« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI], Part-Time Union Shill

He Was FOR Card Check Before He Was AGAINST Card Check.

When George Bush was President, there were times when it was hard to tell some Republicans from their Democrat counterparts. They were loose with the purse strings and some were even foolish enough to believe that they could curry favor with unions by voting to effectively eliminate secret-ballot elections.

Despite the fact that EFCA was designed to defeat the right forever, in 2007, the hallucinogenically-named Employee Free Choice Act (aka Card Check) passed the U.S. House of Representatives. It did so with some Republicans voting for the bill—Republicans like Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI].

In 2007, when McCotter voted to effectively strip employees’ right to a secret ballot, he was confronted by Michigan View writer Manny Lopez, who wrote:

Livonia Congressman Thaddeus McCotter gets a bit testy when asked why he voted with the labor movement earlier this month:

“Actually, testy doesn’t quite do it justice. The Wayne County Republican was slightly hostile, certainly annoyed and mighty defensive when I asked him on Friday why he voted for the so-called ‘Employee Free Choice Act. . . . I can’t tell you succinctly why Republican McCotter voted for the anti-business legislation. He used a lot of $10 words when we talked, and he pontificated repeatedly about free association, imperatives and other mumbo-jumbo.”

Given that the vote took place in 2007 and most of those who voted for EFCA (Democrat and Republican alike) knew that the job-killing legislation had virtually no chance of being signed into law under GWB, some Republicans felt “safe” casting their votes on behalf of union bosses.

Now, though, the political climate has changed dramatically and, apparently, so has Thaddeus McCotter’s view on EFCA.

U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter told me Friday his vote for union payoff legislation was a mistake and that if he were going to vote on “card check” legislation again, he would vote no.

It was all because of Wisconsin,” he said in reference to what prompted him to change his mind about supporting legislation that would allow unions to forgo that pesky little detail called democracy (card check allows unions to be established in a work place with signatures on cards instead of secret ballot elections). “As a Federalist, what happened in Wisconsin made me realize that EFCA (the Employee Free Choice Act) was something that should be decided on the state level.

Indeed.

McCotter said he’d planned to discuss this issue, among others, soon because he’s still mulling a presidential bid and knew a Republican Congressman’s support for far-left proposals would raise eyebrows.

Yes, you read that right: Despite all of his union donations, his support sponsorship of the union pension bailout (McCotter apparently supports taxpayers bailing out union pensions too), as well as his former support of the union bailout bill known as EFCA, Thaddeus McCotter is considering a run for Presidentas a Republican.

Yet, it was Wisconsin(!) that changed his mind about taking secret-ballot elections away….Except he’s not really against taking away the secret ballot.

He just thinks it should be decided by the states.

Sort of like letting some states choose their representatives in Congress by secret ballot, while others do it by signature when the SEIU shows up at their homes. Is that right, Thad?

Thanks, but no thanks.

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Cross-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

  • silentcal2012

    I don’t mind this so much. The collective voice of the party outweighs these localized interest. Republicans in Iowa are going to partial towards ethanol. Republicans from Greater Detroit are going to be partial to unions and auto workers. He’s a pretty good guy and pol. I’m not going to tear him down over this.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    “When George Bush was President, there were times when it was hard to tell some Republicans from their Democrat counterparts.”

    That was less than three years ago. Maobama didn’t come into power until 29 months ago. The republicans that were there then are still there now. As I said, not much has changed.

    As for McCotter, I can only say he would be better than the usurper-in-chief we have now. And that is a pretty low bar to set.

  • paramedichess

    I consider myself a political junkie, and until you wrote this post, I had no idea who this guy was. If political junkies don’t know your name, you aren’t going to make it running for president (as a side note, we DON’T elect congressmen to the White House – are you listening Michelle Bachmann?).

  • Kyle-MI

    When I first moved into the district in 2002 I checked out his website and was under-impressed. At that time he was bragging about earmarks and all the money he was bringing to the district from Washington. He has gotten a lot better since then and was one of the earliest to pledge against earmarks.

    My gut feeling about him is that he is a bandwagon jumper. A little bit better than a pure finger-in-the-wind politicians, but not necessarily with a strong conservative foundation. He is smart enough to understand national conservative trends, but I don’t know how much trust he has in conservative philosophy. This anecdote about card check and my experience with his attitude about earmarks reinforces my gut feeling.

    He is OK as a congressman and I can’t fault him on any current positions that he has. I am leery about him as a conservative leader. I am not sure he would do the right thing at the right time.

  • raginpatriot

    Sounds like McCotter has read the Romney “Political Backpeddling Without Actually Backpeddling for Dummies” playbook, i.e., try to excuse your “progressive” actions during campaign season by asserting that “you’ve seen the federalism light” and that the issue (in effect) should be a state matter.

  • rec0n

    traction as a candidate, but good to know.