because your spam filter will catch it but:
From Columbia’s penal code:
But you did not react to my main point, but to me pushing the hot button. I suspect that many from different sides in the Democratic party might work out a compromise that will upset the true believers on both sides.
May 6, 2008, at 10:53 am
“In other words, he was an economic populist and a cultural conservative.”
Based on some light reading, that sounds a bit like the “Christian Democrats” that I have heard of in Germany and Latin America—but less socialist.
When I discovered such a thing exist, I had a “eureka” moment and felt freed from the conflicts I feel trying to choose between Republican and Democrat (believing that we should vote for parties and platforms and make sure the people in office tow the line). Granted, I would have felt more free if there was such a thing as a Christian-Democrat party in the US (and if we had a system where a 3rd-party vote did more than hand the election to the person you want least).
I would love to see a journalist do some work comparing our political parties and political culture to that of other democratic nations. I’m looking for utopia, just more options.
May 6, 2008, at 10:34 pm
Jason:
I believe that, to be consistent with the rest of your last paragraph, the final sentence should begin “I’m not looking for utopia…” Y/N?