Dem Donors Threaten to Cut Off Dem Senators Who Oppose Gun Control

[Bartholomew Roberts]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/p...-do-the-right-thing-on-guns-or-no-more-money/

Apparently, Mayor Bloomberg and several major Democratic donors are giving an ultimatum to Democratic Senators - they either support universal background checks and other gun control or they will be cut off from future donations.

If you live in Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, or Virginia, your Senators are being targeted by this. It is important that they know that all the donations in the world can't save them from their own constituents if they fail to represent them well.

 

[Kiln]

This will truly show whether or not you can directly buy votes.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Well its tim for everyone to email these Senators and suggest a switch to rhe Republican party and a promise to contribute to heir campaign. One thing is for sure,while Bloomberg has a lot of money he cannot compete with gun owners. At $5 bucks a head we can come up with 500 million dollars.

 

[kwguy]

I tell you what, if I was one of those Senators, and some rich jerk like Bloomberg threatened me with something like that, I'd tell them to take that money and shove it up their a$$ a nickel at a time.

Then I'd buy an AR-15 with an ACOG and get some range photos taken, with some caption stating something along the lines of what I just typed above, and thank those very same jerks for the free advertising.

They are so flagrant about how they are able to 'buy votes', and just throw it in our faces, but then they try to vilify the NRA, accusing THEM of doing that, but the NRA is made up of US, and OUR small donations. A REAL grass roots organization. It is so bizarro, it's beyond words.

I hope those Dems stick to their guns and do what they KNOW is right: stand up for the Constitution, and not bow down to rich wanna be fascists.

Even if they lose the election, they'll be able to look themselves in the mirror each morning.

 

[jerkface11]

Oddly enough Mark Pryor actually told Bloomberg that he listens to the people of Arkansas not the mayor of NYC. Just have to see how he actually votes.

 

[David G.]

I know for Alaska, all the times I've ever called the Democratic Senator and the Republican senator regarding various issues, and when I've looked up to see how they voted, the Democrat voted more consistently "republican" than the "Republican".

I'll call them up again.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Considering that Pryor voted to renew the AWB in 2004, it was a pleasant surprise to hear him oppose this AWB and suggest he hasn't reached a decision on so-called universal background checks.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Oddly enough Mark Pryor actually told Bloomberg that he listens to the people of Arkansas not the mayor of NYC. Just have to see how he actually votes.

I heard from a good source that he voted for it in committee, but said he was going to vote against it when it came to the vote on the floor. He said it deserved to be heard, but he would stand with his constituents when it came to vote.
Now, I wish they would have shot it down in committee, but hopefully he honors what he said about voting against it.

 

[jerkface11]

I think it needs to be voted on. We need to know where they stand.

 

[kwguy]

I think it needs to be voted on. We need to know where they stand.

I understand wanting to know where they stand, but don't we really already know? It's not tough nowadays to tell where a politician stands on an issue, and whether they are wishy washy or not. If they are wishy washy, they will go where the winds blow.

Some things are so unconstitutional that they do not even deserve to be voted on. Nobody would ever bring legalized slavery up for a vote, or bring up establishing a national religion. The 2nd amendment should be the same way.

 

[jerkface11]

No I don't think we know who is willing to vote for this. I would have thought Pryor would just tow the party line. If they want to push gun control we should want them to show their colors.

 

[kwguy]

Hmm... I guess so. We certainly don't know all the politicians, and their closed door behavior. It's pretty messed up, but politicians certainly do lie.

 

[gc70]

"Can New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg buy Senator [insert name]'s vote?"

I think this has the potential to become a popular campaign slogan.

 

[kwguy]

"Can New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg buy Senator [insert name]'s vote?"

I think this has the potential to become a popular campaign slogan.

I like it. That could stick.

 

[baz]

Considering that Pryor voted to renew the AWB in 2004, it was a pleasant surprise to hear him oppose this AWB and suggest he hasn't reached a decision on so-called universal background checks.

As an Arkansan, I wouldn't consider it a surprise at all. He knows what happened to Blanche Lincoln in 2010, after she provided a critical vote in support of Obamacare. He's got a tough reelection campaign in 2014 as it is; if he supports any kind of gun control legislation, he knows he is through in the Senate, and will go down in flames in 2014. Note that he was one of the Democrats who voted for Senator Lee's amendment to require a supermajority for gun control legislation. I'll only be surprised if he votes for background checks, not if he doesn't.

Either way, I'm still voting against him next year.

 

[kludge]

So people who don't like they way people vote in congress won't donate to them or fund raise for them? And this is news?

I'm from Indiana, and Donnelly has already rolled over on UBC. Just like he rolled on Obamacare. He will say he supports his constituents and represent them, up until the point that his party needs his vote.

 

[22-rimfire]

The power mongers are blowing smoke. Who else are they going to support with their money? Idle threat. Regardless... they are always in the game playing to win.

 

[junyo]

"Can New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg buy Senator [insert name]'s vote?"

I think this has the potential to become a popular campaign slogan.

I like this. Someone should run these in every market where Bloomberg is putting his ads.

Until the republican party gets on board with equal marriage rights, we stand almost no chance of converting any democratic senators, let alone the majority of the country which supports it. We can say its not a related issue all we want, but the fact is that its a personal freedom issue just like RTKBA.

I agree that the Republicans should actually have a coherent 'personal freedom' platform, but your solution replaces one mandate from Washington with another.

The answer is either make marriage a state issue (messy but closer to ideal) or get the government out of the marriage business (ideal, but both sides would howl). Making it a states issue would also set precedent for making things like the NFA a state issue and rolling back the wide overreach of the Commerce Clause that lets the Federal government micromanage local issues whenever it feels like it.

 

[hso]

Why is it that we're proud of the political power wielded by the NRA and then shocked when the opposition comes out in the open instead of skulking in the shadows? It is disingenuous of us, or naive, to expect someone/thing to fill the failed Brady Campaign's shoes. We've ranted against Soros using his money and influence for years and his hidden manipulation of politics. Now we have Bloomberg, but he wants the limelight and that can be used against him.

At least now there's a visible opposition that can make mistakes publicly that we can use to hang catch phrases around the necks of Anti politicians.

 

[rdhood]

The power mongers are blowing smoke. Who else are they going to support with their money?

Yep. Like the Democrats would voluntarily risk those seats over gun control...
There are other, bigger, battles in congress that those Senators will vote reliably Democrat to risk losing them to Republicans. It is an empty threat.

 

[MagnunJoe]

It's an all out war and politicians will get millions from both sides.

 

[kwguy]

Why is it that we're proud of the political power wielded by the NRA and then shocked when the opposition comes out in the open

I think it's because the NRA represents millions of people, and gets its money from it's members, whereas rich individuals are seen simply as power mongering individuals (rightly so) that want to impose their will on others.

I think the Soros vs. Bloomberg thing I think is largely irrevelant, just that right now Bloomberg is more visibly a clown who wants to ban large sodas and insult our intelligence about gun control. That's all.

 

[GEM]

As far as money - Bloomberg has a net worth of 27 billion. It would take more than 5 bucks a head to beat that.

BTW, it's been argued that Bloomberg is good for the RKBA as he is so obnoxious that he motivates folks to oppose him. The same thing could be be said for Joe Biden's idiocy. I could imagine a more convincing campaign than the ones those people have put forward.

So far he appeals only to his choir and those close to it. He generates massive opposition. With those types raving, it helps blocks the total package by a rebound effect.

I've seen commentators suggest that the Bloombergs and Bidens and Feinstein shut up and allow a more incremental approach.

Another PS - about personal freedom. Neither party truly stands for that. One wants to control your holster, the other wants to control your crotch.

Who needs either?

 

[kwguy]

Bloomberg is definitely devious. I bet he has a hooded cloak he wears around the house with a red lightsabre tucked up his sleeve somewhere .

With yellow contact lenses...

 

[Old Fuff]

There is such a thing as shooting one's self in the foot...

If these wealthy, liberal contributors withdraw funding from certain legislators in swing states, they are likely to be replaced by Republicans - and if that happens the Democrats would likely lose control of the Senate, and have a reduced minority in the House.

Money apparently, does not mean that the holder is especially smart.