Earlier this week, I mentioned Stuart Rothenberg's issues with Rasmussen Report's polling #'s. Now, I've got more ammo to debunk the #'s coming Rasmussen Reports, one from Public Policy Polling (PPP) and another from Anzalone-Liszt.
David Vitter of Louisiana. Although recent Rasmussen polls have shown Vitter with a healthy lead, Charlie Melancon is a top tier challenger who though not yet known statewide has performed strongly in a very tough district for Democrats. Voters have had a long time to forget Vitter's past personal transgressions but they'll be reminded of them this fall. Louisiana is also a state that might actually be easier for Dems in a midterm because it's one of the few places that supported Barack Obama at a lower rate than John Kerry.
And now Anzalone-Liszt (hat tip to John Maginnis - subscription only):
A poll done for Congressman Charlie Melancon shows him trailing Sen. David Vitter, 48-38 percent, which is better news for the Democrat than other recent survey results.
The Anzalone-Liszt poll sample of 800 voters was taken Feb. 18-24, with a margin of error of 3.5 percent. The poll contrasts widely with monthly Rasmussen Reports, which showed Vitter's lead expanding from 18 percent to 24 percent in the first two months of the year. The Anzalone poll shows the race has changed little since its May survey when Vitter led 47-37 percent.
Granted, this is a partisan poll, but I'd trust it more than Rasmussen Reports, mainly because Rasmussen is an automated poll, and Anzalone-Liszt has actual human beings conducting the poll. In addition, the Anzalone-Liszt poll showed Melancon's voter ID at 59% compared to Vitter's 92%. That's more in line with a Congressman's voter ID at the start of his first state-wide run.
Now the question is whether the Melancon campaign will fight the fight the Vitter folks are giving them - defending the Democrat's economic agenda, and run as an economic populist. We'll see.
So quite a few folks were disappointed with the last poll on the Senate race came out ... on the Democratic side, that is. But Stuart Rothenberg joined the party of Democratic strategists panning the reliability of Rasmussen Reports #'s on individual races across the country:
The numbers in the Wisconsin survey that stuck out like a sore thumb were the favorable and unfavorable ratings of Republican Senate hopeful Dave Westlake. According to the survey, 33 percent of those polled had a favorable view of Westlake, while 31 percent had an unfavorable opinion of him.
What's so weird about that? Well, Westlake isn't exactly a public figure.
The self-described "entrepreneur and small businessman" went to West Point and earned an MBA from the University of Chicago, but as far as I can tell, he has no political experience and hasn't spent any money to get known. His year-end Federal Election Commission report showed that at the end of 2009 he had raised $33,000, spent $31,000 and had less than $3,000 in the bank.
In November, Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling company, surveyed the Wisconsin Senate race and found Westlake's ID at 2 percent favorable/9 percent unfavorable. Could Westlake's name ID have skyrocketed from 11 percent to 64 percent from November to February? No, not without a statewide media blitz.
Now ... let's take a look at the Rasmussen Reports #'s for Charlie from that January poll that showed Vitter with a 23 point lead:
Melancon, a congressman since 2004, is viewed favorably by 39% and unfavorably by 46%.
So ... 84% of Louisianans know enough about Charlie, a Congressman from South Louisiana, to give their opinion of him to an automated poll? I find that hard to believe, considering that only 61% gave their opinion about Charlie to Research 2000 back in March 2009, with 39% having no opinion of him at all.
On Thursday, Rasmussen Reports came out with a poll on the Louisiana Senate race that is rather discouraging:
Candidate
Percentage (October 2009)
Sinning Senator (R)
57% (46%)
Charlie Melancon (D)
33% (36%)
One of the reasons for this surge of support for the Sinning Senator is that he has continually attacked Charlie by linking to him to President Obama. One such attack came recently in a fundraising appeal email:
Louisianans and Americans across the country are tightening their family budgets and reducing their spending. President Obama and the liberal friends of Charlie Melancon aren't following the example of families reducing spending, and are instead proposing to grow the government and spend more than at any time in American history.
While this greatly simplifies the President's budget, and fails to remind folks that the GOP-controlled Congress from 2001-2006 borrowed our way from a balanced budget inherited from Democratic President Bill Clinton to deficits as far as the eye can see, (and the Sinning Senator voted for every single budget), I find it curious that the Sinning Senator says one thing about the budget but does another when it comes time to vote on a bill that contains a simple idea that all Louisianans are currently doing - pay as you go.
That's right, Louisiana, while y'all are looking at your family budgets, and determining whether you can afford to get the car fixed, and if so, what you'll forego for the week or the month to be able to afford fixing the car, the Sinning Senator believes that the U.S. government should continue to borrow its way into debt. The proof is in this vote. And if you click on that link, you'll notice that the Sinning Senator was joined in voting NAY by every single one of his Republican colleagues in the Senate.
It is time for Charlie to fight the fight he's been given by the Sinning Senator, and that fight is defending the Democratic economic agenda. It is quite plain that the stimulus is actually working, and people are being put back to work: (hat tip to CenLamar)
It's time to expose the Sinning Senator for the liar that he is when it comes to, well, job creation, health care reform, the federal budget, the stimulus, and on and on by espousing an populist economic agenda, and showing that the Democratic economic agenda is producing positive results.
The only announced Democratic candidate in LA-03, Ravi Sangisetty, released his fundraising numbers:
Candidate
Money Raised
Money Spent
Debts
Cash on Hand
Ravi Sanisetty (D)
$250,000 +
~ $25,000
n/a
$225,000
A first time candidate raising $250,000 is mighty impressive, especially in this state, where far too many Democrats struggle to raise any money at all for their campaigns.
And if there are any Democrats still mulling whether to get in the race or not, I think Mr. Sanisetty's fundraising haul has made the decision for them, as any candidate would be hard-pressed to raise the money it would take to win a Democratic primary against him at this late date.
There are no fundraising #'s being reported as of yet by presumed Republican front-runner Nickie Monica, but I'd be surprised if he doesn't have a sizable warchest at this point, particularly since he's been fundraising since July. There are two other Republicans running - a New Iberian by the name of Kristian Magar, and Jeff Landry, who lost to State Senator Troy Hebert in 2007, reported that he raised over $96,000 in December, and lent his own campaign $20,000 to have approximately $115,000 in the bank. I'd love to see a GOP primary drain the survivor's bank accounts, but we'll see.
Now, on to the rumors ... I've been hearing folks whisper about the Department of Natural Resources Secretary Scott Angelle running for this seat since August. The only problem is that he doesn't know which party he wants to run in, as he was a Democrat back when he served as St. Martin's Parish President and I believe is still a registered Democrat, but as The Houma Today informed us back in August:
When asked this week if he had been approached by state or national Republican Party officials about making the switch, Angelle said no.
"I haven't been contacted by the Republicans or the Democrats or the Libertarians or Greenpeace or any kind of organized political group," he said, laughing. "No."
In a follow-up query by e-mail, he was also asked if he would even consider making the leap.
"Several longtime friends have suggested it over the years and again more recently," Angelle replied. "It is something that I would consider, like (former President) Ronald Reagan, (former Gov.) Mike Foster and (former U.S. Congressman) Billy Tauzin."
And for all those Democrats out there who think Mr. Angelle would be a great candidate to have, y'all should know that he spent his New Year's weekend down in Cameron Parish hosting a fundraiser for none other than Governor PBJ.
Working for a Republican Governor is one thing, but hosting a fundraiser for one? That ain't the mark of a Democrat, y'all.
Last week, Louisiana1976 highlighted an amendment put up by Senator Coburn of Oklahoma that will cut the $300 million that Senator Landrieu successfully inserted into the health care reform legislation prior to the vote to debate the bill in the Senate.
It all has to do with a tweaking of the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, which determines how much money the federal government and the states have to put up for Medicaid coverage. The Louisiana FMAP has usually been around 67%, meaning that Louisiana usually puts up about 33% of the costs of Medicaid for a fiscal year. However, since the FMAP takes into account the average per capita income from five years to three years prior to the current fiscal year, that means for fiscal year 2011, it will take into account the per capita income of Louisiana between 2006-2008, the years that federal disaster assistance money flooded the state. Thus, the Louisiana FMAP drops from 67% to 63%, causing a $900 million hole in the state's budget this upcoming year.
Senator Landrieu fulfilled the #1 request of Governor PBJ by getting some funding to help close a $2.5 billion dollar hole in the state budget over the next five years.
While Governor PBJ has remained largely silent, the Sinning Senator has twittered his displeasure with "backroom deals" to get health care reform passed. Never mind that he's quite famous for some backroom dealings himself.
Ahhh, I digress.
Back to the FMAP funding issue ... according to The Town Talk, the Sinning Senator is:
"holding off judgment specifically on the Coburn amendment until it comes forward for an actual vote."
Hmmm ... what is there to decide, Sinning Senator? Either you'll vote nay to help out Louisiana, or you'll vote yea to appease your friend from Oklahoma, and you'll screw us all back home.
As Charlie Melancon said in a conference call on the Coburn amendment yesterday, and cut short in a tweet (tweet italicized):
"David Vitter needs to remember that he works for the people of Louisiana, not the Senator from Oklahoma. We're talking about $300 million to head off a state budget crisis and help families that need it most. It doesn't take a Harvard education to figure out that this is common sense and the right thing to do for Louisiana."
While most of us would expect that our Senators do the best thing for the people of this state, it doesn't always work that way with the Sinning Senator ... he looks out for himself before he looks out for the people of Louisiana.
Now the national political media has picked up on Secretary of State Jay Dardenne's floating of a potential primary challenge to the Sinning Senator:
"I've had a lot of people suggest that I do that. I'd have to raise some money. I may do that."
While I believe that such a challenge is the nightmare that keeps the Sinning Senator continually running to North Louisiana to project the image that he's hard at work up in Washington to take folks minds' off the fact that he wasn't on the straight and narrow back in the day, it's getting awfully late ... and if Dardenne is gonna run, he better start raising money quick. The longer he waits to get in, the less seriously I think his campaign will be taken.
Not only does he not rule it out, he pledges to keep listening to folks. Well, I've been hearing that he's been in northern Louisiana quite frequently over the past few months, and taking the time to meet with Republican elected officials. Rumors are flying that Mr. Dardenne is speaking with those elected officials about putting a campaign team together.
Moreover, the Sinning Senator's strategy appears to be to appeal to the hard-core right wing, or as noted pollster and political strategist Stanley Greenberg calls them in his book, The Two Americas: Our Current Political Deadlock and How to Break It, the F-You Boys and F-You Old Men, which is totally unnecessary unless the Sinning Senator anticipates a primary challenge, and is attempting to ward one off.
One such example of the Sinning Senator catering to the F-You Boys (& Old Men) is his ludicrous assertion that an obscure provision in the Cap & Trade Bill would give President Obama new powers of a dictator; an assertion that even right-wing bloggers @ Michele Malkin's Hot Air took issue with: (emphasis added)
That's not to say that this bill isn't dangerous, but it simply doesn't do what Vitter claims. Nowhere in either bill does the term "climate emergency" appear, which Vitter claims is the lever through which the President will claim dictatorial powers. We need to focus on the real problems of the bill, chief among them that it will kill jobs to solve a problem that doesn't exist, rather than generate false hysteria to answer false hysteria.
Now, Democratic operatives tell me that the Sinning Senator's polling has remained remarkably consistent all year despite a climate that has been absolutely vicious for Democrats in Louisiana. That same polling shows that Vitter's Republican support is weak, and it is weakest up in overwhelmingly Baptist North Louisiana.
What does this mean? It means that if Jay Dardenne were to throw his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination, it'd be a battle royale. And those same Democratic operatives are scared of running against Dardenne - he's a stable, well-regarded elected official with a slim record to run against.
Will Mr. Dardenne run? That's the nightmare that keeps the Sinning Senator running to North Louisiana every chance he gets.
Nicolls State University has been awarded a Department of Energy contract to research clean energy as part of Louisiana's Clean Power and Energy Research Consortium.
With all the sugar cane fields in Louisiana, tons of sugarcane waste, a renewable resource, is generated annually. Currently, most of it is burned on location. The research at Nicolls State focuses primarily on generating ethanol from sugarcane waste.
Congressman Melancon released the following statement below:
"Through this important research, Nicholls State University and CPERC are creating a path to energy independence for Louisiana and our nation. Discovering new uses for sugarcane biomass may open up a profitable new market for our farmers and expand the field of renewable energy production in Louisiana."
It's good to see that there are some folks looking at diversifying Louisiana's economy by investing in clean energy research.
I've had 60 town halls this year, 190 since elected. Melancon hasn't had one in 160 days, see countdown @ http://snipurl.com/z3i34
First of all, the Sinning Senator is laughably harkening back to the days when we all wondered what the definition of "is" is. This time, however, he has me wondering what the definition of town hall is.
You can see right on Congressman Melancon's website that he held a "town hall" on October 14th, and another on September 2nd.
In addition, you don't necessarily need to waste taxpayer resources by having town halls masquerading as campaign events if you go to where the people are, and talk to them while you are there. Two such examples are Congressman Melancon spending Veteran's Day at two locations in his Congressional District:
15th Annual Mulberry Elementary Veterans Day Celebration
When: 10:00 a.m. CST
Where: Houma Terrebonne Civic Center
Veterans Day Event and Picnic Lunch
When: 12:00 p.m. CST
Where: Veterans Memorial Park in Gonzales, Louisiana
In addition to the Sinning Senator's lie about Charlie not holding a town hall, I would seriously question whether what the Sinning Senator is holding is a town hall at all, considering that the questions are screened by his staff. For instance, this is how he treated a woman at a town hall who dared to ask him (respectfully) about his vote on an amendment that would victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court:
By now, y'all have heard that Congressman Charlie Melancon voted against the health care reform bill that passed the House on Saturday night. He ostensibly voted against it because of the "costs" of the bill. I'll wager the "costs" of the bill that forced Charlie to vote against the bill are not the monetary kind that the country will undergo, but the perceived costs of a "Yea" vote for ol' Charlie Boy himself.
Had he voted "Yea" on the bill, we'd be seeing attacks ads from here on out on Charlie's "Yes" vote, painting him as a crony of Obama. That's the going to be a typical GOP attack for the next 3 years, and we'll still see them here despite Charlie's "nay" vote on this specific bill.
What really galls me about the vote is that Charlie Boy showed he lacks the courage of his convictions. Even as he voted against the bill, he still repeated bland talking points about health care reform:
"Together, we will find a way to make health care more affordable and accessible for all Louisianians, and bring down the rising cost of health care in this country."
Really? How would he do that? By doing nothing? Because that's what his vote signified - let's not do anything. The House bill would reduce the deficit, but that doesn't matter to a Blue Dog that's scared of David Vitter and his allies on the right.
That is why ol' Charlie Boy is going to lose the Senate race. He's too scared of David Vitter to stand and fight for the 800,000 Louisianans that do not have health insurance.
I make this argument because I believe, as many others do, that 2010 is going to be a base election. In other words, the candidate that does a better job of growing his/her base prior to the election, and then gets more of them out, will win. Currently, Democrats can count on roughly 780,000 voters to vote for their candidate in a statewide election, regardless of whether that candidate is white or black. In the last two Senate elections - 2004 and 2008 - the victor received a minimum of 943,000 votes and the losers received a maximum of 867,000 votes (John Kennedy, 2008). While both Senators Landrieu and Vitter won by more than 100,000 votes, let's assume that it's going to take roughly 867,000 votes to win. That means that Charlie Boy is going to have to find an additional 87,000 voters to win this election.
It is my belief that if ol' Charlie Boy continues to vote like Vitter would, most folks are gonna say, what's the difference? In other words, why take Republican-lite when they can have the real thing?
Congressman Charlie Melancon represents Louisiana's Third Congressional District but is seeking the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate so that he can run against David Vitter.
I can't for the life of me figure out why!
On Saturday, Melancon voted in favor of the Stupak amendment which banned any public option money and any insurance program in the insurance exchange created in the healthcare reform bill. The vote on the amendment was seen as a necessity by Speaker Nancy Pelosi in order to get the votes needed to pass the overall reform bill.
But, even with the abortion funding ban language included in the bill, Melancon could not bring himself to vote for the bill. He was one of more than 30 Democrats to vote against the bill. Republican Anh Cao of Louisiana's Second Congressional District provided the sole Republican vote in support of the bill, but Melancon could not bring himself to support either his party or his president and support this legislation.
So, the question is this: Why is Charlie Melancon running as a Democrat for the Senate?
The always-resplendent Rachel Maddow lampoons Sinning Senator David Vitter's fear-mongering and misleading Louisiana voters on health care reform:
After watching Rachel's report on Vitter's dishonest scare tactics, wouldn't you like to see him lose his job? You can help bounce the Sinning Senator from the U.S. Senate with a contribution to his Democratic opponent, Congressman Charlie Melancon, via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page.
Last cycle, I started an ActBlue page specifically for Democratic Senate candidates working to pick up seats held by Republicans. I named it the Expand the Map! ActBlue page because the goal was to expand the map of competitive Senate seats. The effort was a big success, achieving over 300 contributions and $40,000 for the Democratic Senate candidates included on the page.
The 2010 edition of the Expand the Map! ActBlue page was recently kicked off. Senate Guru just made the first addition to the page since the kick-off with the inaugural members; and, that addition is none other than Louisiana's own Charlie Melancon.
The Republican incumbent, Sinning Senator David Vitter, is nothing but an embarrassment to Louisiana. From his "very serious sin" (which he still hasn't explicitly identified) to his tantrums in airport security areas to his turning away constituents from his town hall forums in order to pack the events with bussed-in Tea Partiers, Vitter has shown himself to be a hypocrite, a liar, a coward, and someone that all Louisianans should be ashamed of. Even when the match-up was just hypothetical, polling showed that a Vitter-Melancon showdown would be a close race. But Congressman Melancon needs our support!
Please, please, please help the 2010 cycle's Expand the Map! effort by sending Charlie Melancon (and these other highly deserving Democrats) a few bucks. $100 makes a huge difference, $25 makes a huge difference, $10 makes a huge difference! Hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and make your voice heard.
This is not just a contribution to Charlie's campaign. This is a contribution toward slowing and eventually stopping Republican obstruction in the U.S. Senate and ensuring that David Vitter will no longer be an obstacle to progress or an embarrassment to Louisiana. Thank you SO much!
While I'm glad he's in ... I'm disappointed with part of the message he's sending -
More bipartisanship? Has he not realized that the Republicans up in Washington do NOT want to work in a bipartisan fashion?
I was heartened to hear that he'll work with anyone to do what's right for Louisiana ... that's the message, Charlie Boy, because you can't work in a bipartisan fashion if the other party is not willing to negotiate in good faith, which the Republicans have shown time and again when it comes to health care reform.
The Sinning Senator's at it again ... lying to the voters of Louisiana. He released a web-only campaign ad that claims that Congressman Charlie Melancon voted for the Democrats' health care reform bill in his committee.
The truth, however, is different. Charlie voted against the bill in committee (.pdf alert), stating that he was concerned about the costs of the bill, as well as the lack of a prohibition on federal funds being used to pay for abortions under the public health care plan.
Now let's look at the two amendments, yeah, that's right, AMENDMENTS, that Charlie voted against in committee:
Amendment #1 to HR 3200
Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, who has received over $817,000 in campaign donations from the health sector over his career, introduced an amendment (.pdf alert) that would prevent the federal government from using comparative effectiveness research "to deny or ration care." But the way Rep. Rogers' amendment was written would have prevented the federal government from using comparative effectiveness research at all ... which would be the goal of an industry-bought shill, particularly when comparative effectiveness research has been used to advance high quality patient care.
For example, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relied on results from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial -- comparing lung volume research surgery (LVRS) to medical therapy - in issuing a decision to restrict coverage of the surgery. The study found that LVRS did not improve survival, but did increase the chance of improved exercise capacity, and increased the risk of death and complications for many patients. As a result, CMS limited coverage to patients who were likely to realize a benefit from it and were not at high risk of death. The use of such evidence in this instance was pro-patient by ensuring that patients have access to an equally effective treatment without the risk of increased complications.
The Democrats already have an amendment ready to roll on this issue that would allow comparative effectiveness research, but would also safeguard patient care. It's the Christensen-Inslee-Upton-Walden amendment, and it will do the following:
Creates an independent Institute to oversee the research program so it is separate from the government's cost-control agenda and insulated from undue political influence;
Ensures appropriate communication and use of results by requiring the research Institute to recognize differences in patients (including differences based on race, ethnicity and gender), separating the research Institute from policy decision-makers, and protecting the ability of physicians to tailor their use of the CER results to the needs of individual patients;
Promotes a focus on patient and provider information needs by focusing on patient health outcomes rather that cost-effectiveness analysis;
Includes explicit requirements for openness and transparency throughout the research process.
I've been told that it will be considered in the Committee once Congress returns from the recess. It is also my understanding that Charlie supports this amendment, but I will check to make sure he votes for it once it is considered by the Committee in the fall.
Amendment # 14A-001 to HR 3200
Rep. Phil Gingery, another Republican from Georgia, who has received over $2,000,000 in campaign donations from the health sector over his career, introduced an amendment that says no federal employee or political appointee can dictate how a medical provider practices medicine.
This is clearly a messaging amendment ... in other words, it serves no purpose other than to be put in an ad for GOP elected officials to hit the Democrats with.
However, this amendment is clearly unnecessary ... as there were many amendments that passed by voice vote, which means that the entire committee voted to let it pass, including Charlie himself. One of those amendments was introduced by Rep. Gingrey, (.pdf alert) and it states:
In conducting its duties under this subsection, the Center for Quality improvement shall not develop quality-adjusted life year measures or any other methodologies that can be used to deny benefits to a beneficiary against the beneficiary's wishes on the basis of the beneficiary's age, life expectancy, present or predicted disability, or expected quality of life.
Hmmm ... sounds like they can't tell a medical provider how to practice medicine, no?
I wonder when the Sinning Senator will be truthful to the voters of Louisiana. It seems apparent that his relationship with the truth has never been good.
The Sinning Senator David Vitter and his national GOP allies have been spinning a whole ball of wax that is now starting to seep into Louisiana about Congressman Charlie Melancon over the climate change bill that recently passed the House of Representatives and will come to a vote in the United States Senate come this fall.
It all has to do with a CoDel that Congressman Melancon took with 10 colleagues in the House of Representatives to the South Pole, with stops in Australia, Hawaii and New Zealand, to understand the ramifications of the changes our global climate is undergoing thanks to global warming.
And what was the Sinning Senator's response to the fact that Congressman Melancon went on this fact-finding CoDel? He omitted the crucial facts about the trip in the name of raising campaign cash:
David doesn't need a taxpayer funded trip to Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand to know that this bill is bad for Louisiana's economy.
Hmmm ... hey Sinning Senator ... how about actually finding out about what changes global warming is causing to our climate? After all, what's happening in Australia, Hawaii and New Zealand ... all areas with coastlines ... could offer clues as to what could happen to Louisiana's coastline if the changes observed in the ocean temperature there occur in the Gulf of Mexico.
I find it interesting that the email sent out didn't mention the South Pole excursion ... perhaps because it's not as sexy or exotic as Hawaii? Y'all know what the average high temperature at the South Pole is in January?
- 14 degrees
Yeah, that's negative. As in below zero. Most of us are running for our winter coats when it's below 50 degrees, never mind below zero!
And how many days were spent on Antarctica? The Wall Street Journal article linked to in the email doesn't make it clear, but it seems apparent that the Members spent at least 2 or 3 days on the continent. What'd they do while there? Here's what the Wall Street Journal reported:
On Jan. 2, the lawmakers and four aides flew to McMurdo Station in Antarctica on a supply flight, about 800 miles from the South Pole.
The next day, the group left for the South Pole itself aboard a C-130 Hercules making a previously scheduled supply run.
Scientists briefed them on research projects including a $271 million telescope buried in the ice that detects elementary particles passing through the Earth.
After flying back to McMurdo, they visited a penguin rookery to see the "threats to the wildlife," said a spokeswoman for the National Science Foundation.
They also spoke with National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists there who hope to use the South Pole's frigid and hostile environment to test inflatable moon dwellings. "Some of the most important science in the world is being done down there," Mr. Baird said.
Hmmmm .... yeah, they partied hearty the entire time in subzero temperatures.
I'm disappointed that Charlie didn't have the courage to vote in the long-term interests of his district, which sits on the Gulf of Mexico, and which will lose much of its land mass to the ocean should the catastrophic warnings of scientists be realized. But I also blame the Sinning Senator for his singular devotion to political power at the expense of the long-term interests of his constituents.
The Sinning Senator doesn't give a damn about us. He cares about political power for himself, and himself alone. That's why Charlie is getting hit for doing the "right" thing politically ... voting against the bill, simply because he attempted to learn a little bit more about what changes climate change can bring to Louisiana.
I'm doing this as a series, because it has become quite apparent that when the Sinning Senator David Vitter is confronted with something or someone that can derail his political ambitions, he and his political allies lie like dogs.
The entire series, (as I anticipate there will quite a few of these forthcoming as the campaign heats up) can be found by clicking on the "doing a vitter" tag.
The Sinning Senator is now attacking Congressman Charlie Melancon for allowing a re-vote of a Republican amendment that would have prohibited federal funding for abortions as part of health care reform, (courtesy of John Maginnis' LaPolitics Weekly, subscription required):
In the Energy & Commerce Committee last week, Melancon voted for a Republican-sponsored amendment to exclude coverage for abortions in any government-run insurance plan. The measure passed on a close vote, but a fellow Democrat said he mistakenly voted yes and asked for a revote. Melancon voted to allow the second vote, then voted for the amendment again, which failed.
Melancon said his was a procedural vote to allow a member to vote as he intended. Vitter didn't see it that way. His campaign sent out a mass e-mail slamming Melancon for giving Democratic leaders the second chance they needed to include coverage for abortion in the bill.
Apparently, the Sinning Senator hasn't quite grasped the ideas of courtesy and respect. Rep. Gordon of Tennessee, who has a decidedly mixed record on abortion votes, asked for a re-vote because he admitted to mistakenly voting YEA on the amendment (pdf alert).
Congressional rules allow only those who vote on the winning side of a vote to move for a motion to re-consider, which the Chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman of California was able to do because he switched his vote from NAY to YEA in the final moments of voting on the amendment.
Thus, a motion to reconsider was held, and it was a party-line vote, with the exception of the Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, who offered his own no funding for abortions amendment. That means the reconsideration procedural vote was 35-24 (pdf alert). Thus, with 5 votes to spare, Rep. Melancon's vote would not have mattered at all.
The question now becomes why Charlie voted YEA on the procedural vote ... here's the explanation from Melancon's press spokeswoman, Robin Winchell:
Charlie strongly believes in preserving the right of Members to vote their conscience and should not be "tricked" into voting for an amendment they do not support. Therefore, out of a sense of fairness and respect for the Member, he voted for the procedural motion to allow a "re-vote" on the Pitts amendment.
On top of that, Charlie voted for the pro-life position on amendments before the committee THREE times:
TWICE on the Pitts amendment, thanks to the re-consideration vote, and he voted AGAINST the Capps amendment (pef alert, which allows for federal funding for abortions.
In addition, Charlie supported Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment, which was withdrawn before it came to a vote. (for more info, see the letter below the jump!)
That seems like the end of this ... but wait, there is more. Congressman Melancon voted against the Energy and Commerce Committee's final version of the health care bill because, as he stated in a statement explaining his vote:
"As someone who is personally pro-life and represents a deeply pro-life constituency, I am also concerned that this bill does not do enough to ensure taxpayer dollars do not fund abortion."
Finally, this legislative process is far from over. There will be more opportunities for Congressman Melancon to stick a prohibition on federal funds being used to pay for abortions into the bill. Indeed, according to his spokeswoman:
However, this issue is far from settled and there will be many more opportunities for Charlie to work to insert language in the health care bill banning publicly-funded abortions. Congressman Melancon is committed to seeking out every opportunity to amend this bill so that it does not lead to more abortions and, instead, promotes a culture of life.
The Sinning Senator and his GOP cronies ... constantly lying like dogs when they face an obstacle to their political ambitions.
The conservative bloggers over at The Old River Road are blasting Rep. Charlie Melancon for voting for a bill that would limit the compensation structures in place that encourages larcenous risk-taking in our nation's financial institutions. What they are missing is the fact that this ain't the 1950's anymore, when financial institutions were run by your next-door neighbor, but rather, they are run by vast multi-national conglomerates that are concerned only with their bottom line and there's no concern at all for the health of a nation's Main Street.
Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman makes the case that more needs to be done. Seriously, take the time to read what he has to say ... as it makes more sense than the knee-jerk response to H.R. 3269 that Old River Road threw up on their page.
Under this legislation, thousands of private financial institutions would have to submit to federal bureaucrats their employees' incentive-based compensation arrangements. Those federal bureaucrats would then decide if those arrangements encourage "inappropriate risks" that could "threaten the safety and soundness" of the institution and financial stability.
Mr. Krugman makes the point that the view held by the Old River Road would make sense if it were the 1970's. But it's not ... (emphasis mine):
Last week the House passed a bill (ed. note: H.R. 3269) setting rules for pay packages at a wide range of financial institutions. That would be a step in the right direction. But it really should be accompanied by much broader regulation of financial practices - and, I would argue, by higher tax rates on supersized incomes.
Unfortunately, the House measure is opposed by the Obama administration, which still seems to operate on the principle that what's good for Wall Street is good for America.
Neither the administration, nor our political system in general, is ready to face up to the fact that we've become a society in which the big bucks go to bad actors, a society that lavishly rewards those who make us poorer.
What's good for Wall Street is not automatically good for America any longer ... not until there is serious regulation of financial practices, so we don't ever again have to bail out huge financial institutions with taxpayer money. If a financial institution is too big to fail, then it's far too big to exist.
Charlie made the right vote on this bill ... but will he introduce (or vote for) legislation to regulate the financial practices that put us in this mess in the first place? Will he stand up for all those Louisianans that have lost thousands, if not millions, in the stock market over the last year?
In yet another sign that the Sinning Senator David Vitter ain't all that enthused about his electoral prospects next fall, he's gotten the National Republican Senatorial Committee to air an ad highlighting the fact that Charlie Melancon voted for the stimulus and the auto manufacturer bailout.
Hell, even Roger Villere, the hack that runs the Louisiana Republican Party sent out an email touting the web-only ad (what, they couldn't afford to put it on TV in little ol' Louisiana?) by stating:
Melancon voted for bailing out Wall Street and the automobile industry. He voted for the so-called "stimulus" plan that promised to hold unemployment below 8 percent and create 4 million jobs. Cue reality, where in June the unemployment rate hit 9.5 percent, with the economy already losing more than 3 million jobs this year. Moreover, Melancon voted for Obama's bloated budget that has more than doubled the national debt.
Hmmm ... I don't know what country you been living in Roger, but it sure ain't reality. Those votes were made by Charlie to help clean up the mess made by YOUR party. After all, the auto industry wouldn't be in need of a bailout if the GOP didn't gleefully help kill universal health care 15 years ago. And Detroit would not have been building the gas guzzlers that keep us hooked on foreign oil if it wasn't for Saint Ronnie easing the gas mileage standards Detroit had to follow back in the 1980's.
One last thing, Roger ... learn how to read, my friend. Because the national debt was doubled by your man George W. Bush:
Date
$$ of Public Debt
9/30/2008
$10,024,724,896.912.49
9/30/2007
$9,007,653,372,262.48
9-30/2006
$8,506,973,899,215.23
9/30/2005
$7,932,709,661,723.50
9/30/2004
$7,379,052,696,330.32
9/30/2003
$6,783,231,062,743.62
9/30/2002
$6,228,235,965,597.16
9/30/2001
$5,807,463,412,200.06
9/30/2000
$5,674,178,209,886.86
See the number in the bottom right quadrant, Roger? The one that reads $5,674,178,209,886.86? That was what your man George W. Bush inherited from the Clinton Adminstration. Now take a look at the number right at the top, Roger.
$10,024,724,896.912.49
That's the national debt that President Obama inherited from your man W. See that it doubled, Roger? If you don't, I want you take your hands and count off 5 fingers. That was how many trillions the United States was in debt when President Bush II took office.
Now count the other five ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. How many sets of 5 do you have? It should be two. That's how many trillions we NOW owe, thanks to President Bush.
So who doubled the national debt, Roger?
Anyhow, the fact that NRSC is on the defensive with respect to Charlie Melancon can only mean one thing ... the Sinning Senator is soiling his diapers at the mere prospect of a Melancon candidacy.
