Congressman Rodney Alexander May Cross Aisle to GOP

This would be a real surprise. I assume that Alexander was supporting Gephardt (his original House mentor) for President just two months ago, but IA changed everything. If Alexander switches, there could still be a Democrat who gets into a general election for December.

I can't recall a House incumbent in LA that lost in the past few decades, excepting the 1992 races that pitted McCrery vs Huckaby and Holloway vs Baker. I think the last one to lose reelection was Buddy Leach in 1980.

More on the possible Alexander switch:

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1078480764327410.xml

"This would be a real surprise."

On the contrary. I would be surprised if the GOP offered Alexander a seat on the Appropriations Committee if he switched and he turned the offer down. Alexander is more socially conservative than most House Republicans, and his overall views are probably very similar to those of Congressmen McCreery, Tauzin and Baker. Personally, I hope he switches. It's our best chance to capture the seat, and it would actually help us win the Senate race for Vitter (one less prominent conservative Democrat rallying voters to Chris John or John Kennedy).

Retiring U.S. Sen. John Breaux, visibly upset over Alexander's impending defection, said he is "profoundly disappointed ... after all the work so many people did to get him elected."

Paging Senator Jeffords. Urgent call from Senator Breaux.

Well, it didn't take long for me having to eat my words. Politics1.com just reported the following:

Alexander's flirtation with the GOP was very brief. Friday afternoon he issued the following statement: "Although I am flattered by the offers of the Republicans to join their ranks, I am deciding to stay where I am."

So Alexander will stay a Democrat, and face a very tough reelection race, probably against John Cooksey. If we can keep other Republicans from running in the district (which is nearly impossible, since I think it vies with the Kansas 3rd as the most cannibalistic district in the nation), Cooksey can benefit from Bush's coattails and get 50%+1 on election day. It would be poetic justice that Alexander came close to switching because he was afraid of Kerry's negative coattails, and ends up losing exactly because of that. But if no one gets a majority and there is a December run-off, anything can happen. (On a related note, does anyone know if Louisiana's jungle primary format has been challenged in court recently? I think it violates the First Amendment rights of members of political parties just as much as the California and Washington State all-in primary formats did---and those were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. If we can get rid of the December run-off and allow each party to have primaries before the November elections, it would make it a lot easier for Republicans to win one-on-one in November, especially since the Democrats may end up nominating liberal candidates.)

I wonder if the GOP House leadership actually offered Alexander a slot on Appropriations, or if it was just a rumor. And I'm sure that Cooksey's comments that his decision to run would have nothing to do with whether or not Alexander switched made Alexander realize that it would be easier to beat Cooksey by remaining a Democrat than if both were Republicans.

The LA "jungle primary" is a creation of the now jailed and super-popular Democrat Edwin Washington Edwards. It was upheld by the Nixon-Ford Justice Department in 1975 and was given grudging support by the state's then leading Republican, Congressman David Treen. At first it applied to state and local elections; then it applied to Congress starting in 1976 or 1978. It was challenged a few years ago, and the Supreme Court said that the "primary" would have to correspond with the November "general election" in other states, rather than September or October as had been the case. Then the LA runoff, technically the "general election," would be held as needed the first Saturday in December. So this December "general election" is constitutional. This kind of "general election" can and often does pit two popular Democrats against each other, shutting out GOP candidates. Many Republicans do not even bother to run for office in LA, particularly for the legislature and parish commissions (called "police juries").

Rodney Alexander remaining Democrat is no surprise. LA is staunchly Democrat, and Alexander can easily win again. Already the Landrieu-Breaux-Blanco-Landrieu quartet is lining up with John Kerry. Popular former Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Jr., is another Kerry admirer. Democrats know that Kerry just might win the whole thing, including LA, but we cannot be sure at this point.

"LA is staunchly Democrat, and Alexander can easily win again. . . . Democrats know that Kerry just might win the whole thing, including LA, but we cannot be sure at this point."

Those are Democrat talking points there. John Cooksey was elected and easily reelected in the 5th CD, and if he runs again (which it appears that he will) I guarantee you that Alexander will not win "easily." Alexander's slim victory in December of 2002 was a fluke; he needed a "perfect storm," and he got it. Now, I will readily admit that Alexander is in a much better position as an incumbent than as a challenger, but it is still a district that gave Bush 56.4% of the vote to Gore's 40.5% in 2000. I seriously doubt that Kerry will be able to hold Bush to a lower percentage than that in 2004, since he is a Massachusetts liberal, not a Baptist Tennessean who was Bill Clinton's VP. And even if Kerry picked a Southerner as his runningmate, it wouldn't mean much in LA, since George H.W. Bush got 54.3% in 1988 (1.7% higher than what his son got in the state in 2000) when Massachusetts liberal Dukakis picked Texan Lloyd Bentsen as his runningmate, and that was back when there were a heck of a lot more Yellow Dog Democrats in LA than there are today. Do you really believe that John F. Kerry is going to carry the state of Louisiana, or are you just being cautiously pessimistic?

"It was challenged a few years ago, and the Supreme Court said that the "primary" would have to correspond with the November "general election" in other states, rather than September or October as had been the case. Then the LA runoff, technically the "general election," would be held as needed the first Saturday in December. So this December "general election" is constitutional."

Yes, the summer "primary" (in which candidates with majorities were declared "elected" and thus did not face a November election) was declared unconstitutional because it violated Article I of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to decide on the date for electing members of Congress. However, I'm not sure if the "jungle" format was challenged as well, and if the Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the First-Amendment rights of members of political parties. In any event, LA's jungle primary seems to contradict the holding of the Supreme Court case involving the California blanket primary, which was later the basis for declaring the Washington State blanket primary unconstitutional as well. The 9th Circuit declared the WA primary unconsitutional, and it was upheld by the Supremes (by denying cert) a couple of weeks ago. I don't think the LA jungle primary allows members of political parties to select their standardbearer, which was the reason why the CA and WA blanket primaries were declared unconstitutional. Here is an article on the WA primary:

9th Circuit Panel Rules Blanket Primary Unconstitutional

OLYMPIA - A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today found Washington's blanket primary system unconstitutional.

The 3-0 decision overturned a March 2002 decision by a U.S. District Court judge in Tacoma that the state's primary did not violate the U.S. Constitution by interfering with political parties' First Amendment right of association.

Attorney General Christine Gregoire said her office will confer with Secretary of State Sam Reed, the state's top elections official, before deciding whether to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review of today's decision

"We want to be sure that all the state's arguments in favor of the blanket primary have been thoroughly reviewed before the state is required to modify an election system that has worked well for voters for the past 67 years," Gregoire said.

The challenge to the blanket primary system was filed in 2000 by state political parties, which argued that a U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating California's primary election process rendered Washington's primary unconstitutional.

Washington argued that this state's primary differed in key respects from the California system that was found to be unconstitutional. For example, California, unlike Washington, defined its primary as a party-nominating process. In addition, Washington voters, unlike those in California, are not required to affiliate with a political party when they register to vote, andthe two states differ in the ways they regulate the internal organization and responsibilities of political parties.

The 9th Circuit found that even assuming these factual differences, it didn't make a legal difference with regards to the constitutionality of our primary. The court also said its decision is compelled by the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down California's primary system.

Gregoire said it will be important to resolve this issue as early as possible to allow the Legislature, if necessary, to revise the primary process.

Washington has used the blanket primary as a means of selecting candidates for the general election ballot since 1936.

Do you really believe that John F. Kerry is going to carry the state of Louisiana, or are you just being cautiously pessimistic?

I don't know, but there may be "conservatives" who support Kerry because they are anti-Bush for a variety of reasons. In addition, Kerry will surely win the bulk of the 500,000 yellow-dog Democrats of LA. He could do what Dukakis failed to do 16 years ago. Bush has alienated many of his original followers, and many may sit it out. That's the big worry the GOP should consider.

"In addition, Kerry will surely win the bulk of the 500,000 yellow-dog Democrats of LA."

I disagree with you. I think we'll see plenty of yellow-dogs continue to be choked until they turn blue, and few blue-dog Democrats will vote for Kerry (who is more liberal than Bill Jefferson!---look up their ACU scores). As for conservatives not turning out because of their disappointment with Bush, I think Vitter will make sure even the most rabid opponents of the growth and government and the guest-worker program come out to vote. And once they make it to the polls, do you really think they will not do their part to keep John Kerry from winning? I'm not saying that Bush can take the conservative vote for granted, I'm saying that he will make clear it in the next 8 months that conservatives will be far better off with four more years of George W. Bush (warts and all) than with four years of John Kerry.