Posted on 09/18/2011 2:50:38 PM PDT by cumbo78
One of the deans of Conservative columnists says Thad McCotter SHOULD be in the debates.
ping
I have seen this guy on the floor of the House and he is magnificent. During the debt ceiling mess, he could speak without notes and not miss a lick....
He may be left out because he would outshine everyone else up there except for maybe Herman!!!
I like McCotter, but he seems to be a proponent of taxpayer funded unions.
Oh I dunno, his support and vote FOR Card Check might be a reason. Voting to strip American’s of their right to a secret ballot in union elections is a deal breaker for the vast majority of Republicans. Or, if that isn’t enough, how about his sponsoring the $165 billion union pension bailout bill? You know, the Democrat bill that was so outrageous it couldn’t even pass the Congress when Democrats had overwhelming majorities. Come on, the guy is a union tool and doesn’t have enough support to even register in the polls.
Yeah, he’s in the next district over from me and has little choice but to be pro union. Personally I think he’s really working toward a run at Carl Levin’s senate seat in the future.
That said, McCotter would be good in debates. A great replacement for Huntsman.
I would LOVE for McCotter to be in just one debate. Just a little exposure, and his poll numbers would qualify him for the remaining ones.
I consider it a matter of integrity for an elected congressman to represent the will of his constituents. That means, for McCotter, being more pro-union that we might like. His voters sent him to Washington to be their voice.
In all fairness, the sponsors of the debates truly do have to have some benchmark for a candidate to reach in order to be on stage.
Otherwise, every half-baked nutcase who announces would demand airtime.
It’s enough of a circus as-is.
How does Card Check favor the workers? It doesn’t. It favors the Union Bosses and their Democrat pals.
Would it favor the people to say no more secret ballots in elections? Of course not. No more does it favor the workers.
If he favors Card Check, then evidently he is in the pockets of the Union Bosses.
That's a little like saying, "Yeah, well, Barbara Boxer is from liberal California and has little choice but to support insane leftist policies".
I mean, I could understand McCotter avoiding divisive votes on union issues. He could quietly just vote no on the most outrageous stuff they demand. But Thad McCotter voted FOR Card Check and was a SPONSOR of the $165 billion dollar union pension bailout.
I am all for voting for the most conservative candidate that can win in a given area. I appreciate the fact that someone representing a union district can't be a stalwart against union thuggery. But this McCotter actually voted in favor of stripping Americans of the their right to secret ballot union elections. Even George McGovern opposed that. And to actually SPONSOR a massive union pension bailout? That's just too much.
He was the guy who was against the bailouts but not HIS auto bailouts. I’ll pass.
I think the standard was 5 percent polling. In 08’ I thought Fox or some other debate excluded candidates because of low polling.
Why not Gary Johnson? Polling higher than Thad I believe.
The polling issue really excludes anyone who doesn’t have the initial monetary backing to make a run. I understand the need for some sort of line, but to exclude a 5 term sitting Congressman and published author, who has introduced in Congress, THE ONLY bill that reforms Social Security seems short sighted.
As for those who think McCotter is a non starter because of some of his union votes, I’ll address the issue again. Cong. McCotter has stated that he felt his Card Check vote was more of a district vote when he cast it and has said since that it was a mistake. When he voted for the auto bailout, he cited Moody’s estimate that allowing the auto companies to go under would have a trickle down effect that would not only decimate the area he represents, but would cost the Social Safety Net $300 billion. McCotter also stated that, from a National Security standpoint, gutting our auto manufacturing capabilities would greatly inhibit our abilities as a nation to crank up the defense industry in a time of national Crisis.
IMO, the explanations are satisfactory and should not preclude McCotter from being considered for the nomination. I ask that you visit McCotter2012.com, read his white papers, read his book, SEIZE FREEDOM, and then tell me there is a more Conservative, intellectually capable Republican candidate than Cong. Thaddeus McCotter.
Since when is Michael Barone a “dean of Conservative columnists”? I didn’t even realiaze he was a conservative...
there are too many on the stage now.
Other than the building, I can't see how the robotics, paint-booths and so many other plant centric items in a state of the art Michigan Big 3 plant could produce a F-35, A HumVee or follow on to it, maybe. Aerospace and Automotive cultures don't mix, trust me been in one and tried to migrate to another, two different worlds. It is much different times when Packard built the Rolls V12 for the Spit's and Mustangs, I can't see an engine plant here in Michigan building the F-119 Pratt for the F-22...
I disagree with Thad on this one...
BTW I know tea partiers here in Michigan that ain't to happy with him and know of one that went face to face with him on his budget vote and gave him a respectful but forceful earful...
From a national security standpoint, we shouldn’t punish Boeing because it doesn’t want to bend over to the unions.
But the auto companies were not going to "go under". They were going to be re-organized -- just as they eventually were under Obama's terms instead of our traditional process. I think this guy has some good points, but he's pretty overrated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.