General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power
Posted by Greg Sargent
Why couldnt President Obama get expanded background checks through the Senate, given that the idea is supported by over eight in 10 Americans? The chatter around that question continues this morning, with the New York Times weighing in with a big piece arguing that the failure of the Toomey-Manchin compromise in the Senate is rooted in Obamas unwillingness to twist arms.
The Times piece, which comes a day after Maureen Dowd made a similar argument, traffics heavily in what a lot of folks like to describe as the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power. The thesis appears to be that Toomey-Manchin failed because Obama failed to put enough pressure on red state Democratic Senators like Mark Begich, and that this bodes ill for the rest of his presidency....But this thesis suffers from several problems. To begin with, even if every red state Democrat had voted for the measure, it still wouldnt have passed.
Just look at the roll call for the vote. It failed by 54-46; if Harry Reid had not voted against the measure for procedural reasons, the tally would have been 55-45. Four red state Dems voted against the bill: Begich, Heidi Heitkamp, Mark Pryor and Max Baucus....if Obama had twisted the arms of every one of those Democrats into pretzels indeed, if he had twisted all of their arms together into one giant tangle and mounted it atop the Capitol it still wouldnt have achieved the 60 votes necessary to pass.
What about the gettable Republicans who voted against the bill, such as Dean Heller and Jeff Flake? The Times story has little to say about the role Republicans played in killing the measure, but its hard to see how arm twisting from a Democratic president would have won them over. The simple fact, as Steve Benen aptly demonstrated in chart form the other day, is that the proposal failed because virtually every Republican Senator voted against it. The GOP and the 60 vote Senate killed Manchin-Toomey. The Times piece doesnt mention that 60 vote thing, either.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/23/the-morning-plum-the-green-lantern-theory-of-presidential-power/
The focus should be on filibuster reform and Republican belligerence. Requiring every piece of legislation to get 60 votes is rendering the Senate dysfunctional.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)amendment if there were no filibuster.
There's more support for increasing gun violence in the Senate than there is curbing it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Filibuster is a distraction here--it would have been poison pilled by the national conceal and carry amendment if there were no filibuster."
...we'll never know because the amendment was filibustered.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)with every Democrat and three Republicans voting for it.
<...>
To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.
YEAs 58
NAYs 42
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00099
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)My response was to blame my senator for her disdain for the "carrot."
The thing that has been lacking during this administration is earmarks. Ending that practice was a huge mistake. Arm twisting only goes so far. A little pork here and there greased the wheels. I am reminded of this when I see the plaque thanking Kit Bond for the funding to upgrade our transit system. It was badly needed, and happened with great strides. Ironically, sen. McCaskill's office sits across the street from the bus station.