Skip to main content

I'm astounded at the behavior of the folks in our senate in allowing rapists, criminals and terrorists to have access to weapons without background checks.  They have ignored the bulk of the folks in America.  Especially egregious are the Democrats that worked with the Republicans to deny the American people Background checks that work.  Heidi Heidekamp is one of those that really didn't have to vote the way she did since she has 5 years before reelection.   This is a caricature of her this week.  Each week I am going to try to feature each of those that voted against the checks starting with the Democrats.

Heidi for Criminals?

When Heidi's office was questioned about "why" she voted the way she did, the response was that she got "so many calls" for those that didn't want the checks and she "doesn't believe the polls."  Just like old Mitt.  He didn't believe the polls either.  

Joe Scarbourough deserves kudos for the work he and Mika are doing around this issue.  Please let them know that you support their efforts for the American People.  We deserve to have weapons security in our country.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I would fax your cartoons to their offices..... (6+ / 0-)

    she had six years to work through this. sad that from the first weeks she is already running for re-election rather than doing the right thing.

  •  Also Gabby Gifford's (2+ / 0-)

    Organization is going after these Legislatures as is Mayor Bloomberg's.  

    Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it . Corporations aren't people, they're Republicans (Rev Al Sharpton 10/7/2011)

    by Rosalie907 on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 07:58:39 PM PDT

  •  Joe Scarborough can go to hell. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    llywrch, wdrath

    I can't believe there's someone on this site commending him.

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 08:22:45 PM PDT

  •  Who IS her base? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Keone Michaels, phonegery

    She sits on it and her only job is get it back in that chair until she is really old. The purpose of being elected is to be re-elected.

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 08:44:18 PM PDT

    •  She won by narrow margin in a right-wing state (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sturunner, ban nock

      A major reason was that she carried the Native American vote by  a wide margin.  Practically everyone on the reservation owns a gun--hunting is a  big thing and part of their treaty rights.  I would guess that tribal members are not big proponent of any gun regulations.

      •  Sometimes you have to risk losing (0+ / 0-)

        the next election in order to do the right thing. Otherwise, why are you even in an elected position?

        For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

        by Anne Elk on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:58:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Gun rights is always going to (6+ / 0-)

    be a tough issue at the federal level. What's good policy for people living on the prairies of the Dakotas is usually not going to be the same as for people living in Baltimore or the Bronx. Background checks seem sort of universally smart to me, but then again I'm a city boy. The states are going to have to do the work here, as we cannot expect the rural West or Deep South to be very helpful on gun issues. Ever.

    •  You do "get it" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doc2, sturunner, ban nock, wdrath

      I live in MT, and I doubt the polls, also.  Judging by the coffee klatch at the local restaurant, "gun control", in all its forms, is a loser.  And nobody would answer a telephone poll.  Everyone has caller ID and call screening, so who the heck is responding to these polls, anyhow?  Nobody that I talk with would ever respond to phone questions about guns, it is a taboo subject because people see it as "nobody's business".  These folks are, for the most part, gun owners, and they vote, and some write letters to their Representatives.  Any gun legislation is a hot item with them.  My guess is that Tester may be in trouble on the next go-round, because people that voted for him before are going to think twice next time.

    •  Her state polls 94% for Background checks ... (4+ / 0-)

      North Dakota.  94% for background checks.  She has 5 years to make it right.  She did not HAVE to vote the way she did.

      •  But, who are the people answering the phone???? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Caller ID, call screening, general hostility to answering questions regarding gun ownership--that is what I see next door in MT.  At the coffee klatch, very unscientific, I know, NOBODY would answer questions about guns.  Again, who are the people responding to the polls??

        •  Do you really think it is all just phone polling? (0+ / 0-)

          Sometimes there are a combination of data sources for some of the more reliable polls.  

          And often they are designed in such a way as to not have to ask directly.  Some data sets co-exist so well that you can infer if they answer yes to "A" then they are going to answer no to "B."

          These polling strategies were developed first as marketing devices and can be very accurate in tracking the Benjamins it is no surprise that they can be accurate in politics too...

          •  Even those that would answer a poll (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            would not answer any question such as, "Do you own a gun?"  That would be the end of the polling.  Questions about guns are treated differently from any other.  Such a question is treated as a hostile action out here in the West and the reaction that a pollster will get is totally different from the reaction that they would get from a city dweller or a resident of a coastal state.  Again, what is the demographic of someone that would answer such a question?  I guarantee it is not the "average" resident of Montana, and probably not of the Dakotas, either.  And that goes for eastern Oregon and eastern Washington and Idaho, too.

            •  I understand what you are saying but as an honest (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              reddog1, Blue Bell Bookworm

              Montana boy perhaps u r innocently thinking that these data sets are arrived at by simple clear and straightforward questions.  Some data can be arrived at by entertainment surveys (questions) for example.  Folks can be renumerated to participate and the data set can be adjusted to accommodate that fact.

              There are bullshit predictors built in to detect lies and othr bias.  Preferences, demo, purchases, etc are all a part of the data driven calculus.  It is not just random phone calls either.  Robo calls are not what a reliable "poll" is about.

              This ain't your daddy's polling systems nowadays.

              •  Did you look at the results of the first PPP poll? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Keone Michaels, sturunner, ban nock

                Either the respondents were schizophrenic or the results were BS and negate your assertion.

                From that poll:

                55% of rural respondents oppose gun control laws, yet:

                rural respondents approve of banning assault weapons, high capacity magazines and background checks, yet:

                55% of rural respondents believe background checks will lead to confiscation.

                men oppose gun control laws, but overwhelmingly support  background checks, but believe that background checks will lead to confiscation

      •  i don't believe that number, at all. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phonegery, sturunner, ban nock

        Neither does she, clearly.

  •  She's a brand-new Senator. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Keone Michaels

    I guarantee you she doesn't understand the fact yet that constituent calls are not representative of the general feeling in her state but rather, absent a coordinated call campaign, a reflection of who's angry or fearful.

    •  any politician as astute (0+ / 0-)

      as Heitcamp is, a Democrat, who is able to get themselves elected to statewide office in a very, very red state, knows something about politics.

      There's nothing surprising to me that Heitcamp and some other Democrats with a lot of pro-NRA constituents voted the way she did. What surprises me is how so many of my fellow progressives hold Democrats like her to standards that are not based in political reality.

      If Heidi Heitcamp were to start voting like many of her liberal and progressive critics insist...she would be easily defeated and replaced by a much more conservative--perhaps radically conservative Republican during the next election.

      While this kossack supports background checks (and even more stringent gun controls, including complete bans on assault weapons, for instance), am not going to toss every Democrat under the bus who happens to disagree with me on this, or on any one particular issue.

      The question to me is whether Heitcamp...and other conservative Democrats from very conservative states are, overall, more helpful to us progressives in the long run or whether they are as bad or worse than any Republican that might be in that office instead.

      In this particular case, while Heitcamp's positions are often much different than my, she is far preferable than ANY Republican who would likely be in her seat from that state.

      The other thing to me is how people suddenly become "shocked" at how folks like Heitcamp vote on things like this when she's been perfectly frank and up front about her support of the NRA all along, including when many of these very same progressive and liberal critics were donating money to help get her elected. She hasn't changed on this particular position, some of her supporters have.

      •  I understand what u r saying. It is just not good (0+ / 0-)

        enough anymore to use the excuses you do.
        It really gets us nowhere to put our treasure and work into electing Democrats that vote like Joe Lieberman did, to the detriment of the American people.

        Our system doesn't work from the fucking Electoral College on down to the fillibuster, United healthcare SCOTUS descision, redistricting, etc. etc. and all the other shit which is not effective for the nation as a whole.  

        We are no longer agricultural "the breadbasket of the world" and import much of our food from elsewhere.  We don't need to give unpopulated states as much say as those with many more people.

         Why is "one person, one vote" not the law of the land?  Dump the fucking stupid electoral college a vestigal organ of control and suppression of the American people.  We are smart enough to vote , one person, one vote.

        The USA is  a joke.  Pretending to be the Democracy we really are not.

        The first step would be to elect HONEST brokers for our will, not cheap slaves to the Koch brothers and a broken system.  Who needs folks that won't vote for us instead of the armament manufacturers?

        HEIDI had 6 years to make it right and she still voted the wrong way and didn't have any real reason except her cowardice.  Cowards like her actually HURT rather than help the party IMO.

        •  And another thing about voting to get elected ... (0+ / 0-)

          As a senator she will be and is voting on matters that affect the whole population.  The whole country.  All of us.  The thing about it is in that vote she represents not ONLY her district but all of the American people touched (including those touched by actual bullets) by her decision.

          In the above context, with no weasel words about "rural" or "country" based states, these folks have a duty IMO to ALL of us and we should not give them a perpetual mulligan on voting for our health and welfare instead of their own and that of the corporations that contribute to their campaigns.

          •  the reality of the situation is that (0+ / 0-)

            she was elected by the People of the state of North Dakota...and the reality  is that almost EVERY SINGLE elected member of Congress considers their bosses to be the people of their districts/states.

            Am not sure we've had very many senators in our history who, first and foremost, considered themselves to be representatives of the People of the U.S. and then the people of their state second.

        • then lets throw out everyone (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Keone Michaels

          who disagrees with us on an issue...and we won't have any Democrats left, leaving Republicans.

          You might cast aspersions on my rationale by  calling them "excuses," but to me they are not excuses at all...they are reality-based assessments.

          Am in agreement with you that the form of government in the U.S. today is a joke...a farce would be my choice of words to describe a system that...pretends to be democratic, but which, in fact, has stacked the political deck so much in favor of the oligarchs that it is rare when the actual will the the majority of the People...gets accomplished.

          In my opinion, while Heitcamp is not remotely close to my political viewpoint (in fact, there's who is close to my political viewpoint on most everything...Bernie Sanders...)...she is likely the best we'll ever get out of North Dakota any time soon.

          •  I appreciate the discussion.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Reading about the other Democrats that voted no (Did you know that all four of these Democrats --Baucus, Begich, Pryor, Heitkamp, according to Mother Jones: All of the above senators' states voted for Mitt Romney for president.) So these folk have demonstrated some cojones in states that voted for Mitt Romney?  

            What talking with you about it has made me realize is that I need to really look at the voting record of all of these folk before I criticize them?  Mark Pryor has a pretty dismal record from the progressive Democrat point of view to my judgement from a cursory look for example.

            But as I started to say, thanks for the discussion.  I have learned a lot and once again, like Charlie Brown am fooled again into thinking that we have anything resembling the fair and honest system I perhaps foolishly perceived as a youngster in the 50s and 60s.  The fix seems to be in and despite anything we can do the best most "reality-based" folks like yourself say that's just the way it is as the song goes.

            Mahalo for the comments.  Check out Mark Pryor next week.  I am already in awe of the way he became powerful and the legacy his family has in Arkansas.  A consummate player.  I can't really decide whether or not he deserves condemnation or praise for playing the system to the nth degree.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site