Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Can Joseph Cao win?



Louisiana Republican Rep. Joseph Cao is the most endangered Republican incumbent in the country this fall. AP Photo/Cheryl Gerber

By Felicia Sonmez

The day after Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao's (R) December 2008 win in Louisiana's second district, House Minority Leader John Boehner sent a memo to House Republicans declaring: "The future is Cao."

A year and a half later, Cao is widely viewed as one of the most vulnerable incumbents in Congress. His district -- the most Democratic seat represented by a Republican incumbent -- gave President Barack Obama 75 percent of the vote in 2008 and is almost 60 percent black, according to the 2001 Census. Before Cao, the district had not elected a Republican since 1888(!).

Despite a deck stacked WAY against him, the freshman representative and first Vietnamese-American member of Congress -- who is running unopposed in the Republican primary -- says he's "very optimistic" about his chances this fall.

Voters are looking for "strong, responsible leadership," Cao said in an interview with the Fix, adding that when it comes time to vote "people will see the hard work that we've put into the district in the past 18 months."

Perhaps. But rhetoric is just, well, rhetoric.

So, how could Cao possibly win in a seat this tilted against him? Here's the case he and his campaign make:

1. Recent polling: At the top of the list is a poll released by Cao's campaign on Monday showing the candidate leading his main Democratic rival. In the poll, which was conducted May 27 to June 2 by Verne Kennedy's Market Research Insight and sampled 400 likely voters, Cao led the Democratic frontrunner, state Rep. Cedric Richmond, 51 percent to 26 percent. According to the poll, 54 percent of those polled viewed Cao favorably, and only 6 percent of respondents did not know enough about him to have an opinion. By contrast, Richmond was unknown to 27 percent of respondents.

(Worth noting: The survey did not test Cao against the other three Democrats who have filed to run: state Rep. Juan LaFonta (D), businessman Gary Johnson (D) and Eugene Green (D), a onetime aide to former Rep. William Jefferson (D), who was ousted by Cao in 2008. Three independent candidates have also filed to run.)

Louisiana political analyst John Maginnis said that if Cao is able to garner a quarter of the black vote and maintain his vote share among white Democrats, Richmond "will have a tough race."

National Democrats say the poll is not a cause for concern, noting that once the Democratic candidate gets his name out in the district -- and once more voters are aware of Cao's party affiliation -- the gap will close.

2. Cao's voting record: Cao spokesperson Cheron Brylski noted that the Congressman has voted in line with Obama's position nearly as often as the state's lone Democratic congressman, Rep. Charlie Melancon, who represents the neighboring 3rd district. In 2009, Cao voted in line with Obama 68 percent of the time compared to 85 percent for Melancon and 26 percent for the average House Republican, according to Congressional Quarterly's vote ratings.

But a potential stain on that voting record is Cao's vote against the health care bill in March despite previously being the lone Republican to support it last year. Cao, who is opposed to abortion rights, opposed the March bill on the grounds that he said it would allow for federal funding of abortion.

Cao said he's confident his health care vote won't be an obstacle in the race.

"What I've been hearing on the streets is that the people, they support my moral stance," Cao said. "They like the fact that I stand on my convictions and not being swayed because of political expediency." He added that the majority of the district is opposed to abortion rights and that the district is "not a single-issue constituency."

Voters "simply want strong, honest hardworking leadership, and they have been receiving that the past 18 months," he said.

National Democrats have already begun airing robocalls in the district slamming Cao for his vote, however, and that focus looks only to intensify as the campaign goes forward.

3. The oil spill in the Gulf: Cao has sought to focus on the economic impact of the Gulf Coast oil spill -- calling for a partially lifting of the federal moratorium on deep-water drilling, which was blocked in late June by a federal judge in New Orleans.

When you look at the choices America has as a country, Cao said, "not drilling in the Gulf is not an option." The administration must approach the issue "in a way that would not devastate this industry," he added, and "the moratorium is destroying our ability to do that." Cao has called for oil companies to be allowed to do partial drilling, but not tap into the oil reservoir.

Despite Cao's encouraging poll numbers, the political and demographic make-up of the district make the challenge ahead a steep one.

Cao's victory is rightly understood as a voter reaction to the corruption of former Rep. Bill Jefferson (D), not an affirmative vote of confidence in Cao. With Jefferson sentenced to more than a decade behind bars, he won't be the issue again -- forcing Cao to stand on his own merits and record, a record Democrats will mine to cast him as out of step with the state.

Cao said that he's confident voters will look beyond issues of race and party.

"Even though it is an African-American district, people in the district simply want someone who is willing to work hard for the people," Cao said. "They want someone who is willing to stand up to his moral grounds, to not be swayed from his moral stance. And that's all they want. They don't care about race, and they don't care about party."

By The Fix  |  July 15, 2010; 5:00 PM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Chet Traylor: Vitter has not been an "effective" senator
Next: Harry Reid takes the lead over Sharron Angle in Nevada

Comments

USMC Mike,

In case you ever read this thread again, I will repeat. I am a PRO LIFE, cradle Catholic.

You think you have the right to judge. Fine, that's your opinion. You seem to think your view of Catholic theology is a "fact" (your word). You are not a theologian, my friend, and moreover, no man in our Church should set himself up as a judge for other men. Take care of the beam in your eye first.

You don't even know what you are judging me for, because I am PRO LIFE, and always have been. I have borne a child I was advised to abort. I have WALKED the walk.

And you think I am thin skinned? My friend, look in the mirror.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 17, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Noa: Yes I think a chemical abortion is a tragedy, and a loss of a human life.

That is precisely why every Christian church opposed "the pill" until the sexual revolution, where you began to see them lurch leftward, one by one, until only 1 Church courageously remains.

I can agree; this is a perfectly controversial point of view. It's counter-cultural. It does not make sense to an outsider.

*** *** BREAK *** ***

12BarBlues: You have a very interesting perception of "judgementalism". Just because someone offers a fact that conflicts with your opinion does not mean he/she is judging you. Once again, I impore you to do some reasearch and read before vomiting on an internet blog. So sensitive.

I bet you don't like being challenged by anyone, including your priest/bishop. I bet you hold your opinion so high that subconsiously you think anyone who disagrees is either misinformed or dumb.

I bet in conversation, you value the approach, the tone, how "nice" and "polite" people are well above any notion of truth, logic, or fact. So long as you are treated well, their words matter very little.

That's tragic.

This is nothing personal. It is simply a fact that our Church teaches X, and if you don't accept it, then you don't accept it, but don't call yourself an X, when you're really a Y. One cannot reasonably claim to be both, and to pretend to be, though tempting by our modern culture which values "nice" and condemns "truth" as "judgementalism", is dishonorable and illogical.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | July 17, 2010 5:42 AM | Report abuse

You are not doing yourself any favors by pretending to be both open-minded and committed to a set of beliefs. You can't be both.
-------------------------------
Mike, as sure as you are of your righteousness, let me remind you, you are not my spiritual counselor, my priest, my bishop, my Holy Father. You are some guy in Iraq.

I won't judge you. You can do what you want because judgment is what you are into.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 16, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

(silence)

pretty much what I expected

Posted by: Noacoler | July 16, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

USMC Mike: The Catholic Church was pro abortion for the first 1600 or so years. It is only in the recent history has the hypocricy of the church has come out.

Posted by: dganderson13 | July 16, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

You're dodging, Mike. Please try to stay focused and stop distracting yourself with rants about how much you hate Obama and all this junk about "left wing."

I am pressing you on the direct consequences of your stated beliefs, and if you're unable to answer then just say so.

OK, you like syllogisms, let me present it in that form.

* Life begins at conception and any zygote deserves our full commitment to its protection

* The majority of zygotes fail to implant in the endometrium wall and are menstruated away, and many that do implant are miscarried

* those zygotes need us to spare no expense or effort to save them.

See if you can respond to this without going off onto a rant about "left wing" or "healthcare reform" or more irrelevant junk about volitional actions that do the same thing. Yeah the birth control pill inhibits endometrial implantation. I know that, I'm an educated man.

But it looks like your god does the same thing about 3/4 of the time anyway, so what's the beef?

Posted by: Noacoler | July 16, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Sort of like "I don't have time to read the health care bill before voting on it" or "I don't have time to read the [vast 18 pages of the] Arizona law before criticizing it" or "I don't have time to think about financial reform, we have to solve this tonight in dramatic fashion -- the public need not worry about the details, we aren't."

Americans don't like this method of governance. Just look at barry's poll numbers.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | July 16, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Sort of like "I don't have time to read the health care bill before voting on it" or "I don't have time to read the [vast 18 pages of the] Arizona law before criticizing it" or "I don't have time to think about financial reform, we have to solve this tonight in dramatic fashion -- the public need not worry about the details, we aren't."

Americans don't like this method of governance. Just look at barry's poll numbers.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | July 16, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Also, your demand that we attempt to answer a specific 'real-world' example before we bother with "ridiculous doctrinal syllogisms" demonstrates perfectly the left-wing "I want to solve problems based on my gut, my emotions, the animalistic chemical reactions in my brain, and I don't have time to think through an issue, or settle on a 'norm' before moving on to 'exceptions'."

Unfortunately, truth and logic are not Burger King.

You can't 'have it your way'.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | July 16, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"Mike what about the 70% of conceived fetuses that don't even implant in the endometrium wall and are menstruates away? By your logic they too need legal protection."

That's precisely what "the pill" does, it causes the uteral wall to shed otherwise viable fetuses away.

It's called a "chemical abortion".

The Church, not surprisingly, has been and is against "the pill" -- oh, the internal logical consistency, those pesky persnickety Catholics.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | July 16, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Mike what about the 70% of conceived fetuses that don't even implant in the endometrium wall and are menstruates away? By your logic they too need legal protection.

Spare me the ridiculous doctrinal syllogisms and answer the questions.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 16, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to add:

(1) Good evening. I'll try to check this post again tomorrow morning. This is important to me.

(2) Noa, & other left-wingers -- I'm sure you will takek this opportunity to attack the Catholic Church. I have tried to be very careful in my language to simply state the facts as they are:

X believes Y.
I claim to be X.
Therefore, I believe Y.

X believes Y.
I don't beleive Y.
Therefore, I can't be X.

Unless you want to argue the logic above, or if you want to argue that Roe v. Wade is not 2 FALSE premises [with a bogus conclusion], spare your breath.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | July 16, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Mike, every one of your posts champions rigidity, punitive harshness, and intolerance. If the Catholic Church is as Kremlinesque as you describe then it is already fossilized and just awaiting the sediments to cover it.

Your post about scientific evidence for the beginning of life us pure nonsense. And you propose logical absurdities; is a miscarried fetus fully human and subject to protection too? Should we pull them from the toilet and out them on life support, a bag of disorganized proto-flesh with human DNA? What nonsense.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 16, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"USMC Mike speaks only for himself, not the Church. Defining who is good enough to be a Catholic..."

None of us are "good enough" to be a member of the Divine Family of God, to enter into holy communion with Him. I thought this would be least necessary to explicitly say to a "cradle Catholic".

And yes, the Church has spoken - unequivically, clearly, loudly, magesterially. Even non-catholics like Noa and DDAWG perceive the clarity with which our Church has spoken in harmony.

I would challenge you to actually read a Church document, or a serious Catholic work on theology. You are not doing yourself any favors by pretending to be both open-minded and committed to a set of beliefs. You can't be both.

It just looks foolish.

We have a defined set of beliefs. You don't have to believe them. You also don't have to be Catholic. But to [claim to] be Catholic means you believe them. That's why we profess them (the "profession of faith" comes at the beginning of mass. When the Church was first formed, during the times of Roman persecution, those members who would not or could not recite the profession of faith could not attend the mass, for fear that they were either traitors or spies. It was that important then, and it remains important now.)

This is not "judgementalism", this is not even emotional. This is just fact.

If I am a boy scout, I must meet a certain minimum set of standards, abide by a certain code of conduct, embrace a set of values. There are participation requirements too. If you don't meet these things, just because you still have your scouting uniform doesn't make you a scout.

"Being Catholic" is more like "being a boy scout" than "existing somewhere on a political spectrum."

You sign no contract, make no pledge, and are not bound by any word, or obligated to anyone, for your political beliefs. There is no high political authority that defines the beliefs, or removes you for heresy.

And yes, just because our American Church is more "liberal" than the rest of the world's Billion Catholics [read, "our church is in shambles"] doesn't mean your puny perspective on the vast organization you claim membership of is any more or less authoratative than mine. [I don't rely on my personal observation of said organization, I rely on the actual publications of the organization, which makes my opinion more valid. It's a legal and argument term called "evidence", which is stronger than what you might call "assertion", or "intuition", or "arbitrary animalistic emotional response".] The Church still insists, loudly, that we believe what we claim to believe. There are entire parishes, and even Bishops who have been asked to leave [excommunicated] for heresy.

Sorry all, for the off-topic discussion. No one seemed interested in Cao anyway.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | July 16, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

From O-Nation:

Thank you, NAACP, for exposing the Tea Party as the racist proxy agenda many journalists have said it is. The teabaggers (as they often call themselves) are animated not by the media friendly cover issues of low taxes (BHO lowered their taxes) and small government (on the average, baggers receive more government assistance than non-baggers), but by irrational hate and intolerance and a visceral inability to accept our First black president.

All the best, NAACP.

Posted by: broadwayjoe
-------------------------------------------
I fully accept the first one-term black president. I also commend the NAACP and the New Post-Racial Panther Party for their bi-partisan efforts in the post-racial era.

Posted by: leapin | July 16, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

As a student of Catholic teaching, I will just go ahead and say what will probably get me blasted. You cannot be a Catholic and pro-choice.
-----------------------
USMC Mike speaks only for himself, not the Church. Defining who is good enough to be a Catholic is just the religious version of who's good enough to be a Republican or a conservative. Don't buy into this rigid, in group/out group definition.

This is coming from a prolife cradle Catholic. And that's MY personal opinion.

Give the judmentalism a rest, Mike. The Church stopped the excommunication schtick a LONG time ago. The Church isn't into throwing people out on their ear.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 16, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse


Broadwayjoe


How many times have people tried to have a reasonable conversation with you ???

You have never engaged anyone on a serious level - ever - in the past two years.

All you do is gripe and snipe -

Somehow you have the attitude that if you write something, it is true - it is not.

You have not seriously addressed ANY of the issues posed to you - instead you just repeat the same deceptions and lies.


AND yes, that is all you are pushing deceptions and lies - you are no better than a pathetic drug dealer preying on elementary school kids.


You continue with your sexual slurs - you continue with your sterotyping -

All this you repeat in your mind over and over again - ONLY TO JUSTIFY YOUR HATE TO YOURSELF.

You say these things because somehow if you tell someone else these false justifications, someone else will share your hate.

The Tea Pary HAS made an effort to police itself - it has exercised restraint.

Anything else said by the NAACP is simply a complete lie.

Clearly it is the NAACP and the leftists on this blog - you included - who have not exercised restraint.

It is precisely this kind of lie upon lie - deception upon deception - which makes clear that you are not serious about any discussions or any reasonable discourse.


Absolutely pathetic.

The NAACP has done nothing this week other than PUSH HATE - push sterotyping - and push racism against whites.

Those are NOT the universal principles which guided the Civil Rights Movement -

AND that is precisely the basis for the REJECTION OF OBAMA BY MILLIONS OF AMERICANS -


Which is: the universal principles of Marin Luther King have been abandoned by Obama and the lefists for divisive politics.

Case made, Case Proven.

Case Closed.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 16, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

"Going back to Catholics and abortion, I said that they are almost unanimously against abortion, but I would guess there's a decent amount of diversity into the institutionalization of the anti-abortion stance.

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but my understanding of Roe V. Wade is that there is no accepted definition of when life beings. Obviously when it comes out, it's a sentient life, but there is no accepted definition before that. And it's really a religious one. As a result, since we're in ambiguous territory, privacy rights kick in as granted by amendments 9 and 14 and enumerated in Griswold v. Connecticut."

This is an interesting argument because both premises are false.

(1) We don't know when life begins. Yes we do. Prior to 1974, every biology textbook in America taught that life began at conception. This is a scientific fact. Whether or not YOU might think this life is "useful", "properly functioning", "self-aware", "deserves rights" etc., may differ. But there is absolutely no ambiguity here.

(2) If we don't know if it's human, it's ok to abort. What?? Let's say you're hunting in the woods and you see something move in the bushes ahead of you. You don't know if it's your friend, or a deer, therefore shoot? You would be guilty of at least gross neglegence, if not murder, if you killed your hunting buddy. Or, let's say you want to fumigate a dorm. You don't know whether or not there are people inside. Therefore, gas gas gas? By virtue that we *DONT* know, means *DONT* shoot. If you make premise 1, your premise 2 is rediculous!

*** Break Break ***

As a student of Catholic teaching, I will just go ahead and say what will probably get me blasted. You cannot be a Catholic and pro-choice. You are either Catholic, or you are not. You either believe what the church teaches, or you do not. It is not possible to be both. It makes as much sense as saying "I'm an Agnostic Catholic", or "I'm a Buddist Catholic". You may physically attend a Catholic church, but I assure you, you are not a Roman Catholic. Sorry. Either we eat all the food mommy puts on our plate, or we don't. No room for "Cafeteria Catholics". Go Lutheran or something. There are 30,000 Christian denominations made specifically for people who think the rules don't apply to them. Go find one, or start another one.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | July 16, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

If you'd put down the "Dale Robertson" tea party sign, you would be more believable.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 16, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Liberals are increasingly having to rely on the shallow defense of simply calling any opposition racist. They have long stopped any reasoned or principled debate.

This is the last refuge of a scoundrel. How weak and inneffective they have become to arrive at this particularly heinous fall back position.

The louder they scream, the weaker they look.

Posted by: Moonbat | July 16, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Oh and BTW, YouCanPostThis is the still-not-banned 37. Just between you and me. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 16, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

From O-Nation:

Thank you, NAACP, for exposing the Tea Party as the racist proxy agenda many journalists have said it is. The teabaggers (as they often call themselves) are animated not by the media friendly cover issues of low taxes (BHO lowered their taxes) and small government (on the average, baggers receive more government assistance than non-baggers), but by irrational hate and intolerance and a visceral inability to accept our First black president.

All the best, NAACP.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 16, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse


The behavior of people on this blog has been nothing but vile.


The complete lack of restraint over months has been simply ridiculous.


The leftists here vent their hatred on a daily basis.

Organizing a boycott - refusing to engage in debate here - all that is politically motivated CHILDISH BEHAVIOR.

Instead of acting like adults - all we see from the people on this blog is more expressions of hatred.


Your behavior has been a disgrace.

Your conduct on this blog has been nothing but shameful.


After harassing other posters for years - you decided to start an email campaign - which BASICALLY HARASSES A REPORTER WHO HAS OTHER THINGS TO DO.

Arguments have broken out on this blog over the past few weeks about who has had the worst behavior on this blog - not exactly the storyline of one bad person and the rest of you being innocent.

It is a disgrace.

You don't hate me - you only hate two things - the truth and yourselves.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 16, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

Sterotyping is racism


It is that simple.


And everyone knows what you are talking about with your sexual slurs.

At this point, you are lying to yourselves as well as everyone else.

What we have is some outrageous politically-motivated FALSE CHARGES HERE - not meant to improve any race relations at all - just to score cheap political points.

And the NAACP says the Tea Party should police itself - the NAACP should be policing ITSELF - nothing about the Black Panthers, nothing about the Rev Wright church, nothing about any of the violence in the black community.


What we have here - joined in by the NAACP - is an effort to sterotype 80 million Americans and to spread hate towards them. That is racism against whites. Pure and simple.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 16, 2010 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Noa, you really cannot say that some people are too stupid to be insulted. The insult start with the person who says it.

Stick to how unworkable the whole TEA Party platform is.
Stick to how they are manipulated by a corporate master to work against their own intersts.
Stick to their unproductive hysteria.
Stick to their social-safety-net loving hypocracy.
Stick to the fear that makes them cling to symbols of our faulty past.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 16, 2010 7:02 AM | Report abuse

12BB, the last I've heard was about 50-50 in terms of repealing health care. But favorability towards the new law seems to be increasing at a decent clip. So perhaps the 65% is too high, but maybe it also reflects an improved favorability as well.

By the way, very good discussion on this thread. One of the best I've seen in a while.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 16, 2010 5:51 AM | Report abuse

12BB, I like that poll result, but it seems too good to be true. Perhaps it's a result of many of the provisions starting to kick in.

But I think we have to consider it an anomaly for now.
-----------------------------
I agree with you that it should be considered an anomaly until confirmed by other polls. Guess you haven't heard of any.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 16, 2010 1:41 AM | Report abuse

No, 37th, stereotyping is stereotyping.

And despite all your hysteria over all these dreary months, there have been no sexual slurs against your angry elderly motley gaggle of smokers in the tea party. That other meaning of "teabagger" is all but unknown outdide the subscriber base of Screw magazine and has only been propagated by people like you unable to make an actual point.

It's certainly unknown to anyone using the term here.

And since nobody wants you here, not even your fellow right wingers, why don't you beat the rush and just buzz off.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 16, 2010 1:22 AM | Report abuse

I guess since 37th is gone forever next week, I should respond to what he said. The NAACP resolution didn't stereotype the Tea Part as racist. It condemned the racist elements in the tea party. You'd have to be an idiot not to agree with that. Hence, you get 37's comments.

It would have been real easy for the tea party leaders to agree with the resolution, for them to condemn the racist elements in the tea party themselves, and then use the opportunity for outreach to the black community.

I was watching an interview with the President of the NAACP and he was talking about how this resolution was actually urged by people who were both in the Tea Party and the NAACP. They felt uncomfortable by the racist elements in the tea party and thought the NAACP resolution might help with that.

Looks like it didn't.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 16, 2010 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Ddawd


Aren't you better off with Cao in a Republican majority - than with a freshman in the democratic minority ???

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 16, 2010 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Sterotyping is racism.


Making sexual slurs is racism

That is why what the NAACP is so bad - it is pushing racism and sterotyping.


Why? Because there is a short-term political benefit for Obama???


This is a disgrace. It is shameful. This kind of behavior has no place in America. The people who are doing this - and the people who are agreeing with it - are abusing their positions.

If you are not speaking out against this, it is you too.

Just as the NAACP is trying to make the case that the Tea Party is being silent - the people in and around the NAACP are being racist by not speaking out against the NAACP right now.

It is that clear and simple.

Obama now has destroyed all his legitimacy - the arrogance is dripping - the hypocrisy is thick.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 16, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

12BB, I like that poll result, but it seems too good to be true. Perhaps it's a result of many of the provisions starting to kick in.

But I think we have to consider it an anomaly for now.

No secret I like Cao, but if he were defeated, the winner would vote with Obama far more than 68% of the time. And Cao would come back here and presumably continue his work as a community organizer. And while I think Cao will put up a genuine effort to win, I don't think he would be too crestfallen to leave that dysfunctional legislature, especially if Republicans remain in the minority. He really seems to hate the sniping that goes on there. As for his Republican colleagues, he has a lot of respect for the Paul Ryan type grinders, but I think he really dislikes the Boehner and Cantor type showboaters. And I know he hated the over the top rhetoric, especially around the health care debate and would warn his constituents about staying informed so as not to believe the lies about death panels and so forth.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 16, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

I like Cao too, but I'm predilcted thereto

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe

The NAACP has passed a "resolution" which sterotypes the Tea Party Movement - and makes false charges of racism.


With a combination of incidents that never happened - and trumped up incidents.

Well - today was the end of ANY LEGITIMACY that the NAACP had left.

The NAACP has now become a political attack dog - hardly anything to be proud of -

There is little difference Sterotyping and racism. I'm sure the sexual slurs agains the Tea Party were flying at the NAACP convention - even though none were actually caught on camera


Why the NAACP has NOW BECOME THE LEADING RACIST ORGANIZATION AGAINST WHITES IN THIS COUNTRY - is beyond belief.

The IRS should revoke the tax-exempt status of the NAACP immediately - because now it is a political organization.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Listening to Noacoler and broadwayjoe complain about being called names - and complain about the bad behavior on this blog......


Is a little like hearing Charles Manson blame Sharon Tate for making his knife bloody.


It just doesn't work.


.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

I've heard Cao more than a few times on C-SPAN. I like the guy, quite a bit. I don't expect that he'll win and that's a shame.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 15, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

To give Sharron Angle full credit, she "reports a big fundraising haul, $2.3 million in the last 42 days, and Nevada journalist Jon Ralston reports she's kept pace with Harry Reid, which is quite an achievement, given his connections and clout."

Someone believes in her, that's for sure.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

There is a poll from Bloomberg this week that shows that support for repealing the healthcare bill is 37% (3 point margin of error). Sixty one percent think it should be left alone or see how it works. Two percent aren't sure.

I haven't seen other polling on this question. Has anyone?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

wow. I just watched Reid's new ad against Sharron Angle on the jobs at MGM. Very good ad I must say.

I understand that Reid is strong around Las Vegas, whereas Angle is strong in northern Nevada. Does anyone know?

Maybe people in northern NV don't care so much about MGM jobs, although I can't imagine Reno is oblivious. It will be interesting to see the polling over time.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Be fair, noa. The baggers did "quasi-liberate" a lot of spit into the face of Congressman Cleaver.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 15, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe, a girl can dream!!!

This really is a serious issue, and I'd certainly agree with Noa that he deserves an explanation. That said, in my mind, it doesn't excuse anyone else thinking they have a license to do the same.

==

Until I hear convincingly otherwise, I'm going by the evidence: CC approves.

Mine was the first banning ever here and it wasn't for any if the rules below, it WANs fir making the blog uncomfortable for bigots.

I believe CC shares zouk's bigotry. His esteem for the tea party corroborates. You know, "quasi libertarians."

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

12: Many agree with political commentator Janeane Garofalo's take on the baggers. From her wikipedia entry:
___________________

"In April 2009, Garofalo drew criticism when she denounced the Tea Party protests, saying:

“ Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.”

In response to the controversy Garofalo has continued to criticize Tea Party protesters, and has been reported to open her shows with "If there's any tea baggers here, welcome, and as always, white power.""

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 15, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm pro-choice.

Going back to Catholics and abortion, I said that they are almost unanimously against abortion, but I would guess there's a decent amount of diversity into the institutionalization of the anti-abortion stance.

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but my understanding of Roe V. Wade is that there is no accepted definition of when life beings. Obviously when it comes out, it's a sentient life, but there is no accepted definition before that. And it's really a religious one. As a result, since we're in ambiguous territory, privacy rights kick in as granted by amendments 9 and 14 and enumerated in Griswold v. Connecticut.

So I think a lot of Catholics feel that they have made the decision to forgo abortion, but it should still be a personal decision and to force this decision legally is unconstitutional. (Numero Uno)

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe, a girl can dream!!!

This really is a serious issue, and I'd certainly agree with Noa that he deserves an explanation. That said, in my mind, it doesn't excuse anyone else thinking they have a license to do the same.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | July 15, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

"... I really don't understand why that hasn't been enough to get Zouk banned either. CC, I'd be seriously interested to hear your reasoning on this.

* * * *

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | July 15, 2010 9:01 PM"
__________

If you are waiting for an answer to that one, it'll be a LOOOOOOOOONG while. probably another...two years. Ask noa.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 15, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

"NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said his organization does NOT (emphasis mine) believe that the Tea Party movement is racist, but that it's leaders have allowed 'racist factions' to persist."

That doesn't sound much different than what I've contended all along.
-----------------------------
I also have said what Mr. Jealous says, that racist factions have set up housekeeping at some TP rallies, and that the TP movement is not inherently racist.

Others on this blog have disagreed that it is merely housekeeping, but is integral to the TP movement.

I can't argue the point, because I don't know what is in the heart of the TP people.

What I DO know is that the TP people haven't seemed to mind being associated with racists, and that doesn't speak well of their movement. They should strongly disavow the racist elements, but more importantly, give them the bum's rush when they show up at rallies. If racism is abhorent to them, then they should act like it is abhorent.

Only common sense and good pr.

You wouldn't catch me standing next to a guy with a niggar sign.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

@brig-ade:

The NAACP is to a great degree corporately sponsored. Our speculation is some of the "conservative" sponsors forced Ben to walk back from his original position, which was that the teabaggers are the successors to the old White Citizens Councils from the 50s and 60s, i.e., RAY CYSTS. Ben's gotta pay the light bill like everyone else; we understand. The good thing: Ben's original statement was well received and put the baggers on the defensive regarding the issue that animates much if not all its membership, see Dale Robertson's n-word sign and Janeane Garofalo's analysis of the baggers.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 15, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Other than killing doctors, what have Republicans done to help the cause that they are supposedly so passionate about?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 8:55 PM |
---

There's truth in your comments. So are you pro-life or pro-choice?

Posted by: Brigade | July 15, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Noa, I agree with you 1000% on the viciousness of some of the attacks on you, and as I said before, I find his use of the term "Ped" to be utterly disgusting and vile. I really don't understand why that hasn't been enough to get Zouk banned either. CC, I'd be seriously interested to hear your reasoning on this.

All I'm suggesting is that you be the adult. I think you're a decent person by nature-- let him show himself for the lowlife he is.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | July 15, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

A bit off topic, but here's a brief quote from a column in today's USA TODAY:

"NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said his organization does NOT (emphasis mine) believe that the Tea Party movement is racist, but that it's leaders have allowed 'racist factions' to persist."

That doesn't sound much different than what I've contended all along. Now if you're to the left of Ben Jealous on issues of race, you can reasonably be called a winger.

Posted by: Brigade | July 15, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe he will. There are a few pro-life Democrats although they don't always seem too "rigid" in their beliefs."

I think Stupak realized that he was being co-opted by people who were only nominally pro-choice. People who insist a child be carried to term, but would also deny the child health care for a congenital disease. Hence he made that bogus deal with Obama. He just wanted to save face. But when the vote came up to send the bill back to committee, Stupak made a speech. And that was the crux of it. That these people who have such a cavalier attitude towards human life pretend to be pro-choice for political expediency. And that they can take their pro-life and shove it. The Dems do far more to reduce abortions and to protect life than the GOP ever will.

And it's the truth. Study of the bill showed that it would reduce abortions. (Yeah, it was conducted by experts and knowledgeable people, and thus, has a liberal bias.)

And what do you think these economic conditions are doing to the abortion rate? Greater poverty=more abortions. And Republicans are fine with people getting poorer and poorer.

And if poverty leads to abortion, I'm sure we can put a number on how many babies were prematurely put to death due to the economic meltdown. We can also put a number on the 95% of Republican Senators (representing 33% of the population) who are fine with another meltdown.

Other than killing doctors, what have Republicans done to help the cause that they are supposedly so passionate about?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

&brigade: no, Cáo (Fox) has overtones if deviousness. Cao means tall, noble, high.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"I don't get Cao's rigidity on abortion. It seems anomalous for a guy apparently able to see both sides of an issue."

What don't you get? Do you understand the Union's rigidity in it's opposition to slavery when the South wanted freedom of choice? If Cao really believes that abortion is murder and that the innocent unborn child needs an advocate, then why would he be wishy-washy about it?

"A pity he won't switch parties."

Maybe he will. There are a few pro-life Democrats although they don't always seem too "rigid" in their beliefs.

"Aside: my adopted Vietnamese name is also Cao, translating my actual name and removing the tone mark, as Fox has negative overtones in Vietnamese."

Negative overtones? You mean like the name Focker in English?

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 5:47 PM

Posted by: Brigade | July 15, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

DeaD pED wALKIN'

ANY LAST WORDS?


Do you want a cigarette?

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

@dcgrasso: zouk's goads don't reach me but the fact that such vicious attacks get a pass here does. It's so glaring. And I'm serious about the profanity in particular and respect for decorum in general.

CC's tolerance for viciousness from eight wing trolls stands out nit only here but across this paper and across the blogosphere. And he ignores all questions about it yet expect everyone else to behave while stuff like calling another poster a pedophile is OK.

I'd scrupulously respect fair rules. I won't respect exceptions made for bigots and mentals,

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

@dcgrasso: zouk's goads don't reach me but the fact that such vicious attacks get a pass here does. It's so glaring. And I'm serious about the profanity in particular and respect for decorum in general.

CC's tolerance for viciousness from eight wing trolls stands out nit only here but across this paper and across the blogosphere. And he ignores all questions about it yet expect everyone else to behave while stuff like calling another poster a pedophile is OK.

I'd scrupulously respect fair rules. I won't respect except s made
For bigots and mentals,

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Dori, when I go to Mass, in the very conservative Diocese of Philadelphia, I look around the pews and gaze upon family after family with 2 or 3 well-spaced children. Catholic Americans joined the family-planning band wagon long ago. I'm not saying we don't have a couple of families with 5 and more, but they are not the norm.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 15, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

12Bar and Noa, I'd suggest that there's more diversity among practicing Catholics on the abortion issue. My husband attends Mass every week and is even an usher in his church (the kids and I are Jewish-- I'm active in my congregation). He and I discussed the issue before we were married and I told him that I would not have an abortion for a pregnancy that was unplanned, but if I was pregnant with a child who was shown to be disabled, I would abort. His response at the time was that while he couldn't approve, he also couldn't stop it, and he respected the fact that it would have been a very difficult decision for me.

Well, we had an amniocentesis before our younger was born-- all seemed normal. Probably due to a oxygen deprivation during birth, she is mentally disabled and autistic.

Guess who's still a practicing Catholic AND has been extremely pro-choice (for ANY reason) for the past 20+ years, since we realized she had "special needs"???

@Noa-- I genuinely appreciate the fact that you took my earlier comments in the spirit in which they were intended. I really hope you'll just ignore Zouk's small-mindedness. And I will have to log off again in another 15 minutes, to go pick up the afore-mentioned daughter from her ballet class. Sigh.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | July 15, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the Reid link, DDAWD, I love how he uses her own words against her.

That shot of him at his desk through a narrowly open door is just excellent. Burning the midnight oil to save 22,000 jobs.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I am so proud of Obungler. I must admit how wrong about him I was. It is just that I nerver imagined that he could have personally stopped this oil leak, what with all the golf, vacations, dinners and concerts. I also marvel at how everything that went wrong in almost 90 days was everyone else's fault.

Bravo!

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

I would enjoy that discussion, 12Bar.

As I've said, my reverence is fir consciousness, not for potential, not for DNA sequence. A fetus usually doesn't even have a nervous system at the time of abortion so to me there is nothing there to murder.

On the other hand the adult vertebrate s imals euthanized by vets or killed for meat are obvious self-aware, and any parrot is smarter than any newborn human, and most are smarter than a child of two years of age. There is something to murder there.

And to say human potential is human is rather whacky, frankly, given that everything that defines us can be found in a fingernail paring. And what about miscarriage? Should we rescue them too?

After all, it's a fetus.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

"And in a world of seven billion largely useless people the sanctity of a blastula seems rather contrived."

Yeah, not everyone can be so useful as to make moronic comments on a message board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqlfjMQVAE8&feature=player_embedded

New Reid ad attacking Angle on jobs.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Dead Ped Walkin'

Whooopeeeeee!!!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Folks,
As predicted, "37th and 0" has re-appeared under a series of other names (several of which I have banned) since we initially banned him/her on Sunday.
This is nothing new: "ChrisFox" aka "noacoler" has done the same thing repeatedly as well.


Noa,
I really think you are on shaky ground.
Having read a fair number of your posts over the months, you have engaged in the same sort of personal attacks that you cast on others.
Banning 37th made sense. As did banning you. Both were consistent with the rules of fair play on the blog. You both chose to ignore them.

Chris
Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | June 29, 2010 6:52 PM


3. ChrisFox/Noa: The comparison between you and 37th is based on your desire to return repeatedly under other names despite being banned. I continue to be baffled as to why you spend so much time getting back to a blog you disdain so much but that's another conversation.


All,
With a new comments section just days away, I am not going to continue this cat and mouse game with 37th/youcanpostthis.
By early next week, hopefully 37th, noa and others who clearly violate the rules of the comments section will be gone and those --like Fairlington Blade, MarkinAustin and many others -- who really have built a community of political junkies in this comments section will have more power to lead by example.
A boy can dream.
Chris
Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | July 15, 2010 8:05 AM

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 15, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

IMO, ddawd is pretty accurate in describing practicing Catholics as prolife, but all over the place on other issues. That describes me. I'm prolife, but generally liberal on other social issues, and moderate on fiscal issues. I went to Catholic school for 12 years.

And noacoler may not fully appreciate (is that an understatement?) the prolife view, but it's ok with me if he disagrees. Someday, we might have a long thoughtful discussion on the issue, and both of us will understand the other better.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 15, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Do you dare ban two of the most prolific yet abusive, bigoted, racist, foul, disgusting commies on this blog?

==

Aside from "commies," this describes you more accurately than anyone else posting here. Nobody but you is more consitentky nasty, with savage name calling in literally every last post.

@DDAWD: I regard that Catholic rigidity as pure religious bigotry. Were it Schweitzerian reverence for all life it would be one thing but to call human life sacred and all else disposable is revolting to me. And in a world of seven billion largely useless people the sanctity of a blastula seems rather contrived. But then I'm an atheist.

At least Catholics allow themselves to limit family size, unlike Mormons who practically breed at gunpoint.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Mark. Glad you liked it. Obviously you can't talk up your own contributions of insight into Texas politics, so I'll do it. Your stuff is great. Plus it's cool that you know KBH.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat


What are you talking about ???

I agree the rules have to be stricter - but all of a sudden banning people - when there are others who have a long history of far worse behavior - that does not make sense.

.

Posted by: YouCanPostThis | July 15, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Noa, Cao is a pretty devout Catholic, which led to his position on abortion. Catholics are a pretty diverse group except on this one issue. My roommate in college is a devout Catholic and I got to know a lot of his church friends. And there are a lot of Catholics in New Orleans. So I've had experiences with a lot of them. And they are all over the place. My roommate is very liberal. Pro gay marriage, voted for Gore, Kerry, Obama, believes in evolution, etc. Same with a lot of his church friends. And I've known Catholics who are ardent creationists and said Bush was doing a great job right until the bitter end. But they all are in perfect unison on abortion.

I think abortion is the only reason Cao is a Republican. He doesn't seem to hold any other Republican views. As I mentioned, his vote against the stimulus wasn't due to an opposition to the idea of a stimulus, he just wanted more stimulus for New Orleans.

I'll give him that his opposition to abortion is truly principled. Most Republicans just use that position as a way to sucker the religiously devout. But Cao made a potentially damaging vote due to his principles.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, DDAWD. You shed more light on one race in one post than I have seen in awhile.
Bsimon has done good volunteer work for this blog in MN as has Jonah Jameson in OH. But we would learn little of consequence about New Orleans without your comments. Thanks, again.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 15, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Cilizza.

Do you dare ban two of the most prolific yet abusive, bigoted, racist, foul, disgusting commies on this blog?

See below.

Occasionaly they behave. Not often enough.

Posted by: Moonbat | July 15, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Yeah. Your posts have negative overtones here too.

Posted by: Moonbat | July 15, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I don't get Cao's rigidity on abortion. It seems anomalous for a guy apparently able to see both sides of an issue.

A pity he won't switch parties.

Aside: my adopted Vietnamese name is also Cao, translating my actual name and removing the tone mark, as Fox has negative overtones in Vietnamese.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 15, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Wow, three Louisiana posts in a row.

1) Name recognition. I have seen like two signs for Richmond in New Orleans and those were put up after the scope of the poll. Don't trust a poll in this district that has the R leading the D by a 2-1 margin. It's just not credible.

2) While Cao has voted with Obama a lot more than you can expect a Republican to, he has gone against the President on two signature issues, the stimulus and Affordable Care. The first one he voted against because New Orleans was getting the least funding of any district. The vote against health care was due to abortion. I'm not sure who he is talking to, but most people I know are unhappy about these votes. Especially the stimulus. His vote against the health care bill might be mitigated by the fact that he did vote for it the first time around. I don't get into a lot of conversations on abortion, for obvious reasons, but New Orleans never struck me as particularly anti-abortion. If you go by demographics (poor, minorities) the district is probably relatively favorable towards abortion rights.

Other things to note.

Cao is a persona non grata in the eyes of the RNCC due to his use of earmarks (as well as his bucking the party line in many occasions). The GOP committees were probably never going to invest much money in this race, but now they probably will let Cao flounder.

Also, Cao will be running as a supporter of Obama. He has always positioned himself as a supporter of the President and his agenda. Obviously this works in his favor and will make it difficult for his eventual opponent to draw contrasts. Still, I think the stimulus and health care votes will leave Cao vulnerable.

One of the factors that led to Cao's election in 2008 was the fact that Hurricane Gustav caused the primaries to be pushed back. We ended up having our primaries on election day and then having the actual election on December 6th. So turnout was low and Republicans were more energized and Democrats weren't too interested in voting for William Jefferson. So you had almost a perfect storm which led to a 3% victory for Cao. These events may occur again, especially a hurricane delay, but a lot of extraneous things had to go right for Cao. Also, he's not running against a guy with 16 indictment charges.

I've decided to be a one issue guy this election and vote against Cao purely based on his health care vote. However, the guy is a good guy and easily the most sensible Republican in DC. If he were to win again, I wouldn't be the least bit upset.

That being said, he is still a longshot to win.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 15, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company