Mike Castle Is A Hypocrite, Part Eleventy Billion
Unlike nemski, I like this new guy with the Coons campaign. He came out swinging today against Castle’s complete hypocrisy. Castle, who’s voted against providing jobs through stimulus and against unemployment benefits, is hosting a jobs fair.
“Congressman Castle voted against job creation many times before deciding to hold another jobs fair,” said Coons Communications Director Dave Hoffman. “This is another example of the Congressman trying to have it both ways. While I commend the Congressman for setting aside his anti-job voting record for a moment in order to take time helping out-of-work Delawareans identify job opportunities, people in this state are smart enough to realize they can do better than electing a U.S. senator who says one thing in Delaware and casts votes against their interests in Washington.”
Way to go Coons campaign! The story has already been picked up by the News Journal blog as well.
Tags: Chris Coons, DE-Sen, Mike Castle
And herein lies the problem for Coons and his peeps (the kids still say “peeps”, right?). Mike Castle is smart enough, and has been around long enough, to know how to play the game. In DC, he does what he has to do, and votes how he has to vote to placate his party and corporate bosses — all the while knowing that precious few people back home are actually paying attention. Then, when he comes home, he undertakes public actions that look good, but actually conflict with how he really votes — all the while knowing that the local “press” will publicize it for him and help make him look good.
Somehow, the Coons people need to make sure everyone is aware of the contradictions, but do it without being particularly nasty about it. Castle still has enough of a “good guy” image that I think a nasty tone would backfire. My suggestion would be to play up the fact, regardless of his intentions, he’s powerless to act against his party. Just my thoughts.
I really like that statement. The NJ would have to indulge in outright partisan hackery to ignore it. Wait. It is the NJ. Nevermind.
Not bad piece at all, but how about let everyone know Castle voted against the Lily Ledbetter Act, which reistated the statute of limitations for gender discrimination in employment that existed prior to the 2007 decision which ignored the clear language of the law, and shortened the limitations in the worse case of judicial activism ever! Many people think Castle’s a moderate, a moderate would not have voted against this bill!
Castle is pro-pay discrimination. Good point Iowa Democrat!
Wrong the court ruling was applying the law. You should not go back 20 years to sue a firm. If it didn’t matter to you to notice 20 years ago, we have no obligation to make it matter when you are going out the door for retirement. The court was right.
The Congress decided to revise the law. That is the right of Congress. If Congress in its wisdom decides that nature of pay disputes are hard to verify because of other laws regarding confidentiality, that is all right, but it does make record keeping almost unimaginable.
For you, David, I imagine most things in modern America are unimaginable.
Too bad David and people like him miss the obvious remedy. Don’t rip people off because they are women in the first place. That somehow never occurs to the modern ethics challenged Republican.
Republican David,
The Supreme Court decision did not apply the law that is complete and utter BS! Read the law, and every single federal and state interpretation prior to the 2007 ruling. The law allowed a woman 180 days from the last discriminatory act to file a claim of wage discrimination. The Courts always interpreted that to mean if Big Bank paid women tellers 25% less than male tellers a women had 180 days after the last discriminatory act, which was interpreted as last unequal pay check to file an administrative claim with the EEOC. You are required to file with the EEOC or state civil rights commission prior to bringing a lawsuit. The 5 right wing activist Judges on the Supreme Court not only ignored the prior case law, but also the clear language of the Act and the Congressional intent, when it held that a women must file a claim with the EEOC within 180 days of the FIRST unequal pay check, regardless of whether she had learned of the unequal pay within the 180 day period. And after the passage of 180 days from the first discriminatory paycheck the women can NEVER sue for pay discrimination, regardless of whether the women even discovered the discriminatory pay within 180 days of the first paycheck. In essence these 5 men gave corporate America the green light to engage in gender pay discrimination, as long as they are able to hide it from the women for 180 days after their first paycheck.
Anyone who reads the original act knows that the decision was contrary to the clear language of the Act. If the Supreme Courts decision “was applying the law: David, then why did the 1964 law provide that a women (claimant-you could have a man paid less based on his gender) can only get back pay for TWO YEARS PRIOR to the date of filing the administrative compliant with the EEOC. If the deadline to file your administrative compliant is 180 days from the first discriminatory pay check there would be no reason to put a two year cap on pre-filing back pay. However the limit of two years back pay was to prevent a person who was paid unequal wages to work their entire career at a lower/discriminatory wage, and then file the administrative claim within 180 days of retirement, and get 20+ years of back pay. Lily Ledbetter didn’t file her claim with the EEOC until 6 months prior to her retirement from Goodyear, under the 1964 law she was not entitled to her full back pay, she was only entitled to back pay for two year prior to filing her EEOC compliant and any back pay accruing between filing with the EEOC and the jury’s verdict. Ledbetter gave up the right to back pay for discrimination prior to two years before her EEOC filing.
Look Republican David, if you can’t ever admit the truth when it is obvious, then when (or if) you actually have a valid point it will be discounted, or totally ignored. The US Supreme Court exercised the worst form of judicial activism when it used its position to rewrite legislation on the books since 1964. Every single female GOP senator voted in favor of the Lily Ledbetter Act, as did Arlen Specter who was still a member of the GOP. They did not vote for an expansion of employment discrimination law, but RESTORATION of settled law, that’s a fact. You are entitled to your opinion, as to whether the original, and now restored law is good, necessary, etc, but you aren’t entitled to rewrite history and basic facts.
Castle’s vote on the Lily Ledbetter Act is just one of many votes that prevent me from ever voting for him, it is why I get frustrated that Coons isn’t going after Castle with reckless abandon. I keep hearing about the “Delaware way”, and we don’t do things that way, and the risk to Coons if he attacks Castle. I don’t understand why a candidate would try and soft peddle the reality of Castle’s voting record. Too many people in this state that Mike Castle is a moderate or middle of the road GOP. It maybe true in the sense that nationally the GOP has gone so far to the right, that voting records that would be considered conservative 10-20 years ago, are now considered moderate or liberal compared to the rest of the GOP. However the fact that Castle isn’t the mirror image of Mike Pence doesn’t make him a moderate. Specter was the only male member of the GOP in the Senate to vote for the Ledbetter Act, and only 3 House Republicans voted for the measure. I can’t imagine many independents, let alone reasonable Republicans (yes they exist, I’m related by marriage to a couple of them) who would approve of Castle voting to support allowing an employer who isn’t caught discriminating in wages against women within 180 days of the women’s first paycheck to continue to discriminate in pay for the rest of the women’s employment with the company. And yet that is how Castle voted.
Could someone who is close to Coons PLEASE convince him to hire an IT guy to revamp his website with the help of an opposition researcher. Add a section (actually many sections other than his current meaningless bio, contribute and volunteer sections) entitled Castle’s record. Take votes like the January 2009 Lily Ledbetter Act vote. Explain the history, what the 5-4 decision did, add comments from Biden (I know he spoke out often during his Presidential race, and I’d bet my 401K you could find a great Biden quote within 48 hours of the decision), point out that Castle was silent (or defended the decision???) Point out the efforts to overturn the judicial activism in 2007 and 08, and what role Castle played (or failed to play). Point out the first legislation passed after Obama became President was passage of this Act, and Castle voted against it. Add any statements from Castle regarding why he voted against it. Find business leaders who support the Act, the chamber of commerce was against it, which speaks poorly of the chamber, but it shouldn’t be hard to find business leaders willing to indicate they embrace the legislation, and to say from 1970-2007 we never had a claim of gender pay discrimination, we don’t believe that corporations should pay women less for the same work as men, it is wrong morally and doesn’t help employee morale, and as CEO of Company X I supported restating the statute of limitations for gender pay claims to its original terms. Then have a couple women who had successful gender discrimination claims prior to 2007, give their personal story, and state had the Supreme Courts decision been the law in 1985 (or when ever) when they filed their claim against “Big Bad Corporation” their claim would have been thrown out because they worked for BBC three years before they found out that female level III techs were paid 73% of what male level III techs were paid with equal seniority, same shift, etc. Then have quotes from Coons lambasting Castle’s vote, and stating had he been Delaware’s congressman in 2007 he would have immediately worked to reverse this gross miscarriage of justice.
Castle’s Ledbetter vote is not an anomaly; it is consistent with his record. Coons’ website should go through his votes that your average Delaware voter would oppose, and highlight the vote, why it was wrong. Educate people on the real Mike Castle!!!!!
Go ahead waste time on a dead issue. You can’t even accept victory. Most people would rather focus on job creating measures not redistibution measures. It was never clear that you could go back 20 years when you have a 180 day statue of limitations. The law is now pretty clear and the issue is resolved. Businesses will now have to keep payroll records for 40 years to prove that they are not discriminating. If you think that is reasonable, knock yourself out.
Comment by Republican David: “Go ahead waste time on a dead issue. You can’t even accept victory. Most people would rather focus on job creating measures not redistibution measures. It was never clear that you could go back 20 years when you have a 180 day statue of limitations. The law is now pretty clear and the issue is resolved. Businesses will now have to keep payroll records for 40 years to prove that they are not discriminating. If you think that is reasonable, knock yourself out.”
Republican David you are right trying to educate you on the facts is probably a waste of time. It isn’t a matter of failure to accept victory, correcting the actions of the Supreme Court should not be considered a victory, because their action was so egregious, a victory would be an expansion of the 1964 legislation, not merely preserving the status quo prior to the 2007 decision.
You either don’t closely read, or have less understanding of the 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision, and the January 2009 Ledbetter Act than I gave you credit. Prior to the 2007 decision an employee could never go back 20 years. Employee’s were ALWAYS and continue to be limited to two years of back pay from the date they file the claim with the EEOC. If an employer discriminates against a women employee for 25 years, and she filed the EEOC compliant on 10/1/2005 she can only get back pay (if she wins in Court against the employer) for his illegal gender pay discrimination from 10/1/2003 on. Back pay prior to the 2007 decision, and now again after passage of the 2009 Ledbetter Act is limited to 2 years of illegal discrimination prior to filing with the EEOC, no matter how many years the employer violated the federal law, and no matter when the employee learned of the discrimination.
An employer doesn’t need to retain 20 or 40 years of employment records due to gender pay disputes, as the employee is limited to two years of pre-filing back pay. If you believe the employer is required to retain 40 years of pay records, and is on the hook for more than 2 years of pre-filing back pay, you believe what ever you are told, regardless of the accuracy!!! But you are right trying to educate you is a waste of time, because you don’t care about facts!