Does the GOP have the votes to filibuster Reid’s gun-control bill?

posted at 2:01 pm on April 9, 2013 by Allahpundit

Here’s a better question. Should the GOP filibuster the gun-control bill? Johnny Isakson says no:

“I’ll speak for myself on that question,” Isakson said on CBS’s “This Morning” when asked about the filibuster. “There’s no ambivalence on the gun issue, I think everyone knows what the issues are. We have not seen the final draft of the legislation that was produced, I understand, last night, but I think it deserves a vote up or down.”…

Isakson also said he could support a bill for universal background checks, depending on the language it contains.

McConnell, who does intend to filibuster, needs to hold 41 of the 45 members of his caucus to make it happen. Isakson is out; McCain said Sunday that he doesn’t understand the point of a filibuster here since Reid will allow amendments to the bill, so presumably he’s out too. Watch below and you’ll see that Rob Portman’s undecided. Presumably, since they have cover from senators from redder states to let the bill go forward, Susan Collins and Mark Kirk (and maybe Pat Toomey and Lisa Murkowski?) will also oppose a filibuster. If they do, and if Portman ends up opposing it too, that leaves a maximum of 40 Republican votes — not enough to stop the bill from proceeding to a final vote unless a few panicky Democrats from red states end up joining them. If you thought people like Mark Pryor and Mark Begich couldn’t sweat this issue any harder than they’re doing right now, think again.

But wait. Do we really want to stop this bill before a final vote? Maybe it’s in the GOP’s interest not to filibuster. Tom Maguire makes the case:

I’m with McCain – I don’t understand this Republican plan to filibuster Reid’s gun control bill (that would be DOA in the House anyway), thereby sparing a bunch of Red State Democratic Senators the dilemma of antagonizing either their Hollywood donors or their home state voters.

I suppose the filibustering group wants to be the NRA heroes that blocked the gun bill. Geez, couldn’t they be the heroes who let the Dems march off a cliff and (Here’s hoping!) gave the Senate back to the Republicans?

If you filibuster, you spare vulnerable Democrats who are up for reelection next year the sweatiest moment of all — an up-or-down final vote on the bill. You might very well get a united GOP caucus opposing that, which means it would take only six Democratic votes to kill the whole thing and utterly humiliate Obama. Worth a gamble? Besides Pryor and Begich, you’ve got a fair shot at getting Baucus, Landrieu, and Kay Hagan. Then you only need one more. Mark Warner? Jeanne Shaheen? Maybe Jay Rockefeller, who’s retiring? The odds are slim that Reid can’t hold 51 together in the name of not turning Obama’s gun-control push into a fiasco, but since, as Maguire says, the bill would almost certainly be DOA in the House, you have little to lose by making him try. In fact, if you’re worried about O using the “obstructionist Republicans” talking point to hurt the GOP next year, you could argue that it’s better to let the bill pass the Senate and then die in the House, since that complicates Obama’s message.

Exit question: Does McConnell even want Republicans to filibuster the bill? He’s voting to filibuster in order to protect his right flank ahead of his own reelection bid last year, but between Isakson, McCain, and Portman, there’s an unusual amount of public chatter from dissenters, which suggests McConnell isn’t straining hard against the idea within the caucus. Maybe he’s happy to let the bill go to a final vote for all the reasons above.

Update: Hard to believe this filibuster is happening.

Then again…


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

O/T Stabbing On Texas College Campus.
We’re gonna ave to ban knives now!

RovesChins on April 9, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Sort of on topic…

Yesterday:

no one ever claimed reducing guns will reduce crime. hth

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Than why ban them?

SWalker on April 8, 2013 at 5:24 PM

reduce deaths.

guns allow one coward to kill too many too easily. guns allow one to detach oneself from the consequence as I just pull a trigger.

if i have to stab you, its much harder both physically and mentally. it’ll deter alot of these nuts as guns make them feel powerful.

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Today:

At Least 14 People Stabbed at College in Northwest Houston

Resist We Much on April 9, 2013 at 2:06 PM

No need to filibuster. Let it come up for a vote. It’ll never pass the House anyway, so if Democrat Senators who are vulnerable in 2014 wanna give their future Republican opponents a bunch of ammo(pun intended), let them.

Doughboy on April 9, 2013 at 2:07 PM

We have not seen the final draft of the legislation that was produced, I understand, last night, but I think it deserves a vote up or down.”…

1,500 pages, for starters.

Isakson also said he could support a bill for universal background checks, depending on the language it contains.

Idiot

May the devil strike the dummy Rs.

They deserve this idiot, in full.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Of course they should let it come to a vote and put the red state Dems in a bind. Would be fun to watch a Dem controlled Senate kill a bill.

Mark1971 on April 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM

The great state of Georgia hereby apologizes for Johnny Isakson.

slickwillie2001 on April 9, 2013 at 2:09 PM

So, a compromise: don’t filibuster, just take turns reading the entire bill aloud to the Senate. Then discuss, then vote.

PersonFromPorlock on April 9, 2013 at 2:09 PM

O/T Stabbing On Texas College Campus.
We’re gonna ave to ban knives now!

RovesChins on April 9, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Rush is trying to schedule an interview with the President of the NKA.

slickwillie2001 on April 9, 2013 at 2:10 PM

This is nothing more than complaints from the old guard (McCain, etc.) trying to oust the new guard (Rand Paul, Cruz, etc.) and the Tea Party.

From what I read Rand Paul has been threatened that if he goes
through with the filibuster the repub party will back someone else when reelection comes along. Actually, I don’t recall the repub party being thrilled with his candidacy in the first place. The old guard is playing hard ball with the new studs of the party.

I say bring it on!!!! I am sick of their backroom antics. The right thing to do is vote “no”. No deals, no compromises, no threats to our second amendment rights. I am tired of these
whiners destroying our country.

Amjean on April 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Just kill the dang bill. Who cares how it happens.

Vince on April 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM

One way or another, the GOP seems to always want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

catmman on April 9, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Vote it up or down – get these fools on the record.

No way it’ll pass the House anyway so this is a freebee. Vote on it bishes!

HondaV65 on April 9, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Any Republican who doesn’t filibuster this gun control bill will be painted as a traitor to the Constitution and to conservative values. And they will be attacked by both the left and the right. If any of these RINOS want to keep their jobs they have no choice but to support the filibuster. It has nothing to do with what’s in the bill. It has everything to do with the election ads their opponents will craft. You can’t be soft in supporting the 2nd Amendment. There’s no middle ground for softness.

Metanis on April 9, 2013 at 2:15 PM

If you filibuster, you spare vulnerable Democrats who are up for reelection next year the sweatiest moment of all — an up-or-down final vote on the bill.

Well, there you go.

Now the GOP braintrust will go all in on filibuster for sure.

(see

catmman on April 9, 2013 at 2:14 PM

)

Bruno Strozek on April 9, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Watch below and you’ll see that Rob Portman’s undecided

Rob’s undecided on a lot things. a LOT of things…

budfox on April 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM

I’m with McCain – I don’t understand this Republican plan to filibuster Reid’s gun control bill (that would be DOA in the House anyway), thereby sparing a bunch of Red State Democratic Senators the dilemma of antagonizing either their Hollywood donors or their home state voters.

I suppose the filibustering group wants to be the NRA heroes that blocked the gun bill. Geez, couldn’t they be the heroes who let the Dems march off a cliff and (Here’s hoping!) gave the Senate back to the Republicans?

This bill is NOT DOA in the House. If we don’t filibuster the bill, I will guarantee this bill will become law. Why? Remember the Louisiana Purchase, the Corn husker Kickback…. Stupid Republicans and sellouts. Plus, the Republican controlled House will become the obstructionist. Smart!

jjnco73 on April 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM

At Least 14 People Stabbed at College in Northwest Houston

Resist We Much on April 9, 2013 at 2:06 PM

It’s a gun-free zone.

PersonFromPorlock on April 9, 2013 at 2:21 PM

“I’ll speak for myself on that question,” Isakson said on CBS’s “This Morning” when asked about the filibuster. “There’s no ambivalence on the gun issue, I think everyone knows what the issues are. We have not seen the final draft of the legislation that was produced, I understand, last night, but I think it deserves a vote up or down.”…

Isakson also said he could support a bill for universal background checks, depending on the language it contains.

I so hope this idiot retires when his time is up. They will never put up anyone against him in the primaries.

Barred on April 9, 2013 at 2:22 PM

jjnco73 on April 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM

I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and say that not even the current crop of GOP congressmen are collectively that stupid.

As I said, I’m out on a limb here…

Bruno Strozek on April 9, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Isakson also said he could support a bill for universal background checks, depending on the language it contains.

i understand the anti-filibuster position…however, the pro-filibuster position is logical also. There are a lot of half-wits in our Senate who would see no problem compiling tons of info on everyone with a gun in the UT database.

so the problem is that if you let is go…1 there will be tremendous pressure on the Ds to vote the Correct Way…Huge financial pressure. Bloomberg and Soros Will target you and bring you down..and that mean you lose your TV time

And there a lot of go-along, get-along, half-wit Rs that want to be viewed as Good Guys by David Gregory

and the same goes for the House…enormous pressure.

r keller on April 9, 2013 at 2:25 PM

I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and say that not even the current crop of GOP congressmen are collectively that stupid.

As I said, I’m out on a limb here…

Bruno Strozek on April 9, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Remember, the Hastard rule will not apply. Remember!

jjnco73 on April 9, 2013 at 2:26 PM

This is political cannon fodder for the democrats. And like Obama, they’re not interested in gun control only votes. If Obama was so determined to make his mark on this issue, Chicago would be cleaned up yesterday. In November 2014 people will look at the democrats fiscal reord and how they voted on 2nd amendment issues and vote them out.

As for this article, only Allah Pundit could make a non~issue into something. Must be fairly desperate for some attention there, AP.

DevilsPrinciple on April 9, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Cornyn has yet to jump on the filibuster train.
Someone should remind him what happened to David Dewhurst.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 9, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Universal background checks my ass! Isakson has got to have cobwebs in his brain! Filibuster the bums!

tomshup on April 9, 2013 at 2:29 PM

If the Republicans were smart they’d propose a bill specifically to help identify and institutionalize people who present a clear threat to the community. They could even try to ensure that a special “flag” get set with the ATF so the person wouldn’t pass existing background checks.

If they were truly smart they would give the bill some catchy name that played on saving the community from people going over the edge. It would have nothing to do with Gun Control directly.

Metanis on April 9, 2013 at 2:31 PM

RE the point about undermining Obama’s obstructionist message, he’d still have ammo for that should the GOP block it in the House, so to filibuster or not shouldn’t hinge on that.

I’m torn on the best route forward. I think it’s important to shine a light on the problems with the bill, as a filibuster would, but at the same time let the Dems be on record with it, especially vulnerable ones.

changer1701 on April 9, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Don’t vote for any Republicans that does not support the filibuster. In fact primary them.

jdun on April 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM

I’m torn on the best route forward. I think it’s important to shine a light on the problems with the bill, as a filibuster would, but at the same time let the Dems be on record with it, especially vulnerable ones.

changer1701 on April 9, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Do not play politics with your rights. Kill the bill where it stands. Vote the Republicans out that do not support the filibusters.

jdun on April 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM

1,500 pages, for starters.

[Schadenfreude on April 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM]

I think that is the immigration bill. If they add Feinstein’s defensive weapon ban, though, the list itself might get the page count to there.

Dusty on April 9, 2013 at 2:37 PM

If the Republicans do NOT filibuster this bill, it will become law. Bank on it. If this bill, as written today, is voted on in the House, it will pass unanimously with democrats and about 18 targeted district Republicans.

jjnco73 on April 9, 2013 at 2:39 PM

guns allow one coward to kill too many too easily. guns allow one to detach oneself from the consequence as I just pull a trigger.

if i have to stab you, its much harder both physically and mentally. it’ll deter alot of these nuts as guns make them feel powerful.

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Today:

At Least 14 People Stabbed at College in Northwest Houston

Resist We Much on April 9, 2013 at 2:06 PM


We have the money quote from this troll from last night’s “bear thread”

generally if I’m fearing for my life of something, I run away from it…not try to agitate it.

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 10:17 PM

.
What’s the old saying?

The truth will out.

PolAgnostic on April 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Exit question: Does McConnell even want Republicans to filibuster the bill? He’s voting to filibuster in order to protect his right flank ahead of his own reelection bid last year, but between Isakson, McCain, and Portman, there’s an unusual amount of public chatter from dissenters, which suggests McConnell isn’t straining hard against the idea within the caucus. Maybe he’s happy to let the bill go to a final vote for all the reasons above.


What absolutely defines a RINO?

There is NO principle for which a RINO will stand up and fight.

PolAgnostic on April 9, 2013 at 2:45 PM

House will pass it…Senate better filibuster…

Of course now we have knife control

Redford on April 9, 2013 at 2:46 PM

If there’s a way for the increasingly tone-deaf, beltway poisoned GOP to royally screw this up and turn victory for 2nd amendment rights and personal liberty into a stinging and entirely avoidable defeat that the Dems/MSM can dine out on for months, bet the ranch that’s how they’ll proceed.

Thats my new default setting on things like this involving issues where Beltway Republicans think/care/act one way and the country thinks/cares 180 degrees opposite.

Why would a GOP squish give a s**t what his home-staters think if acting in their avowed interests gets him/her disinvited to drinkie-poos with the hip crowd at the home of Sally Quinn or the the Greenspan-Mitchells?

Sacramento on April 9, 2013 at 2:46 PM

No need to filibuster. Let it come up for a vote. It’ll never pass the House anyway, so if Democrat Senators who are vulnerable in 2014 wanna give their future Republican opponents a bunch of ammo(pun intended), let them.

Doughboy on April 9, 2013 at 2:07 PM

This.

The Rand Paul filibuster on the confirmation vote was important because it made a point and drew attention to an important issue that would not have been addressed otherwise.

But on this gun control debate, we’re already having that discussion. There’s no fear of this thing actually becoming law — it will be stopped dead in the House. Let them debate and vote on it normally, and let the Democrats — and the moderate Republicans — who want to go on record as supporting gun control right before a midterm election do so.

Shump on April 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM

This.

The Rand Paul filibuster on the confirmation vote was important because it made a point and drew attention to an important issue that would not have been addressed otherwise.

But on this gun control debate, we’re already having that discussion. There’s no fear of this thing actually becoming law — it will be stopped dead in the House. Let them debate and vote on it normally, and let the Democrats — and the moderate Republicans — who want to go on record as supporting gun control right before a midterm election do so.

Shump on April 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM

With all due respect, you are not correct. If this passes the Senate, it will become law.

jjnco73 on April 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM

With all due respect, you are not correct. If this passes the Senate, it will become law.

jjnco73 on April 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM

You seriously see the House passing this?

Shump on April 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM

You seriously see the House passing this?

Shump on April 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Absolutely, I will even give you odds. The Hastard Rule will not apply.

jjnco73 on April 9, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Work to get the bill “right” and there is no need to filibuster; the GOP needs to improve it’s gamesmanship.

Tater Salad on April 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM

The idea with a filibuster is to stop a bad bill before it even gets to a vote.

That is a duty of each and every Congresscritter: to kill bad legislation as soon as humanly possible.

They haven’t been doing that for nearly 100 years and the results are what we have now.

This old idea of playing politics with bad legislation doesn’t seem to be working out so well for the Nation. Why not stand on principle and applaud those actually obeying their oath and their job duties, instead?

ajacksonian on April 9, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Say we don’t filibuster. Bill passes barely. Shortly thereafter {God forbid} some lunatic pulls another mass murder. The pressure on the House would be enormous. Kill it now…

KCB on April 9, 2013 at 3:13 PM

I’m torn on the best route forward. I think it’s important to shine a light on the problems with the bill, as a filibuster would, but at the same time let the Dems be on record with it, especially vulnerable ones.

changer1701 on April 9, 2013 at 2:34 PM

The problem with getting them on record is that the unless Republicans vote for it, 9 vulnerable Dems can easily avoid being put on the record and still have it pass 46-45 with 9 abstentions/no-votes/presents. If any Republicans vote for it, even more Dems can avoid being on record.

But what if the final bill voted on was stripped out of most of the most objectionable provisions and it won a large vote with many Republicans voting for it. Then what?

Then the great strategy was for nothing, and maybe even a disaster. People who game out strategies where their side wins, shouldn’t stop there, because reality still allows for the their strategies being losing ones.

I do agree with you that we ought to filibuster, though. If 60 members are determined to have a vote, then so be it, but to suggest that the Senate “debates” bills is absurd. They buy bills; they trade bills; they sell bill; they pose for bills, hide from bills, and pop out occasionally for sound bites on bills. They even speak on bills wherein they say 1 word for every 100 they request be added to the record from the wad of papers they hold.

Filibusters create debate; that’s why they are avoided. Motions to debate means ‘line up to make speeches’.

Dusty on April 9, 2013 at 3:13 PM

The more salient question is “Does the gop have the stones to filibuster Reids gun-control legislation” Any thinking person with an understanding of history knows the answer. He!! no. That’s why they get no money from me until they grow a spine. Contribute to individual candidates only!

chicken thief on April 9, 2013 at 3:16 PM

reduce deaths.

guns allow one coward to kill too many too easily. guns allow one to detach oneself from the consequence as I just pull a trigger.

if i have to stab you, its much harder both physically and mentally. it’ll deter alot of these nuts as guns make them feel powerful.

nonpartisan on April 8, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Today:

At Least 14 People Stabbed at College in Northwest Houston

Resist We Much on April 9, 2013 at 2:06 PM

You went through all that trouble to exactly prove nonpartisan’s point. Not a single person has died yet, whereas if it was a gun, we could have had more than 14 dead since he wouldn’t have had to be close to each victim, and many injured.

lester on April 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Smart tactic by McConnell. Pretend to support a filibuster now to give Red State Dems some temporary cover. McConnell can then pull the plug on the filibuster at the last minute and the Red State Dems have to sweat it out in a hurry, with no opportunity to prepare their constituencies either way.

matthew8787 on April 9, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Work to get the bill “right” and there is no need to filibuster; the GOP needs to improve it’s gamesmanship.

Tater Salad on April 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM

You are implying that the worthless GOPe is capable of gamesmanship in the first place.

Myron Falwell on April 9, 2013 at 3:23 PM

If you filibuster, you spare vulnerable Democrats who are up for reelection next year the sweatiest moment of all — an up-or-down final vote on the bill.

Force the panicky red state Democrats to support the filibuster and buck their leadership. If the filibuster still fails with their support, they will then be forced again to buck their leadership and vote against the bill. Force them to stand against Obama and the liberal base twice.

Some of these Red State Dems will fail at least one of these tests which would make taking their seats a lot easier. The rest will have to deal with an enraged liberal base.

Am I wrong?

Daemonocracy on April 9, 2013 at 3:30 PM

You went through all that trouble to exactly prove nonpartisan’s point. Not a single person has died yet, whereas if it was a gun, we could have had more than 14 dead since he wouldn’t have had to be close to each victim, and many injured.

lester on April 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM

What are you on about? If a gun was used you wouldn’t give a damn about the body count, just that a gun was used.

Daemonocracy on April 9, 2013 at 3:33 PM

You seriously see the House passing this?

Shump on April 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM

It doesn’t matter if it going to pass the house or not.

You do not play politics with God given rights. I’ll vote all politicians out especially Republicans that do not support the filibuster.

jdun on April 9, 2013 at 3:34 PM

You seriously see the House passing this?

Shump on April 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM

YES.

Heard from Boehner on this issue lately? Or any other House RINO?

Remember, Its for the KIDS!!!

riddick on April 9, 2013 at 3:52 PM

If a gun was used you wouldn’t give a damn about the body count, just that a gun was used.

Daemonocracy on April 9, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Sure he would. The higher the body count, the better. Gives him and his child-groping brethren more corpses to stand on while pontificating to the rabble.

CurtZHP on April 9, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Sure he would. The higher the body count, the better. Gives him and his child-groping brethren more corpses to stand on while pontificating to the rabble.

CurtZHP on April 9, 2013 at 3:55 PM

You’re right, he would start salivating with a higher body count, but even without a death the gun would still be blamed and targeted.

Daemonocracy on April 9, 2013 at 3:58 PM

WRONG QUESTION: “Does the GOP have the votes to filibuster Reid’s gun-control bill?”

CORRECT QUESTION: “Does the GOP have the BALLS to filibuster Reid’s gun-control bill?”

TeaPartyNation on April 9, 2013 at 4:02 PM

The idea with a filibuster is to stop a bad bill before it even gets to a vote.

That is a duty of each and every Congresscritter: to kill bad legislation as soon as humanly possible.

They haven’t been doing that for nearly 100 years and the results are what we have now.

This old idea of playing politics with bad legislation doesn’t seem to be working out so well for the Nation. Why not stand on principle and applaud those actually obeying their oath and their job duties, instead?

ajacksonian on April 9, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Thank you for the common sense. And since over half the repubs seem to be rinos if not down and outright lefties, we should not trust them. I am sure we can find out which dems “secretly” wish for gun control without screwing with our second amendment rights due to the political fancies of the rinos.

I say go for it Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, etc.!!!!

Amjean on April 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM

With all due respect, you are not correct. If this passes the Senate, it will become law.

It will not even pass in the Senate, much less the House. And Reid knows that.

All this bill represents is political posturing, whereby Reid and Obama throw a figurative bone to their Lefty Daily Kos/OAF base.

rvastar on April 9, 2013 at 4:09 PM

I say bring it on!!!! I am sick of their backroom antics. The right thing to do is vote “no”. No deals, no compromises, no threats to our second amendment rights. I am tired of these
whiners destroying our country.

Amjean on April 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM

I’m tired of “gangs” in the Senate who hammer out backroom deals with ZERO public input and then ram them through as fast as possible.

“Greatest deliberative body” my ass.

Wendya on April 9, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Why not stand on principle and applaud those actually obeying their oath and their job duties, instead?

Because when your enemy is making a mistake, the best thing you can do is get out of his way.

What – precisely – is the point of filibustering something that you know isn’t going to pass anyway? As for standing on principle, that is accomplished by voting either “Yea” or “Nay”.

The GOP has the rare opportunity to sit back and watch the Dems make a completely unforced error…and that is exactly what they should do…which, unfortunately, means that it’s probably what they won’t do.

rvastar on April 9, 2013 at 4:17 PM

What – precisely – is the point of filibustering something that you know isn’t going to pass anyway? As for standing on principle, that is accomplished by voting either “Yea” or “Nay”.

The GOP has the rare opportunity to sit back and watch the Dems make a completely unforced error…and that is exactly what they should do…which, unfortunately, means that it’s probably what they won’t do.

rvastar on April 9, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Yeah. We were sure Ocare wasn’t going to pass either.

And we were sure votes for Ocare would hurt Ds like McCaskill.

How’d all that work out? That was another unforced error.

If the Rs in the Senate have a chance to kill it, they should.

PetecminMd on April 9, 2013 at 4:41 PM

…utterly humiliate Obama.

This would be a bunch of fun.

JackM on April 9, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Who the heck trusts the house gop? The same group who raised taxes and the debt ceiling…that bunch of misfit toys? No, thanks.

Panther on April 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM

There’s no fear of this thing actually becoming law — it will be stopped dead in the House.

Shump on April 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Seems to me I’ve heard this song before.

squint on April 9, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Drop-kick all “gun-control” supporters from the government…traitors and knaves all.

trl on April 9, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Red State Democratic Senators the dilemma of antagonizing either their Hollywood donors or their home state voters.

Err..I understand the argument buy why is this a bad thing???

BigWyo on April 9, 2013 at 5:57 PM

BigWyo on April 9, 2013 at 5:57 PM

I guess I should learn to read.

They have to be allowed to vote so both sides of their pathetic, brain dead constituency know where they ‘stand’.

face palm…

BigWyo on April 9, 2013 at 6:00 PM

The idea with a filibuster is to stop a bad bill before it even gets to a vote.

That is a duty of each and every Congresscritter: to kill bad legislation as soon as humanly possible.

They haven’t been doing that for nearly 100 years and the results are what we have now.

This old idea of playing politics with bad legislation doesn’t seem to be working out so well for the Nation. Why not stand on principle and applaud those actually obeying their oath and their job duties, instead?

ajacksonian on April 9, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Exactly. The foolish notion that any piece-of-crap bill ‘deserves a vote’ needs to die.

slickwillie2001 on April 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Any means to prevent a violation of the constitution is appropriate.

Would we ” allow a vote ” on a bill that limits free speech? NO.

We shouldn’t “allow a vote ” on gun bans, either.

TX-96 on April 9, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Why not stand on principle and applaud those actually obeying their oath and their job duties, instead?

What – precisely – is the point of filibustering something that you know isn’t going to pass anyway? As for standing on principle, that is accomplished by voting either “Yea” or “Nay”.

rvastar on April 9, 2013 at 4:17 PM

The Rand Paul etal previous filibuster was filled with facts and Constitutional principles. The partipants were not reading telephone books to kill time.

It’s important to get those facts out again via a filibuster to apprise the low-information public of why this bill in all of its manifestations is contrary to our fundamental rights. The filibuster is a debate format that counters the emotional pap that has dominated the media’s and the administration’s propaganda.

onlineanalyst on April 9, 2013 at 7:49 PM

This is why we need a filibuster:
http://nation.foxnews.com/joe-biden/2013/04/09/biden-black-helicopter-crowd-really-upset

Get this Biden clown off the stage already, man!

Meanwhile Sen.Coburn (who should know better already, given how Reid plays the Senate game, says that there won’t be a filibuster if/because Reid promises to allow multiple amendments. Sure, Coburn, the camel plan to build a horse, a Trojan horse at that.

onlineanalyst on April 9, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Mark Levin says that an up or down vote on the second amendment
is unconstitutional.

This rogue, thug regime is taking away our rights, money and property as fast as they can.

Its time to call your senators and demand that they protect the
second amendment.

I am starting to think that only a march on Washington with millions of people will make a difference.

Amjean on April 9, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Listening to Mark Levin on the 6-9PM EDT slot. He said Ted Cruz is coming up. http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930

bluefox on April 9, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Its time to call your senators and demand that they protect the
second amendment.

I am starting to think that only a march on Washington with millions of people will make a difference.

Amjean on April 9, 2013 at 8:18 PM

I plan on calling several tomorrow, especially these RINOS.

At this point with the RINOS (Dems in disguise) and the “Leaders” in the House & Senate, not sure what we can do.

Kill this bill on gun control.

Mark Levin is correct, you can’t vote on any Constitutional Right.
Why hasn’t any R made this point?

bluefox on April 9, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Another RINO that needs to be defeated!

flytier on April 9, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Ted Cruz just made a good point. The responsibility of the Congress is to protect the Bill of Rights; that is their duty.

bluefox on April 9, 2013 at 8:47 PM

It’s time to call your senators and demand that they protect the second amendment.

I am starting to think that only a march on Washington with millions of people will make a difference.

Amjean on April 9, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Such a march would not be reported.

slickwillie2001 on April 9, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Social Security numbers were promised they would not be used for identification. They now expect us to believe Universal Background Checks will not be stored and function as Universal Gun Registration.

“Universal Background Checks = Universal Registration = Universal Confiscation = Universal Extermination.” -Ann Coulter

scotash on April 10, 2013 at 5:58 AM

Only a fool would think that a vote in the House is a guarantee.

Carnac on April 10, 2013 at 12:28 PM