« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Monitoring Mary Mack

I have been waiting a while to use that one.

Representative Mary Bono Mack (R-California) has been a thorn in my side for years. An RMSP ‘moderate’, she’s been shifting left ever since she took the seat vacated by the late Sonny Bono, her first husband. But now that she’s one of the difference makers for the Cap and Tax bill, suddenly the whole party’s grumbling about her.

Welcome to the club. Have a seat and we’ll catch up to the latest.

I’m not the greatest fan of American Conservative Union (or any) legislative ratings, because they’re in practice too opaque and difficult to analyze, but in looking at Rep. Bono Mack’s record, the ratings are illustrative of the point. In 1997, Sonny Bono’s last full year in office, the ACU gave him a solid 87 in then-District 44. Then-Mary Bono’s first year, 1998 she missed the first five votes, but in the last 20 she compiled a 95 with the ACU. After the special election she seemed like a great choice, so she easily won the general that year after winning the special election.

There’s just one problem: she didn’t stay that way. Her ratings since, according to the ACU: 76, 68, 68, 71, 68, 56, 71, 68, 65, and in 2008 she capped things off with a 74. It’s clear, then, that her votes when she finished Sonny’s term were just a ruse to win the special election and get the seat for life, this being a solid Republican seat and all. You don’t drop from a 95 to a pretty steady 70 by accident.

So here we are. Bono Mack has drifted so far left that she now supported the President’s foolish Cap and Tax plan to manage “carbon dioxide pollution.” She has an excuse though, says Flash Report:

The last thing I want is the EPA coming in and regulating every small business and farm in California. This federal bill is actually LESS stringent than the regulations we’re seeing coming our way as a result of AB32. Furthermore, this legislation REMOVES the authority for the EPA to regulate GHG’s, and also puts the brakes on the State’s regime. Allowing for a more national approach to this issue is vital to me, as we aren’t in this alone. California has already taken steps to embrace clean energy options, and this bill will reward those efforts, rather than allowing AB32 to force Californians to foot the burden alone.

I worked hard to improve a bill that I never cosponsored and agree still needs improvements. This includes more domestic energy production like nuclear power, a clean, viable energy option California should aggressively pursue, along with enhanced focus on innovation and technologies that will put us ahead of the rest of the world.

I’ve snipped the statement down to the meat. Are we truly to believe that California will be better off with this bill, should it pass? Are we supposed to think that President Obama will fight California and force our state to have less taxation and regulation? I don’t buy it.

Neither do the area’s Republicans. She has at least two potential challengers in the wings, says Red County via Flash Report. It seems former Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia and former state Senator Jim Battin are both out there as possibilities. I’m not taking a stand on either at the moment, but I hope at least one of them steps up to the plate.

District 45 did squeak by for Barack Obama 52-47 in 2008, but that was an outlier (as was this election for many otherwise-Republican areas). We still voted Republican for other offices, as we’ve done for many years (President Bush won this district twice by more than Obama did once). Our district deserves better than a tax hiker like Mary Bono Mack.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • almom

    She is lost, get rid of her in the primary.

  • janis

    I never cosponsored and agree still needs improvements.” How stupid do these people think we are? Don’t answer that. NONE of the ones who voted for this monstrosity, especially on the R side, knew what was in that 300 page amendment.

    I assume Mary Bono Mack, while possibly conservative in the beginning, “grew in office” to stay in with the in crowd in CA?

  • saterp

    Sonny would be so ashamed.

  • bk

    Aren’t people supposed to live in the districts they represent? Or are they married but 3,000 miles apart?

  • Achance

    you don’t have to live in the district anymore. You live in fashionable DC with the beautiful people and when you go back to that bitter, clinging, gun-toting, Bible-thumping district, it is as a celebrity spending other people’s money. You say whatever it takes to keep the people in flyover country voting for you and go back to the beautiful people.

  • DONTREADONME

    but then again I am from VA so what does she care?

  • Cheryl

    and run against her in the primary.

  • Cheryl

    I hate it when I do that

  • eburke

    Well she sure as hell should’ve after Boehner spent an hour shredding it on the floor.

    “How stupid do these people think we are?”

    Obviously a lot more than we are. I’ll *find* the money to contribute to a conservative primary challenger to her even if I have to go through my couch cushions.

  • janis

    wealth. WHO SAID YOU COULD HAVE A COUCH?!!

    Trust me, those things are hard to fit under a bridge in a cardboard shack.

  • lincoln113

    Why is 70 percent Conservative bad? I live in a state where the House members usually get a ZERO or single digits from ACU. A 70 percent conservative voting record would be a welcome improvement. Why are you complaining?

  • eburke

    living in the lap of luxury and exceding my carbon footprint.

    (besides I’m saving up cardboard even as we speak; just wait til you see my ‘shack’; course, I hope it’s energy efficient enuf to get past the carbon police that MMB and her 7 Quisling jacka$$es voted to give birth to)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The difference between a 70 and an 85 is pretty big when she starts voting for things like Cap and Tax.

    It matters.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    He’s her third husband. And as Art points out, they spend time in DC, heh.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Let’s count this as an angry letter that she’ll care about a little, hopefully. :-)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • bs

    related to one I raised several weeks ago in a diary regarding litmus tests. Percentages alone don’t necessarily tell the story. There are legislative items that indicate one’s conservatism and/or liberalism that are more profound in thei impact than others. But it’s tough to isolate those because the entire effort tends to become a lesson in subjectivity.

    The moral of the story is that measurements such as the ACU or National Journal ratings are not evidence that can stand on their own. The entire body of work of the rep/senator must be considered, and factored based on the impact of the bills they vote on.

  • Darin_H

    and manage her ?carbon dioxide pollution.?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I agree. I don’t generally use those, but in her case, the difference is just so striking and the change so quick.

  • bs

    And it’s the same story – there just isn’t a single metric that gives us a good picture of the legislative behavior of a congressman/senator. I suppose that shouldn’t be surprising…it does force us to use our brains to do the evaluation of who to support! :-)

  • redstatebluestate123

    is that he thinks it wouldn’t be difficult to elect someone who would get a much higher rating. Neil’s not a 100% purity freak, but if both the 95% conservative and the 70% conservative are both going to win easily, why support the 70 percenter?

    Neil, I don’t mean to speak for you, I derived this from your last paragraph. If it is incorrect, I apologize.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • rbdwiggins

    between constitutional principles and political correctness.

    Ignoring the time-tested principles of our Founding in favor of political expedience is an abrogation of their constitutional responsibility, and the results of such shameless actions are usually governed by the law of unintended consequences.

    It’s much more difficult to stand on principle and convince one’s constituents that they are wrong.

  • Cheryl

    Has your district changed?

  • Freedomlover

    When I called her Congressional office yesterday to see how she was going to vote, her aide said that she was weighing to see how people felt about the bill. You’d have thought she would have known by yesterday afternoon, wouldn’t you? Seems to me she was waiting to see what Nancy was going to give her and/or threaten her with!

  • DONTREADONME

    she just didn’t want to tell you the truth for fear of angering the phone callers, plus she probably didn’t want the whip to get involved.

    Usually when they deflect they know that their constituency is calling to tell them to vote no, rather than yes; therefore, they avoid conflict, then again she could be like the others and really has no idea what was in the bill.

  • Freedomlover

    Either way you look at we sure have some losers in Washington, don’t we? The casual and corrupt way they continue to want to control our lives. It might be useless, but I’m going to continue trying to fight them. A bit discouraged today, but I’ll get my energy back and try to fight the good fight again!

  • mom2oneson
  • DONTREADONME

    every piece of legislation that makes the government grow in scope and size, we have to keep trying to stop them until they pass legislation that outlaws what we are trying to do, then again I have always been rebelious and real tough SOB. Imagine when all of us are out of jobs, that is when the statist will have a real problem, 100% of our time devoted to ejecting those critters out of office.

  • mom2oneson

    what is in the bill, what makes them go against the people calling. I don’t get it?

  • DONTREADONME

    they really believe in the cause of the bill. Or they care what the elite thinks of them, could be the power, or there is something in the bill that will bring loads of dough to her district.

    As far as voting against here constiuents, it would be just like me voting to make abortions illegal regardless of my constituencies opinions. Then again I guess that is why I have never ran for elected office, or if I did they would know this when voting me in there.

  • eburke

    with the brie and chablis set (translation: invitations to swanky Georgetown cocktail parties); the promise of dollars to the districts; the desire to be with the PC crowd (in this case, looking ‘enlightened’ by embracing AGW); everyone once in a while you’ll actually find one of these Critters who actually believe in what they’re voting for (which is a scary thought)

    In this particular case, it’s hard to tell. I’ll tell ya one thing for dang sure, she can’t claim she didn’t know what was in it. Boehner spent invoked a parlimentarian maneuver which allows the Majority and Minority Leaders and the Speaker to consume as much time as they desire. So Boehner took his 2 1/2 minutes and turned it into an hour plus evisceration of the ammendment to the bill. How ANYBODY in the Republican Party could’ve listened to the absolute manure that was in that ammendment and still voted for this defies descriptions except in words that would prompt Neil and/or Moe to go for the blam sticks.

    Hope that helps.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens