Skip to comments.Dems push gun control agenda in DC, but not in battleground states
Posted on 04/29/2013 5:02:58 PM PDT by neverdem
Democratic leaders are wooing staunchly pro-gun candidates to run in pivotal Senate races at the same time they are discussing a strategy for bringing gun control legislation back up for debate.
The two-pronged effort has prompted Republicans to accuse the Senate Democratic leadership of hypocrisy, but Democrats say it is simply smart politics.
The question is whether two of the Democrats most promising potential candidates in Montana and South Dakota will pay a price for the leaderships political maneuverings in Washington. Or will recruiting candidates who do not support President Obamas gun control agenda have any effect on Democratic fundraising efforts?
Brad Dayspring, the communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, took a swipe at Democrats for playing both sides of the gun issue.
Washington Democrats preach gun control, but are recruiting adamantly pro-gun candidates like Schweitzer & Herseth-Sandlin. Can't be both, he posted on Twitter.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) posted a message on its online action center Friday calling for people to sign up to support Obamas agenda of immigration reform, common-sense gun control and equal rights. But its eyeing candidates in Montana and South Dakota who are not likely to support Obamas gun control initiatives.
Justin Barasky, the DSCCs spokesman, said his partys commitment to expanding background checks for gun sales cannot be doubted.
The bottom line on guns, the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for that measure and 41 of 45 Republicans voted against it, he said. Even if every single Democrat had voted for it, it would not have passed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has pledged to bring gun control legislation back to the floor. Barasky said the Democrats have the Senate majority because they have a big-tent party.
Theres a litmus test to be a Republican senator. You have to check off a list. Thats why we won five red states in a presidential year, he said in reference to the 2012 election.
The DSCC has not yet met with popular former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, according to a Democratic aide, but Democratic leaders view him as the best candidate to keep retiring Sen. Max Baucuss (D-Mont.) seat.
The DSCC has poll data showing former Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) is the strongest candidate to succeed retiring Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), although officially it has praised both Herseth Sandlin and Johnsons son, U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson, as promising contenders.
A political blog for the Argus Leader reported that DSCC officials are leaning, perhaps even heavily leaning, for Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.
Schweitzer and Herseth Sandlin both have "A" ratings from the National Rifle Association (NRA), which endorsed both candidates in their most recent campaigns.
Schweitzer told the National Journal in a recent interview that he is in favor of background checks, but it's unclear whether he would have supported a proposal crafted by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that failed in the Senate this month.
He also told the publication he has more [guns] than I need and less than I want.
Several Republicans, including Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), have also said they supported expanded background checks but voted against a proposal to do just that because of concerns about how it would be implemented.
Schweitzer did not respond to a request for an interview. David Parker, a political science professor at Montana State University, cant see Schweitzer embracing Senate legislation to expand background checks if the issue comes up on the campaign trail next year.
I would suspect given his background, he would say no, said Parker He has lots of guns and says hed like to get some more. I dont see him saying he would support those expanded background checks.
Parker said breaking with the Democratic leadership on gun control would help Schweitzer if he ran for Senate. I actually think it helps him demonstrate a way in which he is his own person and distinctive person from the national party, he said, noting Montana has a large proportion of independent voters who are the key to Democrats winning in the conservative-leaning state.
Jon Schaff, a political science professor at Northern State University in Aberdeen, S.D., said Democrats in the state often take steadfast positions in favor of gun owners rights to bolster their moderate credentials with voters.
Schaff thinks there is little chance Herseth Sandlin would endorse the background-check legislation that foundered in the Senate this month if she jumps in the race.
My guess is that she will take the NRA line, he said. I dont believe Stephanie Herseth would cross the gun people.
The NRA endorsed Herseth Sandlin in her 2010 race against Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.). The group praised her for co-sponsoring and supporting the D.C. Personal Protection Act, which called for letting residents in the District of Columbia carry hand guns and repealing a gun registration law, and the Second Amendment Enforcement Act, another bill targeted at repealing D.C.s gun laws.
Herseth Sandlin did not respond to a request for an interview.
Baucus, North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, Alaska Sen. Mark Begich and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor were the only four Democrats who opposed the Manchin-Toomey proposal expanding background checks to cover all sales at gun shows and over the Internet.
Schaff noted that Tessa Gould, Heitkamps chief of staff, previously worked for Herseth Sandlin.
Democratic leaders are wooing staunchly pro-gun candidates to run in pivotal Senate races...
...former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer...to succeed retiring Sen. Max Baucus...
...former Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.)...to succeed retiring Sen. Tim Johnson...
2014 Senate Elections
AK - Mark Begich - Democrat -
AR - Mark Pryor - Democrat -
CO - Mark Udall - Democrat -
DE - Chris Coons - Democrat -
HI - Brian Schatz - Democrat -(special)
IA - Thomas Harkin - Democrat -(not running)
IL - Richard Durbin - Democrat -
LA - Mary Landrieu - Democrat -
MA - William Mccowan - Democrat -(Kerry Seat)
MI - Carl Levin - Democrat -(not running)
MN - Al Franken - Democrat -
MT - Max Baucus - Democrat -(not running)
NC - Kay Hagan - Democrat -
NH - Jeanne Shaheen - Democrat -
NJ - Frank Lautenberg - Democrat -(not running)
NM - Tom Udall - Democrat -
OR - Jeff Merkley - Democrat -
RI - John Reed - Democrat -
SD - Tim Johnson - Democrat -(not running)
VA - Mark Warner - Democrat -
WV - Jay Rockefeller IV - Democrat -(not running)
- - -
AL - Jeff Sessions - Republican -
GA - Saxby Chambliss - Republican -(not running)
ID - James Risch - Republican -
KS - Pat Roberts - Republican -
KY - Mitch McConnell - Republican -
ME - Susan Collins - Republican -
MS - Thad Cochran - Republican -
NE - Mike Johanns - Republican -(not running)
OK - Jim Inhofe - Republican -
SC - Lindsey Graham - Republican -
SC - Tim Scott - Republican -(special)
TN - Lamar Alexander - Republican -
TX - John Cornyn - Republican -
WY - Michael Enzi - Republican -
Good luck with that aholes.
The problem is that the Republican opponents, and the NRA for that matter, simply WILL NOT LEARN THE TRUTH.
And the truth is that the Dems ALWAYS put party first. I specifically remember people on THIS SITE telling us not to worry about Manchin, as he had a perfect NRA record and could be trusted on guns.
Well, he was a Democrat. So the question is whether the Republican opponents in these states will even try to convince the voters that Dems simply CANNOT be trusted on guns.
...and by the way - it wasn’t 4 (or 5 Dems) that broke with the party on the gun vote - it was NONE. Those Dems had privately agreed to support the bill, if they could pick up that last Republican vote, which they couldn’t do.
As it was, the bill was doomed in the House - so why was it such a big deal for the Senate, and why were a decent number of Dems willing to put their seats at risk for it. Simple - they wanted the House to stop the bill, and then the Dems would have run against a “Do-nothing House” in 2014 and they sensed victory.
...but what about those A+ NRA members in the Dem Party. That doesn’t matter a bit to them - they are DEMOCRATS FIRST...and the Republicans better start explaining that a LOT MORE.
Thank you for causing me to get the roll call vote. I knew Baucus and Pryor defected. Their other defectors were Begich, Heitkamp and Dingy! BTW, Bloomturd wants to make an example of Pryor. Here's the roll call vote.
Besides Toomey, we had the usual suspects: Collins, Kirk and Juan McLame.
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare? John Roberts may well have set up its demise.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
No prob...in the end, Bloomberg and others will let the Dems off who voted no, since he knows he’ll have them when it counts. But defeat them and replace them with a Rep, and it’s a lost vote.
...the NRA and Republicans could learn a great lesson from that.
“....has prompted Republicans to accuse the Senate Democratic leadership of hypocrisy,...”
Forget about the sedition, treason, fraud, malfeasance, abuse of office.... “our” side is worried about “hypocrisy”.
There’s priorities for ya... Clueless idiots. No wonder we are where we are.
“...Republicans could learn a great lesson from that...”
If they haven’t learned by now, when do you expect them to learn? Sometimes, it’s almost as if they WANT to lose...
Given their recent behavior on which candidates are pushed (Bush*, McCain, Romney)... that's not exactly unreasonable.
* I include Bush because while he certainly wasn't all bad, he certainly put into place a LOT of the statist things that we're reaping now.
But let's assume that that's merely result of trying to find the "least objectionable" candidate; let's look at their actions [regarding platform] instead:
So, no, it looks like they don't intend to do what they say they want either... and in that case, how can they 'win' as a political party? A political party that refuses to pursue its goals is worse than useless. -- So, I won't say they're incompetent... I'll say they're complicit.
“...A political party that refuses to pursue its goals is worse than useless. — So, I won’t say they’re incompetent... I’ll say they’re complicit. ..”
I am inclined to agree with you, brother...