¤ Home ¤ Congress ¤ Forum & Emporium ¤ Why Am I Running? ¤ Peak Oil ¤ But SerIously, Folks... ¤ Frary's Women ¤
¤ Frary Family Saga ¤ Issues and Bunk¤ Dumb & Dumberer ¤ Dollars to Doughnuts ¤ Libertarian Impulse ¤
¤ War and Fleece ¤ Mike Michaud Fan Page ¤ Two Faces of Sleaze ¤ HELP WANTED ¤
Two Faces of Sleaze

There are two things to like about Mike Michaud - HIS FACE. But which face? Is Mike the Machiavelli of Millinocket or the Perfidious Poodle of Nancy Pelosi? Or maybe just a poor boob in way over his head? We report, you decide.

My absolute favorite vote all time for Mike Michaud? The Gay Rights ENDA vote of 2007, hands down. This has got to be one of the greatest Two-Faced Classic of All Time.

Background: In 2007, Gay Rights legislation, ENDA, reaches the national level for the first time with a legitimate chance at passing. Mike, like a host of other spineless weenies is Washington, has a problem. He knows the old fashioned, pro family, religious voters who he has been relying on for years WON’T like this bill. 
He gets letters from them asking him to oppose the bill.


But he has a problem with his new friends too. 

The hard Left wantsGays everywhere. They want Out, Loud and Proud in the military, the Boy Scouts, church social welfare offices, you name it. Mike is not likely to please these people by voting “No” on the first Gay Rights legislation to ever come down the pike with a prayer of passage.

So Mike had a problem, and his response was POLITICALLY BRILLIANT. (And completely unethical, low, deceitful, two faced, well, as I said, politically brilliant.) The gay activists were split on a provision of the bill that also included “transgendered” people in the legislation. “Transgendered” is a fancy term for people who wish they were the opposite sex. Remember the 10 year old boy in Maine who wanted to use the girl’s restroom at school because he felt he was a girl? And the ACLU came in, three ring circus, etc.? Or my favorite, the girl who went to an all girls college, decided she wanted to be a boy, changed her name and started dressing as a boy, but then she decided she wanted to be a gay boy, so she/he ended up dating men? (Go ahead, read that again. All clear now?).

The leading gay congressman, Barney Frank, knew that including transgendered language would kill the bill, not to mention lead to a lot of jokes in questionable taste of the floor of the House, so he stripped it out in committee. So the legislation went before the House as a straight gay rights bill (sorry for the language...).

AND MIKE VOTED ‘NO”. And he sent letters out to the conservatives, trumpeting his opposition to gay rights. They were pleasantly surprised. Until they, just by chance, saw the letter Mike sent out to the other side. “I opposed this legislation, despite my long term convictions supporting gay rights, because the transgendered were tragically excluded from the bill before the House. I do not believe the gay community should move forward by abandoning their closest allies in the struggle for human rights.”

And what do you know, IT WORKED! Under the headline for Equality Maine’s annual awards ceremony, the text read “Congressman Michaud Praised Again for Pro-Transgendered Stand”. No mention at all of the fact Mike voted against the gay rights bill.

Their Public Policy Director, Darlene Huntress, was quoted: "the story of ENDA 2007 showed us that we have finally begun the process of recognizing our transgendered brothers and sister as an important and necessary part of who we are.”

There were were seven members of Congress” she continues“who voted against the non-inclusive ENDA because they didn’t want to leave a portion of the gay community behind. Five of them were from New York. One was from New Jersey. And it is with great pride and extreme gratitude, that I tell you: the Seventh? Our own Congressman Mike Michaud!”

Amazing, no? What’s next - Mike doing the Monty Python skit “I’m a Lumberjack and I’m OK!” ?

But let’s not be too hard on Mike. He has absolutely nothing to do with how he votes in Congress, and pity poor Mike for the marching orders he receives. As the Front Man for shadowy forces, Mike has to make this unholy pilgrimage from moderate labor union hack to yuppie socialist look respectable. Below you can see Mike with some of his new "let's pretend" radical yuppie friends.

A STRANGE NEW RESPECT: Mike Michaud likes to talk about how he is a Blue Dog Democrat, and cites the “fact” that he is pro-life and pro gun. Problem: the hard Left Socialists that control the Dem party in Maine don’t like that sort of talk. They are looking for a Yellow Dog Democrat. In their view, Mike’s liaisons with those troglodyte back woods types are anathema. And since his handlers have to position Mike for ever greater glory, like the Governorship or the US Senate, they have come up with a plan to fool all of the people all of the time. 

Here is how it's done:

100 percent PRO LIFE 1995-1997 Senator Michaud supported the interests of the Maine Right to Life Committee in 1995-1997

100 percent PRO LIFE 1997-1999 Senator Michaud supported the interests of the Maine Right to Life Committee in 1997-1999

10 percent PRO CHOICE 2003 Representative Michaud supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2003.

64 percent PRO LIFE 2003-2004 Representative Michaud supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee in 2003-2004

65 percent PRO CHOICE 2004 Representative Michaud supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2004

75 percent PRO CHOICE 2005 Representative Michaud supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2005.

36 percent PRO LIFE 2005-2006 Representative Michaud supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee in 2005-2006.

65 percent PRO CHOICE 2006 Representative Michaud supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2006.

60 percent PRO CHOICE 2006 Representative Michaud supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood in 2006.

78 percent PRO CHOICE 2005-2006 Representative Michaud supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association in 2006.

100 percent PRO CHOICE 2007 In 2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Representative Michaud a grade of 100.

AND THERE WE HAVE IT. A perfect progression from 100% pro-Life to 100% pro-Abortion, as performed by a professional politician. Mike still calls himself pro-Life.

I can’t wait to see what he does to the gun owners?!

MAYBE WE SHOULD BE ABORTING CONGRESS: Political columnist Al Diamon has described Rep. Michaud’s position on the abortion issue as “incoherent.” This is a tribute to his professionalism. A professional politician loves clarity like the Devil loves holy water and Mike Michaud has long succeeded in masterfully created enough confusion to reassure his pro-life constituents while voting for measures which keep NARAL hoping for more.

But now he appears to have abandoned all restraint and thrown caution to the winds. The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act sponsored by Senator Hillary Clinton and Representative Michael Michaud provides all American servicewomen with free abortifacients (drugs that cause chemical abortions in the early stages of a pregnancy). An increasing number of women avoid surgery by using them - they now account for 13 to 20% of all abortions.

I guess he has finally decided that the pro life supporters who were his margin of victory in his first race for Congress have become "superfluous". Maybe there's a pill to get rid of them, too.

INSURANCE REFORM? NOT ON YOUR LIFE.

Governor Baldacci’s idiotic insurance policies have distorted the market so much that an insurance policy that cost between $1,451 in New Hampshire to $1,532 in Connecticut costs $5,951 in Maine. If he would just let Mainers buy insurance wherever they pleased, the problem would be solved. But the Gov (Michaud’s Evil Twin - or maybe it's the other way around) won’t even allow that idea to be voted on by the legislature. Solving problems just doesn’t fit Baldacci’s plans for the state.

The same tomfoolery goes on in Washington, where Michaud and Allen vote every year against the National Federation of Small Business proposal to allow small businesses to buy insurance across state lines. You’d think this would be the sort of reform, helping hundreds of thousands of Mainers, that bleeding heart liberals would be for. You would be wrong. Michaud is told to vote “No”, and he votes “No”.

But then he [and Allen] vote against nearly every proposal to help small business as a matter of principal. Mike voted against small business 79% of the time last year, but has voted even more anti small business in the past. These are not really controversial proposals; Senator Susan Collins, a moderate, votes 100% of the time for the small businesses. But the labor union bosses don't want small business to prosper (they are notoriously hard to unionize), so they issue their marching orders and Michaud and Allen dutifully obey.

(I'm certain both gentlemen would deny that the fact that they receive hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars from the union bosses in any way influences their decision. They have fooled the voters before, and they intend to continue doing so as long as you let them get away with it.)

[BACK IN THE USSR: The paragraph immediately above drew this response from the “legal department” of a local newspaper, Quote: ”Wow! This is the first time this has happened. The legal department has a problem with a paragraph. The one that starts with "(I'm certain both gentlemen would deny..." We can still run the ad if one of two things happen, rephrase the statement as a question or remove the paragraph. Let me know how you would like me to proceed.”]

Speaking of Newspapers, here’s a little item from 2004:

Dear Newspaper Editor,

    I am a student at Piscataquis Community High School and I have a question about your paper.    

    I read an editorial in your paper by Mike Michaud the Congressman for our area. Then I read it again. Then I read it again. He filled up almost half the page and I still don’t know why he didn’t like the new overtime laws. He did say supervisors might get less money. The only thing he came right out and said was that people making less than $24,000 a year would get more money. That describes just about everybody I know.

    My question isn’t for the Congressman. I doubt if he wrote the article anyway. “We” wrote the article, because whoever put this out was certainly on the government payroll. My question is “Why did the paper print this?” Isn’t this guy running for re-election? Isn’t the election about 60 days from now? I looked it up on the internet and this guy got $1 million in contributions last time and almost $1 million this time so far. Most all of it from special interest groups like unions, trial lawyers, etc. Maybe you should write some articles about that. Do you put everybody who is running on the editorial page for free close to the election?    

    You can print my letter if you want to (you printed his stuff) but if this guy is the best we can do for Congress, I think I know why young people don’t vote.

Craig Cunningham
Student PCHS (now USMC)

 

Who's the Special Interest Money Behind?

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=ME02&cycle=2008

¤ Home ¤ Congress ¤ Forum & Emporium ¤ Why Am I Running? ¤ Peak Oil ¤ But SerIously, Folks... ¤ Frary's Women ¤
¤ Frary Family Saga ¤ Issues and Bunk¤ Dumb & Dumberer ¤ Dollars to Doughnuts ¤ Libertarian Impulse ¤
¤ War and Fleece ¤ Mike Michaud Fan Page ¤ Two Faces of Sleaze ¤ HELP WANTED ¤