President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 24, 2009 10:05 PM UTC

Cheesy Gossip on Senate Gun Vote Has Instructive Moral

  • 8 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

You can read all about the latest back-and-forth between the staffs of Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet and Colorado GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams today in just about every newspaper in the state. The Denver Post, for example, has two news stories, a blog post, and an editorial up for good measure–obviously, it’s considered a meaty affair.

The Grand Junction Sentinel summarizes:

A columnist for The Washington Post missed the target in suggesting that votes Wednesday by Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, both Democrats, in favor of a gun measure were cast only after they were approved by a New York senator, the Colorado senators’ offices said Thursday.

The head of the Colorado Republican Party, however, thought the report was dead on.

Columnist Dana Milbank’s conclusion was off by a country mile, Bennet spokeswoman Deirdre Murphy said.

“Michael does not ask permission on any of his votes,” Murphy said in a statement. “Michael gave this vote a lot of thought, considered its effect on Colorado, and came to his own decision.”

Milbank’s scattershot take that suggested Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey also sought dispensation on the vote missed the bull’s-eye, Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo said.

“Sen. Udall had staff researching the reach of the Colorado law as late as Tuesday night, and after we learned that Colorado’s reciprocity law had such a low threshold, he did not think the states’-rights argument against the Thune Amendment would hold up,” Trujillo said…

In The Washington Post, Milbank wrote of what he saw before the vote: “Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey and Colorado’s Mark Udall and Michael Bennet were said to have been willing to vote ‘no’ if necessary. Twenty minutes after the voting began, Bennet and Udall left the cloakroom together and walked into the chamber. Bennet went to the well to consult with (New York Sen. Charles) Schumer, who indicated that it was safe for Bennet – a product of D.C.’s St. Albans School – to vote with the NRA. Bennet looked to Udall, who gave an approving nod, and cast an ‘aye’ vote.”

We thought it would be interesting to refer back to the original C-SPAN footage of the vote in question–we found it, if you click here and scroll down to “vote 237” indicated on the left, it will pull up the 25 minutes of video for this vote.

We’re sorry we can’t embed the exact video clip (C-SPAN’s system seems to not work very well), but here’s what to watch for: at about 19:10, Udall and Bennet can be seen walking down the stairs. At 19:20, still well up on the stairs, Udall signals a ‘thumbs-up’ to the clerk and his “yes” vote is recorded, with no coaching from anybody we could see. Bennet proceeds to the bottom of the stairs–does indeed speak briefly with Sen. Chuck Schumer–and his “yes” vote is recorded a few seconds later.

The thing is, Udall wasn’t anywhere near Bennet when Bennet voted–we don’t know where the Post’s Dana Milbank got this, we’ve heard he may have even been watching on C-SPAN like everybody else. We see Udall stopping while Bennet continued down to the well, and chatting it up on the stairs with what looks like Sen. John Tester of Montana. We’ve watched the key moment a few times now and can’t really see how Udall had any interaction with Bennet at all other than coming down the stairs with him. All we’ve got to counter that is Milbank’s gossip that Bennet and Udall “were said to have been willing to vote ‘no’ if necessary.”

Like we said in the title, there’s a moral to this story–to whatever extent Senators might discuss votes being cast, and that leadership tries to manage that process, that’s total ‘dog bites man.’ There’s no news there. All the sinister play-by-play from Milbank is actually quite mundane daily Senate life until arranged for maximum vitriol in a Wadhams press statement.

But there is an underlying problem here we think is worth pointing out–Udall and Bennet didn’t have to play this stupid game at all. It was a bad amendment, even people who value gun rights (like us) thought so, and they should have voted “no.” Bennet can maybe draw more of a triangulation pass since he’s up for election in 2010, but once again we’re left wondering why Udall seems to think he’s still running for office–why is he sweating these cheap Wayne LaPierre ‘gotchas?’

They could have stuck with the advice of experts who thought this was a bad idea on the merits, who said there is enough variation in the standards for concealed weapons permits by state that honoring them across state lines would invite serious risks. Instead, they tried to preempt the attacks this amendment was designed to facilitate, knowing (and yes, maybe even Bennet checking to be sure) it would fail.

Since their votes left Wadhams unable to send out his original “they’re gonna take yer guns” press release, he came up with something else–and that, dear reader, is the moral of the story.

Comments

8 thoughts on “Cheesy Gossip on Senate Gun Vote Has Instructive Moral

  1. Agreed on all points in this post, but this caught my eye:

    even people who value gun rights (like us)

    Really?  Every one of you who posts under the Pols login?  I’ve been on this blog for at least two years now and that would not have been my impression…..

      1. I’m talking about the wizards of Oz who post as Colorado Pols, not all the rest of us schlumpy commenters.  I know all of us love guns, love god and hate gays.  

        1. Is pretty easy to find. Start by using the search function (to the right), keyword “guns.”

          Udall: Sotomayor Won’t Take Your Guns

          http://coloradopols.com/showDi

          “They’re Gonna Take Your Guns”

          http://coloradopols.com/showDi

          Markey: Don’t Reinstate Weapons Ban

          http://coloradopols.com/showDi

          In this post, we said:

          …the fact is, trying to paint Western Democrats as “anti-gun” caricatures is never really going to work, since that’s just not how they roll. We know a lot of Democrats who can shoot straighter than anybody at Jon Caldara’s “Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” skeet events, especially after the alcohol starts flowing (duck if you want to live).

          You’ll also find posts like “Ritter Vetoes Brophy’s Stupid Gun Bill,”, where the line we draw between reasonable defense of the 2nd Amendment and lame NRA pet tricks can be easily recognized.

          Hope this helps.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

163 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!