Tuesday, April 9, 2013
BREAKING: Sources Report Senate Republicans Caving on Guns
BREAKING: Sources Report Senate Republicans Caving on Guns
By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | April 9th, 2013 at 04:54 PM | 60
RESIZE: AAA
Sources inside the Senate tell me that the Republican Conference is scared to death of the tactics of Senators Lee, Cruz and Paul – that it is supposedly putting them in a tough spot.
Several of the Republicans are using the Manchin-Toomey compromise plan as an excuse to cave on the gun filibuster. They claim that Senators Lee, Cruz, and Paul are running ahead of the conference in their insistence on a filibuster.
What they fail to see is that the cloture vote is the vote to stop the gun legislation from passage.
Several Republican Senators intend to vote against the filibuster, but then vote against the overall bill. This is too clever by half. The GOP does not control the Senate as the GOP is want to say every time they don’t want to fight.
Their only power to block a gun control bill is to unite and filibuster.
Voting for cloture is voting for the gun control bill because, again, as the GOP reminds us, they are not in the majority. The only way to stop it is to filibuster.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let's be perfectly honest shall we, they have sold the American people out! These people have sold their souls and now are trying to offer ours up as well. This is the line that cannot be crossed.
ReplyDeleteAngie, the politicians sold out a long time ago. This is about getting reelected, like the other sell outs.
DeleteOn the other hand, as I recall, republican and democratic sentiment among voters is generally rather evenly split, not so much on any specific issue, but in general. Exactly what MIGHT happen if there is a filibuster? Sad to say, but it may make republican voters on the margins step off. So this stupid legislation gets blocked, and in another year and one half, seats are lost. The possibility of a pyhrric victory over legislation that won't end the world, yes?
ReplyDeleteThis makes about as much sense as staunchly supporting Santorum in the last campaign, or some of the more right-of-center politicians today, I think. Some may consider it standing on principle. Fine. But, again, a little more moderate perspective stands a better chance of attracting those on the margins who are just slightly left of center.
Jean
Jean
With all due respect Jean why do you think people support a party? My morals and values are not for sale nor will they change due to "the times". Right is right and wrong is wrong. One cannot dance with the devil on Monday and come Sunday go to church and think all is well - choose your dance partner for you cannot have both.
DeleteAngie,
DeleteI'm not convinced that there will be much benefit to filibustering. I don't know the details of the current bill, but my understanding is that it is a far cry from anything highly restrictive, so if cloture is prevented, which is doubtful, what is gained? Loss of seats in either chamber may, or may not, result in 2014, yes, and what would that accomplish?
Jean
..."and what would that accomplish?" apparently a win win for the left.
DeleteSo they cannot opposed the left for fear that they can lose a seat yet we must not allow the left to gain another seat ... what has been accomplished ... a victory for the left.
Opposing Obamacare was one thing. Risking losing a seat for this stuff, a little bit different, no?
DeleteJean
Again, this is not about this piece of legislation, this is not about the 2nd amendment, this is not about protecting children from guns, this is about getting lifers in congress re-elected.
ReplyDeleteWe had an election less than 5 months ago, the congress was sworn in less than 3 months ago.
When, if ever, will these elites stand for principle. The answer is probably never.
1773-2009 Paul, Lee and Cruz stand for something.
Yep, the answer is never as long as we keep the current system of officially sanctioned corruption. What you must realize is that the voters only select those politicians who have been "pre selected" by the big mponey donors because it is only those who are able to survive the pre-primary process. So, our candidates are pre selected for us, and that will be so as long as the current system of campaign financing continues.
DeleteMick, what would your solution be to our campaign financing quandary?
DeleteHow do you square the spending of great sums with presidential debates being presented exclusively on liberal media channels? With exclusively progressive moderators?
What is the answer to gerrymandering?
How do you negate pay to play and union ballot stuffing?
The supremes have made getting rid of the money much tougher. Still, you asked for a solution and I think one solution is publicly financed campaigns. Put a limit on how much money can be spent by a candidate. We could also seriously limit the number of debates. Ultimately, however, the methods to reduce money and outside influence will all be deemed unconstitutional and a restriction of free speech. To some degree, it has become moot. Free speech means you get so spend as much as need to to drown out your opponent.
DeleteThe liberal media thing is getting really, really old. Out of 20 debates, 5 were held on Fox news and moderated by Fox news people. One was on CNBC with Maria Bartoromo as one host- hardly what I would call a liberal. The one debate on CBS had Major Garrett as one moderator, again, hardly someone I would consider liberal after working at Fox. That's 7 debates with either decisive conservative leanings or at least conservative leaning moderators.
Something a lot of liberals still refuse to accept is that Al Gore ran a shitty campaign. What happened in Florida was not remotely legit, but it should not have mattered. They blamed Ralph Nader, amongst other things and now Republicans similarly can't accept that no matter how much of their platform might appeal to moderate Americans, there is a ton of whack job shit that many people want no part of. Republicans had no shortage of money, they had no shortage of media outlets to run their ads on and they lost. Maybe instead of whining about how much Obama is spending on entertaining they can actually come up with something constructive next time around.
rant aside, gerrymandering is a big problem there is no easy solution to.
Max,
DeleteI'll agree that one big reason Romney lost is from the poor choice of words on his 47% discussion. Media bias DID have a role, though, as far as I'm concerned, as did things like pandering, not the least of which was the decision to delay deportation. Then there was that mother of all handouts, Obamacare.
Jean
Max, I was referring to the Presidential not the primary Debates. But I agree, there is no way to keep money out of politics.
DeleteIn seriousness William, we can't keep money out of politics unless we give up on believing in the fantasy that allowing endless money to be spent is an expression of free speech. All freedom all the time eventually becomes it's own form of tyranny and I believe this is exactly what we have today. Collective, the money from unions represents a hell of a lot more people then does money coming from Karl Rove. Even as a liberal, I have no qualm with limiting the money from unions provided the money from the Roves and the Kochs of the world are equally restricted.
DeleteJean, it's wasn't a poor choice of words, it was an accurate presentation of the way Romney felt and it was a message his supporters in that room wanted to hear. He didn't misspeak, he told the truth. To call Obama care pandering is also a very dishonest representation. If you take away the term Obama care and start to ask people if they like individual provisions, there is enormous support for those previsions, even amongst Republicans. Not only that, much of Obama was mainstream Republican thought decades ago. I get it, certain people hate Obama and everything he stands for, therefore they believe that the only way anybody in America supports him is because they are getting some freebie. I'd like to know what my freebie is.