“We’ve tried to negotiate,” Schumer said, adding that talks with Coburn are “not getting that far. We might have to bring it to a vote.”
Taking a recorded vote on the gun database bill could complicate its initially strong prospects.
What, you mean people woud actually have to stand behind something they profess to believe in and would impose on the rest of us?
I know there is a lot of noisy controversy over what this bill supposedly will or won't do, but for crying out loud: only in the convoluted and perverse world of politics could taking a vote be construed as a "complication."
Since when has government doing things in the dark ever been a good thing?
[Via WmH]
3 comments:
While Schumer and the other openly anti-rights Senators may not mind voting on this atrocity, the "Blue Dog Democrats" don't want to have their name associated with it.
If they vote in favor of it, the pro-gunnies who voted for them will turn on them.
If they vote against it, the anti-gun crowd will howl.
It's a lose-lose either way.
Gee. Checks and balances. Bummer.
There have been a lot of howls and complaints about this bill.
It struck me this morning that the NRA may have done even better than they intended.
Faced with a bill that would pass (especially with VT fresh in the public eye) they did their best to lipstick the pig into presentability.
They didn't get the bill we would want, probably didn't even get the best bill they could have gotten.
But they did make the bill good enough for 'our' side that it stirred up the anti-gun side to protest against it.
And, of course, our side's against it because despite the lipstick it's still a pig.
More and more it looks like we might get the best possible outcome - i.e., no bill.
Post a Comment