16 Republicans voted against a filibuster over the gun bill. Bob Owens wonders if they are setting a political trap
I was a little surprised that the Republicans skipped out on the gun control bill filibuster, allowing it to move forward to debate by a vote of 68-31. 16 Republicans crossing the aisle to allow it to go forward including Burr, who had been set to join the filibuster.
While it is merely speculation, I think several things are going on here:
- Republicans have decided to give Obama the “up or down vote” he’s badgered and waved the blood shirt for, in order to give the appearance of compromising.
- Republicans are figuring that they’re now turning the tables on Red State Democrats and moderate Republicans, forcing them to come out and record an up or down vote.
- Republicans have plotted to fill the legislation—whatever it turns out to be—with “poison pill amendments” that will either force Harry Reid to pull the bill, or force Democrats to vote against it, OR put enough pro-gun legislation in there to more than offset any background check compromise.
Interesting theory there. I wonder if they are that smart, given some of the names among those 16 Repubs, I have my doubts. I just pray they are not suffering from Weak Spine Syndrome.
Trying to sell us out over “background checks”, and giving the Left EXACTLY what they want. What a damned fool
After Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) held a presser putting forth their background check “compromise” this morning, it was gun shows and internet gun sales are in their crosshairs.
The “compromise” consists of closing the so-called “gun show loophole”–something that Democrats and Republican Moderates like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) have been wanting to do for years.
This supposed “loophole” consists in the fact that some private sellers rent a table at gun shows and make secondary gun sales. In other words, they set up a table to sell their dad’s guns, or their own guns, or the guns their neighbor doesn’t want anymore. These sales require no background check because they are secondary, used gun sales.
What Manchin and Toomey are proposing is an incremental expansion of the NICS background check system that would include these private sales too.
This really is a slippery slope–for once the expansion of background checks starts, where will it stop?
When will the GOP figure out that by caving, they will lose? Take your love of “bi-partisanship and stick it frankly! A bad bill is a bad bill. No matter who backs it! And it amazes me, as it does Bill Quick, that some Republicans want to surrender on an issue we are winning!
I hate reality TV. To me it is basically scripted, staged, stupid and mind numbing, and tends to feature some of the least likable people. Which of course makes reality TV a great place for America’s most clueless Republican, Meghan McCain. As Zip at Weasel Zippers wonders
What kind of deranged psychopath would watch a reality show based around McRINO’s talentless hack offspring?
Well, this is where we are isn’t it? Talent? Intellect? Who wants those? America apparently craves people who are related to famous people to people who actually have something of value to share.
So, what kind of show will this be? What can viewers expect?
McCain’s show, “Raising McCain,” will follow her as she hits the road interviewing both experts and average Joe’s alike. So far the network has ordered 10 half-hour episodes that will begin airing on August 1.
Participant Media, which owns pivot, created the channel as a way to reach out to Millennials. Pivot will air a mix of narrative films, documentaries, comedies and dramas, including a show co-hosted by actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt of “3rd Rock from the Sun” fame. So far, the network plans to have a reach of 40 million cable subscribers when it launches in August. The network also plans to run a broadband-only feed of the channel for a monthly fee.
“We’re told … that young people can’t have news because we’re just tweeting all the time, and that’s just bullsh**,” McCain said during the presentation for the launch of Pilot TV.
Oh, I cannot wait. But, of course, there is some good news here. Think of McCain’s show as yet another Tree of Low-Hanging Blogging Fruit. The inanities expressed on this show are bound to produce bushels of clips to share, and yes, mock right here.
Vomit inducing statement of the day for me anyway
RNC Chair Reince Priebus told reporters today that former governor Mike Huckabee would be an example of a “model” Republican in his eyes.
The Corner reported:
Earlier today, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus pushed back at critics who have questioned his continued support for Senator Rob Portman, the Ohio Republican who came out in support of gay marriage last week.
“When someone asks me ‘Are you going to cut off funding for Rob Portman?’ I think it’s just ridiculous,” Priebus told a group of reporters Friday during a briefing at National Review’s Washington, D.C., office. “He’s a good Republican. I think it’s also normal and decent to still support a person that you agree with on 99 percent of the issues.”
But Priebus says his support of Portman doesn’t signal a policy shift within the party’s platform. “Yes, we’re still a pro-life party. Yes, we still defend our platform on marriage,” he said. He emphasized, however, that Republicans must also sound “reasonable” to voters who disagree.
Priebus cited former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas as an example of someone who could be “a model for a lot of people in our party” in terms of discussing issues like marriage and abortion. “I always tell people: Listen to Governor Mike Huckabee,” he said. “I don’t know anyone that talks about them any better.”
Good Grief! The only way we could have done worse in the last two elections would have been if Huck-a-phony was the nominee
Come on folks, how hard are the letters B L O and G? Maybe they should get their heads out of their, well, that place their heads should never be, and realize that most of us do this EVERY day, not for cash, or fame, but because we LOVE this nation and are fighting like Hell for it. We do not have whiteboards, or talking point memos. No we are not scripted, programmed talking heads What we do have is original ideas, principles, and a burning desire to help deliver the Conservative message. So, given these facts, why did the RNC report ignore bloggers? Stacy McCain ponders that question
Even when the report does mention “social media,” it’s in the context of getting out the vote or having the party apparatus find a better way to reach voters.
I would not be surprised if the RNC spoke with some of the salaried conservative media class who share the Washington professional circuit. But did they reach out to the Army of Davids who are the anti-thesis of the consultant model because we mostly don’t get paid or make much money blogging, we do this in our “spare” time, and we are outside D.C.?
Did the RNC get any input from the great unwashed conservative blogosphere? You wouldn’t know it from the report if it did . . .
Read the whole thing. The idea of “citizen-journalism” is quite nearly alien to the consultant class. The teamwork concept of voluntary collaboration mystifies people for whom politics is a paid gig. Take away their consulting fees, and these guys wouldn’t have anything to do with politics.
There is nothing wrong with applying the entrepreneurial spirit to politics — “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn” — so long as the rewards bear some relation to results. As I’ve often said about the hindsight criticisms leveled at the Romney campaign, nobody would have cared what they got paid, if only they had won the election.
The massive stumbling clusterf–k of the Romney campaign’s ”Project ORCA” exposed the fact that greedy incompetents were being paid ginormous fees to do jobs they didn’t actually know how to do. There is a difference between making a living and making a killing, you see.
The GOP ignoring bloggers is akin to a coaching staff leaving motivated, talented players out of his game plan.
This morning Boehner told ABC that he absolutely trusts Obama, that there is no issue there:
How in the world could Boehner say something so idiotic. Obama is a pathological liar and has been for as long as we’ve known about him. Boehner himself has gotten burned from Obama lying to the American public over and over to force Boehner’s hand of compromise. Ugh. This is another reason Boehner needs to go.
But on the flip side of this interview, Boehner is getting a bad rap for his comments on the debt crisis. What Boehner said above is that we don’t have a debt crisis over us now, but we’ve got one coming that we must do something about. And he’s right. But he isn’t agreeing with Obama on the debt crisis. As he points out, Obama believes we don’t need to do anything to even avert a looming debt crisis. Boehner says that’s entirely wrong and we do need to reform our entitlements before this looming debt crisis hits us.
So to be fair to Boehner, while he is a terrible Speaker and needs to go, he’s not wrong in what he said on the debt crisis.
Even Paul Ryan agrees:
Full disclosure, I voted for Jeb in 1994, when I still lived in Florida. I voted for his father in 1988 and 1992, and yes, I voted for “W” in 1998 as Texas Governor, and in 2000 and 2004 for president. I am not a Bush hater. But, Jeb is way too “moderate” for my taste, and I think another squishy Republican is the last thing we need in 2016. So, I do not cheer when I hear Jeb Bush flirting with a possible run.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush won’t confirm he’s a candidate for the next presidential race, but he sounded like a White House hopeful Monday, declaring his party in need of leadership.
“I have a voice, I want to share my beliefs about how the conservative movement and the Republican party can regain its footing, because we’ve lost our way,” he told TODAY’s Matt Lauer.
Bush said he wouldn’t rule out a run in 2016, “but I won’t declare today either.”
I doubt he could win the nomination frankly, although I am sure Karl Rove and the establishment would love him. He is just the type of Republican they swoon over. It is too early to be speculating about 2016 to me. That whole 2014 midterm is a lot closer, and that is a crucial election. We really need the Senate back in GOP hands folks.
The Senate approved Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Defense secretary Tuesday, ending a contentious battle that exposed deep divisions over the president’s Pentagon pick.
After Republicans blocked the nomination earlier this month, they ultimately allowed for an up-or-down vote on Tuesday. The margin was historically close, with 58 senators supporting him and 41 opposing in the end.
Though Hagel is himself a former Republican senator, the resistance to his nomination showed an unusual level of distrust among many senators toward the man chosen to lead the Defense Department – at a time when the country is trying to wind down the Afghanistan war, while assessing emerging threats from Iran, Syria and elsewhere in the turbulent Middle East and North Africa.
Republicans had earlier held up the nomination largely over demands for more information from the Obama administration on the Sept. 11 Libya attacks.
But they also raised serious and recurring concerns about Hagel’s record of past statements and votes on everything from Israel to Iran to nuclear weapons.
Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican, clashed with his onetime friend over his opposition to President George W. Bush’s decision to send an extra 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007 at a point when the war seemed in danger of being lost. Hagel, who voted to authorize military force in Iraq, later opposed the conflict, comparing it to Vietnam and arguing that it shifted the focus from Afghanistan.
McCain called Hagel unqualified for the Pentagon job even though he once described him as fit for a Cabinet post.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked what the delaying tactics had done for “my Republican colleagues.”
“Twelve days later, nothing. Nothing has changed,” the Democrat said on the Senate floor. “Sen. Hagel’s exemplary record of service to his country remains untarnished.”
Reid blamed partisanship over Obama’s second-term national security team for the delay. Both Reid and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat, warned that it was imperative to act just days before automatic, across-the-board budget cuts hit the Pentagon.
Hagel will succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and join Obama’s retooled national security team. Hagel’s nomination bitterly split the Senate, with Republicans turning on their former party colleague and Democrats standing by Obama’s nominee.
Republicans also challenged Hagel about a May 2012 study that he co-authored for the advocacy group Global Zero, which called for an 80 percent reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons and the eventual elimination of all the world’s nuclear arms.
The group argued that with the Cold War over, the United States can reduce its total nuclear arsenal to 900 without sacrificing security. Currently, the U.S. and Russia have about 5,000 warheads each, either deployed or in reserve. Both countries are on track to reduce their deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 by 2018, the number set in the New START treaty that the Senate ratified in December 2010.
In an echo of the 2012 presidential campaign, Hagel faced an onslaught of criticism by well-funded, Republican-leaning outside groups that labeled the former senator “anti-Israel” and pressured senators to oppose the nomination. The groups ran television and print ads criticizing Hagel.
Opponents were particularly incensed by Hagel’s use of the term “Jewish lobby” to refer to pro-Israel groups. He apologized, saying he should have used another term and should not have said those groups have intimidated members of the Senate into favoring actions contrary to U.S. interests.
The nominee spent weeks reaching out to members of the Senate, meeting individually with lawmakers to address their concerns and seeking to reassure them about his policies.
Hagel’s halting and inconsistent performance during some eight hours of testimony at this confirmation hearing last month undercut his cause, but it wasn’t a fatal blow.
There was no erosion in Democratic support for the president’s choice and Hagel already had the backing of three Republicans – Sens. Thad Cochran, Mike Johanns and Richard Shelby. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also switched to support Hagel in the final vote.
Let’s face it folks, too many big names, like Karl Rove, care more about their $$$ than moving Conservatism forward. It is not really about doing what is best for the country, it is about establishing, then preserving their place in the pecking order. There are some very dedicated Conservatives out there that put principles over politics, and personal fame. Many of those are bloggers. And yes, bloggers can engage in self-promotion, nothing wring with that. It is when self-promotion starts to dictate what you say or write that it becomes problematic, can you hear me Ann Coulter?. And, most bloggers I link and like are more concerned with helping the country than helping themselves. I am honored to be amongst those who do this every day, each in their own way, not as much for themselves, but for America.
Another blogger who I think balances self-promotion with sincere patriotism is Stacy McCain, and he has some solid advice on how to deal with Karl Rove and his Super-Pac
Until we get down to cases — in a clear-cut situation where a Republican primary pits a solid conservative against a Establishment RINO type hand-picked by Karl Rove — there’s no point getting all angry or frightened about it. Look for an opportunity to beat one of Rove’s picks, to teach the Establishment a lesson, but in the meantime, keep your powder dry.
Great advice. I had my fill of White Board Rove a while back. I always distrust people who seem to be concerned with pimping themselves than anything else. That and Rove always struck as one of those people that gets way too much credit for greatness. One of those people that makes you ask yourself “How in the Hell did they get where they’re at?”
Stacy McCain also notes that one of the critics of Rove is Newt Gingrich. Newt? Really, I guess Dede Scozzafava is just a distant memory, sort of like Newt’s wedding vows to his first wife.
Just another politician, all about himself
Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), who is widely expected to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, may have justharmed his chances by signifying his support for the policies of ultra-liberal New York governor – and possible 2016 Democratic opponent – Andrew Cuomo. Talking with union leader Larry Bulman, political director for United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Steamfitters, Christie reportedly said, “I’m not much different from Andrew Cuomo. I probably agree with him on 98% of the issues.”
Christie leans liberal on a myriad of issues. While he maintains that he supports traditional marriage, that position is clearly malleable for him; he grandstands when it comes to federal disaster funding; he has ties to groups that are questionable in terms of Islamism; his anti-union rhetoric masks the fact that he gets along quite well with most of the unions in his state, including the much-maligned teachers unions; he blasts the NRA on a regular basis.
Ben Shapiro might be right, maybe this is just posturing for a 2016 run, I wonder if Ann Coulter will endorse him again? But, to me, this is the type of political gymnastics Americans are sick of, especially Republicans. Give us a candidate that says what they mean and means what they say! CONSISTENCY damn it!
REALLY, George? And what about the American people’s right to a competent federal government?
After all, the Secretary of Defense is charged with protecting OUR nation. He is supposed to be more concerned with defending the collective interests of 320 million Americans than the short-sighted, political agenda of any single individual.
Why should the Legislative branch of government automatically defer to the Executive branch over issues of OUR national security?
Do the terms “separation of powers” and “co-equal branches of government” mean NOTHING to you?
You see, folks, Mr. Will has just engaged in exactly the sort of mindless, rhetorical argument that practically all so-called conservative pundits do after they’ve spent a few too many years hobnobbing with inside-the-beltway leftists.
They begin to lose their common sense and start viewing everything through the prism of Washington D.C. politics.
We’re not talking here about some largely useless bureaucratic office that any braying jackass with a room-temperature IQ can handle. No, what we’re discussing is the most important federal post next to the presidency itself, one in which life-and-death decisions are made every single day with respect to hundreds of thousands – if not millions of American soldiers and civilians alike.
To reduce such an important topic to some political debate about presidential prerogatives is completely irresponsible, especially during a time of war.
Attention House GOP members. Karl Rove is not the solution to your problems, Karl Rove IS your problem
BUZZFEED – Republican strategist Karl Rove huddled with a group of House GOP leaders in the office Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy Thursday morning to discuss the party’s messaging efforts, Republicans familiar with the meeting said.
Details of Rove’s presentation to a group of McCarthy’s “whip team” — a subset of the broader conference tasked with educating the rank and file, rounding up votes on key bills and generally enforcing discipline within Republican ranks.
Following the meeting, several lawmakers could be heard instructing staff to setup meetings with Rove.
Rove’s trip to Capitol Hill may not be met with enthusiasm from every Republican. Rep. Steve King, one of the House’s most vocal conservative firebrands, has been eyeing a run to replace Sen. Tom Harkin now that the veteran Iowa Democrat is resigning.
King is in many ways the sort of conservative candidate that makes the party’s establishment nervous about the coming general election, and King told the Iowa Republican earlier this month his is now strongly considering a run — in part as a response to Rove.
“If I would back up in front of Karl Rove’s initiative, that would just empower him, and he would go on state after state, candidate after candidate,” King told the Republican.
Conservatives like Steve King have always made the GOP establishment nervous, Reagan made them nervous, the Tea Party makes them nervous. That is the problem, these weasels are so busy being nervous, they cannot lead, so we keep getting stuck with “safe” candidates that lose, McCain,Romney, that type of candidate. Here is a BIG HINT to the GOP leadership. Stop backing the candidates the Democrats WANT you to run! See the Democrats will signal which candidate they fear by going hard after those candidates in the primaries. The ones they do not fear they will ignore. And the candidate they want us to nominate? They will praise them and talk about what a “good presidential candidate” he or she would make, and how “formidable” they would be. By the way the media does the same thing. I have to point this out since you, Karl Rove, and his stupid white board cannot figure it out!
Tell you what. Fire Karl Rove, he is all about Karl Rove, not the GOP anyway. Call me, I work cheap, Hell I will advise you for free. Why? Because I actually care about Conservatism. Or you can keep getting advice from Rove, and his ilk. Tell me how is that working out for you?
To be fair, a bad column can happen to any writer, but, with Frum, it is habitual
In Josh Marshall’s post on being a “non-gun person,” he tells a story about visiting gun-owning family friends as a young boy and unintentionally pointing a real gun at a little girl.
But this kind of mishap does not happen only to non-gun people.
My wife’s family are gun people. I mean, real guns. Her grandfather was decorated for gallantry at Vimy Ridge and went on to found the Canadian armored corps. Her father served in World War II and Korea, and then worked for years as a foreign correspondent covering wars from Congo to Vietnam. He was a dozen feet away when Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald – and was filmed by another news reporter running toward the sound of gunfire.
Frum then goes on to describe an incident in his family where a gun was used irresponsibly, sort of like Frum uses his writing software irresponsibly, and someone almost got shot. OK to be fair, my family has always had guns, so did just about everyone I grew up with. Number of accidents? ZERO! Well except for my Uncle Earl who went a little nutty after drinking bourbon and reading too many David Frum columns. Damn if he did not shoot his computer! So, my Aunt Karen made a firm rule, no more reading more than one inane column from the Frumster a week. Because really now, does anyone NEED to read David Frum? Exit question. Is it me, or does Frum write like a Liberal pretending to be a Republican so he can gain approval from Beltway Liberals?
In fact I will go this far, Colin Powell has already left the GOP. he might not have officially said it, but he is a Liberal. He has all the talking points down, all the snide remarks about how secretly racist the GOP is. In fact if he is not a Democrat, he should get an Oscar for acting like one. Smitty seems to agree with me, more or less Frankly, Powell can leave and take Chris Chrsitie with him, I am sure Charlie Crist will welcome them with open arms, and lots of fake tan spray!
I wonder what Tubby thinks of Obama exploiting other people’s children for political purposes?
A) The NRA did not attack Obama’s kids. B) Didn’t Obama already drag his kids into politics when he constantly used them as political props, going so far as to feature them in campaign donation pleas?
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie slammed the National Rifle Association’s latest ad in which they accuse President Barack Obama of hypocrisy for sending his children to a school where they are protected by armed guards. Christie called the ad “reprehensible” and said that the NRA should not be “dragging people’s children” into the gun control debate.
“I think any of us who are public figures, you see that kind of ad and you cringe,” Christie said on Thursday at a news conference in Trenton. “I’m a father who is a public figure, who has four children and my children had no choice realistically in what I decided to do with my career and what affect that has had on their lives.”