The measure, which Toomey, R-Penn., introduced with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was five votes short of the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster of the bill.

Though a few Democrats also voted against the bill, Toomey blamed the measure's failure on the politicization of the Republican Party. “In the end it didn’t pass because we’re so politicized," he said. "There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it."

Continue Reading...

The bilingual first-generation former Navy SEAL is a Harvard Business School graduate with a successful business career, some moderate political stances, and a penchant for running marathons. He crossed the finish line at the Boston Marathon just a few minutes before the bombs went off last month. While stationed in South America in the early 1990s he met his furutre-wife, who was working in the Peace Corps at a school for students with special needs. “I’m exactly what the American dream is all about,” Gomez said in an April GOP debate against two other Republican challengers.

Continue Reading...

The New York Times charitably says that "Friday’s speech was not the first time Mr. Cruz may have acted counter to some of the Senate’s norms," before bringing up Cruz's decidedly McCarthyite take on Chuck Hagel.

Cruz is at the FreedomWorks Texas Summit, and the news here is that he calls most of his colleagues "squishes" and gives a (quite self-aggrandizing) account of off-the-record Senate Republican caucus luncheons, which apparently involved a lot of people yelling at Cruz and Rand Paul and the other guy who also promised to filibuster the entire gun deal from start to finish. In this version of events, the three filibustering amigos were responsible for the failure of the entire proposal. As Dave Weigel points out, that's not really how it happened. The bill failed -- and was probably doomed to begin with -- because a lot more than three senators opposed it, and the Cruz/Paul filibuster threat was worse politics for the party than allowing debate to proceed and then watching red-state Democrats cave. Which is what actually happened.

Continue Reading...

When Gillibrand -- a hot topic in political circles this week, as a potential liberal presidential candidate and a champion for addressing sexual assault in the military -- was appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat in 2009, Nate Silver wrote, "This is not a terrific outcome for progressive Democrats," because "Gillibrand, statistically speaking, has been one of the more conservative Democrats in the House. Moreover, she is a somewhat proud conservative, being a member of the Blue Dog caucus. In a state like New York, which is capable of electing and re-electing a very liberal senator, that’s a somewhat underachieving result for the Democrats."

Continue Reading...

From Gallup:

Prior to the Senate's failure to pass the measure, numerous polls showed that roughly nine in 10 Americans favor expanded gun background checks in concept -- a fact that a number of journalists, columnists, and politicians made note of. Gallup's Jan. 19-20 survey, for example, showed that 91% of Americans said they personally would vote for a measure requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales. Gallup asked this question again in the April 22-25 survey and found a slight decline, to 83% support. The wording of the new question was slightly modified from the January asking, which may be responsible for some of the change. But it also may be that the Senate's failure to pass the measure deflated Americans' support for it.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

First and foremost, if my old boss and friend, the wildly popular former Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D), mounts a Democratic candidacy it means the seat would likely remain in the party's hands. Additionally, and more important for the long-term topography of American politics, Baucus is not just a single Democrat holding a Senate seat in a Republican-leaning state. He is one of the politicians most responsible for the Democratic Party's destructive long-term shift to the right on economic issues. That means his retirement isn't just a 2014 story or a Montana story; it is significant to the whole country.

Continue Reading...

From the Op-Ed:

I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending.

"Speaking is physically difficult for me," Giffords continued. "But my feelings are clear: I’m furious. I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe."

Read the full Op-Ed here.

Continue Reading...

Those Democrats were Heidi Heitkamp (N.D. -- a state that should not be a separate state from South Dakota), Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (big icy pool of oil by Canada) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). Baucus, Begich and Pryor are up for reelectiion next year. Heitkamp's excuse is that the entire population of her state is old white gun nuts. Liberals may call for those senators to be punished. Democrats will respond, correctly, that if those senators lose primaries to more liberal candidates, Republicans will win those seats.  The correct response, as always, is to eliminate the U.S. Senate.

Continue Reading...

The proposal, authored by Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, was the best shot at passing any kind of expansion on background checks, even though it was far weaker than what Democrats and gun safety advocates had hoped for. But opponents of the bill deliberately misrepresented the bill by claiming it could lead to a national gun registry, which many gun advocates fear could lead to confiscation or even tyranny, even though the Manchin-Toomey proposal actually made it a felony for officials to create a registry.

Continue Reading...

"We will not get the votes today," Manchin, D-W. Va., told NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell, though added that they would try again.

From NBC News:

Potential supporters, Republican Sens. Jeff Flake, of Arizona, and Florida’s Marco Rubio, could not risk a stand on background checks in the face of opposition from their conservative base because they are already leading on immigration, Manchin said.

Sources also told NBC News that the effort’s proponents are 4 to 5 votes short, a gulf that could widen if Democrats in conservative states decide not to support the measure.

The Senate is set to hold nine total votes on gun control measures on Wednesday, including Manchin and Toomey's proposal, an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines, all of which are expected to fail.

Continue Reading...

From the Washington Post:

In an effort to win the support of some undecided rural-state senators, Manchin and Toomey were discussing the possibility Monday of adding language that would exempt select far-flung communities in Alaska and North Dakota from some background check requirements, according to Senate aides familiar with the talks. Such exceptions could help win the support of Alaska’s senators Mark Begich (D) and Lisa Murkowski (R) and North Dakota Democrat Heidi Heitkamp, a moderate with an A-rating from the NRA.

The New York Times reports that the measure is seeing reluctance from both Democrats and Republicans, despite the fact that it is primarily being pushed by Manchin, a Democrat, and Toomey, a Republican, both of whom are A-rated by the NRA.

Continue Reading...

The New York Times reports:

Senator Mark Begich, Democrat of Alaska, says he will vote against the measure, and at least three other Democrats are expected to join him in trying to defeat it, including Heidi Heitkamp, a freshman senator from North Dakota. Some left-leaning Democrats may also balk because of the gun-rights provisions that have been added to the bill to entice Republicans.

Among the 16 Republicans who joined 50 Democrats and two independents in voting last week to proceed to consideration of gun legislation, roughly seven have already decided not to support the measure. Another half-dozen Republicans who voted to proceed on the bill remain ambivalent.

Continue Reading...

McConnell's very good week might not end up meaning very much, though, if the United States Senate manages, somehow, to pass major legislation on gun control and immigration any time soon. Because whenever the United States Senate manages to accomplish anything, conservatives get very irate with Mitch McConnell for allowing it to happen.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

Rubio sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy in which he demanded more hearings. So, so many hearings. (Rubio's letter contained the word "hearings" six times.) And open amendments, which is basically asking permission for anti-reform senators to attempt to make a series of potentially toxic votes if they want their precious reform.

Continue Reading...

A few weeks ago, Obama had dinner with 12 Republican senators and the group "talked about the debt, deficits and taxes." That dinner having apparently done nothing to change the fact that on matters related to debt, deficits and taxes Republicans and Democrats don't merely have different preferred solutions but in fact wildly different interpretations of what the problems are, they will try again. Or maybe it will be a different group of 12 Republican senators this time, who knows.

I imagine Obama will once again push for a Deficit Deal, involving "a mixture of revenue and spending cuts," no matter how little we need such a thing at the moment, and he will also probably bring up immigration and gun control, though Republicans don't need much more nudging on immigration and gun control will never interest them.

Continue Reading...

Eighty-eight percent say they support background checks, while 10 percent oppose them -- and 85 percent of gun owners say they support them as well.

The poll comes as Sen. Harry Reid put in motion a Senate debate on a gun control bill, which includes background checks and school safety measures. Roll Call reports:

Continue Reading...

The Senate Judiciary Committee was to debate a bill Tuesday that would broaden the requirement for federal background checks to nearly all firearms purchasers. It was also considering a ban on assault weapons and an increase in federal aid for school security, though senators may not consider the assault weapons measure until later in the week.

Requiring background checks for private gun transactions between individuals — they're currently mandatory only for sales by licensed dealers — is a centerpiece of Obama's proposal to reduce firearms violence. The system is designed to prevent criminals, people with severe mental problems and others from getting guns.

Tuesday's meeting comes five days after the panel approved Congress' first gun control measure since December's carnage at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that left 26 students and educators dead. That bill, by the Judiciary Committee's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and others, establishes long prison terms for illegal gun traffickers and straw purchasers, people who buy a firearm for criminals or others forbidden to buy one.

Continue Reading...

When it comes to proposals for granting legal status to most of the more than 10 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., the devil is in the details — and the details of this reported deal are particularly satanic:

Still undecided is how long illegal immigrants would need to wait before they could apply for permanent resident status and eventually become citizens. The delay for a green card probably would be 10 years or longer, the aides said.

Let’s do the math. A green card permits a foreign national to live and work in the U.S., while applying for U.S. citizenship. Once a foreign worker gets a green card, it takes a minimum of five years to become a U.S. citizen.

So if the report is accurate, then the real proposal is that it will take at least 15 years before today’s illegal immigrants can become citizens — 10 years in legalized limbo status, waiting to get a green card, and then five more years as a green card holder, before being eligible to become a citizen. And that’s a minimum.

Continue Reading...