General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Four Democrats Who Voted Against Background Checks (their reasons for voting no)
The Four Democrats Who Voted Against Background Checks
-snip-
Heres a rundown of the four Democratic defectors and their reasons.
Max Baucus (MT)
Baucus, the chairman of the powerful Finance Committee, is up for reelection next year and carefully watching his back against conservative challengers. Hes been tight-lipped on the issue, repeatedly saying hell reflect the wishes of the residents of his small, largely rural state. Asked to explain his vote, Baucus was terse.
Montana, he said.
Mark Begich (AK)
Begich, a first-term senator, faces reelection next year in bright-red Alaska. Extremely cautious not to be seen as sympathetic in the least to gun control supporters, he voted against opening debate on gun legislation, even as many Republicans voted for debate. Begich characterized the issue as one between emotions and sound judgment.
Its dangerous to do any type of policy in an emotional moment, the senator said. Because human emotions then drive the decision. Everyones all worked up. Thats not enough.
-snip-
The other TWO here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/democrats-vote-against-background-checks.php?ref=fpb
global1
(25,170 posts)it looks like the other three Dems took cover with this vote. They probably knew Reid didn't have the votes for it to pass anyway and voted know to protect their butts.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)and 60 was needed.
Lots of time when there aren't enough votes the red state dems will go ahead and vote no.
But still - shame on them.
global1
(25,170 posts)I'm just thinking that they got cover in the fact that they knew that Reid didn't have the votes.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)His vote is no surprise to me, although it is disappointing. A lot of local commenters are threatening to not vote for him next time, but the alternative is likely to be our ultra-right lt. governor or, even more terrifying, Joe Miller. Mark is definitely concerned about re-election since he only got in last time because of Ted Stevens' legal troubles.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)The other side had their guys calling and e-mail their elected officials. It did not mater if the official was Republican or Democrat, they call, they e-mailed, they got heard.Their numbers drowned out the few that called to pass the background checks. Many of us wanted it but not enough voiced it.
As I have said several times, we must always be in contact wit those we put in office. It does not stop at the ballot box, it starts there!
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Wish this was not the issue,but,bottom line,I got the money. Most elected officials have huge egos that need stroking. Yes,there are a few that will operate for the people,most have been compromised by their support system(donors)and what is in it for me. Been around to many campaigns and for the most part,these guys and gals,are in a bubble and egos take over. Legacy seems the driving force with many. Building a nest egg for their later social indulgence's seems very common theme. With money and speech having the same meaning,we as citizens are for the most part screwed.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)No excuse. They disgust me.