Yesterday, I wrote about how president Obama did not use the power of his office to push through the background check legislation since he did not get all the Democrats to support it. That set off a number of folks who emailed me to point out that even if all the Democrats had voted yes, the bill would still have failed by one. Let's explore this for a moment.
Here is the main point: in the senate, those who are voting on a measure like this normally know how the vote will turn out before they say aye or nay. For the wavering Republicans who might have supported the measure, the knowledge that five Democrats were going to vote against the bill was sufficient to remove any pressure for them to do so as well. Clearly, with that many Democrats defecting, the bill was going down to defeat. For the average Republican it is much easier to vote against this bill than to vote for it. That means that wavering Republicans would never vote for the bill if they knew that the bill would not pass. Why suffer the consequences for supporting the bill if the bill would not pass? What this all means is that had Obama bothered to use his position effectively in Washington rather than campaigning in Connecticut, he could have gather up the five Democrats who voted against the bill. That would likely have brought at least one more Republican vote since the bill would have passed. Indeed, it could have brought five or six more Republican votes.
The truth is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for the loss of the bill. His rant yesterday was misdirected. He should have acknowledge that the blame for the loss is his.
One final note: the background checks are totally unimportant except in a symbolic sense. Had the law been on the books, Adam Lanza would still have gotten the weapons he used in Newtown. The American people know this. Truthfully, we are tired of watching Kabuki Liberal Theater in Washington. Maybe the senate can start dealing with reality. Okay, maybe that hope is the proverbial "bridge too far".
Here is the main point: in the senate, those who are voting on a measure like this normally know how the vote will turn out before they say aye or nay. For the wavering Republicans who might have supported the measure, the knowledge that five Democrats were going to vote against the bill was sufficient to remove any pressure for them to do so as well. Clearly, with that many Democrats defecting, the bill was going down to defeat. For the average Republican it is much easier to vote against this bill than to vote for it. That means that wavering Republicans would never vote for the bill if they knew that the bill would not pass. Why suffer the consequences for supporting the bill if the bill would not pass? What this all means is that had Obama bothered to use his position effectively in Washington rather than campaigning in Connecticut, he could have gather up the five Democrats who voted against the bill. That would likely have brought at least one more Republican vote since the bill would have passed. Indeed, it could have brought five or six more Republican votes.
The truth is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for the loss of the bill. His rant yesterday was misdirected. He should have acknowledge that the blame for the loss is his.
One final note: the background checks are totally unimportant except in a symbolic sense. Had the law been on the books, Adam Lanza would still have gotten the weapons he used in Newtown. The American people know this. Truthfully, we are tired of watching Kabuki Liberal Theater in Washington. Maybe the senate can start dealing with reality. Okay, maybe that hope is the proverbial "bridge too far".
No comments:
Post a Comment