PDA

View Full Version : Would filibustering the Senate Gun Control Bill be politically wise?


Excelsior
03-26-2013, 4:01 PM
Would filibustering the Senate Gun Control Bill be politically wise?

If they do indeed filibuster and the vote for cloture is not successful, will the anti-2A people sell the results as a "procedural gimmick by a handful of tea baggers"? Will they then use that platform to redouble their attack?

Might it be wiser to actually vote on the bill and have it go down in flames once and for all? What's the real risk? What's the NRA's position on this?

Then again the threat of a filibuster might only be sable rattling designed to bring attention to 3 politicos and/or simply as another bargaining chip in the ongoing negotiations?

mshill
03-26-2013, 8:28 PM
It doesn't matter. If it is blocked by a filibuster or voted down, Bloomberg will target all the seats of those that vote against it and are up for election in 2014.

I personally would like to see a vote so that the dems from conservative states have to show their colors but who knows...

Wang Lung
03-26-2013, 10:45 PM
I do not want this voted on. I watched the vote in '94. That was supposedly DOA. But the Dems got just enough votes to drag it over the finish line.

If it goes to a vote, anything can happen.

IVC
03-26-2013, 11:16 PM
It appears at the moment that the D-s are hoping for a filibuster so that they can accuse R-s without having to state their position. However, there is no need for a filibuster since there is insurance in the House that no bill will pass.

Kukuforguns
03-27-2013, 10:19 AM
Would filibustering the Senate Gun Control Bill be politically wise?

Wise for whom? Rand Paul? Ted Cruz? Mike Lee? Gun control advocates? Civil rights advocates?

For the senators who stated they will filibuster, it gets their names in the news on an issue that is important to their supporters. Political gold. Of course the gun control advocates will "spin" the story to try to villainize the other side. Virtually all the politicians in D.C. play this game. If these three (and any who later join) are willing to run the risk, let them. Given their constituencies, I don't see this as a very risky move.

For gun control politicians, this could be a lifeline for those with a divided electorate. It's no secret that there are a number of politicians who don't want to vote in support of (or against) any controversial gun control legislation because they fear it will cause them to lose their next election. They remember 1994. Not casting a vote on cloture (or voting against cloture) is politically much less risky than casting a vote for or against gun control.

For civil rights advocates, a victory is a victory is a victory. If the Senate cannot overcome a filibuster, then it is clear that the legislation lacks deep support.

Hoologan
03-27-2013, 10:36 AM
Filibuster or not, the Republicans will get blamed either way, it makes little difference, IMO.

RomanDad
03-27-2013, 11:29 AM
Would filibustering the Senate Gun Control Bill be politically wise?

If they do indeed filibuster and the vote for cloture is not successful, will the anti-2A people sell the results as a "procedural gimmick by a handful of tea baggers"? Will they then use that platform to redouble their attack?

Might it be wiser to actually vote on the bill and have it go down in flames once and for all? What's the real risk? What's the NRA's position on this?

Then again the threat of a filibuster might only be sable rattling designed to bring attention to 3 politicos and/or simply as another bargaining chip in the ongoing negotiations?

Wise or not, the bottom line is you need 60 votes is the Senate to overcome one.... And that has been the Senate math for 40 years. If you dont have 60 votes, you dont have a bill.

speedrrracer
03-27-2013, 11:32 AM
Wise for whom? Rand Paul? Ted Cruz? Mike Lee? Gun control advocates? Civil rights advocates?

For the senators who stated they will filibuster, it gets their names in the news on an issue that is important to their supporters. Political gold. Of course the gun control advocates will "spin" the story to try to villainize the other side. Virtually all the politicians in D.C. play this game. If these three (and any who later join) are willing to run the risk, let them. Given their constituencies, I don't see this as a very risky move.

For gun control politicians, this could be a lifeline for those with a divided electorate. It's no secret that there are a number of politicians who don't want to vote in support of (or against) any controversial gun control legislation because they fear it will cause them to lose their next election. They remember 1994. Not casting a vote on cloture (or voting against cloture) is politically much less risky than casting a vote for or against gun control.

For civil rights advocates, a victory is a victory is a victory. If the Senate cannot overcome a filibuster, then it is clear that the legislation lacks deep support.

Kukuforguns ftw
/thread

IVC
03-27-2013, 11:46 AM
Wise or not, the bottom line is you need 60 votes is the Senate to overcome one.... And that has been the Senate math for 40 years. If you dont have 60 votes, you dont have a bill.

Not quite. When it comes to controversial bills, there is a huge difference between (1) not bringing a bill to the vote, (2) bringing a bill to the vote and having it pass/fail, and (3) attempting to bring a bill to the vote, but having it filibustered.

There is no question that the current bill will not pass even in Senate, but solution (1) on AWB is an egg on the face of the D-s due to the Obama's insistence that "they deserve a vote" (Reid (D) decided not to include it), while solution (2) on what's left of the bill would be a disaster for blue-dog D-s. The solution (3) would be an escape hatch, but it would require R-s to go against their best interest.

Excelsior
03-27-2013, 12:03 PM
It doesn't matter. If it is blocked by a filibuster or voted down, Bloomberg will target all the seats of those that vote against it and are up for election in 2014.

I personally would like to see a vote so that the dems from conservative states have to show their colors but who knows...

It does matter. Bloomberg isn't going to be able to control this issue nationwide.

sholling
03-27-2013, 12:05 PM
I don't want to take a chance that a few RINOs will cross over and let this mess become law. If the 3 TEA Party senators can block the gun grabbers then they should give it their best shot and if there is a cloture vote we'll know who's seats need targeting.

Excelsior
03-27-2013, 12:10 PM
I do not want this voted on. I watched the vote in '94. That was supposedly DOA. But the Dems got just enough votes to drag it over the finish line.

If it goes to a vote, anything can happen.

Today is considerably different than 1994 with regard to guns. The bill won't pass the House. Others have brought up some interesting points however.

Excelsior
03-27-2013, 12:12 PM
I don't want to take a chance that a few RINOs will cross over and let this mess become law. If the 3 TEA Party senators can block the gun grabbers then they should give it their best shot and if there is a cloture vote we'll know who's seats need targeting.

As someone else pointed out, an actual vote on the bill would be a far better indicator of "who's seats need targeting."

Interesting that this time around both the NRA and Bloomberg will be attempting to target seats.

Excelsior
03-27-2013, 12:18 PM
Wise for whom? Rand Paul? Ted Cruz? Mike Lee? Gun control advocates? Civil rights advocates?

For the senators who stated they will filibuster, it gets their names in the news on an issue that is important to their supporters. Political gold. Of course the gun control advocates will "spin" the story to try to villainize the other side. Virtually all the politicians in D.C. play this game. If these three (and any who later join) are willing to run the risk, let them. Given their constituencies, I don't see this as a very risky move.

For gun control politicians, this could be a lifeline for those with a divided electorate. It's no secret that there are a number of politicians who don't want to vote in support of (or against) any controversial gun control legislation because they fear it will cause them to lose their next election. They remember 1994. Not casting a vote on cloture (or voting against cloture) is politically much less risky than casting a vote for or against gun control.

For civil rights advocates, a victory is a victory is a victory. If the Senate cannot overcome a filibuster, then it is clear that the legislation lacks deep support.

There is a real political difference between filibustering a bill and having it die through a vote -- be it in the senate or house.

safewaysecurity
03-27-2013, 12:26 PM
If these giys were smart they would offer HR 822 as an amendment to universal background checks. If the amendment doesn't pass then they can filibuster and complain that the dems won't "compromise" if it does pass I would love to see feinstein vote for a bill with national reciprocity

Luieburger
03-27-2013, 1:35 PM
The majority of Americans don't even know what a filibuster is, much less read the news. Filibuster away. It won't change public opinion.

InGrAM
03-27-2013, 3:28 PM
Filibuster or not, the Republicans will get blamed either way, it makes little difference, IMO.


This^

Excelsior
03-27-2013, 6:23 PM
The majority of Americans don't even know what a filibuster is, much less read the news. Filibuster away. It won't change public opinion.

Any proof?

Why do people make such comments without backup? I suspect in this day of the Internet and TV, people get bombarded with far more news than ever -- although they might not technically be "reading" it.

hornswaggled
03-27-2013, 6:30 PM
The majority of Americans don't even know what a filibuster is, much less read the news. Filibuster away. It won't change public opinion.

Doesn't it involve Jimmy Stewart and Jean Aurthur and a whole bunch of boy scouts or something?

newbee1111
03-27-2013, 7:43 PM
The filibuster would show exactly how weak the anti-2nd amendment side is at the federal level. If they can't even get a bill out of the senate then they should just give it up. I can think of fewer things more hilariously embarrassing for Feinstein, Bloomberg, Cuomo and the rest of the Brady crew than to watch their prize bill not even make it to the floor for a vote and that's after jettisoning Feinstein's legacy making AWB.

The house should pass a CCW reciprocation bill or a bill to repeal the federal gun free school zone law on the same day just to twist the knife further.

ldsnet
03-27-2013, 8:03 PM
I do not want this voted on. I watched the vote in '94. That was supposedly DOA. But the Dems got just enough votes to drag it over the finish line.

If it goes to a vote, anything can happen.

Very True! IF all they were pushing was to Improve NICS and a bunch of Mental Health improvements that would be acceptable to most. BUT we all know if they get One foot in the door, Registration, 10 round magazine limits, and possibly more get tossed into the package.

We all know how the game works, and that is Just NOT Acceptable.

nicki
03-28-2013, 3:15 AM
Let's take a look at who our "3 Statesmen" are.

Sen. Paul
Sen. Cruz
Sen. Lee.

These 3 guys knocked off the establishment republicans in the primaries and won the general election and now the establishment is kissing up to all 3 of them.

When Rand Paul did his 13 hour filibuster, it was 13 hours of "Red Meat", very little filler and he did it on an issue that wasn't anywhere near as deep as the "gun issue".

Between Sen. Paul, Sen. Cruz and Sen. Lee, the gun filibuster will be the "mother of all filibusters" because these "civilian disarmament" bills will be hit from both Conservative and Libertarian attacks.

Bear in mind, Sen. Reid doesn't have to just deal with these 3, but the prospect of more Senators joining the "Gun Fillibuster".

Sen. Paul may have a contagious disease, it is called "Spinitis".

Here is how it works, when one elected official stands up and shows courage, other politicians who have the spines of jellyfish get infected, all of a sudden they grow spines and stand up to be heard.

If Sen. Ayote from New Hampshire joins the filibuster, that will shame many other Republican Senators to join in because if they don't, then they show that they lack both a spine and ***icles.:eek:

Nicki

strlen
03-28-2013, 3:20 AM
A filibuster is an extreme measure, but defense of civil rights is a just cause:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_5XvBYfxU_dM/TEB5J8d34hI/AAAAAAAAMW8/L1MvAn6ODtY/Goldwater%20campaign%20button-8x6.jpg?imgmax=800

Strategically, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If they don't fillibuster, they will still be hated by gun-control proponents.

QQQ
03-28-2013, 5:48 AM
those who hate Republicans and those who love gun control will hate pro-gun Republicans regardless of what methods are used to block gun control legislation.

Let them hate! We shouldn't give a crap what antigunners like Nancy Pelosi and BHO think. Anything that obstructs the progress of such legislation is a good thing in my book.

Excelsior
03-28-2013, 12:11 PM
those who hate Republicans and those who love gun control will hate pro-gun Republicans regardless of what methods are used to block gun control legislation.

Let them hate! We shouldn't give a crap what antigunners like Nancy Pelosi and BHO think. Anything that obstructs the progress of such legislation is a good thing in my book.

You're venting rather than addressing my question.

Again, would it be politically wise to filibuster if doing so could then be sold as a "procedural gimmick by tea-baggers" which could supercharge future attempts at gun-control OR would it be better to have a vote once and for all and watch the legislation go down in flames in the House if not the Senate?

I don't think we'll see a filibuster. I think the threat was made to add pressure during the negotiations (it will be interesting to see exactly how the "universal background checks" proposal will be ultimately be defined with regards to databasing the results) and to bring attention to three senators.

Excelsior
03-28-2013, 12:14 PM
Will Senators Lee, Paul and Cruz be allowed to visit the lavatory and/or cat-nap (one at a time) if they filibuster?

Excelsior
03-28-2013, 3:10 PM
Sen. Marco Rubio joins Lee/Paul/Cruz in the planned filibuster...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/sens-rubio-paul-and-cruz-gun-control-bill-wont-hit/

OttoLoader
03-28-2013, 3:24 PM
Yes. Hit the antis hard. Keep calling and emailing your Senators and Representatives. I am in North Carolina and call Kay Hagen every time Biden makes some anti Second Amendment statement. Also call to say that BHO requested us to call our reps. Make it an opportunity to say I oppose all Democrat proposed gun conrol bills. Make the point to get rid of gun free zones. I also call Richard Burr and Congressman Mike McItyre. If I still lived in California I would do the same with the additional comment for DiFi to pull her bill.

miztic
03-28-2013, 3:24 PM
The filibuster would show exactly how weak the anti-2nd amendment side is at the federal level. If they can't even get a bill out of the senate then they should just give it up. I can think of fewer things more hilariously embarrassing for Feinstein, Bloomberg, Cuomo and the rest of the Brady crew than to watch their prize bill not even make it to the floor for a vote and that's after jettisoning Feinstein's legacy making AWB.

The house should pass a CCW reciprocation bill or a bill to repeal the federal gun free school zone law on the same day just to twist the knife further.

I think I shall send a few emails suggesting just this, excellent idea.

sholling
03-28-2013, 3:51 PM
Here is how it works, when one elected official stands up and shows courage, other politicians who have the spines of jellyfish get infected, all of a sudden they grow spines and stand up to be heard.
Exactly right. This puts the antis and the weak kneed on the spot if it gets that far.

A filibuster is an extreme measure, but defense of civil rights is a just cause:
Thank you for posting that button. It's sad that liberty has become looked at by the media as an "extremist" position.

Again, would it be politically wise to filibuster if doing so could then be sold as a "procedural gimmick by tea-baggers" which could supercharge future attempts at gun-control OR would it be better to have a vote once and for all and watch the legislation go down in flames in the House if not the Senate?
You seem hung up on the pejorative "tea-bagger" and looking at this from how Bill Maher sees the argument. As far as the general public and our rights are concerned all that matters is blocking the bill. What matters from a political perspective and what frightens lefties and gun grabbers is the possibility of a second Rand Paul filibuster rallying the Republican Party around gun rights and moving the party libertarian with a libertarian leaning leader emerging to threaten a Hillary run for the White House in 2016. That's why Reid is likely to kill all of the bills.

As long as one of them officially has the floor he can yield time to anyone to speak while he makes a pit stop and then pick up again or yield time to someone else. In other words the floor is his until he stops or yields the floor.

ExcuseMe
03-28-2013, 3:58 PM
Hm...

my answer to your lead question was, "no."

grammaton76
03-28-2013, 4:15 PM
No need for cute humor here. As mentioned earlier, serious thread is serious.

strlen
03-28-2013, 4:26 PM
Thanks to those who got the Goldwater reference: Goldwater was serious about his principles, he was a member of the NAACP when it was politically dangerous to be so (but was expelled due to voting against regulation of private business in civil rights acts), he supported drug decriminalization and gay right way before it became trendy to do so (at a time when the "liberal" California was about to prohibit gays from teaching in schools and Harvey Milk's killer got a slap on the wrist due to the "twinkey-defense").

Yet he held a senate seat and despite losing a battle against LBJ (whom he really dislike -- he was depressed that he did not have a chance to run against Kennedy, a much more honourable opponent), his side won the war (Reagan Revolution -- which is why we can easily book airline flights and top-line tax rates are below 50%).

We badly need another Goldwater moment: a candidate to unify a loose confederation of warring tribes that is the Republican party and make it a party of principled liberty (I like Libertarian Party and voted for Gary Johnson last election, but I'm more of a classical liberal/left-libertarian than a full-on LP-style libertarian and third parties are impractical other than for the "spoiler" effect unless we drastically change our electoral system).

Back on topic, filibusters are there for a reason: it's another check against majoritarianism. Majoritarianism (dictatorship of majority) should be counter-posed to democracy (government by people).

Progressive supported Rand Paul when he filibustered drones. They also defended the filibuster when they were fairly close to using during Dubya's term. However, freedom is a two way street: you can't both support filibusters when they're (rightly) used to support the rights that you like, but oppose them when they're used to support rights you don't like or don't care about.

For progressive who like to consider themselves "utilitarian" or "consequentialist" (as they like to claim, which seems at odds at their anti-majoritarian positions on issues like personal drug use, abortion, or gay rights...) there's still no justification for this -- it's fairly clear that neither AWB nor a ban of private sales will stop (or even make a noticeable dent) in mass shootings.

Personally I'd like to see stricter penalties when private transfers are made to prohibited personals, a "square for NICS" type device (make proper background checks at gun show counter tops easy and fast), and spending time and money on investigating straw sales (it's said that only a few dealers and their straw buyers are responsible for majority of firearms used in crimes in several metropolitan areas -- unfortunately I don't have a link handy to the PBS story). Yet this is not what's being proposed here... so as much as I disagree with Rand's stance on abortion (or his father's isolationist foreign policy) I stand with Rand and am grateful there is someone there who will do the right thing even if it's the unpopular thing to do.

ArmyofMike
03-28-2013, 4:39 PM
Filibuster away. Rand, Cruz and Lee looked like superheroes after the last one and it worked for what they were after. I'd agree, if it gets voted on, all it takes is a Senator to fart and move his check mark to the wrong box for it to be approved.

I go Superhero move all the way!

grammaton76
03-28-2013, 4:51 PM
2A is a more serious forum than the others you may be used to, and we do make an effort to stay on track more here.

Your post generated complaints, and was removed.

If you have a problem with that, feel free to escalate this to Kestryll.

...and no, folks can't simply respond "how they see fit" (however is probably the better word here actually); otherwise we'd have to allow all the naked picture memes people like to post, etc as well.

Excelsior
03-28-2013, 5:39 PM
You seem hung up on the pejorative "tea-bagger" and looking at this from how Bill Maher sees the argument. As far as the general public and our rights are concerned all that matters is blocking the bill. What matters from a political perspective and what frightens lefties and gun grabbers is the possibility of a second Rand Paul filibuster rallying the Republican Party around gun rights and moving the party libertarian with a libertarian leaning leader emerging to threaten a Hillary run for the White House in 2016. That's why Reid is likely to kill all of the bills.

As long as one of them officially has the floor he can yield time to anyone to speak while he makes a pit stop and then pick up again or yield time to someone else. In other words the floor is his until he stops or yields the floor.

"Tea bagger" is the exact pejorative many news outlets will use to describe the filibustering senators should it take place.

There is more to it than "blocking the bill." The goal is not to simply block this SB but to stop further gun control. If filibustering this SB should yield the unintended consequence of supercharging the gun-banners and swaying the majority of public opinion, it might not be a good idea to filibuster -- particularly given the headcount in the House.

As someone who has been trained to see around corners I suspect the threat of filibustering is being used largely to assist the negotiating process -- and of course to bring attention to some senators.

Nothing like holding a shotgun to your opponents' head while discussing "universal background checks" and the horror of national gun registration that would come with it unless specific language makes it into the bill to prevent something along those lines.

sholling
03-28-2013, 5:51 PM
There is more to it than "blocking the bill." The goal is not to simply block this SB but to stop further gun control. If filibustering this SB should yield the unintended consequence of supercharging the gun-banners and swaying the majority of public opinion, it might not be a good idea to filibuster -- particularly given the headcount in the House.
Filibustering isn't going to supercharge the gungrabbers - that's already been tried by the Progressive Messiah and the Vice Bloviater and it failed to gain significant real world traction with the public other than the usual brief post tragedy blip. What filibustering is going to supercharge is the energy within 2nd Amendment rights supporters in both parties and rally them around those Senators who put up a vocal fight for our rights instead of forming a bipartisan gun-grabbing gang of 8 to sell us out. Public opinion has moved back to our side and there is nothing but win in blocking gun bills now.

JMP
03-28-2013, 6:08 PM
The chicken little Democrat senators didn't want to vote on the bill because they don't want their name on another controversial bill since the ones that put their name on Obamacare will be coming up for reelection in 2014 as the Obamacare disaster unfolds. Let 'em vote, and bring it down with a filibuster. Yes on Obamacare and Yes on an AWB is a lot for people to stomach and reminiscent (but worse) of the Clinton era.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-29-2013, 7:36 AM
Not quite. When it comes to controversial bills, there is a huge difference between (1) not bringing a bill to the vote, (2) bringing a bill to the vote and having it pass/fail, and (3) attempting to bring a bill to the vote, but having it filibustered.

There is no question that the current bill will not pass even in Senate, but solution (1) on AWB is an egg on the face of the D-s due to the Obama's insistence that "they deserve a vote" (Reid (D) decided not to include it), while solution (2) on what's left of the bill would be a disaster for blue-dog D-s. The solution (3) would be an escape hatch, but it would require R-s to go against their best interest.


Disagree. Kukuforguns called it. Our "best interest" is in stopping this NOW!


As someone else pointed out, an actual vote on the bill would be a far better indicator of "who's seats need targeting."

Interesting that this time around both the NRA and Bloomberg will be attempting to target seats.


They're both ALWAYS targeting seats, so they don't need any more "indicators."


those who hate Republicans and those who love gun control will hate pro-gun Republicans regardless of what methods are used to block gun control legislation.

Let them hate! We shouldn't give a crap what antigunners like Nancy Pelosi and BHO think. Anything that obstructs the progress of such legislation is a good thing in my book.


Agree. Oderint dum metuant.


Doesn't it involve Jimmy Stewart and Jean Aurthur and a whole bunch of boy scouts or something?


LOL!


The Raisuli

Tyrone
03-29-2013, 7:53 AM
Here is a link to article by Paul and purpose of filibuster. Nice. "duty to preserve 2nd"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/29/a-duty-to-preserve-the-second-amendment/

Skidmark
03-29-2013, 7:56 AM
Wise or not, the bottom line is you need 60 votes is the Senate to overcome one.... And that has been the Senate math for 40 years. If you dont have 60 votes, you dont have a bill.

If Republicans filibustered an upcoming bill or a nomination, how would anyone notice? - it's no different from their regular routine. Thanks to GOP obstructionism, nearly every measure is subject to a 60 vote threshold - just to proceed to a vote.

I think the more attention Paul, Cruz, and Lee put on background checks, the more the public will come to see that background checks have been part of the country's landscape for quite a while - without taking people's rights away or tracking them. That is, their pompous grandstanding will very likely come to have the opposite impact from what they envision.

Frito Bandido
03-29-2013, 10:06 AM
Really no need to Filibuster the bill, it won't pass the House anyway. I doubt it would even get enough votes in the Senate. Politicians are cowards and the moderate Democrats in largely Republican states won't take the risk of getting kicked out of office at the next election over a bill they know will be DOA in the House anyway.

Besides that, I oppose any and all filibusters on principle. Bills are supposed to be up for majority vote and using loopholes in Congressional rules that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution needs to be done away with.

ZombieTactics
03-29-2013, 10:17 AM
A filibuster is one way that attention can be brought to an issue otherwise ignored by the media. It is one way of talking through the media filter and addressing the people directly.

When Rand Paul filibustered on drones, many called it a "stunt". Even old-times in his own party thought it was disrespectful.

Guess what? Paul's personal poll numbers went up, and support for drones went down nationwide.

That's a win.

Excelsior
03-29-2013, 10:54 AM
Really no need to Filibuster the bill, it won't pass the House anyway. I doubt it would even get enough votes in the Senate. Politicians are cowards and the moderate Democrats in largely Republican states won't take the risk of getting kicked out of office at the next election over a bill they know will be DOA in the House anyway.

Besides that, I oppose any and all filibusters on principle. Bills are supposed to be up for majority vote and using loopholes in Congressional rules that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution needs to be done away with.

Very interesting comments, thanks...

I'm wondering how some here would feel if things were different and a pro-2A bill was trying to make its way through Congress. Something with a real chance except for the threats of a filibuster by a handful of senators?

Tyrone
03-29-2013, 11:12 AM
There is real pressure from dem donors as well as Bloomberg adds for the "red state" dems to hold firm and support the AWB and other gun bills.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/03/28/top-donors-threaten-dems-do-the-right-thing-on-guns-or-no-more-money/

As to the inquiry if the shoe were on the other foot, my take is that is somewhat of a false analogy. A pro-2nd Amdt bill would be supportive of the existing right and presumably entirely consistent with the bill of rights and premise of gun ownership. Thus, if a handful of senators stood in the way, they would be standing in the way of the Constitution, the 2nd Amdt, and historical context of gun ownership and self-defense. Such tactics would truly be abhorant and "anti-american." Yes, I said it ;-) However, a filibuster designed to prevent legislation antagonistic to the Const, 2nd Amdt and individual liberty, is quite a different animal because it is using such tactic to defend something senators took an oath to defend. I do not subscribe to moral equivalence and am not suggesting that you do, but the two are not the same.

IVC
03-29-2013, 11:24 AM
Besides that, I oppose any and all filibusters on principle. Bills are supposed to be up for majority vote and using loopholes in Congressional rules that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution needs to be done away with.

President is not elected by majority. CA is represented by two D Senators even though D-s don't have a 2/3 majority of the popular vote in the state. Thus, a simple majority vote in Congress is questionably principled.

I would like to see more than a simple majority being required to pass *any* bill such that only legislation that is really supported by people can pass. Any bill that cannot get bi-partisan support is of questionable value in a democratic society. Do we want to have a complete reversal every 2-4 years when the balance of power changes? Do we want to have health care system crammed down our throats, then reversed in a few years?

Excelsior
03-29-2013, 3:33 PM
...As to the inquiry if the shoe were on the other foot, my take is that is somewhat of a false analogy. A pro-2nd Amdt bill would be supportive of the existing right and presumably entirely consistent with the bill of rights and premise of gun ownership. Thus, if a handful of senators stood in the way, they would be standing in the way of the Constitution, the 2nd Amdt, and historical context of gun ownership and self-defense. Such tactics would truly be abhorant and "anti-american." Yes, I said it ;-) However, a filibuster designed to prevent legislation antagonistic to the Const, 2nd Amdt and individual liberty, is quite a different animal because it is using such tactic to defend something senators took an oath to defend. I do not subscribe to moral equivalence and am not suggesting that you do, but the two are not the same.

Naw. To suggest any attempt at gun control necessarily stands "in the way of the Constitution, the 2nd Amdt, and historical context of gun ownership and self-defense" just doesn't pass the smell test. One prime example would be elements of the NFA.

Let's say though that there was a movement under way in Congress to take non-crew served machine guns off the NFA and to treat them like semi-autos. Let's say it had a good change of passing through the Senate and a 50/50 shot at passing through the House. If a group of senators tried to filibuster it, it would ENRAGE many people. It WOULD supercharge their future efforts.

There would be cries of "allow a fair vote!, allow a fair vote!" It really does matter where the filibuster is coming from. While a filibuster might make Lee, Paul, Cruz and Rubio heroes in the eyes of a comparative few, I think they might do real harm.

sholling
03-29-2013, 3:59 PM
It should always be much harder to pass a new law than repeal an old law. If I had my way every new law would require a 2/3 vote of both houses and a repeal a simple 50%+1. I want the filibuster because I don't want to take a chance of losing more of my rights. You may want to take chances with your rights but I want every possible barrier thrown in front of any new gun laws.

Rail
03-29-2013, 4:14 PM
Republicans should be doing this, especially in the lead-up to the 2014 midterms. Remember the golden rule: if the public cannot tell the difference between a Republican and a Democrat, they will vote for the Democrat. Any chance Democrats give the GOP to differentiate themselves is good for the GOP, even in many blue states.

Excelsior
03-29-2013, 4:15 PM
It should always be much harder to pass a new law than repeal an old law. If I had my way every new law would require a 2/3 vote of both houses and a repeal a simple 50%+1. I want the filibuster because I don't want to take a chance of losing more of my rights. You may want to take chances with your rights but I want every possible barrier thrown in front of any new gun laws.

Employing a filibuster rather than having the bill die via a vote in the senate or house might well aid its eventual passage...

Excelsior
03-29-2013, 4:16 PM
Republicans should be doing this, especially in the lead-up to the 2014 midterms. Remember the golden rule: if the public cannot tell the difference between a Republican and a Democrat, they will vote for the Democrat. Any chance Democrats give the GOP to differentiate themselves is good for the GOP, even in many blue states.

Did you just make that up?

Rail
03-29-2013, 4:22 PM
Did you just make that up?

Nope. It's pretty common knowledge in most of the country.

Rail
03-29-2013, 4:34 PM
Employing a filibuster rather than having the bill die via a vote in the senate or house might well aid its eventual passage...

Allowing a vote might be a smart gamble: make Democrats take a position on this issue, especially ones from pro-gun states. Another way to differentiate them.

The opposite is exactly what Speaker Mike Madigan is trying to do in Illinois for the other side: he's forcing up or down votes on anti-gun amendments to the CCW bill in the state and trying to get suburban Republicans to feint, only for his own party's political gain.

It goes back to that golden rule, and too many are clueless about it because either a) they're too detached from their constituents or b) they're liberal themselves.

Tyrone
03-29-2013, 4:39 PM
Naw. To suggest any attempt at gun control necessarily stands "in the way of the Constitution, the 2nd Amdt, and historical context of gun ownership and self-defense" just doesn't pass the smell test. One prime example would be elements of the NFA.

Let's say though that there was a movement under way in Congress to take non-crew served machine guns off the NFA and to treat them like semi-autos. Let's say it had a good change of passing through the Senate and a 50/50 shot at passing through the House. If a group of senators tried to filibuster it, it would ENRAGE many people. It WOULD supercharge their future efforts.

There would be cries of "allow a fair vote!, allow a fair vote!" It really does matter where the filibuster is coming from. While a filibuster might make Lee, Paul, Cruz and Rubio heroes in the eyes of a comparative few, I think they might do real harm.

You raise an interesting point. Can there be any gun control legislation that does not abridge the right to keep and bear arms? Maybe so, but the issue is whether the current legislation runs afoul the 2nd and if it does whether its worthy of a filibuster. DiFis AWB, magazine limits, and universal background checks w/ registry currently do so as currently framed I am comfortable with a filibuster on proposed legislation. Straw man purchases are currently illegal and some form of background "without registry" would not seem to infringe. The latter is really a question of whether the law is effective. As to non crew-served machine guns which are currently outlawed by NFA, it is a different question whether the NFA in that regard infringes upon the 2nd Amdt. That there will cries for or against filibusters does not mean to me that all cries are same. That some will use the filibuster improperly does not make them useless. We are back to equivalence. Both sides may jump and down with equal vigor and voice, but that does not make the merit of each side equal. Does DiFi's AWB infringe, I think pretty clearly so. Does the magazine limit infringe, again, I think pretty clearly so. Does having a background check with or without registry infringe. That is a closer question, but I would be much more comfortable and I think it much more consistent with the 2nd Amdt that if one exists it exists without a registry. Conversely, does removing non crew-served machine guns from banned list under NFA violate the 2nd Amdt. Pretty clearly it does not. You also would be hard pressed to find any part of the Const. that removal of such weapons would be found improper. Remember, as great as the Constitution is, it does not address all problems and it does not necessarily require the smartest outcome...

IPSICK
03-29-2013, 5:25 PM
I have a weird hope that Feinstein's amendment passes along with the gun control measures. Unless I am missing something, this would seem to fast track the gun control issue to the Supreme Court for a constitutionality test.

Otherwise we will likely face a long and arduous legal process for the California bills which seem to have a great likelihood of passing.

Nodda Duma
03-29-2013, 7:32 PM
Hey the less that Congress does, the better.

ja308
03-29-2013, 8:15 PM
I agree with the filibuster as a certain way to stop attacks on 2a
I also agree it can motivate the huge 2 a community ,even in California !
Posted is the latest link I found and thankfully it can read in 20seconds or less.
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=759

QQQ
03-29-2013, 8:25 PM
You're venting rather than addressing my question.

Again, would it be politically wise to filibuster if doing so could then be sold as a "procedural gimmick by tea-baggers" which could supercharge future attempts at gun-control OR would it be better to have a vote once and for all and watch the legislation go down in flames in the House if not the Senate?

I don't think we'll see a filibuster. I think the threat was made to add pressure during the negotiations (it will be interesting to see exactly how the "universal background checks" proposal will be ultimately be defined with regards to databasing the results) and to bring attention to three senators.

Gun control advocates will oppose gun rights advocates no matter the methods. Better to stop any gun control measure in its tracks rather than risk letting it pass.

tl;dr haters gonna hate

Excelsior
03-29-2013, 8:29 PM
Nope. It's pretty common knowledge in most of the country.

No, it's not.

It's remarkable how people offer personal opinions as if they are "common knowledge" when in fact they are not.

Excelsior
03-29-2013, 8:35 PM
You raise an interesting point. Can there be any gun control legislation that does not abridge the right to keep and bear arms? Maybe so, but the issue is whether the current legislation runs afoul the 2nd and if it does whether its worthy of a filibuster. DiFis AWB, magazine limits, and universal background checks w/ registry currently do so as currently framed I am comfortable with a filibuster on proposed legislation. Preventing straw man purchases are currently illegal and some form of background "without registry" would not seem to infringe. The latter is really a question of whether the law is effective. As to non crew-served machine guns which are currently outlawed by NFA, it is a different question whether the NFA in that regard infringes upon the 2nd Amdt. That there will cries for or against filibusters does not mean to me that all cries are same. That some will use the filibuster improperly does not make them useless. We are back to equivalence. Both sides may jump and down with equal vigor and voice, but that does not make the merit of each side equal. Does DiFi's AWB infringe, I think pretty clearly so. Does the magazine limit infringe, again, I think pretty clearly so. Does having a background check with or without registry infringe. That is a closer question, but I would be much more comfortable and I think it much more consistent with the 2nd Amdt that if one exists it exists without a registry. Conversely, does removing non crew-served machine guns from banned list under NFA violate the 2nd Amdt. Pretty clearly it does not. You also would be hard pressed to find any part of the Const. that removal of such weapons would be found improper. Remember, as great as the Constitution is, it does not address all problems and it does not necessarily require the smartest outcome...

Actually, that's not the issue. Whether or not proposed laws violate the 2A would be for the courts to decide if they indeed become law.

It's also not a matter of the bill being "worthy" of a filibuster. I asked if it was politically wise? In other words will using a filibuster ultimately make things worse for the pro-2A camp?

jeffrice6
03-29-2013, 9:20 PM
No, it's not.

It's remarkable how people offer personal opinions as if they are "common knowledge" when in fact they are not.

Did you just make that up? What is your proof? Sounds like you're trying to pass off your own personal opinions as fact........ Life's a garden ~ dig it

kimber_ss
03-29-2013, 9:51 PM
Ok, if the filibuster leaves more egg on the opposition then I think that may be an advantage. I think allowing it to be voted on, gives the bill a little more credence(even when defeated). At least by a few percentage points.

If DiFi is a little more incensed by the filibuster, all the better.

Tyrone
03-29-2013, 10:54 PM
Actually, that's not the issue. Whether or not proposed laws violate the 2A would be for the courts to decide if they indeed become law.

It's also not a matter of the bill being "worthy" of a filibuster. I asked if it was politically wise? In other words will using a filibuster ultimately make things worse for the pro-2A camp?


Here we will have to differ. I do not subscribe to the camp of thought that the legislature can draft whatever bill they want and then leave it up to the Courts to determine whether it is constitutional. Legislators take the same oath and should feel confident that any legislation they put forward is Constitutional BEFORE it is even proposed.

Similarly, in reference to whether such use is politically wise, again, IMHO, every Senator should take to the floor and do whatever is possible to defeat legislation from proceeding IF they truly believe that such legislation is unconstituional. Yes, such legislation may ultimately die in the house. However, NOT taking a stand on something that important is passing the buck and really doing a disservice to America and the oath. Now, if there is legislation that you simply disagree with, but that you believe is Constitutional, political wisdom can play a greater role as then it IS more whether you like something or do not. Re Constitutionality though I would suggest that even you like something that you believe is unconstitutional a legislator SHOULD do whatever he/she can to kill that legislation.

Cylarz
03-30-2013, 2:07 AM
It doesn't matter if we think filibustering a piece of anti-gun legislation is dirty pool or fair game. The other side never hesitates to do it to our bills whenever they can, and I tire of hearing people say "we shouldn't stoop to their level." Yeah, and in the meantime their side is getting things done, if not on guns, then on other issues the Left cares about.

I've never understood the squeamishness about filibusters, honestly. How many of Bush's federal judicial nominees were left in limbo, denied an up-or-down vote in the Senate because the Democrats couldn't be bothered to allow one simply because they knew they would lose?

Now they want to get upset because our guys are stonewalling their precious gun grabbing bill? Cry me a freakin' river. And worse, some of you here are okay with that?

I'm with the guy who said he wants as many barriers thrown up as possible.

jeffrice6
03-30-2013, 2:11 AM
Amen!

Cylarz
03-30-2013, 2:12 AM
No, it's not.

It's remarkable how people offer personal opinions as if they are "common knowledge" when in fact they are not.

He means that the average low-information voter will break for the Democrat more often than the Republican. Why? Because the Democrats "care about people" (instead of about "corporate profits") and on paper their ideas sound better. Who isn't in favor of helping out the downtrodden and stopping gun violence? Everyone knows all that GOP talk about controlling deficits and cutting taxes is just a bunch of code phrases for giving more money to their rich Wall Street buddies, right?

It's only those voters who bother to investigate (and thus learn the facts about the differences in the two parties' platforms) who discover that the Democrats' prescriptions not only don't work, they usually make our social and fiscal problems worse.

I can't determine if you're simply blind to this phenomenon (despite the results being on full display during the last election) or in active denial about it. I'm mystified that you continue to argue the point with people.

TeddyBallgame
03-30-2013, 5:30 AM
As Barney Fife candidly put it "We need to nip it in the bud"

And I couldn't agree anymore...What I want is the fastest way to see this nonsense over with, and, for good measure, I'd love to see it leave as much egg yolk on the faces of everyone involved with putting it together, something they can remember, maybe they'll leave it alone in the future, until they are ready to be put out to pasture

Tired of these career politicians trying to mark their legacy with our freedoms and rights...it's about time they get outed, if they dare

Hell is too good a place for some of these traitors to our Constitution

I don't even know very much about Senator Ted Cruz, but, from where I'm sitting right now, he may have the eye of the tiger...let loose of the leash :)

Mulay El Raisuli
03-30-2013, 6:27 AM
I have a weird hope that Feinstein's amendment passes along with the gun control measures. Unless I am missing something, this would seem to fast track the gun control issue to the Supreme Court for a constitutionality test.

Otherwise we will likely face a long and arduous legal process for the California bills which seem to have a great likelihood of passing.


No, this wouldn't be on the fast track. If it passed, any attack on it would have to start at the first step (District Court). OTOH, we already have plenty of cases (Moore & Kachalsky come to mind) that are on the verge of being on their last step (granted cert by SCOTUS).

Now, if we had a GOPer here in the PRK willing to filibuster whatever Yee & his ilk are planning, that would be great. Because stopping bad laws is always better than striking them down later. This minimizes the harm done.


The Raisuli

Tyrone
03-30-2013, 7:43 AM
Not sure of the exact rule, but IIRC California Senate rules do not allow for a filibuster. I think the closest thing we have to a filibuster is the 2/3 required for taxes...

QQQ
03-30-2013, 7:46 AM
...
It's also not a matter of the bill being "worthy" of a filibuster. I asked if it was politically wise? In other words will using a filibuster ultimately make things worse for the pro-2A camp?
Yes; it would be politically wise.
No, using a filibuster would not make things worse for the pro-2A camp.

NightOwl
03-30-2013, 8:09 AM
I think it's political genius, here's why.

Reid is trying to split off the more hardcore parts of gun control into an amendment. Not all dems are on board with it, and if it's in the main bill they'd otherwise vote for, they'll vote no.
He's keeping the more likely to pass stuff in a separate bill where he can get more votes.



Reid, Obama, and Bloomburg then need to try to lean on dems to get them to act in concert on gun control, which means votes and accountability in 2014.
Rand is doubling down on the residual glow of his previous filibuster attention, making him more appealing to pro-gun people via headlines. Not quietly just another vote, but loud and out front showing he's leading on the issue. Leadership is good.
Further, he's good at making his positions sound reasonable, so the attention he gets makes his opposition sound silly.
Reid isn't anti-gun, so this puts him in a really tight spot having to toe his extreme party line publicly. This can only get worse for him the more attention it gets.

waffmaster
03-30-2013, 8:25 AM
The filibuster establishes an alternative line of defense of the 2 amendment. In which way? It shows people like DiFi, that her authority does not go unchallenged, that the old boys that defer to her all the time are not alone and the new boys in the block will not let her go unchallenged. This is the best thing to happen in the Senate in a long time.

Excelsior
03-30-2013, 10:43 AM
Ok, if the filibuster leaves more egg on the opposition then I think that may be an advantage. I think allowing it to be voted on, gives the bill a little more credence(even when defeated). At least by a few percentage points.

If DiFi is a little more incensed by the filibuster, all the better.

I think that resorting to a filibuster "leaves more egg" on the filibustering side. Without a doubt the worst defeat for the anti-2A camp would to have it fail by vote in the senate.

1981
03-30-2013, 11:38 AM
NO VOTE, one way or another...

momentum is slipping away from anti-human rights extremists, the longer things are delayed, the better...

sholling
03-30-2013, 12:35 PM
I think it's political genius, here's why.

Reid is trying to split off the more hardcore parts of gun control into an amendment. Not all dems are on board with it, and if it's in the main bill they'd otherwise vote for, they'll vote no.
He's keeping the more likely to pass stuff in a separate bill where he can get more votes.



Reid, Obama, and Bloomburg then need to try to lean on dems to get them to act in concert on gun control, which means votes and accountability in 2014.
Rand is doubling down on the residual glow of his previous filibuster attention, making him more appealing to pro-gun people via headlines. Not quietly just another vote, but loud and out front showing he's leading on the issue. Leadership is good.
Further, he's good at making his positions sound reasonable, so the attention he gets makes his opposition sound silly.
Reid isn't anti-gun, so this puts him in a really tight spot having to toe his extreme party line publicly. This can only get worse for him the more attention it gets.

An absolutely perfect analysis. Sure it would be fun to put the handful of red state Democrats in the spotlight for their votes but it risks 2-3 measures passing - an unacceptable risk. It's also probable that any red state Democrats that lay low for now will vote for gun control after the 2014 election. In other words there is nothing to gain by Republicans playing a passive rule. The threatened filibuster has TEA Party Republicans playing a very public ACTIVE role to defend freedom - first against drone strikes on US soil and and now standing loud and clear firmly for 2nd Amendment civil rights. Not the gutless party of no - the proud party of freedom. That positions more libertarian leaning TEA Party candidates for a run for Senate seats and moves the libertarian wing of the Republican Party further into into the driver's seat solidly edging out the old guard establishment fold every chance you get McCain faction. It's an absolutely brilliant move on Rand Paul's part.

There is nothing that Progressives fear more than the libertarian wing of the Republican Party moving the party libertarian and siphoning off the youth vote in 2014 and 2016 and a Rand Paul that has to be taken seriously is their worst nightmare.

Excelsior
03-30-2013, 1:14 PM
An absolutely perfect analysis. Sure it would be fun to put the handful of red state Democrats in the spotlight for their votes but it risks 2-3 measures passing - an unacceptable risk. It's also probable that any red state Democrats that lay low for now will vote for gun control after the 2014 election. In other words there is nothing to gain by Republicans playing a passive rule. The threatened filibuster has TEA Party Republicans playing a very public ACTIVE role to defend freedom - first against drone strikes on US soil and and now standing loud and clear firmly for 2nd Amendment civil rights. Not the gutless party of no - the proud party of freedom. That positions more libertarian leaning TEA Party candidates for a run for Senate seats and moves the libertarian wing of the Republican Party further into into the driver's seat solidly edging out the old guard establishment fold every chance you get McCain faction. It's an absolutely brilliant move on Rand Paul's part.

There is nothing that Progressives fear more than the libertarian wing of the Republican Party moving the party libertarian and siphoning off the youth vote in 2014 and 2016 and a Rand Paul that has to be taken seriously is their worst nightmare.

Are you serious? I think Democrats would be delighted if that happened. More division and more extremism within the GOP means another D president in the next presidential election.

QQQ
03-30-2013, 2:49 PM
Are you serious? I think Democrats would be delighted if that happened. More division and more extremism within the GOP means another D president in the next presidential election.

Incorrect. Romney lost in 2012 because he was the most moderate Republican candidate and was in many ways indistinguishable from Barack Hussein Obama. The only way the Republicans might have had a chance of winning would have been to select a real candidate with a substantially different platform from the incumbent. If the Republican Party continues to keep its head up its butt and think they can win by being only slightly different from the Democratic Party then they will continue to lose.

1981
03-30-2013, 3:04 PM
here's data on how 2012 presidential election went down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

good stuff is at bottom of article.

Skidmark
03-30-2013, 8:05 PM
Incorrect. Romney lost in 2012 because he was the most moderate Republican candidate and was in many ways indistinguishable from Barack Hussein Obama. The only way the Republicans might have had a chance of winning would have been to select a real candidate with a substantially different platform from the incumbent. If the Republican Party continues to keep its head up its butt and think they can win by being only slightly different from the Democratic Party then they will continue to lose.

The GOP's own painful soul-searching (did they fine one?) is rather at odds with your analysis...

Obama was/is the "moderate republican" they wish they could have run on their own.

sholling
03-30-2013, 8:33 PM
Are you serious? I think Democrats would be delighted if that happened. More division and more extremism within the GOP means another D president in the next presidential election.
That shows you're a bit out of touch with mainstream America. What the lefties and mainstream media call extremism is what the majority of American believe in and desire - a much smaller and cheaper far less intrusive government with a balanced budget. It's only the fringe Progressives and lefties running the Democratic party and the Progressive Neocon fringe of the Republican Party that want more government control of peoples lives, more regulations, and more spending.

sholling
03-30-2013, 8:38 PM
Incorrect. Romney lost in 2012 because he was the most moderate Republican candidate and was in many ways indistinguishable from Barack Hussein Obama. The only way the Republicans might have had a chance of winning would have been to select a real candidate with a substantially different platform from the incumbent. If the Republican Party continues to keep its head up its butt and think they can win by being only slightly different from the Democratic Party then they will continue to lose.
Exactly. The Republican Party needs to move toward being the party of small government and individual freedom that it once was.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-31-2013, 5:34 AM
Not sure of the exact rule, but IIRC California Senate rules do not allow for a filibuster. I think the closest thing we have to a filibuster is the 2/3 required for taxes...


Drat!


Sholling, I believe you & NightOwl have called it perfectly.


The Raisuli

press1280
03-31-2013, 6:05 AM
If the votes aren't there you don't filibuster. Let it go down in flames rather than let the media portray you as "obstructionist".

ja308
03-31-2013, 7:57 AM
Gun Owners of America
Senators Paul, Cruz and Lee to Lead Filibuster
of Reid’s Gun Control Bribe-o-thon
On the heels of a test vote last Saturday where 50 Senators — including six “Red State” Democrats — voted for an amendment offered by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) to prohibit virtually all gun control legislation in the Senate, three senators have committed to filibuster any motion to proceed to any gun control legislation.

The three Republican Senators — Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas and Lee of Utah - have cosigned a letter indicating that they would filibuster a motion to proceed to S. 649.

S. 649 already contains the Veterans Gun Ban, which could send you to prison for 15 years for selling, raffling or gifting a firearm in America, while not realizing that the recipient was disqualified in some way — say, for being a military veteran with PTSD or for being a habitual user of marijuana (for medical purposes).

In addition, S. 649 contains Chuck Schumer's universal gun registry legislation. Although he doesn't have 60 votes now, Schumer will ruthlessly work to get weak-kneed Republicans to endorse some version of universal registries.

Finally, Reid will allow amendments to S. 649 consisting of the Feinstein gun ban, a magazine ban, and whatever other gun control proposals he feels he can cram down our throats. But not if the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster is successful, as the Senate will never reach Reid's gun control bribe-o-rama where he will be able to threaten, bribe, and coerce other Senators into getting the votes he needs to pass a myriad of gun control restrictions.

ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators. Demand that they support the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster of the motion to proceed to S. 649 and to resist Harry Reid's gun control bribe-o-rama.


I like GOAs reasoning and facts contained above .
Time to support the senators and get the low information voter online with the filibuster !

1981
03-31-2013, 9:06 AM
I've heard Rubio is coming on board the filibuster bandwagon this morning.

sholling
03-31-2013, 11:06 AM
GOA has it right. There is no reason to take the chance of registration and mag limits passing during a orgy of arm twisting and bribery. This is Senator Blumenthal (D CT) promising "We are going to keep fighting" for magazine bans and an AWB amendment.

9rabZESiiwA

Here is Blumenthal's contribution to the Democrat's orgy of gun control legislation.
http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/ammunition-background-check-act-of-2013
The Ammunition Background Check Act of 2013 would require that every buyer of ammunition would undergo an instant background check under the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System (NICS).
Federally licensed gun dealers could simply use their existing system to run checks on purchasers of ammunition (either electronically or by telephone).
Sellers of ammunition who are not federal licensees can continue to sell simply by conducting a background check through an existing licensee or by getting a federal license.
In addition to requiring background checks, the legislation would reestablish recordkeeping and reporting requirements on ammunition sales. Prior to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, sellers of ammunition had to track their inventory and keep records of their customers.
The Ammunition Background Check Act restores these requirements so that law enforcement can ensure that sellers are complying with the law and can use seller records to solve gun crimes.
The Act also requires sellers of ammunition to report to law enforcement when a purchaser buys more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition or when a large quantity of ammunition is stolen.

Rail
04-01-2013, 3:49 AM
No, it's not.

It's remarkable how people offer personal opinions as if they are "common knowledge" when in fact they are not.

That's not a personal opinion: that's fact, and it has been since WWII.

Almost every time the GOP nominates a moderate (or someone who is seen as moderate) as opposed to a conservative, they lose.

1948: Dewey defeats Taft in the primary, loses to Truman in the general.
1976: Ford defeats Reagan in the primary, loses to Carter in the general.
1992: Bush broke his promise on not raising taxes. Public then fails to see the difference between Bush and Clinton: Clinton wins because enough conservatives are alienated into voting for Perot.
1996: Dole defeats Buchanan in the primary, loses to Clinton in the general.
2000: Bush defeats McCain in the primary, wins the general because the public sees him as conservative (regardless of whether he is or not). This is also why he managed to get 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.
2008: McCain defeats Romney (who ran as a conservative candidate) and Huckabee in the primary, loses the general to Obama.
2012: Romney (who runs as the moderate this time around) defeats Gingrich and Santorum (who run as conservatives) in the primary, loses to Obama in the general when he was the easiest incumbent to defeat since Carter in 1976.

Incorrect. Romney lost in 2012 because he was the most moderate Republican candidate and was in many ways indistinguishable from Barack Hussein Obama. The only way the Republicans might have had a chance of winning would have been to select a real candidate with a substantially different platform from the incumbent. If the Republican Party continues to keep its head up its butt and think they can win by being only slightly different from the Democratic Party then they will continue to lose.

Exactly! The Democratic Party, thanks to the media and the legacy of FDR and other regional politicians (JFK in New England), to this day has the label advantage over the Republican Party, and that will continue. The GOP today is lucky that they're not outnumbered 2:1 by the other side on party affiliation like they were until the 1980's. A Republican back then had to get about 1/3 of Democrats to win the Presidency. This is something that only Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan managed to accomplish through different means. The common theme between Nixon and Reagan was that they managed to peel off a sizable chunk of Democrats by appealing to the conservative wing of the party, and thus while they supported Democrats downticket, they voted for what they saw as a conservative at the top.

Those rules still apply today, and if the GOP is stupid enough to nominate Chris Christie in 2016, they will lose again! And to someone from a Democratic field that is weak compared to even 2004.

EDIT: And let me make one thing clear. The reason moderate or liberal Republicans can't win the Presidency is not because of a particular stance on an issue: it's because moderate Republicans are usually inconsistent on such issues. They will say they're "pro-life" one day and "pro-choice" the next, or "pro-2A" one day and "pro gun-control" the next. The way voters judge politicians on such issues is not their stance (which they may agree or disagree with), but the consistency of that stance. If the voters can't trust a particular candidate on a social issue they care about, then how are they supposed to trust them on economic issues, or foreign policy issues? At that point, there becomes no difference between the Republican and the Democrat in the public's eyes, so they will go with the candidate with the (D) next to their name.

Excelsior
04-01-2013, 9:46 AM
That shows you're a bit out of touch with mainstream America. What the lefties and mainstream media call extremism is what the majority of American believe in and desire - a much smaller and cheaper far less intrusive government with a balanced budget. It's only the fringe Progressives and lefties running the Democratic party and the Progressive Neocon fringe of the Republican Party that want more government control of peoples lives, more regulations, and more spending.

Any proof to this belief? While that might indeed be your desire I'm not sure it's the desire of "the majority of American(s.)"

Excelsior
04-01-2013, 9:55 AM
If the votes aren't there you don't filibuster. Let it go down in flames rather than let the media portray you as "obstructionist".

That's what I would expect. It seems like Lee/Paul/Cruz/Rubio might be putting on a show to benefit themselves.

Tyrone
04-01-2013, 10:10 AM
The votes are reportedly not there for the AWB by DiFi. It is unclear what votes "are there" for other measures such as universal background checks with registration. As I understand it, Paul / Cruz / Lee / Rubio are stating that they will filibuster "any" legislation that infringes 2nd Amdt OR that allows for government surveillance of those exercising 2nd Amdt rights (such as a registry). Thus, while the AWB as an amendment may go down, there may be good reason to filibuster other legislation. The threat of such a filibuster may also chill those who seek to propose such legislation as it may be seen as futile or too much work.

Also, put me down with those who want a limited, smaller, less expensive, less intrusive govt. if a poll is coming...;-)

1981
04-01-2013, 10:35 AM
If the votes aren't there you don't filibuster. Let it go down in flames rather than let the media portray you as "obstructionist".

i'll be an obstructionist any day to stop those anti-human rights terrorists and their systematic use of terror to take away my human rights...

sholling
04-01-2013, 10:47 AM
Any proof to this belief? While that might indeed be your desire I'm not sure it's the desire of "the majority of American(s.)"
I subscribe to and read polls everyday but most of them reside behind a paywall so I can't link them. What I can do is post a couple of links showing older public poll results and let you figure it out. Note that the more recent numbers aren't much different.

This Gallup poll is a good example and shows that 40% of Americans self identify was conservative (other polls show only a bit over half of those are very socially conservative) while only 21% of the general public self identify as liberal (half of those as socialists) and 35% self identify as "moderates". Moderate voters tend to one degree or another to be fiscally conservative and socially libertarian. The bottom line is that more than half of the electorate is unhappy with the neocon and statist religious Progressive policies of the Republican Party's Establishment wing and are almost equally unhappy with the big spending collectivist welfare state - statist policies of the Democratic Party but are slightly more willing to hold their noses and accept leftist statism controlling their wallets rather than religious statism reaching into their homes however their preference is none of the above. BTW that's why Democrat activists and the lefty media had to paint the libertarian leaning TEA Party movement as a bunch of racists, they simply could not take a chance that a true centrist movement focused solely on a much smaller, cheaper, and far less intrusive government would take off and capture the public's imagination. It's also why it was important for the media to exclude Libertarians from debates - people might learn about libertarianism. It's a whole different world outside of LA and the Bay Area, Chicago, and the leftist north east.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71385.html#ixzz2PEU1uC3X
The Gallup survey found that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent consider themselves moderate; and 21 percent see themselves as liberal. The figures did not change from 2010.

Meanwhile, independents are mostly moderate (41 percent), but skew more toward conservatism (35 percent) than liberalism (20 percent).


http://ivn.us/2011/05/31/many-independents-might-be-libertarians-fiscally-conservative-and-socially-libera/
in a 2006 Zogby Poll, 59 percent of voters said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

1981
04-01-2013, 11:02 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Cartogram%E2%80%942012_Electoral_Vote.svg/254px-Cartogram%E2%80%942012_Electoral_Vote.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/2012_Presidential_Election_by_County.svg/316px-2012_Presidential_Election_by_County.svg.png

sholling
04-01-2013, 11:15 AM
And this is with the mainstream media acting as unpaid members of the Obama campaign organization. They did everything possible to cover up Obama and Democrat misdeeds while going back to Romney's childhood to find some way to trash him and running with obviously false charges against Herman Cain to knock a black conservative out of the race.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Cartogram%E2%80%942012_Electoral_Vote.svg/254px-Cartogram%E2%80%942012_Electoral_Vote.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/2012_Presidential_Election_by_County.svg/316px-2012_Presidential_Election_by_County.svg.png

ExcuseMe
04-01-2013, 11:47 AM
Any proof to this belief? While that might indeed be your desire I'm not sure it's the desire of "the majority of American(s.)"

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/19/poll-most-americans-want-small

Excelsior
04-01-2013, 12:50 PM
The votes are reportedly not there for the AWB by DiFi. It is unclear what votes "are there" for other measures such as universal background checks with registration. As I understand it, Paul / Cruz / Lee / Rubio are stating that they will filibuster "any" legislation that infringes 2nd Amdt OR that allows for government surveillance of those exercising 2nd Amdt rights (such as a registry). Thus, while the AWB as an amendment may go down, there may be good reason to filibuster other legislation. The threat of such a filibuster may also chill those who seek to propose such legislation as it may be seen as futile or too much work.

Also, put me down with those who want a limited, smaller, less expensive, less intrusive govt. if a poll is coming...;-)

If there was any question of whether the AWB amendment or mag capacity limits will pass in the House or if "universal background checks" with registration as a component will pass in the House then yes, filibuster away. But I'm not sure either has even a remote chance of passing the House.

1981
04-01-2013, 1:30 PM
the more harassment we can give to our opponents, the better...

let's keep them busy in any way we can. let them explain why they want to limit or take away our human rights to self defense..

Excelsior
04-01-2013, 2:00 PM
the more harassment we can give to our opponents, the better...

let's keep them busy in any way we can. let them explain why they want to limit or take away our human rights to self defense..

Absolutely not...

Harassing for the sake of harassing is bad form. All is does is offend voters (obstructionism) and make passing good bills (concerning guns or not) more difficult or impossible due to political vengeance.

Filibustering is a powerful tool that comes at a price. It's not to be used simply to help the careers of a handful of senators.

gr8dragon88
04-01-2013, 2:50 PM
Absolutely not...

Harassing for the sake of harassing is bad form. All is does is offend voters (obstructionism) and make passing good bills (concerning guns or not) more difficult or impossible due to political vengeance.

Filibustering is a powerful tool that comes at a price. It's not to be used simply to help the careers of a handful of senators.

you have sooooo much faith in voters and politicians to do the right things for you! must be that CA love thing.

Excelsior
04-01-2013, 7:52 PM
you have sooooo much faith in voters and politicians to do the right things for you! must be that CA love thing.

Is that all you can bring to the discourse? Really?

There are serious ramifications for resorting to a filibuster. If employing one is not needed, it might be best to avoid one.

The mindset "the more harassment we can give to our opponents, the better" is simply ignorant -- and potentially very harmful.

Wherryj
04-05-2013, 11:04 AM
Would filibustering the Senate Gun Control Bill be politically wise?

If they do indeed filibuster and the vote for cloture is not successful, will the anti-2A people sell the results as a "procedural gimmick by a handful of tea baggers"? Will they then use that platform to redouble their attack?

Might it be wiser to actually vote on the bill and have it go down in flames once and for all? What's the real risk? What's the NRA's position on this?

Then again the threat of a filibuster might only be sable rattling designed to bring attention to 3 politicos and/or simply as another bargaining chip in the ongoing negotiations?

I suppose that it all depends upon how many people actually still support the 2A, or the Constitution in general. I am certain that the lame-stream media will spin it that way, along with Pelosi, et al., but such attempts won't go over well on potential voters who disagreed with the progressive attempt to strip their rights.

I don't care what they call it, if anyone in congress puts a halt to these blatant attempts at dismembering the Constitution, I'd call it doing their job.

Excelsior
04-05-2013, 11:32 AM
I suppose that it all depends upon how many people actually still support the 2A, or the Constitution in general. I am certain that the lame-stream media will spin it that way, along with Pelosi, et al., but such attempts won't go over well on potential voters who disagreed with the progressive attempt to strip their rights.

I don't care what they call it, if anyone in congress puts a halt to these blatant attempts at dismembering the Constitution, I'd call it doing their job.

Not necessarily. There could be a huge difference between blocking a bill via filibuster and having one die a public death in a vote.

Hoooper
04-05-2013, 11:41 AM
If you are certain you have the votes to kill it, then getting a vote on it can only be a good thing. If you know for a fact that the house would kill it, AND there is absolutely no question about that, then conservatives in the senate should be trying to get a vote. I seriously doubt there are any republicans in office right now who would lose their seat for voting against gun control, but there definitely are democrats who would be in the hot seat

However if there is any doubt at those two levels, filibuster is the way to go

sholling
04-05-2013, 11:45 AM
Absolutely not...

Harassing for the sake of harassing is bad form. All is does is offend voters (obstructionism) and make passing good bills (concerning guns or not) more difficult or impossible due to political vengeance.

Filibustering is a powerful tool that comes at a price. It's not to be used simply to help the careers of a handful of senators.
Wrong! The only people such a filibuster offends are the Bradys and anti gun media and nobody but you cares what they think. The good that the filibuster does is rally 2nd Amendment rights supporters around those that actually fought for our rights instead of just sitting there like a potted plant or rushed to find middle ground (surrender our rights). Sorry buddy but you are just wrong about this. Let the other side play potted plant - I want our side actively fighting for us.

Hoooper
04-05-2013, 11:49 AM
Wrong! The only people such a filibuster offends are the Bradys and anti gun media and nobody but you cares what they think. The good that the filibuster does is rally 2nd Amendment rights supporters around those that actually fought for our rights instead of just sitting there like a potted plant or rushed to find middle ground (surrender our rights). Sorry buddy but you are just wrong about this. Let the other side play potted plant - I want our side actively fighting for us.

yes, but the CNN report on that is titled "Tea party extremists hold budget agreement hostage because of filibuster over allowing criminals to purchase firearms" :mad:

see the difference?

Uxi
04-05-2013, 11:50 AM
The GOP's own painful soul-searching (did they fine one?) is rather at odds with your analysis...

The "soul searching" isn't being done by the conservative wing, it's the limp wristed milktoast moderate establishment types.


Wrong! The only people such a filibuster offends are the Bradys and anti gun media and nobody but you cares what they think. The good that the filibuster does is rally 2nd Amendment rights supporters around those that actually fought for our rights instead of just sitting there like a potted plant or rushed to find middle ground (surrender our rights). Sorry buddy but you are just wrong about this. Let the other side play potted plant - I want our side actively fighting for us.

Indeed. Defeat any and all by whatever means are available. Not one inch.

sholling
04-05-2013, 11:55 AM
yes, but the CNN report on that is titled "Tea party extremists hold budget agreement hostage because of filibuster over allowing criminals to purchase firearms" :mad:

see the difference?
They can do that whether or not there is a filibuster. As long as the gun grabbers don't get passage CNN will run with the same headline and probable add that the NRA wants to kill puppies. The mainstream media will tell any lie necessary to push their agenda filibuster or not. A lot of us are tired of being sold out by "moderates" and "mavericks" and want our reps to stand up and be counted in a loud and clear way. If they aren't willing to do that then I not only don't want them running for higher office, I don't want them in their current job. The time for being meek apologetic gun owners is over and it's now time to take the high ground and shout NOT ONE MORE INCH!

Mulay El Raisuli
04-05-2013, 3:33 PM
yes, but the CNN report on that is titled "Tea party extremists hold budget agreement hostage because of filibuster over allowing criminals to purchase firearms" :mad:

see the difference?


So, what? If it gets to a vote, when the anti-Constitutionalists lose, the CNN report will say:

"NRA buys enough votes so that the will of the people is thwarted once again."

Haters gonna hate no matter what we do.

Oderint dum metuant.


The Raisuli

Excelsior
04-11-2013, 4:30 PM
Given the number of R's that voted for cloture (including both senators from AZ I believe), I suspect they believe that playing a procedural game with such an incendiary bill would be politically foolish.

Let's see if it actually passes through the senate, and if it does, then the house...

RRangel
04-11-2013, 4:44 PM
yes, but the CNN report on that is titled "Tea party extremists hold budget agreement hostage because of filibuster over allowing criminals to purchase firearms" :mad:

see the difference?

Are you serious? LOL

Hoooper
04-11-2013, 5:30 PM
yes. maybe some hyperbole for effect in there, but the headline when Obamacare was being held up read very similarly

Tyrone
04-11-2013, 5:57 PM
Given the number of R's that voted for cloture (including both senators from AZ I believe), I suspect they believe that playing a procedural game with such an incendiary bill would be politically foolish.

Let's see if it actually passes through the senate, and if it does, then the house...

By necessity we will have to wait and see. The initial question re "politically wise" although a reality, however, is part of the problem and why gamesmanship seems to take priority over whether proposed legislation is constitutional, designed and crafted to address the problem stated, and narrowly tailored so as not to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. It may well be (and I dearly hope so) that much of this proposed legislation stands not a snowballs chance in hell of getting through the house even if it somehow manages to get out of the senate. There will be and is political pressure on the house to act just as there is in the senate. Even if a watered down version gets past both then there is another chance during the reconciliation process. A large part of the problem though is that the heart of S 649 is now supposed to be the Manchin - Toomey Amendment and we have not yet be able to see it in complete form. While I generally agree that the filibuster should be used sparingly, it really is dependent on what is being proposed. In this regard, I support Rand, Cruz, Rubio and others who will pay the "political" price to do what is right and prevent infringement by the government on the RTKBA or any other right for that matter. It is a disgrace that certain legislation which so clearly infringes on the 2nd and will not have the desired effect of preventing another Sandy Hook is not only up for passage but being cheered on by the White House and Media. I have used this well known quote several times in posts but it rings true and congress and others should take it to heart. It really speaks to why much of this legislation should never see the light of day and why filibustering to ensure that it does not is the right thing to do regardless whether it may not at this time be thought to be politically wise.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Justice Robert Jackson, West VA Bd Educ. v. Barnette.

Excelsior
04-11-2013, 7:21 PM
By necessity we will have to wait and see. The initial question re "politically wise" although a reality, however, is part of the problem and why gamesmanship seems to take priority over whether proposed legislation is constitutional, designed and crafted to address the problem stated, and narrowly tailored so as not to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. It may well be (and I dearly hope so) that much of this proposed legislation stands not a snowballs chance in hell of getting through the house even if it somehow manages to get out of the senate. There will be and is political pressure on the house to act just as there is in the senate. Even if a watered down version gets past both then there is another chance during the reconciliation process. A large part of the problem though is that the heart of S 649 is now supposed to be the Manchin - Toomey Amendment and we have not yet be able to see it in complete form. While I generally agree that the filibuster should be used sparingly, it really is dependent on what is being proposed. In this regard, I support Rand, Cruz, Rubio and others who will pay the "political" price to do what is right and prevent infringement by the government on the RTKBA or any other right for that matter. It is a disgrace that certain legislation which so clearly infringes on the 2nd and will not have the desired effect of preventing another Sandy Hook is not only up for passage but being cheered on by the White House and Media. I have used this well known quote several times in posts but it rings true and congress and others should take it to heart. It really speaks to why much of this legislation should never see the light of day and why filibustering to ensure that it does not is the right thing to do regardless whether it may not at this time be thought to be politically wise.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Justice Robert Jackson, West VA Bd Educ. v. Barnette.

I strongly agree with the need to disseminate the contents of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment before the vote to even consider the bill was taken. My guess is that extremists from both sides will be quite upset with its contents due to what I expect will be a very moderate tone.

I also wonder if the filibuster saber-rattling was a good idea? Had they not popped-off, considering the bill would have not been a big deal. Now is seems as if Obama and company have already won round one. Then again it's possible the threat of the filibuster kept something even more monstrous from rearing its ugly head.

Excelsior
04-17-2013, 3:50 PM
I am now very grateful it was not filibustered... This means a great deal more...

Skidmark
04-17-2013, 5:14 PM
I am now very grateful it was not filibustered... This means a great deal more...

What? Of course it was filibustered... it was a cloture vote. The majority of the Senate voted to proceed to debate, but a minority of senators voted to thwart debate. There was no debate on the bill, per se. It was a cloture vote, a motion to proceed.

A filibuster.

Rail
04-17-2013, 10:21 PM
I was right. The Republicans let the Democrats fall on their own sword by allowing a vote. Hagan in North Carolina and Landrieu in Louisiana just kissed their re-election chances goodbye.

Excelsior
04-18-2013, 12:03 AM
I was right. The Republicans let the Democrats fall on their own sword by allowing a vote. Hagan in North Carolina and Landrieu in Louisiana just kissed their re-election chances goodbye.

I think you're right. Once I realized Lindsay Graham was against the filibuster, I figured the bill would never have a chance at becoming law -- although I was not sure it would go down in flames like it did.

Skidmark
04-18-2013, 7:37 AM
I was right. The Republicans let the Democrats fall on their own sword by allowing a vote. Hagan in North Carolina and Landrieu in Louisiana just kissed their re-election chances goodbye.

In what way did the Senate Republicans "allow" a vote?

In filibustering expanded background checks, they blocked legislation from coming up for debate.

Rail
04-18-2013, 10:06 AM
In what way did the Senate Republicans "allow" a vote?

In filibustering expanded background checks, they blocked legislation from coming up for debate.

16 Republicans voted to allow debate on the measure and a vote on the amendment.

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-sixteen-republicans-who-voted-against-cloture-today-must-be-challenged-and-defeated/

Many conservatives, including those on here, were furious and failed to see that this was a political move, because the Democrats in the Senate were so eager to vote on something, including a bunch up for re-election next year in pro-gun states.

lasbrg
04-18-2013, 11:34 AM
I was right. The Republicans let the Democrats fall on their own sword by allowing a vote. Hagan in North Carolina and Landrieu in Louisiana just kissed their re-election chances goodbye.

I'm from NC and I agree that having to cast a vote on S 649 was probably the last thing that Kay Hagan wanted. She was silent for quite awhile before coming out in favor earlier this week. She got into office in 2008 running against an aged Elizabeth Dole, but will be running for reelection in a mid-term year. The Democratic polling firm PPP has Hagan leading potential rivals (www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/hagan-leads-all-republicans-berry-leads-gop-hopefuls.html) 46-41. Still, I would say that her seat is a likely pick-up for Republicans, assuming they get a good candidate. The best liked is Labor Commissioner Cherie Berry who polls well against Hagan.

Rail
04-18-2013, 11:58 AM
I'm from NC and I agree that having to cast a vote on S 649 was probably the last thing that Kay Hagan wanted. She was silent for quite awhile before coming out in favor earlier this week. She got into office in 2008 running against an aged Elizabeth Dole, but will be running for reelection in a mid-term year. The Democratic polling firm PPP has Hagan leading potential rivals (www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/hagan-leads-all-republicans-berry-leads-gop-hopefuls.html) 46-41. Still, I would say that her seat is a likely pick-up for Republicans, assuming they get a good candidate. The best liked is Labor Commissioner Cherie Berry who polls well against Hagan.

46 to 41 means she'll lose. Incumbents below 50 rarely get re-elected because undecideds typically break against an incumbent by at least 4:1.

lasbrg
04-18-2013, 12:16 PM
46 to 41 means she'll lose. Incumbents below 50 rarely get re-elected because undecideds typically break against an incumbent by at least 4:1.

Again, it depends on the opponent, but otherwise agree. If it's Cherie Berry, then it will be another woman against woman race. The last race between Hagan and Dole was a real (favorite female noun goes here)-fight, and the next one could well go down the same way.

vlBVD6QOyPE

hardlyworking
04-18-2013, 12:25 PM
I'm from NC and I agree that having to cast a vote on S 649 was probably the last thing that Kay Hagan wanted. She was silent for quite awhile before coming out in favor earlier this week. She got into office in 2008 running against an aged Elizabeth Dole, but will be running for reelection in a mid-term year. The Democratic polling firm PPP has Hagan leading potential rivals (www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/hagan-leads-all-republicans-berry-leads-gop-hopefuls.html) 46-41. Still, I would say that her seat is a likely pick-up for Republicans, assuming they get a good candidate. The best liked is Labor Commissioner Cherie Berry who polls well against Hagan.

Lol "Cherie Berry" who's signature can be found in every single elevator on the UNC campus :)

I spent 10 years at UNC (Beat DOOK!) from 2002-2012, loved Chapel Hill, was quite a bit like SLO where I grew up.