My Suggestion About What to Do With The 5 Democrats Who Voted Against The Background Check Bill

[TrollBuster9090]

Primary them out of office.

Get some alternative candidates, do some polling and figure out who has the best chance of winning the general election, and put them in instead.

If necessary, replace them with OTHER pro-2nd Amendment, anti-gun safety Democrats. That's okay! Just as long as you punish people who are more in love with their comfortable Senate seat, and their six figure a year, taxpayer-funded job than they are with the will of the American People, and the safety and well-being of their own constituents.

Here's why: Remember when Democrats passed Obamacare? A huge number of Democrats in the HOUSE knew it would cost them their seats to vote for it, but they still believed it was the right thing to do. They lost their seats, but they did the right thing. Not only the right thing in terms of policy, but also the right thing for the LONG TERM PROSPECTS of the Democratic Party. Yes, universal healthcare may be unpopular at first, but in the LONG TERM it will pay off both for the American People and the Democratic Party.

It was the same with this. They should have voted yes, and then if the polls showed they wouldn't win next time, and it's because of their support for gun-safety laws, then just replace them with ANOTHER Democrat who claims to rabidly defend gun rights, and claims they never would have voted for the bill. So be it.

Those HOUSE Democrats that voted for Obamacare and got voted out took one for the team, and the team owes them.

Those SENATE Democrats had the chance to take one for the team and REFUSED. The team doesn't owe them anything.

Replace these people. They are EXACTLY what's wrong with government. They value their comfortable Washington jobs more than doing what's right.

[hlthe2b]

1. There are 4, not 5. Reid voted no only as a procedural maneuver to allow him to reintroduce later

[TrollBuster9090]

4. Hehe, yes I know. I included Reid because HE had his chance to change the Filibuster rules

THREE TIMES, and did nothing. Paid lip service to it every time, but refused to push for it when he actually had the chance.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Try Again...

...there were at least 9 or more Democratic Senators who refused to support a vote on filibuster reform. Some of the same people who voted against the background check bill (Baucus) also were against changing the filibuster rules...aim your fire in that direction...

[TrollBuster9090]

9. I figured it was because there weren't 51 Democrats on board with the idea, and Reid was just

covering for them, but I didn't know who the dissenters were. Where'd you get that information? Was it widely known? (I'm surprised I missed it.)

[KharmaTrain]

10. Here's A Link...

http://prospect.org/article/what-killed-filibuster-reform

I recall seeing more than Boxer, Feinstein and Leahy...yep, they were all against the proposed reforms...and this article covers many of the points that got lost in all the poutrage when the motion wasn't brought to the floor.

In many ways Reid was and still covers for members in the caucus...had he had half of the rushpublicans who voted to allow the background check bill to procede voted for the final bill the red state Democrats would have had cover...now they, along with those on the other side who voted no have let the NRA have a big, ugly win...

[TrollBuster9090]

11. Thanks for the link!

So, filibuster reform was, and still is just Kabuki theatre.

[KharmaTrain]

12. The Senate Is A Kabuki Theater...

...supposedly the "deliberative" body that doesn't rush to make decisions like the pesky House does. Or so is the attitude. The fear is that if the filibuster is reformed and the Democrats lose control of the Senate in 2015 that they'll be able to use that same 60 votes to keep the rushpublicans in check. Of course the failure in that "logic" is one of the things rushpublicans do is vote in lock-step and they'll do away with the 60 vote threshold and start ramming all the backlog crap from the House through...it ain't gonna be pretty. So we'll see if this was a "wise" move or 6 years (actually 8 including the Democratic majorities in dubya's last two years) of futility.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. One was Harry Reid, who changed his vote in a common Senate procedure.

It allows him to bring the bill back up to be considered.

So him we can let off the hook here. The other four, have at it.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

6. Thank you for the clarification about Harry Reid...

I was disgusted at first when I heard he voted No.

[LonePirate]

3. More importantly, we need to start educating voters to make better choices.

In some races, we can run the absolute best Democratic candidate imaginable and that person will still lose to the Republican, no matter how vile and ignorant the Republican is. Education is a better path to success.

[TrollBuster9090]

5. My suggestion about that is to stop running 'Republican Lite' candidates in Red States, and start

running candidates who'll appeal to the 50% of registered voters who DON'T VOTE because they see no clear difference between the candidates.

If the Democratic Party adopted THAT strategy instead of the current one, it could be a tipping point for the Country.

[graham4anything]

7. The Cronyn Poison Pen amendment got 57 votes. Thank God for Harry Reid and 60

That would have overruled the NY/NJ/Ill/California great gun control we have,
and that is something the NRA wanted for decades.

This was a big defeat for the NRA

We actually need to make it 80-20 and keep the extemists as the 20% and everyone else
moving the country forward IMHO

[Jim Lane]

13. A framing suggestion: Those Dems didn't vote "Against The Background Check Bill"

They voted "Against Allowing The Background Check Bill To Even Come To A Vote".

It's worth reminding people that a majority of the Senate favored this bill, but that the majority will was thwarted by procedural obstructionism.