Tuesday, March 14, 2006

 

Sue's Unlabeled Cake And Eating It, Too: UPDATE

The saga about Sue's vote against the National Uniformity for Food Act gets curiouser. One of our members contacted Sue concerning the bill and Sue responded with the following letter (name removed to protect the guilty):

Dear _________________:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern over the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005. I appreciate having the opportunity to respond to your views.

I voted against the bill out of my concern with some important issues that were not resolved during floor consideration. As you may already know, this legislation seeks to put in place a measured, science based approach for establishing a single nationwide system that would integrate existing state and federal laws for all food safety standards and warning labels. While this is an important objective, it must be done in a way that ensures existing safeguards are not undermined. I feel the absence of any Congressional hearings on this matter and the failure of some important amendments on the House floor, resulted in a final bill that was not in the best interests of my constituents. While I voted against this measure, it was passed by a majority vote. Please know that I will continue to work on this issue so that important protections are not undermined.

I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind. Once again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,

Sue Kelly
Member of Congress


But, Sue...you co-sponsored this bill!!! You are one of the Congress members who brought this bill to the floor. If you were so concerned about its flaws why did you put your name on it...and if it was so flawed, why didn't you offer any amendments to make it workable?

We note in your letter that the bill passed in spite of your opposition, and we can't help but think this is yet another famous Sue Kelly political flip flop vote that only seems to occur when outragous bills are assured of passage...when it's safe to show your constituents how "concerned about their well being" you are. But, when the votes are close, you always seem to be there for Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert to put them over the top, constituents be damned. See A Matter of Trust for some perfect examples.

Again, we ask:

"Why did you cast a vote against a bill you co-sponsored and brought to the floor of the House... a bill that was virtually unchanged since it was introduced (by you and others) and a bill to which you offered no amendments?"

Comments:
A Reply Letter to Sue Kelly

Dear Sue,

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Like you, I am going to write platitudes here and write in circles so it's not excatly clear what I am saying and so that I can't be forced to actually take a stand on an issue. As someone who simply does what she's told, you know as well as I, that it's better to simply smile, say nothing, thank people for their concern, and hide behind spokespersons. The last thing we want is for someone to figure out we're nothing more than a seat warmer that advance the agenda of Dr. Dobson via Tom Delay.

So again, I want to thank you for getting in touch with me and I want to assure you that I will pretend to look into the matter and act like I have some gravitas in order to hide the fact that I am as useful to this district as a telegraph machine.

Sincerely,

A Constituent With a Remarkable Likeness to Sue
 
Dafeetkelly--

Yup. We hear much ado about nothing while nothing gets done....but, it sure sounds good....
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?