Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Laurian

(2,593 posts)
2. Since Soledad is off CNN and CNN basically sucks,
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:52 AM
Apr 2013

I watched some Morning Joe and was pleased with their coverage of the background check vote. When Ralph Reed came on, though, I had to turn it off.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
3. They should target all of them every day til the 2014 elections
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:56 AM
Apr 2013

all the house

and especially the repub ones

primary all of them

Pryor is going to most likely lose either way, so why not have someone better heavily financed

Money can bring anti-NRA candidates in enough to flip the house

 

fasttense

(17,301 posts)
5. SO when do I get to see my congress critters face up there? Love to have another
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:37 AM
Apr 2013

reason to vote AGAINST Alexander, Corker and Roe. Commie red bastar#s.

dsharp88

(487 posts)
4. You mean,"those who voted against background checks."
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:35 AM
Apr 2013

Background checks is hardly gun control. It's one teeny tiny little baby step in the direction of sanity. To call it gun control is like the radical right turning it into, "The government's coming for my guns."

Add in gun registration, required training, licensing, and limitation on the types of guns and accessories allowed and then you can call it gun control.

karynnj

(59,501 posts)
8. I hate to say this - as I think it was cowardly voting against this, but the way this is playing out
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:24 AM
Apr 2013

hurts us and NOT the Republicans. This is why the actions of the Democrats was so short sighted. While it is true that if the the 4 errant Democrats (and Reid for procedural reasons) voted yes, it still would have failed by one vote, it would have been significant that it was truly a party line vote. This would have been an important thing.

The reason why it hurts us is that in the primaries, the impact of Bloomberg and other anti-NRA actions will have a dominant affect in the Democratic primaries -- and the impact of the NRA will likely dominate the Republicans. This will make the Republicans more likely to continue to fear the NRA.

Now consider which Democrats are affected. Consider if there is another Democrat who could win the state. If the answer is no, then all we "gain" is another person who will vote for the Republican majority leader versus a Democrat. Can we lose the Senate? The numbers show that we can. Now, some here have posted in the past that this doesn't matter because we don't get what we want with Reid in charge anyway. However, they are ignoring that with the Democrats in control, the bills on the floor are OUR agenda. The worst is that they often don't pass. It the Republicans controlled the Senate, it would be THEIR agenda that is debated. The BEST we could do is defeat some of it. However, as Democrats WANT government to function - we need budgets or at least continuing resolutions to authorize money to pass. If they have both Houses, Democrats - and the President - are forced to accept things that they hate to get at minimum what they need.

At the heart of it, the reason Republicans are better at obstructing is simple - they want government to work less than Democrats do.

Gore1FL

(21,121 posts)
10. 90% of America disagrees with the GOP
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:30 AM
Apr 2013

80% of the GOP disagrees with the GOP. I am not sure how this hurts us and not the GOP.

I see it hurting the next several hundred gun violence victims, though.

karynnj

(59,501 posts)
12. I agree and I think their vote was cowardly
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:09 AM
Apr 2013

However the 90% depends on people understanding precisely what the bill was. As Obama said people lied about what was in the bill. What I am saying is that as it already is this could impact Beigich (an unlikely Senator from the very red Alaska who narrowly won because Stevens was under investigation for corruption) the most. Baucus is powerful in Montana because he chairs the Finance committee. No opponent, Democratic or Republican could give equal clout. Pryor is also a Democrat from an increasing red state. The 90% number is nationwide. I suspect that the numbers are different - especially in Arkansas and Alaska.

I agree that it is possible that IF THEY HAD voted for this specific amendment, the defense by Bloomberg et al could have actually turned this into either a wash or even a minor positive. I suspect that they were afraid to trust that the truth could win over the NRA lies - that they know would have come in huge amounts.

Believe me, I think they made the wrong choice. They had to know that this was the right (and a very minimal ) thing to do. There was no courage here at all - and the point I was making is that given that they now will be targeted by the side that could have defended them while the NRA will likely STILL endorse their opponents could - in net - be very negative for them. (I have no idea whether that negative will be worse than the negative of having the NRA blasting them had they voted right.) In a way, this is may have been a lose/lose proposition for them.

drynberg

(1,648 posts)
11. HERE HERE, EXACTLY
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:35 AM
Apr 2013

Time to remind those non-backgrounder voters that consequences are crashing in NOW and SOON.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Mika is putting up the fa...