So after we've been reading all these stories about record sales of firearms and ammo, and how gun owners are stocking up because they think Barack Obama is going to take away their weapons, the NYT tells us:
WASHINGTON — Advocates of gun rights are poised to win a Congressional victory that eluded them under a Republican president.
To the frustration and discouragement of many Democrats, House and Senate lawmakers and aides say it now appears likely that President Obama will this week sign into law a provision allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to carry loaded and concealed weapons.
- From the comments:
- sgwhiteinfla Says:
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 8:12 amWhat it comes down to is this.
.Gun control and conservation groups have urged the administration to insist on a credit card bill without the gun proposal. They have also joined top House Democrats in lamenting the inability of Senate Democrats to prevent Republicans from adding such politically charged proposals to unrelated legislation. A gun measure has also tied up a bill granting the District of Columbia full voting representation in the House, and Republicans are readying other gun rights initiatives for future consideration.
.
“I wish there could be more courage and leadership from our friends on the Hill,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, saying he believed that lawmakers were overestimating the gun lobby's political might..
Yep, you guessed it. Harry Reid has struck again.
Hilzoy mentioned this overnight, but the more I think about it, the more I bang my head against my desk.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), responding to questions about the Senate's reluctance to fund the shutdown of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, told reporters yesterday, "We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.... We don't want them around the United States." It led to this painful exchange.
REID: I'm saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That's very clear.
QUESTION: No one's talking about releasing them. We're talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.
REID: Can't put them in prison unless you release them.
QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? ...
REID: I can't make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.
"Can't put them in prison unless you release them"? What does that even mean? Isn't locking someone up the opposite of releasing them?
At this point, the only difference between Reid's ridiculous remarks and those of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is that Reid is smart enough to know and acknowledge reality. Otherwise, the arguments are identical. In this sense, the Majority Leader's nonsense is considerably worse, and far more insulting.
To be sure, there was a reasonable argument for Senate skeptics to make here. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the administration should have requested the money with a more specific plan for transferring Gitmo detainees. "The feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn't been announced," Durbin said. "And the administration said, 'Understood. Give us time to put together that plan and we'll come to you in the next appropriations bill.'" Indeed, Robert Gibbs said yesterday that the lawmakers' move was not unreasonable.
But what Reid said -- repeating transparently wrong right-wing talking points -- was far different. That he repeated this nonsense the same day as a poll showed him struggling with voters in his home state is probably not a coincidence.
This isn't complicated. Reid is the leader of a Senate in which the minority party only has 40 votes. And yet, Reid isn't leading very well.
President Obama has asked Reid and his colleagues to shoulder a heavy burden, and work with the White House on some pretty monumental tasks. Is Reid isn't ready to step up or not?
- Drum on Bitch Slapping the Dems
I never expected Barack Obama to be anything other than pragmatic and center left. Still, I confess to feeling a little in the dumps lately over just how much he seems willing to bend and compromise on some key issues. But then I read things like this:
In an abrupt shift, Senate Democratic leaders said on Tuesday that they would not provide the $80 million that President Obama requested to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
....The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, seemed to ramp up the concerns of Congressional Democrats, insisting during a news conference that lawmakers would never allow the terror suspects to be released into the United States....Pressed to explain if that meant they could not be transferred to American prisons, Mr. Reid said: "We don't want is them to be put in prisons in the United States. We don't want them around the United States."
To repeat: I read things like this. And I realize all over again just what Obama is up against. His own party won't support him against even the most transparent and insipid demagoguery coming from the conservative noise machine. The GOP's brain trust isn't offering even a hint of a substantive case that the U.S. Army can't safely keep a few dozen detainees behind bars in a military prison, but Dems are caving anyway. Because they're scared. And then they wonder why voters continue to think that a party that can be bitch slapped so easily might be viewed as weak on national security.
But that's the reality that Obama has to deal with. Under the circumstances, I guess he's not doing so badly after all.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
- Steve Benen adds:
Fehrenbach will no longer able to serve, because the Air Force is kicking him out of the military because he's gay. This genuine American war hero, who's put his life on the line over and over again, and who the U.S. government has invested $25 million in training, is two years from retirement. Instead of thanking him for his extraordinary service, the country he's served with honor and distinction is firing him for his sexual orientation.
Just once, I wanted to hear someone explain why the United States is stronger, safer, and more secure with Lt. Col. Fehrenbach out of the military.
The news comes the same day as word from the Pentagon that officials have barely begun to review the policy.
This is not only unacceptable, it's inexplicable. In the midst of two wars, these decisions are nothing short of madness.
The White House continues to say the president supports repealing DADT, but is looking for Congress to change the law. Fine. In the meantime, as the LA Times reports today, the president has short-term alternatives: "Under the 'stop-loss' provision, Obama can issue executive orders to retain any soldier deemed necessary to the service in a time of national emergency, the report said. The president also could halt the work of Pentagon review panels that brand troops as gay and thus excluded from service, the report said. And Obama and his Defense secretary could revise discharge procedures, as allowed under the 1993 law banning gays in the military."
I realize the administration would catch some flak for this. Obama should do it anyway.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Yglesias: Democrats Drawing Even on Security, Obama Favored Over Bush
It seems likely that part of the right-wing’s thinking in pushing a lot of talk about Nancy Pelosi is that conservatives think that any time the country is talking about national security, the Republicans are winning. But a new GQRR survey shows that the parties have drawn even on the Democrats’ historic weak point:
It also seems that voters feel Barack Obama’s national security policies are change they can believe in:
Of course it’s still possible that relative to other issues this is good terrain for Republicans.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 8:19 am
If anyone is wondering, the gun amendment pass the Senate 67-29, which is pretty huge.:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/34853-1.html
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 8:27 am
You can see who voted how by going here. Looks more regional than partisan to me:
.
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=188&chamber=S&congress=1111