by David Safier
I guess Howard Levine, the Pachyderm treasurer, was a bit miffed, since he chaired the committee running the evaluation. In a string of comments at the end of Gila's blog post, he made it clear that Melvin sponsored and supported "nanny state bills" purely to win votes from moderates. The portrait he paints of Melvin's motives is less than flattering.
Al Melvin is apparently trying to position himself to head off any liberal opposition to his 2010 reelection bid.
I discerned Al Melvin’s motives by listening to his explanation of why he sponsored the bills he sponsored. He could have pulled these bills with a resulting improvement in his rating, but he adamantly refused to because these bills position him well with local newspapers and other liberals. This is based on a personal conversation with Al Melvin – not just a guess at his motives.
Just because Al Melvin sponsored them to confuse his liberal constituents (Al’s word – not mine) so they won’t think he’s too conservative, does that suddenly make these bills “Republican” this year? In case you’re wondering, the answer is NO.
[Bold face added]
It kinda makes ya think, don't it? Does Melvin care about stopping people from using cell phones in cars, or smoking when children are in the car, or letting people ride in the backs of pickups, or are these just tactics someone helped him devise (the name Constantin Querard comes to mind) so Melvin has an answer when people say he's too conservative?