Bill sponsoring gap shows Melancon's inability to lead

In another attempt to find something to write about during what may be considered a “slow” news period, the New Orleans Times-Picayune hit upon comparing during this session of Congress that the challenger to Republican Sen. David Vitter, Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon, has introduced only six pieces of legislation, two symbolic only, while Vitter has put his name on 73. That’s not as interesting as is the reaction by the Melancon camp seeking to take the seat in 2010 in trying to spin this.

Melancon operatives sniff that their boss is good behind the scenes in trying to make legislation that is more “Louisiana friendly.” By contrast, they claim that Vitter does no more than “grandstanding” in proposing so much legislation few pieces of which ever make it into law.

Note the forensic sidestep being attempted here, as the staffers try to equate the quality of legislation with its chances of passage. This perverts the true definition of “quality” which is simply the degree to which the legislation helps the country. How popular legislation may be among members of a particular Congress has nothing to do with how good it is – as this 111th Congress has shown dramatically with useless spending that expanded the deficit by about a fifth in one fell swoop, stealth state-controlled universal health insurance for “poor children” (in some cases up to 25 years in age and whose families make nearly six-figure annual salaries), and other less publicized mistakes.

A review of Vitter’s legislation, even just that mentioned in the story, reveals some very good ideas such as preserving the most vulnerable members of society from being killed for convenience, foreign assistance incentives to reduce illegal immigration, and preventing government funding going to a community organizing group facing multiple felony charges. That majorities in Congress lack the wisdom to pass these kinds of measures speaks not their quality but rather the inability or unwillingness of that majority to understand the superiority of such policies and to empathize with the American people.

And while this small amount of legislative bill success that a Melancon handler classifies as something that “produces nothing for his constituents,” at least give Vitter credit that in being stymied he is not actually working against the best interests of his constituents as has Melancon by his support indirectly (through votes allowing liberal Democrats to control the House) and directly (by voting for such idiocy as the budget-busting spending bill early in the year that, at best, has done nothing to improve the country’s economic performance) of measures harmful to the country.

But, argue the Melancon hacks, their boss promotes changes to other bills to help his constituents. Yet when pressed to come up with some examples, most cited by them Melancon ended up voting against in the final bill. So how is that any different from their argument that Vitter’s work not making it into law is “ineffective” if both are on the losing side of votes, and how does this make Melancon any more “effective?” By making his Democrat superiors’ bills he doesn’t like only mildly damaging instead of very damaging? If he believes that, why is he supporting a party that causes so much damage?

Actually, doing things out of the limelight does seem to be Melancon’s style which helps his avoid publicity of more unsavory things he’s done to the taxpayers. For example, in the name of “research” with other members of Congress Melancon took a junket that spanned three continents, 20,000 miles and hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers’ money that culminated in viewing telescopes and sending postcards from the South Pole. And this supposed investigation into man-made climate change (effects of climate change he could have observed just as easily driving for two hours in any direction in his district) itself was based upon what has become revealed to be questionable, if not outright fraudulent, science that he consistently has defended.

All of these attempts by Melancon apologists try to deflect observation of the essential truth: Melancon has more sympathy with the liberal agenda than not, and he will go along and get along with it by opposing where he can’t slow down his masters’ preferred items but, like the faithful lap dog that he is, always supporting them when they need his vote. If nothing else, that Vitter takes strong principled positions promoting beneficial legislation in contrast to Melancon’s cravenness should tell voters all they need to know about who would be better to lead for Louisiana’s interests in the Senate.