Democrats Risk Backlash After Opposing Obama Gun Plan

[question everything]

Four Democratic senators who defied President Barack Obama to help defeat gun-safety legislation are facing the wrath of activists who promise to make them pay a political price.

President Barack Obama said it was a “shameful day” in Washington when the Senate rejected a watered-down bill including expanded background checks for gun-buyers on April 17. Several groups say they plan to punish the four Democrats through newspaper and television ads, protests outside their offices, and automated telephone calls to constituents.

(snip)

Baucus said his “employers are the state of Montana,” when asked about breaking with fellow Democrats. Begich voiced no regrets in an interview the day after the vote. “I voted what has been consistent with where I have been for the last 25 years,” he said. Heitkamp, in an interview with the Dickinson Press published online April 18, said comments from her constituents indicated 5-to-1 opposition to the legislation. “This was what North Dakotans believe,” she said. Pryor’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.

(snip)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-22/democrats-risk-backlash-after-opposing-obama-gun-plan.html

=====

Yes, I welcome Baucus decision not to seek re-election. But aside, this is why it was so important to call our senators, even the blue ones, to offer support for the measure. To at least counter the calls from the opponents.

My two senators, while acknowledging that they support gun control, were also quick to add their support for the 2nd Amendment...

[merrily]

1. No reason to target Democrats more than Republicans. It's a gun safety issue, not a

political party issue.

[question everything]

3. I have always envied Republicans who could get all their party members to follow their lead

I don't remember Reagan, or either of the Bushes, not being able to pass a piece of legislation in Congress.

And while we know that we, Democrats, like to use our brains and not to just follow orders, it is disheartening to see such a watered down measure opposed by Democrats.

[merrily]

5. It's no worse for Democrats to block something that should pass than for Republicans to block it.

[vi5]

2. Oh yeah, I'm sure there will be a real big backlash.

I'm sure Obama's smile won't be as big when he campaigns for their re-elections (other than Baucus obviously). I'm sure he'll be slightly less chipper when he asks how he can help water down legislation for them.

Please. The only people who ever risk a backlash for opossing Obama are liberals or progressives.

[geek tragedy]

4. I think denying Begich's attempt to build a road through a federal wildlife preserve would

be adequate payback.

At some point, there has to be a penalty for crossing the President on his priorities.

[merrily]

6. 80% of Americans wanted this.

That's more significant than any President's wanting it.

[Blue_In_AK]

7. Mark has always been a strong Second Amendment supporter

so his vote here isn't surprising. What is surprising is how many Democrats and independents in Alaska are pissed off at him for this position.

[geek tragedy]

8. Because it wasn't about the 2nd amendment. It was about poltical expediency and cowardice.

None of the 4 Democrats who voted with the NRA had a substantive answer as to how they voted.

Heitkamp and Baucus blamed their constituents, and Begich said he was just too rational to discuss gun safety.

[Blue_In_AK]

9. Yeah, his excuse was pretty pathetic.

Like I said, I understand why he did it, given that this is Alaska and many people here are fond of their guns, but I'm heartened by the amount of blowback he's receiving, to the point where some people are saying they won't vote for him in 2014. I haven't made up my mind yet -- his potential opponents are definitely of the wingnut variety (Joe Miller, anyone?) so it may be a lesser of two evils situation for me. He will definitely not be primaried. There are too many vacancies coming up in 2014 and not enough viable Dems to run for all of them so running against each other probably won't be happening.

[Doctor_J]

10. What do background checks have to do with supporting the 2nd Amendment?

Your post in disingenuous. Also,

What is surprising is how many Democrats and independents in Alaska are pissed off at him for this position.

90% of Americans supported this measure. when he decides he won't allow a vote on it, of course they are going to be a lot of pissed off people. Duh. When dems don't show up at the polls next time, this will be why - "our" reps aren't worth a shit - can't even deliver on a bill that 90% of the people want.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. Hey, my post isn't disingenuous.

I didn't say I agree with him, which I most decidedly do not. I was explaining what his reasoning "probably" was in making this boneheaded decision, i.e., he wants to get re-elected and people in Alaska like their guns, no questions asked. What surprises (and pleases) me is that he's getting so much blowback from people IN ALASKA. He probably couldn't care less what people in other parts of the country think.