Skip to main content

View Diary: If government is full of tyranny, why arm it to the teeth? (239 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  my bad, that first was filibuster reform, widely (0+ / 0-)

    cited as an obstacle to gun control pasage in the senate.

    On a private call with the Bay Area Democrats on Wednesday, Merkley identified Reid as the key person in the talks, and he urged activists to target members of Reid’s leadership team ahead of their meetings next week, according to people on the call. He also characterized Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Joe Manchin (West. Va.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) as wrestling with his proposal, sources say.
    --RE naming Democratic senators not on board with filibuster reform

    this one is the first suggestion that she was on board a few months ago.

    here's the one I really had in mind... From a few days ago...

    •  That's not proof that the reason she didn't (0+ / 0-)

      support filibuster reform is because she couldn't stand up to the NRA - it's not even logical.

      There are many reasons not to support it, for example, what happens if the GOP takes the Senate?

      •  and about this? (0+ / 0-)

        the one I had meant instead of the one I originally linked?

        •  A comment on the DKos message board? (0+ / 0-)

          Without being able to hear the conversation, you can't really draw a definitive conclusion. There's a lot of moving parts in the sausage making of all the legislation being produced, and to take one flimsy anecdote and use that to make a point, is at best, not smart.

          •  context provided... (0+ / 0-)

            Dems under added pressure to support universal background checks Some holdouts stand firm

            Be careful about being too sanguine about Boxer (1+ / 0-)
            I called Boxer's office yesterday to express my strong wish that she support the assault weapons ban and magazine limits.  Staffer told me that they were keeping a "tally"  of calls.  When I asked why Boxer wouldn't openly support Feinstein's bill, he was evasive.

            I'm very disappointed that Boxer won't stand up to the NRA.   Call her office now at 213 894-5000(Los Angeles), and tell her to stand with her colleague and the majority of Americans who want these weapons banned.  

            Californians have to be out in front here!    

            If Liberals Hated America, We'd Vote Republican

            by QuarterHorseDem on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:29:02 PM CDT

            My take is either:
            -She's politically safe in her district, and she's a holdout to give cover to another senator who, for some reason, doesn't want to vote against the sentate bill package, but still doesn't want to support it (and they will reciprocate at a later time, or she already owes them the favor).  You're right about sausage making, senators cover each other like this from time to time as I understand.
            -She has data, polling, or something else to suggest that  crossing the NRA isn't in her best interest.

            She's very well can be playing chess while we who watch are playing checkers.  Or she's simply looking out for herself with no greater goal.  You're right, without getting inside her head, there's no way to be certain, but she appears to be holding out, which seems to be what the NRA wants.

            •  Boxer has her own school safety bill as part (0+ / 0-)

              of the Dem gun safety package, so perhaps she's using it to bring supporters to her bill. And, there's also the question of exactly which BC bill will be the one - why give support to something that isn't completely known yet. It could be that she won't voice support unless it's Schumer's bill.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site