NOLA Blogathon - When is it appropriate to jettison a Dem Elected Official?

(this post was written for this week's "NOLA/Gulf Blogathon at www.dailykos.com)

The story of Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard's handling of emergency preparations for suburban New Orleans and his leadership post-storm have been widely discussed and documented. When Broussard stood for re-election, the division of the vote in Jefferson Parish was clear: Voters whose houses were flooded as a result of Broussard's decision to evacuate pump operators out of the parish voted against him. Voters in neighborhoods unaffected by these man-made floodwaters supported him.

Broussard and his assistants defended his actions. Parish CAO Tim Whitmer backed Broussard's decision in 2006:

Whitmer believes Broussard made the right choice -- "life over property." He adds that officials now hope to make sure "that no parish president will ever have to make that decision again." To that end, the parish has built pump station safe rooms, which are intended to eliminate the need to evacuate pump operators.

One wonders if Whitmer still defends his boss, who, when under oath giving testimony in a lawsuit, said:

"Your question says that I knew the Doomsday Plan was going to be implemented," Broussard said. "I've already testified that I did not know this plan existed calling for the evacuation of the pump operators."

Broussard stood for re-election as the man who made the tough decisions. He took full credit for implementing the "Doomsday Plan,"even going on the radio before the storm made landfall, urging FEMA to bring 10,000 body bags to New Orleans. When under oath, however, denied any knowledge of the plan.

OK, a politician who is a documented liar is not news. But a politician who may have lied under oath, well, that's something different. Walter Maestri, the parish's emergency preparedness director at the time of the storm, testified in a deposition taken on April 9th that Broussard knew full well about the plan long before landfall:

Maestri said he wrote two versions of the Doomsday Plan: one in 1998, during Parish President Tim Coulon's administration and when Broussard was council chairman, and another in March 2005, a revision requested by Broussard through Tim Whitmer, his top aide who supervises department directors. "Was it your impression at the time you had the meeting with Mr. Whitmer that Mr. Broussard was fully aware of the Catastrophic Weather Plan because he had in mind a change of the shelter location for parish employees?" plaintiffs attorney Richard Martin said. "Yes," Maestri replied.

No wonder Whitmer so strongly defended his boss in 2006. He ran point for Broussard for the project.

Of course, it's always possible that Maestri is the one lying here. He'd have reason to sell out Broussard, since his old boss threw him under the bus after the storm. Maestri currently works as a consultant for Assumption Parish in SW Louisiana. So, the top Democrat in the parish is now not only a liar, but quite possibly a perjurer.

Die hard Broussard supporters will argue that any attacks on him originate from Republicans for purely partisan reasons. In the wake of the Democratic reaction to former NY-GOV Spitzer's legal/ethical/moral entanglements, is it right to defend Broussard, simply because he is a Democrat?

The price tag for the flooding of Jefferson Parish that is a direct result of the implementation of the "Doomsday Plan" is believed to be between $3-$5 billion. The lawsuits have begun, and will continue. Had Metairie not flooded, things might have gone better for recovery efforts in the city, since all the focus would have been there.

Where do we draw the line in defending liars?