Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Have House "Blue Dog" Democrats really prevailed on their leadership to delay a vote on labor's "card check" bill until after any Senate vote? If so, as Jennifer Rubin argues , isn't the House in effect really saying "they don’t want to vote on this ever. " The Senate needs 60 votes to break a filibuster and pass the bill (which would effectively end the requirement for secret ballots in union recognition elections). And right now it's not at all clear those 60 votes will materialize. ... We'll see how labor spins Ambinder on this one. ... P.S.: Actually, I think the likely labor spin is here (first comment) ...
Last week, at the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce headquarters, chamber officials briefed nearly 100 members of a coalition opposing card check about their efforts to lobby members of Arkansas congressional delegation.
According to individuals who attended the meeting, they were encouraged by what they heard, especially what was relayed to them regarding conversations between chamber officials and 1st District Congressman Marion Berry, a Democrat.
An official informed the group that Berry recently had told him that he thought the bill was a piece of junk and that he only voted for it because he knew then-President Bush would veto it.
The official then told the group that Berry recounted to him a recent discussion the Blue Dogs had with House Democratic leadership. According to Berry, the Blue Dogs told House leadership that card check wasn’t a free vote for them anymore and that their constituents were giving them a lot of grief over the issue. [E.A.]
Another kf source is more skeptical of the idea that the Blue Dogs have talked the House leadership into anything. ("Pure B.S.") .... But pro-card checker Bowers worries they have the votes . ("We need a Blue Dog proof majority. Right now, Republicans plus Blue Dogs control 228 seats in the House, and that number will rise to 229 after the special election in NY-20.") ... 4:06 P.M.