Collegial Buddies in the Senate Pull a Fast One

    Sometimes we are so busy looking at the forest we don't see the trees.  It is beginning to look like that is what happened last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  After some contentious remarks and posturing during the preceding weeks and a very anti-climactic two days of hearings on the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced that Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) had requested that the vote be delayed by a week and that under the rules of the committee he was obliged to grant the delay.  So rather than going to a vote of the committee on Wednesday, January 21 the vote was postponed to Wednesday, January 28.  What wasn't mentioned was the situation regarding the makeup of the committee.

    With the wrangling over "found" votes and more votes than voters in Minnesota, the contentious appointment of Roland Burris to fill the seat vacated by Barack Obama, questions about the appointment in New York to replace Hillary Clinton, and a few other issues, the Senate leadership was slow about their bi-annual reorganization and committee assignments.  Most of the new assignments were not made official until Wednesday evening, January 21.

    That means that on Wednesday, when the vote was supposed to have taken place, the makeup of the Senate Judiciary Committee was still as it had been in the 110th Congress.  With 10 Democrats and 9 Republicans – but wait – there's more to that story.  Among the 10 Democrats were Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy.  Biden officially resigned from the Senate on January 15.  Kennedy has been hospitalized since his collapse at an inauguration party on January 20.  So on January 21 when the Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on whether to recommend confirmation of Eric Holder there were only 8 Democrats available to vote on the committee and 9 Republicans.  That's 8 "F" rated Democrats versus 9 "A" rated Republicans to decide whether an anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment political lackey should be the guardian of the Constitution and the nation's top cop.

    Rather than press the advantage, the "A" rated majority instead asked for a delay of a week during which one of their members was removed from the committee and three additional "F" rated Democrats were added.

    Now I'm as fair-minded as the next guy and I understand that there are professional courtesies to be observed in a body such as the US Senate – though the Democrats have not extended much in the way of courtesy over the past couple of years – but if the Democrats wanted more time so they could stack the committee, they should have admitted that fact and requested the delay themselves rather than having the Republicans request the delay for them and pretend they were delaying to be tough.

    I might be missing something – the rules and traditions of the Senate are a complex mess about which I am nowhere near an expert – but this looks to me like the good old boys maneuvering in an effort to keep the rubes back home – that's you and me – from realizing that it's all just a big game.

A Rated Judiciary Committee Republicans Betray Gunowners

    Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have some explaining to do to their gun owning constituents back home and we need to make them start making those explanations right now.  Only two of the eight Republicans on the committee voted against confirmation; those two were Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John Cornyn of Texas. 

    Orrin Hatch of Utah, rated "A+" by NRA, stabbed gunowners in the back early on with a statement of support for Holder even before hearings were held.  Ranking Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, also rated "A" by NRA, made a lot of noise about Holder's activities regarding the pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, but in the end voted to recommend confirmation.  Jon Kyle of Arizona, who barely won reelection in 1994 after voting for the Clinton "assault weapons" ban, but who has subsequently been rated "A" by NRA, also voted in support of confirmation as did Chuck Grassley of Iowa, rated "A" by NRA, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, rated "A+" by NRA last November, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is also rated "A" by NRA.

    While the Republicans on the committee were outnumbered by several Democrats, all of them patently anti-rights, and therefore could not expect to win a vote against Holder, they could have and should have stood by their principles and the Constitution to vote against Holder.  Had Republicans held fast and voted against Holder in the committee, there would be a better chance of defeating the appointment through a filibuster on the Senate floor.  With these key Republicans having already voted for confirmation, the chances of a successful filibuster are greatly diminished.

    Reliable sources have reported that NRA informed Senate leadership that votes for or against Holder would not be counted in NRA grading.  That would mean that Hatch and Sessions will retain their "A+" ratings while the rest of the Republicans who voted for Holder will continue to be rated "A" by NRA even if it turns out that Holder uses the office of AG to wage a focused campaign against legal gun ownership – as I expect he will.

    The issue now moves to the full senate which can be expected to vote on Holder's confirmation any day now.  Since NRA is not holding the politicians accountable for their votes in this matter, successfully blocking the confirmation is considered to be a virtual impossibility.  Even in the committee vote, John Cornyn stated his reasons for voting against Holder had to do with Holder's involvement in the Rich pardon and his attitudes toward terror suspects with no mention of Holder's radical positions on guns and the Second Amendment.

    Readers are encouraged to contact Senators and urge them to reject Holder on constitutional grounds.  Had Holder actively worked and advocated against any other constitutional right he would undoubtedly be rejected, but the Second Amendment continues to be neglected and ignored by many elected officials.

    Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) is an exception to that rule as he has written an editorial in the Washington Times stating his opposition to the confirmation of Holder because of Holder's actions against the Second Amendment.  I hope Senator Barrasso will take his opposition a step further and place a "hold" – institute a filibuster – against Holder's confirmation.  Many other senators owe their seats to support from gunowners and now is a great opportunity for them to – as my father used to say – dance with the ones what brung 'em.  Every Senator, whether Democrat or Republican, who sought and received endorsements and/or high ratings from pro-rights organizations, should vote against Holder and vote against any effort to shut down a filibuster.  Any who fail to do so are betraying their campaign promises and violating the trust of GunVoters.  This is the first gun control vote of the 111th Congress and the results will be reported, recorded, and remembered.  If Republicans are hoping to regain lost ground in the elections of 2010 they had better start taking advantage of opportunities to distinguish themselves from their Democrat rivals.

    Continue contacting Senators and urging them to place a hold on the Holder confirmation, support any hold placed on the confirmation, oppose cloture or limiting debate, and demand that President Obama offer a candidate who does not have a record of opposition to an enumerated constitutional right.

Gillibrand Appointment Good News but No Guarantee

    The appointment of upstate Representative Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton is a welcome surprise, but she has already suggested that she might adjust her position in the Second Amendment as a senator representing a more diverse constituency.  Gillibrand was considered a dark-horse candidate for the senate seat and political watchers were caught flat-footed by Governor Paterson's announcement that he was appointing her.  The media immediately locked onto three defining handles with which to paint Gillibrand calling her a "blue dog" Democrat, mentioning that she voted against the massive government bailout bills, and pointing out that she has a favorable rating from the NRA.

    Anti-gun groups began wailing and gnashing teeth declaring that they will support anti-rights leader, Long Island Representative Carolyne McCarthy in the primary when Gillibrand comes up for election.

    While the appointment of Gillibrand is rather refreshing amidst the partisan backdrop of the last few months, the fact that Senator Chuck Schumer is supporting her and that the Brady Bunch has declared a "wait and see" position is not heartening.  Gillibrand stated that she understands that she now represents a much larger and more diverse constituency than previously and pledged to work with McCarthy on legislation restricting guns.

    I fear that the pressure from Schumer and the media will convince Seator Gillibrand to abandon her principles and support restrictive gun laws.  Doing so would be a mistake, morally and politically, but unfortunately probably not a carreer ending mistake given the political realities on New York.  Hopefully some of her upstate constituents can convince her to stick to her guns and ignore the clamour of the anti-rights crowd.  Elections prove over and over again that taking anti-gun positions almost always hurt more than they help in elections and pro-gun positions almost always help more than they hurt.  Democrats have been rediscovering this truth and their pro-rights roots over the past decade or so and I hope that Gillibrand recognizes this before making any big mistakes.