The DSCC got their candidate:
Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) announced Thursday that he will run against Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) in 2010.
In a web video , Melancon emphasized his centrist and conservative credentials in a state that has gone to the right even in recent years.
“I'm a pro-life, pro-gun, Southern Democrat,” he said. “I have an ‘A’ rating with the NRA, and I have been an avid hunter and fisherman my entire life. I am a proud centrist – a Blue Dog – a straight-up-the-middle fighter for the little guy who is struggling to make ends meet.”
Right -- the Blue Dogs are all about the "little guy", which is why they are doing the insurance industry's bidding on health care reform. Whatever. You think Lieberman, the Wal-Mart twins, the Nelsons, and Landrieu are bad? Melancon would be a bigger pain in the ass than those Democrats.
Note, Melancon voted against the public option in the House. Yet, as a House analysis (PDF) notes, that bill would:
provide significant benefits in the 3rd Congressional District of Louisiana: up to 11,000 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 3,000 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 350 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $146 million in uncompensated care each year; and 115,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance;
But Melancon chairs the Blue Dogs, and they're in the pocket of big insurance. So screw the little guy. Big Pharma sure was grateful:
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug industry lobby known as PhRMA, has run television ads in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Lafayette thanking Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville, for being "a leader, steadfast in his support for innovative biomedical research."
Once upon a time, this site was focused on "more Democrats", but we are getting a good schooling on the power of bad Democrats to stymie and hamstring the progressive agenda. Hence, we have evolved into "better Democrats". Melancon would be with us 50 percent of the time, but it would mostly be the 50 percent when it didn't matter much.
But here's the good thing about Melancon running -- he's going to be a strong candidate. We polled the race back in March 5, and it was a tight race even back then (Vitter 48, Melancon 41). Vitter hasn't had an easy last few months, it might be even tighter today. And Republicans know they're in for a tough battle.
"All things being equal, Cajuns vote for Cajuns," John Treen once observed about the nature of Louisiana state elections.
In every statewide race where a candidate faced someone "who was either Cajun or represented Acadiana in Congress", he or she lost, regardless of which political party in which he or she was registered..
The only two historic exceptions to that rule, the one-time political strategist and brother of Gov. Dave Treen noted, were the first Roemer/Edwards Gubernatorial race, where extenuating factors of court cases and corruption sealed the incumbent's fate and the 2004 Senate race where Democratic divisions did essentially the same thing.
U.S. Senator David Vitter likely hopes that extenuating circumstances will also protect his incumbency against his newest Cajun challenger, Congressman Charlie Melancon, though they are less likely than in the past.
"Democrats" like Melancon live to water down progressive legislation, and we already have too many of his type in the Senate. Witness how a 60-seat supermajority has been of little use to the Democratic agenda, as "centrists" (i.e. corporatist) Democrats join forces with Republicans to block effective change. At least Vitter can be ignored as an irrelevant party-line backbencher GOP vote. Melancon would have far more influence in a Democratic Senate. If I'm a corporatist lobby, I abandon Vitter and put all my eggs in the Melancon basket. He'll be a more effective and reliable check on the Democratic Senate than Vitter ever could.
But progressives should still cheer his candidacy, and here's why -- the National Republican Senatorial Committee will be forced to spend millions defending this seat, depriving them of funds to target our vulnerable incumbents and aggressively defend their open seats. Millions shipped to Louisiana mean millions less to hit our vulnerable incumbents like Chris Dodd, millions less to defend open seats such as New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, and Missouri, and millions less to defend their vulnerable incumbents like Richard Burr.
Do we want him in the Senate? Some of you will appreciate the odd vote he gets Democrats, votes that Vitter will never deliver. So on that front, he'd be marginally better than the Republican incumbent. But his victory would also empower the worst kind of corporatist Democrat, and if we are to see truly progressive legislation enacted, we'll need to rid our party of this corrosive breed. While in the minority, I was in the former camp, now with bigger majorities, I'm in the latter. Current events are showing us how damaging the bad Democrats have been for our agenda.
But regardless of where you fall in that calculation, it's great seeing Republicans forced to spend heavily to defend this seat. It'll definitely pay dividends elsewhere on the national electoral map.
Update: Lol, as suggested by several in the comments, Melancon's statement should've read:
"I'm a pro-life, pro-gun, Southern Democrat," he said. "I have an ‘A’ rating with the NRA, and I have been an avid hunter and fisherman my entire life. I am a proud centrist – a Blue Dog – a straight-up-the-middle finger for the little guy who is struggling to make ends meet."