Skip to main content

View Diary: Reid disgusts me: Babies are all gone and all we are left with is the bathwater used to drown them (19 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is actually a move to protect Democrats (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, viral

    who have to run for re-election in 2014 in red or purple states.  

    There are a lot of people out there who are extremely motivated by the whole 2nd Amendment thing.  (disclosure:  I do not own a gun, never have and I can't imagine I ever will.)  This would have been a very politically difficult vote for people like Mary Landrieu, up for re-election in a very pro-gun state.  She would have had to choose between supporting her party and virtually assuring her defeat or publicly voting against her party to keep her seat from going to a Republican.  If her vote would have made a difference in whether the legislation actually passed out of the Senate, it might have been worth it for Sen. Reid to put her, and a few others, in that situation, and risk losing the Senate in 2014 for the sake of getting the legislation enacted (but maybe not even then, since an assault weapons ban never would have gotten through the House). But since it was clear that the assault weapons ban did not even have 50 votes, much less than the 60 plus it would need not only to overcome a filibuster but to have any chance in hell of being considered by the House (a bill that gets out of the Senate with only 51 all Democratic votes won't see the light of day in the House), it made no sense to put her and others in that situation.  There was no sense in putting several Democrats at risk of losing their seats to Republicans in 2014 if the vote would have been nothing more than a symbolic vote.

    Sen. Reid can count votes.  There was no incentive for him to bring this to the floor and put several Democratic Senators in that position.  

    •  but that leads to never doing anything good (6+ / 0-)

      if we are only worried about winning the next election then we can't take any difficult stands ever...so what is the point of winning?

      •  That might make sense if the legislation had (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345, wilderness voice

        any chance of passing the Senate, not to mention the House.  

        Sen. Reid saw a very big downside to forcing the at-risk Senators to cast a vote that would be used to defeat them in 2014.  If there was an "up side" -- if the legislation could have passed -- it might have been worth it.  But there was no "up side" here.  Nothing positive would have been accomplished by forcing a vote that showed the Democrats did not have the votes to pass a high-profile Democratic bill.

      •  The ONLY solution is LARGE PUBLIC SUPPORT (0+ / 0-)

        in THOSE PURPLE STATES. And as I've said in a previous comment, the level of organizing and activism is not nearly enough. It still must grow. A lot.

        As for electoral considerations... In normal times, I agree that being worried about losing elections shouldn't prevent people to do the right thing.

        But now, in the 2010's, democrats losing elections means INSANITY GETS MORE POWER.

        As long as the republican party stays prisoner of its extremists, I think that democrats don't have the choice to make "staying in power" a priority, even at the expense of delaying some needed changes.

        Frustrating process, that's for sure.

        Democratic elected people have to stay there to prevent more damage, and AT THE SAME TIME there needs to be a growth of progressive activism at the grassroots level. And maybe some prominent progressive leaders have to emerge, to give some extra life to grassroots action. Leaders who can devote all their time and energy to the grassroots. Leaders who are free of governing responsibilities, because governing unfortunately means frustrating compromises.

        (Sigh... Sometimes I wish Barack Obama would have been able to clone himself in 2008. One Barack for the presidency and the frustrating and daunting task of governing in a context where conservatives have all the structural advantages. And another Barack for grassroots activism, a Barack totally FREE, leading a gigantic movement for peaceful, organic, and lasting change. For more than four years now, Barack Obama has tried to do both. He's doing his best, but the mixed results are inevitable. It's impossible to do it all. )

         

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site