At this point, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see Tom McClintock and Gary Coleman show up to run in the Republican senate primary in Louisiana. So far, we have a potential challenge to David Vitter, a man who allegedly paid for sex, from Stormy Daniels, a woman whose career is based around being paid for sex. (If Mary Carey’s candidacy for governor of California is any indication, the Daniels candidacy shouldn’t be expected to get any serious traction, if it even becomes official. As a marketing ploy it might not even pencil out for her, if the anticipated revenues from increased sales of DVDs to curious constituents interested in learning more about her positions are exceeded by lost residuals from campaign advertising laws preventing her cinematic works from being shown on Louisiana cable systems.)
As of today, add a more legitimate potential challenger: Tony Perkins, prominent religious right talking head and current head of the Family Research Council. This is what Vitter was trying to head off with his recent moves to the hard right (taking on Clinton for SoS, for instance), but Perkins apparently still smells blood, today telling Politico that he’s “considering” the race.
“I don’t think he needs to say anything else about it, but I don’t think he can do anything else about it,” Perkins said. “Can people feel a sense of trust in him to publicly stand with him and support him and help him? Maybe he has [gotten to that point]. I know I still get some questions. I think he is certainly vulnerable [to] a challenge from the right – a candidate without issues.”
Perkins does have a background in elective politics: he lost the 2002 Senate primary and prior to that was a state representative in Louisiana, where he helped pass the state’s “covenant marriage” law which allows couples to opt into a marriage where divorce becomes more difficult. He also managed the failed 1996 Senate campaign for Woody Jenkins (last seen losing the LA-06 special to Don Cazayoux).
This is an extremely difficult race to handicap, since it’s still unclear who will be running (no Dems have stepped forward yet). It’s also unclear how the Republican base would split in the case of one of the nation’s most right-wing senators being challenged from the right: the breakdown may not be ideological as much as based on religion and region, as Vitter is a Catholic who used to represent New Orleans suburbs, while Perkins is from Baton Rouge and will play better among evangelical Protestants in the state’s north. (And don’t forget that while Louisiana threw out its traditional jungle primary for federal races, it still uses runoffs for primary races where no one hits 50%, and if there’s a third candidate a runoff may result.)
It’s tempting to say that a Democrat would have a better shot against the ostensibly more polarizing Perkins (with his links to the Council of Conservative Citizens and, via the Jenkins campaign, David Duke) than Vitter, but with Vitter’s travails, maybe not. And with Louisiana one of the few states trending away from the Democrats, they might not have much of a shot against either one.
“Interested in learning more about her positions” — the dirtiest thing I’ve heard on Swing State!
A bloody primary where whoever emerges is eminently beatable after all the dirty laundry is aired. Question is beaten by who? Mitch Landrieu? Cazayoux? Chris John? Can’t see Melancon giving up his House seat. But then still this is still Louisiana…
This is only true within party primaries. If it were true in the general election, Cazayoux would likely have retained his seat this past December.
The NRSC needs to stop pretending this Vitter situation never has come up and should pressure Vitter like they are Bunning. It is the right thing to do.
The sad difference between the two races is Vitter is actually popular in LA and would probably still have the upper hand even against a strong Democrat (not that Ive read any are seriously looking at the race).
to beat even Vitter in Louisiana. I suppose a conservative Democrat may be able to do so, but it will take the guts to repeatedly bring up the prostitution scandals and make that the major issue in the race.
If Vitter’s behavior rather than the issues becomes the major issue in the race, then we may have a chance to beat him. But the Democrat we get may be so conservative that it really isn’t worth it.
We don’t get anything from a Democrat who opposes cloture on the stimulus, health care, or clean energy legislation. I’d rather have a Republican than a Bobby Bright Democrat.
…about time Inhofe had someone else to join his completely insane and disconnected from reality caucus.
as far as I’m concerned, this is a good thing. I say we make an effort to draft Cazayoux and run with this.
Either way you slice it Perkins is going to make Vitter spend money and hit him hard. When either emerges from the races they will be beatable and someone like Cazayoux can win this. Its either him or Mitch Landrieu. Take your pick and go for it. We will need a strong challenger here to spread out the Republican cash so we can continue to win more than a couple races a year.
comparatively spectacular to mr. diaper
While that is one disgusting and really scary thought, well, I plan on running for Senate in 2020 and if a big homo like me got to serve with the daddy of homophobia, god that would just be too perfect. (Im assuming Franken gets his ass kicked in 2014).
A David Vitter vs. David Duke vs. Stormy Daniels vs. Tony Perkins republican primary would be my dream scenario. The most honest of them if probably the porn star.
And I don’t know that comparing her to that porn star who ran for California is accurate. I would say it’s more comparable to Jesse Ventura’s run in MN. Not that I am saying she’s going to win, but LA is no CA, and Mary Carey was running in a recall with like 80 ppl on the ballot. I can see LA voters being “quirky” like MN voters and at least enjoying the novelty of her campaign.
I’d be really interested to see how she would do if the Dems really had NO candidate. I mean, God, I’d vote for her in a heartbeat over Tony Perkins or David Diapers Vitter. Hell, she’d probably be more progressive than Cazayoux!
I know she hasn’t even officially committed to run, but has she ever said she’d challenge Vitter in the R primary as opposed to the general?
I think I’d rather her run in the general as an independent or, if it could be arranged, as a Libertarian (she seems like a good ideological fit for the party). That way, Sinator Vitter’s activities stays in the spotlight closer to the election. But, would she draw more votes from Vitter or the D?