Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Bloomberg Spends $764,232.35 Buying Oregon Background Check Bill [View all]jimmy the one
(2,726 posts)sar: So what is your point ... I wouldn't make lame excuses about them having different opinions than I do on one issue.
You implied I was for two tea party republicans rather than their democrat opponents:
sari wrote: .. so two radical Tea Party Republicans holding senate seats for six years is acceptable because "true Democrats" will always vote for any gun control proposal.
Now present some evidence where I actually said that. Or inferred it. Or hinted at it. Or go soak your head.
How did all this go over your head?: My points were that
1 Those two democrat senators begich & pryor voted with rightwing republicans to help defeat a democrat sponsored bill for background checks. Begich & Pryor voted against the democrat bill and against 95% of American support for the bill,
2 MDA did not withhold support from two true democrats, they withheld support (if so) from two senators with diametrically opposing positions to theirs who voted against the very ideals the MDA group stood for.
3 Do you actually think MDA withholding support (financial or what?) did anything to defeat pryor who lost by ~15 pts? both pryor & begich ran in two heavy republican red states, Arkansas & Alaska.
4 To blame MDA or any of the groups for withholding support is irrelevant & a red herring, & both begich & pryor reaped what they sowed with gun control groups, where it's their prerogative to do with their opinions & money what they want.
I wrote: "YES THEY ARE NOT TRUE DEMOCRATS, but servants of the special interest group which influenced them or paid them, in this case the gun lobby."
they also tried to prevent simple DEBATE: Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), joined the majority of Republican Senators who tried to prevent debate, much less a vote, on the bill.
2013: Pryor had a C- nra grade at time of vote; .. Mark Begich, Alaska (NRA Rating: A) at time of vote begich had A-, or AQ, unclear... http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/17/1463981/meet-the-nra-backed-senate-democrats-who-op
http://www.mediaite.com/online/21-nra-a-rated-senators-part-of-68-31-vote-to-defeat-filibuster-of-background-check-bill/pose-obamas-gun-violence-prevention-plan/
sari: I voted for Amy Klobuchar- Extend the ban on assault weapons. (Jan 2006)
What *you* did is irrelevant to anything, & is countered inter alios here on DU apparently by va mtn man, & others I'm sure.
To think that mda withholding support from begich & pryor was instrumental in their defeat is ludicrous; for, to Alaskans & Arkansans to some extent, Shannon watts MDA giving begich & pryor their support would've been more like a kiss of death. I doubt begich & pryor were too upset that MDA didn't support them. Tho perhaps they missed their dollars, eh?
sari: A single issue group will step in and people who are single issue voters will place that issue over political allegiance and support the group regardless of secondary consequences.
Obama stayed out of several congressional races, refusing to endorse or campaign or even appear in the state, for fear of 'single issue' progun backlash (as well as unpopularity in red states). Many politicians stay away for fear of poisoning the well. MDA did not poison the well for begich & pryor, that they were democrats in two red states was poison enough.
No, in pro gun states, MDA supporting a pro gun democrat candidate would be more like a kiss of death; to withhold support would more likely be viewed as HELPING a democrat candidate in a red state, than hurting him.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):