Sell Out Republicans

I disagree with those who think the Republican party is not falling apart. At the national level it is a shambles with no leadership, flailing about like a drowning man. They no longer have any core issues they will not willingly bargain away in the name of bi-partisanship or getting something done. We need to get something done! Why? Frankly in most cases I don't want anything done, because they screw up everything they touch, both parties. Now the House is supposed to stop this if it gets out of the senate. Really, John Boehner and Eric Cantor stopping anything?

The logic behind getting this on the floor for a vote to then vote against it is CYA mode for these liberal senators. Why would you allow something you know to be wrong, against the laws of God and nature and against the Bill of Rights to see the light of day for a vote? As posted before we heard this same line of thinking with obamacare and we saw how that turned out. The Republicans are the stupid party and are incapable of learning anything from history.

The only bunch that seems to have a spine is the Tea Party Republicans.

 

The part that irks me is that they voted to ban filibuster on a bill THEY HADN'T EVEN SEEN YET. I'm sick and tired of these guys voting on bills they haven't read and carefully studied.

 

I understand chess, I understand non-linear, the long game, etc.

But . . . . Toomey with an NRA A rating . . . . .why would he want to put his name on this bill? How is he not selling out?

Splain the grey to me. Splain why any of them should be trusted beyond their own self interest.

 

I would not worry about it with every election the republican party has fewer and fewer voters while the ranks of democratic party are growing at the same time.

 

Toomey is what used to be called a "progressive (liberal) Republican, who represents a swing state that sometimes supports Democrats, and sometimes Republicans, and Philadelphia is strongly Democrat, and like Chicago is the tail that wags the dog. Toomey may have made a big mistake, but he thinks it will play well within his political environment. We of course are upset, but it might turn out he's correct. All of the Republicans in the Senate do not share his views. As for the NRA rating, that's likely to be history, and looking backwards he might have been a better choice then any Democrat running against him - sort of the least evil between two.

Anyway he is a classic example why we need these bills debated, maybe amended, and then voted on. It's the only way we will find out where these legislators really stand.

 

Ya, lets vote says the establishment!

So we leave the hen house door open so we can figure out exactly which fox wants our chickens. Then, we'll try to dispatch that fox at a later date so he doesn't steal anymore chickens in the future....Brilliant!

This stupidity, rather than just lock the door down to stop the fox from getting a taste of chicken.

Sounds like some have been spoon fed a mouth full of poo.

 

I very much agree with this, it also point out two things
when it comes to basic rights, some are still VERY effected by their electors (red state Democrats, purple state RINO's)

Begich knows in AK, no matter the registration, or union membership, they most likely own a gun, making it painful to own a gun, esp. in the bush (strong native population who live off the land) that making gun purchases difficult (what would you consider difficult, going 100mi on snowmachine in the dead of winter to transfer a gun???)

will cost him his seat in 2014

 

I'm very upset with Senator Toomey, but I don't see this going much beyond the debate and vote to reject any gun control.

There are Democrats in the Senate from gun-owning states who did not want to have to go on record with a vote on this issue. They would have rather had it never leave committee, too. Part of the strategy is to make the few Democrats in those states make a choice between voting against the final bill and angering their party - and their campaign supporters; or voting for it and angering the gun owners they need to vote for them and be re-elected.


Toomey, I have no clue what the hell he's doing.

 

Check out how Begich is positioning himself, for the LOCAL level (which in the end is what matters)

He gets a no vote, it's part of his 'standing up to washington'
he gets to claim 'maverick' status, and that he can support sensible reform that targets criminals (and here is political double speak, cause to the Brady Bunch crowd, everybody with a gun is a criminal...) while standing strong on his 'local' principles.

 

We in GA are going to remember Johnny Isakson in 2016. I will personally work against him no matter how he votes on the floor of the Senate.

When a politician shows their true colors, it is foolish to keep them around knowing that they will flip in a New York minute.

 

Hopefully losing his next election.

 

I don't think that our rights guaranteed not to be infringed should even be up for debate. However, as some have said, politics is a chess match, and the utter obsession to get re-elected and stay in power is the Checkmate. That is all they know and care about.

We and our rights are just a means to an end for them. If they see ANY political advantage to debating, or passing legislation, they will do it. There is no right or wrong. There is only that which increases their re-election chances or chances for higher office, and that which does not.

 

Nothing like playing chicken with the Constitution.

 

Yea, I hope Johnny has just ended his career! I will work hard to defeat him in 2016.

 

I think that most Republicans feel that most of the latest gun control proposals have litle chance of passing both houses of Congress. I am not convinced that something will pass the Senate yet.

Republicans want to have it documented how you voted on this issue in my opinion. The only way to accomplish that is let the legislation move through the process to a final vote. Why do you think Harry Reid dragged his feet so long on bringing the Feinstein legislation to the floor. It's business and the Game is On!

 

Precisely.

Harry Reid did not keep this from the Senate floor for 3 months because he's a friend of gun owners and wanted to protect our interests. He kept it from the floor because several Senate Democrats told him being forced to vote on it would be very harmful to their careers.

Voting yes for more gun control would hurt them at home in re-election. Voting no would alienate them from the party and affect their fund-raising for the re-election back home. Harry Reid is the one who didn't want this coming to the floor.

The Republicans who voted to bring it out finally acted smart for once. They knew what it meant to those Democrats to be forced to vote on the issue.

 

It is ironic that many of the same gun owners (an not just on this forum) who complained loudly that many congressmen know little or nothing about how guns work, are now demonstrating that they have even less knowledge about how Congress works. :banghead:

 

I intend to vote for who ever supports freedom the most. Last candidate I remember like that was Ron Paul. Dont trust em, and make em scared to do anything not supporting freedom in all its forms..

 

Touché

 

I'll agree 100%

Lateck,

 

BullfrogKen/fellow gun owners: This is an effort to learn about this political chess game.
Does the present situation in the Senate indicate that the Republicans actually trust the Dems from pro-gun states to vote Against the bill?

If so, the Senate Republican strategy must be counting on the proposed bill not passing a Senate vote, but if it does, the GOP figures that it would gain almost a majority in the Senate from '12 to '14 as a consolation prize, just in case the bill manages to pass their chamber?

For those GOP Senators (who appear to have defected) does this mean that an actual passage of the present bill, for which they would also be blamed, won't bite Them during the GOP campaigns for re-election to the Senate?

Maybe it is all about their faith in the GOP members of the House -in a worst case scenario- being disciplined enough not to even consider allowing gaps to open up in their "shield wall"?
Obamacare evidently succeeded only after Senators or Congressmen were bought off by accepting "baksheesh"- favors for their home states.

 

They are too disorganized and selfish to be able to come up with any brilliant strategy. At best, all they did was pass the buck.

I think they believe that their constituents will forget, forgive, or blame someone else. Of course the media and survey data is probably telling them that, "most Americans are in favor of common sense gun control."

 

First thing to remember. It's ALL about politicking. Every single person in in the senate is doing what they believe will get them re-elected, and stay in power.

Now the trick is, trying to figure out which one is using which strategy. The Democrats aren't difficult, most of them are going to at least give lip-service towards gun control simply because it's a party platform.

Republicans on the other hand, that's a little tricky. Some of them really are blue-state RINOs and think that supporting gun control will get them votes.

A lot of them are figuring that not letting this get to debate will keep them too far OUT of the spotlight for re-election. They figure (and are probably right when it comes to average voters) that actually being part of the DEBATE is how they're going to ensure they get pro-gun votes in the next election.

The last thing is, if the bill was stopped from seeing floor debate, the Republicans could not add pro-gun amendments to it. This way, they can put forward things like a repeal of the Hughes amendment, strengthen the Tiahrt amendment, give individuals access to NICS checks, outlaw state waiting periods, etc. etc. etc.

In this game of politicking, the fact that the Democrats can reintroduce magazine capacity bans, and the Feinstein AWB is not as important as getting their name attached to pro-gun amendments that they can cite to attract votes next time. It's not a direction that I support them taking, but I can fully understand it.

The silver lining here is that, like has already been mentioned, most of them have already made up their mind to vote against this bill, regardless of what happens in debate. They just want their chance to get recognized, maybe get their names put on pro-gun amendments, pad their resume for their next election.

 

Both Alexander and Corker from Tennessee voted with the Democrats. What is there excuse? Tennessee is a very red state. I didn't think my opinion of these two RINOs could get lower. But the old saying about hitting rock bottom doesn't work with politicians. They are so slimy they just slither right thru the cracks in the rock and keep going down.

 

When we reach the point at which the primary thing on a Senator's mind is getting TV time to aide his or her reelection bid, we have an utterly broken system.

Folks, we're there.

I call two states "home." One has two Republican senators, one true Conservative and one very senior and often wobbly, who happens to Minority Leader; the other has two Democrats of no particular import. All four voted Party line on cloture. It will be interesting what they have to say as the debate moves forward. I have no doubt how all four will vote on the final bill.