"he's not backing down or playing it safe this time"

[babylonsister]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/3/24/95223/0787

To Have a Vote, or to Not Have a Vote

by BooMan
Sun Mar 24th, 2013 at 09:52:23 AM EST

snip//

For Reid, he's trying to make his caucus happy and protect them. Yet, the president either doesn't care or he doesn't share this political calculus. Throughout his first term in office, the president earned quite a bit of enmity on the left for almost never picking a fight unless he knew he could win it. One of the lone exceptions was his insistence that the House of Representatives pass a Cap and Trade energy bill that most analysts correctly predicted would be dead on arrival in the Senate. It's hard to prove, but many political observers believe that that House vote exacerbated the party's losses in the 2010 midterms. Nobody rewarded a Democrat for supporting it because it didn't become law, but many opposed them for voting for something that would have increased their energy bills. Perhaps that is not what actually happened, and perhaps the Democrats didn't defend themselves rigorously enough, but there usually is no margin in taking controversial votes that don't amount to anything.

So, now we have the Senate Majority Leader and the president, both Democrats, at odds with each other over whether there should be a vote on these controversial gun measures. Either the president doesn't agree that the vote could cost the party senate seats next year, or he simply doesn't care. Perhaps he even thinks the vote could save seats or win a few from the Republicans. How would Republican Susan Collins of Maine vote, for example? And how would the voters in Maine feel about her vote?

This is one of those political questions that divides pragmatists from idealists, and it reminds me of the debate that goes on among lawyers about whether to bring cases to the Supreme Court or not. Advocacy groups often refrain from taking cases to court that they suspect will lose because losing creates a precedent that makes winning at some future date more difficult. Would it benefit the cause of gun violence control to have the Senate vote 61-49 against an assault weapon ban and then have the House either do the same or just refuse to even have a vote at all? If so, can that be explained in clear terms?

Yet, this may be one instance where the magnitude of the crime in Newtown, Connecticut is so awful and terrifying that it calls for everyone to make a stand and show their cards. Maybe it's time to set political calculation aside and honor the victims and not let anyone hide behind some kind of procedural gambit.

I'm not sure what the president is thinking, but he's not backing down or playing it safe this time. He wants a vote.

I hope he gets it.

[premium]

1. There will be a vote on Sen. Feinstein's AWB and mag limit.

It will be introduced as a stand alone bill or an amendment to the package, but it will be defeated.
Sen. Feinstein said last Tues. that she didn't even have 40 votes, which means that a bunch of Dems. have told here that they will oppose it.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

2. Where'd this backing down thing come from?

The man spent two years and just about all of his first term political capital on getting Obamacare passed, accomplishing something that no Democrat before him could. The Republicans were fuming, and talking about how he rammed that down their throats.
I don't think that qualifies as backing down. If he decided to put down another marker on this issue, his opponents should pay attention. He has a record when he does something like that.

[riqster]

3. ^this^

[Zax2me]

4. Agreed.

He doesn't 'back down' enough for the 'this time' comment to be made.

[hfojvt]

6. oh I don't know

maybe from how 85% of the Bush tax cuts are still with us, in spite of two elections that we supposedly won.

Maybe from the fact that Obama originally was against a mandate, but then backed down and included a mandate. Maybe in that Obama was originally for a public option but then backed down and signed a bill with no public option.

Maybe the fact that Obama keeps conceding the terms of the budget debate and agreeing that we need to "reform" entitlements and cut spending.

But it's probably true that the "backing down" theme is a myth because that presumes that he was ever really on our side.

[Blanks]

5. People have argued against the AWB here.

It isn't something I'm particularly passionate about myself.

If they're going to take a stand on guns, it needs to be on background checks.

Stupid as it sounds 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' is true. We don't need gun control as much as we need people control. Lets start by keeping all guns out of the hands of people who can't pass a background check. Declare victory on that, and while the NRA and its minions are fighting & fuming to overturn that, pass an assault weapons ban.

Background checks have more support right now, put AWB on the back burner for now IMHO.