Democrat Melancon: I Cosponsored Card Check Because I Opposed It


I worked on Capitol Hill for 10 years, and this is the first time I’ve heard anyone make this claim:

In turn, Melancon, a co-sponsor of EFCA, is seeking to change the bill. An aide to Melancon said the lawmaker is working on a “bipartisan solution” that would bring labor and business together…

Melancon is an EFCA co-sponsor, but said he was working on making changes to the bill after being asked by local business leaders last week to drop his sponsorship.

Attendees said the congressman defended his position at a meeting in his congressional district hosted by the St. Mary Industrial Group, but added he was working to amend the bill.

“His deal is ‘I am on this bill to make it better, trying to make a bad bill better,’?” said Bob Miller, president of the St. Mary Industrial Group. “I doubt it seriously if anyone in the room believed it…”

An aide to Melancon said the Blue Dog Democrat stuck by the bill at the business leader meeting and did not distance himself from it.

“To clarify what he said, Congressman Melancon understands many of the concerns expressed by the business owners at the meeting,” said Robin Winchell, a spokeswoman for Melancon.

“He is interested in bringing both sides together to work out their differences. As a co-sponsor, he is working on a bipartisan solution that will address some of these concerns, while still protecting employees’ rights.”

So is Melancon in favor of Card Check, or opposed? There is no magical, unicorn-inspired compromise that makes both sides happy. And the claim that he cosponsored the bill to get in better position to change it is laughable. If a Member of Congress wants to force changes to a bill, he (or she) withholds sponsorship until it’s amended. Shocking, huh?

Melancon is experiencing one of the problems of having power in Washington – you cannot be all things to all people. He is clearly trying to send one message to labor unions and another to businesses. In much the same way, he pretends to be an independent and conservative voice when he talks to voters, but in reality he votes with Nancy Pelosi and House Democrat leaders nearly 90 percent of the time.

Further, would Louisiana companies really be any happier if he does oppose the union organizing provisions of ‘Card Check?’ It still means he supports allowing Washington bureaucrats to impose collective bargaining agreements on companies that don’t bow to union demands. And there’s no version of Melancon’s malleable position in which he opposes that – at least so far.

And to think: Melancon is the Democrats’ best hope against Senator David Vitter next year.


Category: , ,

RSS feed

5 Comments Leave a comment

I think Vitter is somewhat vulnerable

louisiana (Diary) Wednesday, July 8th at 5:01PM EST (link)

Melancon will draw some Cajun votes away from him, and he will get
virtually all of the minority vote. While Vitter has a 70% approval rate
among LA republicans,there are conservatives who do not approve of
him because of his “indiscretion”. Throw Stormy Daniels (porn star) into
the mix to remind everyone about that. Reportedly, Schumer has promised
Melancon extensive national support. Anything can happen in La.
Remember this is the state where Edwin Edwards ran against David Duke
in the 1991 Governor’s race. One Edwards bumper sticker read:
“Vote for the crook, not the clan.” Thankfully, there have been many
improvements in our politics, but I fully expect there will be some major
mudslinging in this election.

Well the laws have changed haven't they?

Neil Stevens (Diary) Wednesday, July 8th at 5:06PM EST (link)

I thought Louisiana changed the law, and has partisan primaries for federal office now, the lack of which was what allowed Duke to game the system and get into the general?

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

The LA jungle primaries were ditched....

Steve Maley (Diary) Wednesday, July 8th at 6:06PM EST (link)

…because the U.S. Constitution requires election day to be election day. Under jungle primaries, that was the election on the first Tues in November, and more often than not the winner was decided in December’s runoff.

They also usually ended up pitting the most conservative vs. the most liberal candidate in the runoff. A candidate like Edwards had a base vote of 28% AAs plus 10% or so yellow dogs. Duke won his slice of the electorate fair & square, maybe 22% or so (don’t remember the actual numbers) of crackers & rednecks to whom his race baiting rhetoric appealed. That left the 40% or so who picked more moderate Dem, Repub or Indep candidates in the primary field forced to choose between the Silver Zipper or the Grand Dragon.

The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.

 
 

Stormy inelligable

redtillimdead (Diary) Thursday, July 9th at 1:58AM EST (link)

She needed to register to vote and move to LA by Tuesday the 7th, she didnt

Nancy Pelosi can kiss my asstroturf.

 
 

Sorry, I'm late responding

louisiana (Diary) Wednesday, July 8th at 5:49PM EST (link)

was in the process of fixing chicken/ sausage gumbo, & then had trouble
posting. I logged on again, so hopefully that fixed the problem. Yes, the
law changed , under Blanco, I believe. We now have a closed primary
system. Under the old system, the top 2 candidates advanced to the
primaries, which meant that 2 people from the same political party
could advance.