Bob Englehart, The Hartford Courant

Was it all just for show? Was there any thought given to supporting background checks? Were the Senators who met with the families of Sandy Hook posturing for the cameras by claiming to be on the fence? Were they taking advantage of those who had lost kin at their height of emotional fragility? Or, did they cave to the NRA?

A number of Senators ultimately opposed the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation, a carefully worked out compromise by two members of the chamber who are among the last who would have been expected to have supported gun control of any kind. But they saw a tragedy and wanted to stop it (Manchin was particularly impassioned, with tears stringing down his cheek at one point).

They had hoped, and thought enough of their colleagues would follow. But they fell 6 votes short of the 60 that was needed, thus showing with more certainty that at any time in the last two decades that the broader issue of gun control is dead. After all, if background checks which has 90% support from the American public can’t pass, what can?

Johnny Isackson is emblematic of that question. At the time of the Manchin-Toomey introduction, he had said, “We have not seen the final draft of the legislation that was produced…but I think it deserves a vote up or down.” Of the Newtown families that he’d soon be meeting, Isackson said, They deserve a right to be able to sit down and talk with me and I gave them that right and will be happy to meet with them. “Isackson did keep his word last week by voting to proceed to the initial debate, only to be among the first to indicate after the fact that he would oppose the bill — and the second cloture vote.

What happened to “deserving a vote up or down?” The NRA, that’s what.

Now I’m sure the families appreciated the chance to meet with every Senator that was willing. After all, Isackson at least didn’t take the tact of his senior colleague from Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe, and say the gun debate wasn’t about them.” But actions were more important than meetings or words and on that, Isackson failed.

Enter Gabby Giffords. When she said she was “furious,” with the vote, one person who may have stood out was Jeff Flake. She and Flake are friends and I use the term “are” because after she was shot, he made the drive from Phoenix to Tucson in order to visit her. Mark Kelly appeared to re-enforce that when he tweeted, “I’m confused, friend. You had that chance yesterday. Want to rethink and join me and Gabby in making Arizona safer?”

Earlier, Kelly had said “it appears to me that maybe he actually hasn’t read the bill” before saying he’d campaign against Flake if he did ultimately vote no. “You know, friendship is one thing,” Kelly said. “Saving people’s lives, especially first graders, is another thing.”

Indeed, in a New York Times op/ed, Giffords herself wrote “speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious,” Giffords vowed to “use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s,” adding, “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 our children safe.”

When Giffords served in Congress, she was acknowledged to have been among the most positive, cheerful people there. So her language yesterday was stunning (“I’m furious,” and “shame on you”), and appropriately so.

Lindsey Graham never appeared to be on the fence, called the legislation “feel good.” His best-buddy and usual philosophical cohort John McCain obviously couldn’t persuade him to support it. Or is it that Graham, who has seen his popularity drop 14% among South Carolina Republicans and is facing a primary next year, didn’t want to give the party one more reason to oppose him in the wake of lending his name to immigration reform and President Obama’s Judicial nominees? But his reference to the legislation as “feel good.” C’mon.

Incidentally, just before the vote, Graham was honored by the The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for firearms was presenting him with the 2012 Legislator of the Year Award.

Graham said the legislation wouldn’t have prevented Newtown and sadly, he’s right. But to say it wouldn’t prevent any past or future tragedies. I sincerely doubt he believes that.

But it’s not just Republicans who deserve scorn. Four Democrats, three of whom had appeared genuinely appeared torn, ultimately sided with the NRA (Mark Pryor never seemed to be seriously considering backing the measure).

Of Max Baucus, a previous opponent once said he has “three positions for every two-sided issue.” Asked why he voted “no,” Baucus had a one word answer: “Montana.” Another way of putting it: Montana politics and re-election.

Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski, two Alaska Senators (one a Democrat, another a Republican). Alaska is moving slightly left. And this is background checks.

Heidi Heitkamp may have stung the hardest. Or as I would prefer to call her, “Hem and Haw Heidi.” She was among the last Senators to declare a position is not up for re-election for a “I’ve been adamant from the very beginning of this conversation that the focus should be on mental health issues.” Uh, I beg your pardon Senator but would you mind pointing out how the two are mutually exclusive?

Surely, Manchin, Tester, and Donnelly, all like-minded colleagues who like Heitkamp, don’t face the voters again until 2018, must have been disappointed. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat is up for re-election next year and she backed it, and Louisiana is a hell of a lot more conservative than North Dakota. Kay Hagan will be running in North Carolina — not as conservative but still chock full of gun rights folks, and she said yes as well.

By backing marriage equality and the Democratic budget, Heitkamp has already taken courageous stands for a North Dakota Democrat this month. Perhaps she thought doing so again wouldn’t be seen as the “North Dakota Way,” as she said last year. But Heitkamp’s statement, “this conversation should be about what is in people’s minds, not about what is in their hands” seems to be a descendant of the “guns don’t kill, people kill.” Isn’t that contradictory?

Perhaps I am missing something but aren’t background checks key to scoping out mental health deficiencies? And that’s just it. And Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski, two Alaska pols. Alaska is moving slightly left. But this is about background checks people!

What is most astonishing is that the issue at hand is background checks. It is not an assault weapons ban, it doesn’t address the number of clips. 90% of the American people back this, which means they see it as good policy. And if it’s good policy, wouldn’t it be good politics as well.

Even well into the 90′s, gun control legislation was never super-partisan. The NRA even backed much of it. At that time, it was more a hobby group like a bird watching society or astronomy club.

The National Firearms Act was the first to pass in 1934. Another measure cleared four years later.The Federal Handgun Control Act of 1968 drew 71 votes in the Senate. Only four dissenters were Republican (southern and western Democrats provided most of the opposition). Conversely, on yesterday’s background vote, only four supporters were Republican.

When the assault weapons ban the House in 1994 on a cliffhanger 216-214 vote, it had the vote of 46 Republicans, including the House Minority Leader, Robert Michel, future Ohio Governor John Kasich, and staunchly anti-abortion and impeachment manager Henry Hyde.

Isackson had said recently that if you can find 70% or 80% common ground, that’s a victory. ” This had 90%. So what am I missing?

One moment that to this day brings tears to my eyes was Carolyn McCarthy’s victory speech upon winning a House seat in 1996. She eluded to “beating the man I wanted to beat. But,” she added, “I have also beaten the NRA.” Maybe it’s time to start thinking that way again.

I tell myself that if most of these Senator’s had been the deciding vote, maybe they would’ve voted yes. After all, the 1994 assault weapons ban, which squeaked by the House 216-214, could never have received 219, 220 or even 240 or 250. It only required a majority. And proponents always made sure it happened. It might not have been a Profile in Courage but you take what you can get. It would be nice to see more of that today.

And maybe a couple of lives could be saved in the process.

LEGAL NOTICE ON CARTOON: Thecopyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Reproduction elsewhere without licensing is strictly prohibited. See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com

First, in a brief commentary from Al-Iraq News, in an article headlines Having Sown the Wind … America Reaps the Whirlwind, columnist Filah Al Mishaal expresses disgust at what the U.S. has done to his country, and asserts that the coming wave of terrorist attacks on America are a direct result of U.S. policies that created ‘Islamist political terrorist organizations’ in the first place.

America created al-Qaeda and extreme Islamist political terrorist organizations in many countries, to have them sow discord and sectarian conflict with left wing and nationalist parties in countries that were subject to its aggression. That includes Iraq, which is still paying the bill for America’s crimes and errors in the blood of innocent lives. The victims in Boston and other places are suffering as a result of a ball of fire striking back at America for its ever-increasing involvement in terror, according to the proverb: “they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”!

Then, in a velvet-glove version of the same narrative, columnist Jihad Al Muhaysin of Jordan’s Al Ghad, in an article headlined Bostonians Hit By the ‘Plague of the Century, writes that it was regrettable that innocent people were being killed in ‘counter-productive’ terrorist attacks before Boston, and it is just as regrettable now. And he lays responsibility for all of it at the foot of American foreign policy since the September 11 attacks.

Nowhere in the world is immune from this outrageous cycle of violence. The day before yesterday, Boston was the target. It is a sad thing indeed that the victims were helpless innocents who didn’t deserve to bear the burden of America’s global policies, and are not responsible for its consequences. The same applies to Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Britain, France, and any place on the surface of the earth. … The plague of blood unleashed after September 11 is now striking everywhere.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR ARABIC, OR READ MORE OF THE GLOBAL REACTION TO THE BOSTON BOMBINGS AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

And on point d), they are doing a great job.

So, Mr. Levin to the contrary, Scarborough has again voiced the likely views of many Americans — like the 90 percent who wanted background checks to pass. And he warns, in our video Quote of the Day, that the Republican Party in its 2013 incarnation is headed for extinction. His key quote: “We’re the 90 percent — and we’re going to win. This is just the first battle.” Via Crooks and Liars:

FOOTNOTE: I agree with Scarborough that somewhere along the line the current Republican Party will likely suffer a huge defeat and Republicans more willing to compromise or vote against the NRA will fill the vacuum.

The one qualifier I add here. I keep hearing on progressive talk shows people suggesting Democrats might stay home if Barack Obama’s doesn’t take a stronger line with the GOP on the budget. Democrats have frittered away their New Deal/New Frontier/Great Society political dominance by staying home to teach their party a lesson during key elections while GOPers turned out. In 2000, if you recall, many Democrats weren’t happy with Al Gore and said they’d vote for Ralph Nader. In 2010 some Democrats said they weren’t happy with Obama so they stayed home. In the end, they punished themselves. And then when the GOP would gain a hold on the levers of power nationally or in state, Democrats would blame their party for not doing enough.

So the GOP may be giving its enemies ammunition by the segment now effectively running the party — but the Democrats are their own worst enemy. Left to their own devices, Republicans could be in for a rough ride. Aided by Democrats who won’t get on the horse to ride and instead want to teach their party a lesson, the current incarnation of the GOP’s ride will be far easier.

In the wake of the shameful surrender to the N.R.A. by cowardly members of what should be the most powerful, courageous and decent legislative institution in the free world, a person who has seen gun violence up-close-and-personal, a person who narrowly survived gun violence and who will probably suffer the consequences for the rest of her life, has spoken up against those cowards.

You must read it here.

This is some of what Gabrielle Giffords has to say:

SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.

Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.

[::]

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. 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. We cannot allow the status quo — desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation — to go on.

I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated. I am asking for mothers to stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You’ve lost my vote. I am asking activists to unsubscribe from these senators’ e-mail lists and to stop giving them money. I’m asking citizens to go to their offices and say: You’ve disappointed me, and there will be consequences.

[::]

[The Senators] will try to hide their decision behind grand talk, behind willfully false accounts of what the bill might have done — trust me, I know how politicians talk when they want to distract you — but their decision was based on a misplaced sense of self-interest. I say misplaced, because to preserve their dignity and their legacy, they should have heeded the voices of their constituents. They should have honored the legacy of the thousands of victims of gun violence and their families, who have begged for action, not because it would bring their loved ones back, but so that others might be spared their agony.

[::]

Mark my words: if we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s. To do nothing while others are in danger is not the American way.

Note: This post has been edited to include the opening paragraph — perhaps the most emotional part –of Gabrielle Giffords’ powerful Op-Ed in today’s New York Times.

Which brought to mind this Goya image of our Congress.

Museuo del Prado

Maybe a useful response would be to attach this image to every report of “filibuster” and each mention of a senator who voted against expanded background checks.

Bill Day, Cagle Cartoons

Twelve people gunned down as they sat in a darkened movie theater in Colorado; 26 people —including 20 first graders — murdered in a schoolhouse in Connecticut, and the best the United States Senate could do was muster 54 votes to expand the existing system of background checks to cover individuals who wish to purchase a weapon at a gun show or through the internet.

By their negative votes, forty-six Senators — Republican and Democrat alike — told 20 sets of parents in Newton that the deaths of their children were not worth the inconvenience their constituents might experience in having to wait five minutes for a background check to be completed before they fork over their cash and walk out with a weapon of choice.

A colder, more cruel and callous reaction is impossible to imagine.

Armed with talking points supplied by the National Rifle Association, opponents argued that extending the background check system was useless because, after all, “criminals won’t subject themselves to the checks.”

If that’s the case, they should demonstrate the courage of their convictions and demand the repeal of the background check system now in place for those who purchase weapons from a Federally-licensed gun dealer. If the restraints are as worthless as they claim, why not remove them entirely?

Their argument is incredibly self-contradictory: Because criminals or the mentally ill won’t submit to background checks, let’s provide them unfettered access to weapons by allowing their unrestricted purchase at gun shows.

With the internet now as much a part of American life as the telephone, weapons can be obtained with the click of a mouse, even though the hand that does the clicking could belong to someone with a history of violence, an enraged husband seeking vengeance on a spouse, or a sick individual with paranoia-stoked fantasies.

Opponents argued they were motivated by their concern for law-abiding citizens exercising their right to gun ownership guaranteed by the Second Amendment. A reasonable position, as far as it goes, but it ignores the reality that the law-abiding purchase weapons from a licensed dealer and undergo a background check. There is no reason to believe these same individuals would object to the check if they made their purchase at a gun show.

Their professed concern for the law-abiding simply masked their fear of political retribution. Threats of gun groups that they’d spend whatever it took and mobilize their supporters to defeat anyone who voted in favor of the legislation overrode any privately held belief that Congress should act.

Gun rights advocates are correct that neither the movie theater nor schoolhouse massacres would have been prevented by a background check system. It is a specious argument, first because supporters never argued it would have, and second, because background reviews were never intended to be a stand-alone effort but part of a more comprehensive program to combat gun violence. Defeating the background check legislation, though, also foreclosed the possibility of a broader and more comprehensive approach.

Supporters put up a brave front after the Senate action, vowing that their efforts would not fade and that the fight to enact firearms control legislation would go on. Odds of success, though, are long. The time to move decisively was now when public opinion was clearly on their side and nearly 90 per cent of Americans supported expanding background checks.

There was much self-serving talk by opponents of how difficult a vote it was, how the issue had become so emotional and polarizing. But they were elected to office because they convinced a majority of their constituents they were willing to take on the tough issues and act in the best interests of the nation rather than in the best interests of private pressure groups. They weren’t chosen to coast through a career casting votes to name a post office after a local luminary or to declare National Pickle Week.

For a parent, there is no greater pain than the loss of a child, whether from illness or accident. But, losing a six or seven-year-old in a hail of bullets in a school —- the second safest place next to their home — produces a lifetime of daily anguish.

For the parents in Newtown, there will be no more birthday parties to plan, no sleepovers, no Little League baseball games to attend, no school proms.

There will be only gravesite visits — the graves that 46 United States Senators danced on to a tune called by the NRA.

© Copyright 2013 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

LEGAL NOTICE ON CARTOON: The copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Reproduction elsewhere without licensing is strictly prohibited. See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com

Milt Priggee, www.miltpriggee.com

WASHINGTON — The gun bill was going down, but Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who reached a compromise to try to save it, went to the Senate floor Wednesday morning to give it one more try.

In an unorthodox tactic, he appealed directly to the woman taking her turn in the presiding officer’s chair, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., one of the few remaining undeclared lawmakers.

“I think there is a time in our life, a defining time in public service,” he said, “when you know the facts are on your side and walk into the lion’s den.” Manchin, usually plain-spoken, was emotional and personal, making several references to Heitkamp and her state. “Even if politics are risky,” he said, “remember the words of Andrew Jackson: ‘The brave man inattentive to his duty is worth little more to his country than the coward who deserts in the hour of danger.’”

The newly elected Heitkamp turned to face Manchin and listened intently to his plea. Minutes later, her office issued a written statement saying, “I do not see a path for my support” of Manchin’s proposal.

Courage was in short supply at the Capitol on Wednesday. The overwhelming majority of Americans favor the sort of background checks that Manchin and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., had proposed to keep weapons from the felonious and the insane. A majority of senators supported it, too. But too many cowered in the face of fierce opposition from the National Rifle Association.

And so, four months after the massacre of first-graders at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., families of victims and gun-violence survivors were watching from the Senate gallery as the centerpiece of gun-control efforts went down to defeat. “Shame on you!” two women in the gallery called out after proponents of the background checks came up six votes short of the required 60.

Vice President Joe Biden, who had taken over the officer’s chair, gaveled for order, and Capitol police removed the women. But Manchin gathered with the families after the vote and expressed his wish that lawmakers could show “just one ounce of the courage” the grieving relatives had shown.

There (BEG ITAL)were(END ITAL) moments of courage on the Senate floor. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J, seriously ill with cancer, had traveled to Washington to cast his vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., gave an uncharacteristically moving speech explaining why he was reversing his position and would vote for a ban on military-style assault rifles (the proposal failed, 40-60). Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) defied most in his party to speak, and vote, in favor of the background-check measure.

Bravest of all were Manchin and Toomey, both risking their “A” ratings from the NRA to follow their consciences. “This isn’t gun control, this is common sense,” Toomey told his colleagues in the closing minutes of Wednesday’s debate.

Just last week, lobbying efforts by Newtown families helped beat back a Republican filibuster. But in the end, even a modest proposal couldn’t compete with the gun lobby’s might. The four Republicans who supported the compromise were canceled out by the four Democrats who opposed it. But the victory was fleeting. The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe chronicled the minute-by-minute demise of the Manchin-Toomey bill this week, as fence-sitters declared their opposition:

12:30 p.m. Monday, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.

8:23 p.m. Monday, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

11:15 a.m. Tuesday, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.

5:56 p.m. Tuesday, Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev.

10:45 a.m. Wednesday, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.

12:28 p.m. Wednesday, Heitkamp.

Manchin, wearing a green pin on his lapel in memory of the Connecticut victims, labored for his bill throughout the day on the Senate floor. “I’m an A-rated lifetime card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association,” he reminded his colleagues, before denouncing as a “lie” and “hogwash” the NRA’s claims about his bill.

As Republicans rose to criticize the compromise as a “slippery slope” toward a national gun registry (Chuck Grassley of Iowa) and “a legislative misfire” (Richard Shelby of Alabama), Manchin rose, too — politely asking them to yield and then reminding them of the facts. But by then, the outcome was already set.

As the clerk called the roll, lawmakers on both sides gave Manchin consoling pats on the back. Toward the end of the vote, the doors parted and aides wheeled in the frail Lautenberg. Manchin walked over, leaned down, and planted a kiss on the cheek of his ailing colleague, who belted out a hearty “aye.”

In a chamber of the feckless, the embracing men cut a profile in courage.

Follow Dana Milbank on Twitter, @Milbank.(c) 2013, Washington Post Writers Group

LEGAL NOTICE ON CARTOON: The above copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Reproduction elsewhere without licensing is strictly prohibited. See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com

I’ve often noted that American politics is increasingly noted by the high five hyper-partisan political culture — when partisans savor not so much a victory but as being able to inflict a political defeat on a hated foe (hated because they have an opposing D or R in front of their party affiliation). The actual issue in contention almost becomes secondary; the big accomplishment is to “win” and watch and almost taste the other side feeling a painful loss.

You don’t usually anything that undignified as coming from a major leader. You don’t see that glee, if a leaders feels it. The leader usually tries to contain it (at least as much as they can) and the glee from partisans around them. But now we see it — from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

GO HERE and for a report with graphics on how his facebook page has been gloating over defeating gun control.

Gun control: a divisive issue, to be sure, is one where injured victims such as Gabby Giffords, and the devastated parents of the Newtown first graders shot to bits in a terrifying end of life 5 minute bullet-fest, had stepped forward to plead for action.

You’d think that a REAL dignified political leader would take into consideration the feelings of those devastated by the deaths or injuries. He’d take his win, accept it and move on. He’d make sure anything that represented him on paper or in cyberspace would stress his focus on ISSUES and content.

But that didn’t matter with McConnell, or at least to those doing his Facebook page with his authorization.

It’s yet another sign of how far the quality our political leadership has sunk in the 21st century America.

A minority leader or majority leader in the past might be passionate and ruthless — but he’d never sunk to the level of a partisan hack gloating over defeating foes from another party. You might even say that if you look at past Senate Republican leaders such as Bob Dole, Bill Frist, Howard Baker, Hugh Scott, Everett Dirksen and many others who knew how to take not just defeat but victory, McConnell is almost dishonoring the dignity of the office he holds.

McConnell is the most hated Senator in the United States, according to polls. Now we might now add the least professional behaving Republican Senate leader in memory as he provides evidence that for him it apparently isn’t all about issues and policies good for the country. It’s about gloating over inflicting a defeat on an opponent — whether Harry Reid, Barack Obama or the people who pleaded their hearts out on the defeated gun control measure.

P.S. Lest you think that McConnell didn’t play a role in making sure Democrats couldn’t get the votes, here’s this bit from First Read:

A final factor in the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey amendment’s was the doubt that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would act on the Senate gun-control bill, even if the amendment had passed with 60-plus votes. Speaker John Boehner last week repeated that the House would consider any legislation the Senate passes, but he didn’t commit to a vote. “I fully expect that the House will act in some way, shape or form,” he said. “But to make a blanket commitment without knowing what the underlying bill is I think would be irresponsible on my part,” So the possible thinking among some red-state Democrats up for re-election next year: Why should I take a tough vote when the House might not even take up the bill? In fact, we can report that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made this exact pitch to his GOP colleagues who might have been considering voting for the measure.

McConnell will be a hero to many conservatives but I suspect to many centrists, independent voters, and moderates he will remain a symbol of the un-rebranded GOP which insists it’s rebranding but snows little real evidence that it is doing it or even wants to do it.

In the meantime, if McConnell shows up with bandages on his hands, it’ll be due to all those high fives.

UPDATE: TPM’s Brian Bueller puts the vote into perspective. He says all the reports about the Senate defeating the bill miss — and obscure — a crucial point:

In this case, as in so many others, a GOP filibuster threat meant the amendment needed 60 votes to carry. So even though a healthy majority of the Senate (mostly Democrats) voted for the legislation, it died.

That obviously happens all the time in the Senate. And I always think it’s important to be clear about it. But the gun control filibuster heightens the urgency for a few reasons.

1). It’s an issue of national and electoral importance.

2). It’s an issue that’s effectively designed to allow the parties to direct cultural signals to voters — but that can’t really happen if the media is ambiguous about what happened.

3). This wasn’t, like so many other filibusters, a backdoor source of leverage for the minority — a means of securing a more favorable final outcome in a debate over must-pass legislation like increasing the debt limit or appropriations. It’s just dead. And it will remain dead unless several of the members who voted no experience unlikely changes of heart.

4). It was drafted in bipartisan fashion by one of the Senate’s most conservative Democrats and one of its most conservative Republicans.

5). Most crucially, it would have passed if given the up-or-down vote President Obama demanded.

…Obviously the major advocates on both sides know what happened, and have their own ways of communicating with voters. But 90 percent of the population supported the Manchin-Toomey amendment. Not all of them are super tuned in. They can’t exact a political price from elected officials unless they know what really happened. And the members who supported the filibuster will get undeserved cover from reports that characterize it as the “Senate’s” failure.

UPDATE II: More on McConnell’s political “style.”

UPDATE III: But this fits into a general Republican trend. See my opening paragraph about high fives and rubbing the other side’s face in it.

Christopher Weyant, The Hill

by Walter Brasch

President Obama cast off his “No Drama Obama” garb, and became the fiery leader of hope and change that Americans first elected in 2008. At a speech in Hartford, Conn., the President, frustrated by Republican obstructionism, demanded of his audience, “If you believe that the families of Newtown and Aurora and Tucson and Virginia Tech and the thousands of Americans who have been gunned down in the last four months deserve a vote, we all have to stand up.” He demand, “If you want the people you send to Washington to have just an iota of the courage that the educators at Sandy Hook showed when danger arrived on their doorstep, then we’re all going to have to stand up.”

He wanted the people to let Congress know it was “time to require a background check for anyone who wants to buy a gun so that people who are dangerous to themselves and others cannot get their hands on a gun.” He wanted the people to let Congress know, “It’s time to crack down on gun trafficking so that folks will think twice before buying a gun as part of a scheme to arm someone who won’t pass a background check.” He asked the people “to tell Congress it’s time to restore the ban on military-style assault weapons, and a 10-round limit for magazines, to make it harder for a gunman to fire 154 bullets into his victims in less than five minutes.” He pleaded that the people “have to tell Congress it’s time to strengthen school safety and help people struggling with mental health problems get the treatment they need before it’s too late.”

But, what he really wanted was a vote. A simple up-or-down vote. The people, said the President, at the very least “deserve a vote” not more obstructionism.

Smirking with NRA drool slathering his five-term Senate body, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wasn’t about to let that happen. He didn’t want a vote, even a watered down version that would have all the ferocity of a baby canary.

McConnell said he would filibuster all proposed legislation.

The Senate Republicans, who believe they’re the “law and order party,” have rolled over and allowed the NRA to pet them on their pork-bellied tummies. For more than three decades, the NRA and explosives manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress the to prohibit the use of taggants in explosives. These taggants would identify bombs before detonation and enable agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and explosives (ATF) to trace manufacturer and sale of the explosives after explosion. For six years, the NRA blocked the appointment of any nominee to head the ATF. With NRA paranoia guiding their own actions, the Republicans have also forbidden the ATF from creating a computerized database to better analyze and evaluate applications for firearms, and have left the ATF underfunded and undermanned. This would be the same ATF that, with fewer resources, now plays a major role in the Boston Marathon murders.

Five weeks after the murders in Newtown, the McConnell for Senate campaign told the voters they were “literally surrounded” by those who want to take their guns away. In a robocall to his constituents, he parroted the NRA erroneous claim that, “President Obama and his team are doing everything in their power to restrict your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” This would be the same senator who, in 1991, supported Joe Biden’s bill that led to a 10 year ban on semi-automatic and automatic weapons. This is the same senator who, in 1998, voted to support Barbara Boxer’s bill that required trigger locks for the purchase of every hand gun. In less than a decade, McConnell turned to the extreme Right and became little more than an NRA lackey, willing to wrap himself in a faulty interpretation of the Second Amendment and block the will of 90 percent of the American people, including a majority of all NRA members and gun owners.

Republic political strategist Karl Rove told journalist FoxNews reporter Chris Wallace, “People want this issue to be discussed, they want it to be decided and we don’t need to block everything in the Senate.” By a 68–31 vote, with 16 Republicans joining 52 Democrats, the Senate agreed to allow discussion on proposed gun control bills.

The first of several Senate bills, Wednesday, resulted in a 54–46 vote to expand background checks for gun purchases to include all internet and gun show sales, strengthen penalties for gun trafficking, and help fund additional school security. The bill, known as a compromise proposal, was sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), both of whom carry “A” ratings by the NRA. Five Democrats voted against the bill; four Republicans voted for it. However, because of the 60-vote rule invoked by the NRA-fed obstructionist Republicans, and agreed to by the Democrats, it failed. The NRA, exercising its usual fear-mongering tactics, spread a $500,000 robocall campaign the day of the vote, and claimed the bill would lead to a national gun registry; provisions in the bill specifically excluded that possibility. President Obama would later say that the “gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill.”

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on behalf of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, representing more than 900 American cities, called out the 46 senators who voted against the bill. “Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington,” said Bloomberg. “More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby.” Gov. Dan Malloy (D-Conn.) said the minority “who voted against this proposal should be ashamed of themselves.” aid the Senate had “ignored the will of the American people,” adding that those senators who voted against the expanded background checks chose to “obey the leaders of the powerful corporate gun lobby, instead of their constituents.” Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who has spent two years in recovery from an attempted assassination, said the failure to pass meaningful legislation was “based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association.”

In rapid succession, a ban on assault weapons, a ban on high-capacity gun magazines and a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks for gun purchasers all failed to get the 60 votes needed. Even a bipartisan amendment to impose stiff penalties on gun traffickers was defeated, receiving 58 votes.

New York, Colorado, and Maryland have all recently passed common-sense gun safety reforms without violating anyone’s Second Amendment rights. The people of this democracy demand better controls over who can own guns. But until the members of Congress develop that one iota of courage that President Obama asked for, the United States will continue to have the highest number of guns per population of 178 countries—and also rank among the world’s top 10 countries in the rate of deaths per population from guns.

[Walter Brasch’s latest book is Fracking Pennsylvania, an in-depth investigation of the health environmental, worker safety, and economic impact of fracking.]

It wasn’t really a surprise that the Senate beat down background checks in gun control because it fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage. The surprise was how blatant and in the end disdainful politicos brushed aside a clear popular will. The Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman has a must-read-in-full in which he calls the Senate a place where change goes to die. Some excerpts:

That wasn’t enough. By a vote of 54-46 — short of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster — the U.S. Senate proved once again that Washington is the place where change goes to die.

This wasn’t merely the Senate being what the Founding Fathers envisioned: the “cooling saucer” for the hot coffee of legislative emotion. This was the Senate, constricted by its own rules and the laser-focused fire of the National Rifle Association, being the slaughterhouse of public will.

The problem: if there are no consequences at the ballot box the situation won’t change.

Don’t hold your breath for that to happen soon.

It was clear both to reason and arithmetic that most voters wanted to close the so-called gun show loophole. Indeed, the NRA leader who now opposes doing so, Wayne LaPierre, once publicly supported just that proposal.

But it was not to be in the Congress of today. The vote last week to allow debate on the measure was a false dawn, and almost everyone on Capitol Hill in both parties knew it.

The NRA had given members a “pass” on that vote, saying that it would not count the vote as a betrayal come Election Day. But the group said the opposite about Wednesday’s vote: This one counted — and the near score of Republicans who voted to allow debate shrank to four for passage of the measure.

Democrats could see the arithmetic, and the four who voted with the NRA — all from rural red states — saw no reason to risk their own necks.

And Obama? Fineman again nails it:

In the Rose Garden after the vote, President Barack Obama stood with those Newtown family members. He wore a scowl and spoke with the passion of righteous indignation and the sure knowledge that most of America agreed with him.

He was unusually harsh on his fellow politicians. Those who had voted no had “caved to the pressure,” Obama said, and had “failed” the test of courageous leadership in a crisis.

He followed the name calling with a pledge, in essence, to make gun reform a central issue in the 2014 midterm elections.

A president who had come to Washington promising change, and who had fitfully effected some, was now promising to try again. He had stopped legislating and had started campaigning.

Once again, Obama was promising change you could believe in — and in this case he has the public, if not the current Congress, on his side.

The party that has been the most lock-step stumbling block is the GOP, which gets the overwhelming amount of donations from the NRA. Turns out it was money well spent.

Or will the outlook about that be a little different on election day 2014?

Don’t hold your breath…

Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune

The nonpartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors has issued this statement on the defeat in the U.S. Senate of a bipartisan measure on background checks:

STATEMENT BY U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS PRESIDENT PHILADELPHIA MAYOR MICHAEL NUTTER ON THE SENATE’S REJECTION OF FEINSTEIN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, TOOMEY-MANCHIN BACKGROUND CHECK, AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE

Washington, D.C. – United States Conference of Mayors President Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter issued the following statement after the Senate’s rejection today of various amendments focused on reducing gun violence:

“It is with deep disappointment that the nation’s Mayors today watched the Senate reject amendment after amendment that would have strengthened the nation’s gun laws and helped to prevent the tragedies which occur every day on the streets of our cities and the mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, and too many other places in our nation. Those amendments would have strengthened and expanded the background check system, banned assault weapons, strengthened federal gun statutes, and banned high-capacity magazines.

“Clearly the shots heard ‘round the world on December 14 were not heard by enough U.S. Senators to make a difference on April 17. Nor were the shots which have killed nearly 3500 additional people in this country since December 14.

“Despite the appeals of the families of those children and teachers shot and killed in Newtown, despite the appeals of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, not enough Senators were persuaded that more can be done to keep guns away from those who would turn them on us.

“Despite the appeals of Mayors and law enforcement leaders across this nation, too many Senators believe that the laws governing firearms in our country do not need to be strengthened as was proposed today, that the loopholes in those laws do not need to be closed.

“In poll after poll, the vast majority of Americans voice their support for stronger gun safety laws, but their voices are consistently drowned out by the organized advocates of the status quo who have a stronger presence in the halls of Congress.

“Mayors never stop fighting to ensure the safety of our citizens, and we will not give up on our efforts on this issue. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has supported measures to reduce gun violence for more than four decades and we won’t bedeterred from pushing for what is right. That is what the American people want and what our cities and our nation needs.”
###

The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are 1,295 such cities in the country today, and each city is represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the mayor. Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/usmayors, or follow us on Twitter at twitter.com/usmayors

LEGAL NOTICE ON CARTOON: This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Reproduction elsewhere without licensing is strictly prohibited. See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com

Given the U.S. response to the September 11 attacks, which was considered destructive and self-defeating by large numbers of people around the world, there is a good deal of concern that something similar could happen in the wake of the Boston bombings. This editorial from Mexico’s La Jornada recalls what it perceives as the misplaced aggression of the Bush Administration, and expresses hope that the Obama White House will act differently.

The La Jornada editorial says in part:

It is pertinent here to recall that after the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington, the White House focused on terrorist threats from foreign organizations, mainly Islamic ones, as well as on governments that it deemed to be politically hostile, like the one headed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq – even if that Arab country had never launched an attack on American targets. Thus, Washington provided an answer to its own question [why do they hate us?], leaving in its wake devastation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and vast and fully justified anti-American resentment.

Another consequence of the security policy adopted after 9-11 – which was in fact a strategic repositioning of Washington in Central Asia and the Middle East – was to forget the multi-faceted and prolific history of domestic terrorism in the United States, formed by a mixture of White supremacists, ultra right wing groups, fundamentalist Christians and even radical formations of environmentalists and animal rights activists. In fact, up until 9-11, the worst terrorist attack within the continental United States had been the blowing up of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, in which 168 people died and some 700 were wounded. This act was perpetrated almost 18 years ago (April 19, 1995) by a small group of ultra right wing conspirators headed by Timothy McVeigh, a decorated soldier who had fought in the first U.S.-led war against Iraq in 1991.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR SPANISH, OR READ MORE OF THE GLOBAL REACTION TO THE BOSTON BOMBINGS AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Bill Schorr, Cagle Cartoons

So much for real, substantive gun control. My latest take in The Week Online:

There’s no denying it: The National Rifle Association has won — again. Even though more than 3,000 Americans have died via gun violence since 20 children and 6 adults were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary in December, the NRA has somehow managed to triumph. The victims’ families and gun control advocates have lost. Forget an assault weapons ban — or any other serious gun regulation. It’s not happening.

The Washington Post notes that not only have the NRA’s tactics cowed politicians and beaten back substantive national gun control efforts, but in some instances, they’ve actually led to moves to make guns easier to get. Meanwhile, at least a dozen GOP senators have signed on to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s call to filibuster any gun control measure.

This is just one more issue where polls show Republicans at odds with mainstream America. A Morning Joe/Marist poll found six in 10 respondents — including 83 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of gun owners, and 37 percent of Republicans — believe that the laws covering gun sales should be stricter.

Here’s the problem:

GO HERE TO READ THE REST.

The Senate has just rejected the Manchin/Toomey amendment on background checks by a vote of 54-46 (60 needed to pass amendment per the rules)

This proves that the NRA can convince the Senate to reject a reasonable proposal supported by 90% of the population

On the cowards side are those who caved. A prior version of the post named Senator Reid but it appears he originally voted yes but then changed for procedural reasons (you have to be on the no side to bring the vote up again)

On the brave side we Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, who has cast a couple of controversial votes despite being in a tough re-election campaign.

NOTE BY JG: Be sure to read THIS which puts it into further perspective (written more than a week ago.)

The Republicans are ready to pull the plug on South Carolina congressional candidate Mark Sanford after his ex-wife accused him of trespassing, violating their divorce agreement.

According to the AP, Jenny Sanford’s attorney filed a lawsuit on Feb. 4 alleging that she confronted Mark Sanford at her home the previous day, where he had been using his cellphone as a light. Trespassing would violate the terms of their divorce settlement, which said that neither would be able to be at the other’s home without explicit permission.

A court hearing is slated for May 9, according to the report – two days after Sanford competes in a closely watched special election.

NRCC has decided, like Todd Akin, Mark Sanford has no clear path to victory and has has decided not to spend more money on Sanford’s behalf ahead of the May 7 special election.

This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.

Bill Schorr, Cagle Cartoons

Just as victims murdered in mass shoots have seemingly become collateral damage in the issue of gun control, he highly-touted bipartisan compromise on background checks looks as if it will become political collateral damage — due to immigration reform.

The bipartisan effort to expand background checks will not have the votes to advance in the Senate today, according to one of the architects of the deal.

“We will not get the votes today,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., told 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.

So once again — for the present, at least — it seems like politics wins. Fear of the conservative base. The little kids who died such tragic and terrifying deaths, the wishes of police chiefs, etc? Just say a few words of regret, legalistic spin, and maybe a phrase or two heard on talk radio and that’ll cover you.

This seems like it STILL holds and could be proven true.

And trending isn’t towards its passage:

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.

Meanwhile, polls show the impact of the spin-control arguments used to battle background checks — an issue right after the Newtown murders that many pundits and politicians predicted would be the “at least” policy item that would pass. But then something happened: the NRA opposed it and it became part of the 24/7 partisan wars. Partisan unity has a short shelf life in America.

And as the issue returned once more to be one more partisan issue with all the hot button pushing that entailed, the unity and grief over Newtown and seeming desire to try to make a change has started to wane — which proves the drag-it-out, run-out-the-clock strategy of gun control foes does work in America’s political culture.

Perhaps helping explain Democrats’ problems, an AP-GfK poll this month showed that 49 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. That was down from 58 percent who said so in January — a month after the December killings of 20 children and six aides at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school propelled gun violence into a national issue.

Just over half the public — 52 percent — expressed disapproval in the new survey of how President Barack Obama has handled gun laws. Weeks after the Newtown slayings, Obama made a call for near universal background checks the heart of his gun control plan.

“Every once and awhile we are confronted with an issue that should transcend politics,” Obama said in an interview that aired Wednesday on NBC’s “Today” show. “And now’s the time for us to take some measure of action that’s going to prevent some of these tragedies from happening again.”

In a climactic day, the Senate planned to hold eight other votes Wednesday besides the one on background checks, all of them amendments to a broad gun control measure.

They included Democratic proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, which are expected to lose; a Republican proposal requiring states to honor other states’ permits allowing concealed weapons, which faces a close vote; and a GOP substitute for the overall gun measure.

The concealed weapons amendment, seen by advocates as protecting gun rights, was vehemently opposed by gun control groups, who say it would allow more guns into states with stricter firearms laws.

The votes were coming a day after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, badly injured in a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., and her husband, Mark Kelly, tried galvanizing gun control support by visiting Capitol Hill and attending a private lunch with Democratic senators. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called the lunch — senators said it included emotional speeches from lawmakers — “as moving as any” he has attended.

But if the grieving devastated parents of Newtown kids wasn’t enough to make politicos look beyond their NRA contributions and conservative base, why would Giffords make much difference? And the tragedy of the Boston Marathon bombings will diminish some of the press attention gun control would get in the national consciousness as it goes down to yet one more defeat. The silverlining: it will come up for a vote and won’t be filibustered..but then there’s no need for anyone to filibuster since it doesn’t have the votes.

But the issue of background checks back for another vote, to be sure. And the issue will arise again, as there’s more “collateral damage.” Or, until a measure emerges that is so watered down that the NRA can claim victory and politicos who oppose gun control can claim they passed gun control.

Yes this does seem to hold.

UPDATE FROM FIRST READ:

*** Manchin’s office walks back the senator’s remarks: But Manchin’s press office just released this statement: “Sen. Manchin remains optimistic and hopeful that if Senators and the American people read the bill, they will support his commonsense approach… So far Sen. Manchin has managed to garner support from an A-rated NRA member and three Republican Senators as well as 90 percent of his own party. With a record like that, I see no reason to bet against Sen. Manchin today. He will continue to explain his bill to his colleagues and anyone with concerns until the minute they vote.”

*** Striking that something polling 90% can’t get 60 votes: As things stand right now, per NBC’s Kasie Hunt, the MOST support the measure could get is 60 votes — if you count all 55 Democrats and the five Republicans who support it or who haven’t said they oppose it (Collins, Kirk, Toomey, McCain, Ayotte). But here’s the rub: Not all Democrats, especially those from red states, will back it. In fact, sources tell NBC’s O’Donnell that the amendment will likely fall four or five votes short — and maybe more if others see it going down. Given the public opinion polls supporting background checks, it’s striking the measure won’t get 60 votes. Just read today’s New York Times piece on convicted felons who are able to purchase weapons online. “With no requirements for background checks on most private transactions, a Times examination found, Armslist and similar sites function as unregulated bazaars, where the essential anonymity of the Internet allows unlicensed sellers to advertise scores of weapons and people legally barred from gun ownership to buy them.” But senators are realists, and some of those fence-sitters probably were swayed NOT to take what they believed would be a risky vote because the House was unlikely to pass it. The thinking being: Why cast a vote that will create a potential political problem when the bill’s chances of ACTUALLY becoming law are so remote?

LEGAL NOTICE ON CARTOON: This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Reproduction elsewhere without licensing is strictly prohibited. See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com

Deep in the Reeds
by Dana Milbank
Washington Post Writers Group

WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney had it wrong. Corporations aren’t people — corporations own people.

The Supreme Court on Monday took up the unusual question of whether corporations control our genetic material — specifically, whether a Utah-based company called Myriad Genetics has valid patents on the human genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are related to breast and ovarian cancers.

That a company most people have never heard of could have the exclusive rights to pieces of our DNA is a bit unnerving. More than a bit unnerving: The ownership of our genes is being decided by nine justices who, although brilliant legal minds, are not exactly biotechnologists.

They wrestled with nucleotides and covalent bonds. They spoke of mRNA, cDNA, introns and exons. They dabbled in tagging and base pairs.

“If you could get a super-microscope and look at what they have with the cDNA,” Justice Stephen Breyer postulated, “you would discover something with an A there, you see, and you wouldn’t discover something with a U there. And there is no such thing in nature as the no-introns AGG, whatever.”

Whatever.

The justices broke down the building blocks of life into terms they could understand better, such as bodily organs, Amazonian plants, baseball bats and chocolate chip cookies.

The last analogy was provided by Sonia Sotomayor. Like a kid trying to impress her science teacher, she piped up 38 times for questions during the hour, far ahead of the second-place Breyer (26) and just two shy of the combined output of Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the silent Clarence Thomas.

Sotomayor’s fellow justices appeared exasperated with their know-it-all colleague; Chief Justice John Roberts extended one lawyer’s time after Sotomayor badgered him with questions, and Alito tried to redirect the proceedings after she treated the court to an extended baking analogy. “I can bake a chocolate chip cookie using natural ingredients: salt, flour, eggs, butter,” she said. “And if I (combine) those in some new way, I can get a patent on that. But I can’t imagine getting a patent simply on the basic items.”

As Myriad’s attorney, Gregory Castanias, tried to answer, Sotomayor kept breaking in with kitchen talk: “So I put salt and flour, and that’s different? … Now you can get a patent on the flour?”

Castanias told her the question showed “the problem with using the really simplistic analogies, with all due respect.”

There was laughter in the courtroom.

Based on the justices’ questioning, there was little doubt that corporations such as Myriad have a legitimate claim to the DNA in our bodies. The argument was mostly about whether corporations own the material itself or merely have the exclusive rights to use our genes for research and commerce.

Castanias likened the gene sequence the company clipped from the human genome to a baseball bat, because it “doesn’t exist until it’s isolated from a tree.”

Roberts balked at this analogy. “You don’t look at a tree and say, ‘Well, I’ve cut the branch here and cut it here and all of a sudden I’ve got a baseball bat,’” he said.

Alito, too, asked about the bat, “which at least I can understand better than perhaps some of this biochemistry.” Alito likened the gene discovery to serendipity, like a tree branch that has “fallen into the ocean and it’s been manipulated by the waves, and then something’s been washed up on the shore, and — what do you know? — it’s a baseball bat.”

Elena Kagan preferred to liken the company’s gene discovery to “the first person who found a liver.”

And Breyer wondered if patent protection could apply to “anything from inside the body that you snip out and isolate.”

Castanias assured the justices that the gene discovery was not at all comparable to patenting a slice of “liver, kidney, you know, gallbladder — pick your organ.”

Alito chose a vegetable instead. “Suppose,” he said, that medicinal benefits were found in “the leaves of a plant that grows in the Amazon.” Further, Alito proposed, “it’s not just the case of taking the leaf off the tree and chewing it. … It’s extracted and reduced to a concentrated form.”

Thus began a harvest of horticultural hypotheticals:

“If we simply pick the leaf off the tree and swallow it …”

“It’s uprooted and taken out of the forest …”

“Captain Ferno goes to the Amazon and discovers 50 new types of plants …”

The justices were deep in the weeds — without a genetic map.

Follow Dana Milbank on Twitter, @Milbank.

gene photo via shutterstock.com

Peter Broelman, Australia

Boston Bombs Prompt Twitter Toxicity

By Dick Polman

Shortly after Boston’s annual idyll devolved into mayhem, I posted a tweet. “Worst thing: People died…Second worst thing: The upcoming blame game.” And sure enough, it was game on.

I get it that we’re all upset. The urge to lash out is strong, and we’re only human. But way too often, pundits and armchair primitives, free of all filters, treat Twitter as their own personal sewer. So it went yesterday, oh so predictably.

Fox News regular Erik Rush said that Muslims were clearly to blame: “Yes, they’re evil. Let’s kill them all.”

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones confidently said, “[t]he FBI has been behind every domestic terror plot.”

Anti-Islam blogger Pamela Geller declared “Jihad in Boston,” and when another tweeter dared question her theory, Geller replied, “Blood on your hands.”

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof said the GOP was partly to blame, because it has refused to ratify President Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms: “Explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment.” (Kristof subsequently tweeted, “I take it back.”)

The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, a conservative commentator, sought to score a partisan point: “Obama is going to make a statement. Boehner is going to have a moment of silence. Advantage GOP.” (Taranto subsequently deleted it.)

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger, took the opportunity score a partisan point and mock a colleague. She’s miffed that Post health policy reporter Sarah Kliff has declined to cover the Philadelphia murder trial of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell; Kliff says she covers policy, “not local crime.” So here’s what Rubin tweeted yesterday about the bombings: “Not writing about Boston. It is a local crime story for now.”

Various tea-party partisans got it into their heads that Wolf Blitzer had blamed the bombings on their movement, so they let their fingers fly: “Wolf Blitzer already blaming Tea Party” and “Way to Wolf Blitzer! Pathetic” and “Wolf Blitzer is REALLY blaming the tea party for the Boston explosions? What a partisan douchebag” and “Wolf Blitzer just speculated if tea party groups were behind the bombing WITH ZERO EVIDENCE” and (this is my favorite) “Looks like I’m off to workout and then punch the Fu-k outta the first liberal asstard I run across. He can thank Wolf f—ing Blitzer.”

Did Blitzer specifically finger the tea party? Nope. What he actually said, while quizzing a guest expert, was merely this: “It is a state holiday in Massachusetts called Patriots Day, and, uh, who knows if that had anything to do with these explosions.” (A foe of Patriots Day could be anyone from an al Qaeda wannabee to an aggrieved local nutcase.)

And I won’t even bother to list all the re-tweets about how the Boston police had supposedly taken into custody a “Saudi” suspect. The police, in reality, had no such person. The fake report came to us courtesy of a Murdoch outlet, the New York Post.

So here’s a suggestion for the denizens of Twitter: Show some respect for the dead and the injured. Observe a virtual moment of silence. Give the authorities some space, let them do their job. And until such time that there is actually something worth saying, Please. Shut. Up.

Last night, one admirably sane guy went on Twitter and asked, “Why does every event these days require an accompanying conspiracy theory? What is the matter with people?”

Hey, pal. You tell me.

Copyright 2013 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Dick Polman is the national political columnist at NewsWorks/WHYY in Philadelphia (newsworks.org/polman) and a “Writer in Residence” at the University of Philadelphia. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com.

Is American use of Wahhabi terrorists as a foreign policy tool behind the Boston Marathon bombings? For Iraq’s Sotal Iraq, columnist Ahmad Kazem sees the attacks as a fork in the road for the United States, and worries that the American people are so caught up in ‘petty soap operas and mind-numbing television talk shows’, they are easy to convince that they are in danger, and that ‘wars are necessary for their own protection.’

For Sotal Iraq, Ahmad Kazem starts off this way:

Will the Boston bombings be the start of a terrorism transition for America, and an end to America’s support for Wahhabi terrorism and its masterminds in the Gulf? Or will it serve as a pretext to launch a new war, as occurred after September 11, 2001?

In the first instance, it would mean that America has learned from its mistake of supporting terrorism; The second would mean that America is becoming increasingly violent. After the events of 2001 in the era of the Bush presidency, America launched wars directly against Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing great destruction and death to civilians. During the Obama presidency, it has brought less direct destruction and death to civilians by relying on Gulf Wahhabism and its backers. To execute its savagery, America has paved the way for barbarians dressed as Wahhabis, Salafists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, delegating influence to the idiot Erdogan, the senile Saudi Prince Abdullah, and the prince of the Banana emirate Qatar.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR ARABIC, OR READ MORE OF THE GLOBAL REACTION TO THE BOSTON BOMBINGS AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

.
Little attention is being paid to personal responsibility in setting health insurance premiums. While health status and pre-existing conditions have been determinant factors in the past for obtaining individual health insurance and the premium rates for coverage, these differentials will be eliminated as part of the Affordable Care Act. And in obtaining group health insurance, an individual’s health status is usually not a consideration.

Personal responsibility in terms of health status has always been an important factor in deciding the premiums for life insurance. Thus, individuals with high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, elevated blood sugar levels, smokers, drug and alcohol abusers, have to pay more in order for them to obtain life insurance, or may not be able to get insurance at all.

Some companies attempting to lower their costs for employee health insurance are offering incentives to workers for life style changes that lower blood pressure, body mass index, or other parameters, or who partake in wellness programs. (http://goo.gl/dVtMo) Both rewards for the employees such as lower premiums or deductibles may be offered, or penalties may be imposed such as higher premiums or an insurance surcharge.

It may seem odd that companies have to provide financial incentives to employees to prod them to lifestyle changes that will improve their health and longevity. But many individuals refuse to take personal responsibility for their health, with the rates of obesity skyrocketing in the United States over the last few decades, resulting in an increased incidence of diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, strokes, and other disease entities, that will only increase in the future.

This leads us to a moral dilemma. Since health care costs are spread over the population that is insured, or partially paid for by taxpayers in Medicare and Medicaid, should those who are responsible and lead a healthy lifestyle pay more for those who disregard their health and eat and drink with abandon, or smoke, or use drugs, or drive recklessly, and so forth. Many of these people, who will be most in need of care, are poor, or with low educational levels, or with psychiatric problems. But some are quite intelligent, educated, and middle class. How do we get these individuals who are unwilling to assume responsibility for their own health to change their behavior and start acting in a way that will enhance their own health? It would seem to be unethical to refuse them care, even for those conditions that are self-induced. And if their health insurance deductibles for treatment are increased to penalize them, they will be less likely to seek care. In that case, their conditions will worsen and require more intensive treatment in the future.

Perhaps positive incentives can be tried such as lowering their health insurance premiums and/or deductibles for healthy conduct and any improvement that can be measured in the harmful conditions they exhibit. But what if they don’t respond to these inducements and persist in behavior that damages their minds or bodies and will ultimately cost responsible citizens money to care for them? This is unfair to those Americans who are attentive to their health and who will not become a burden to society because of self-destructive conduct.

I don’t know the answer to this quandary. My heart says society must pay for the care of those unfortunate individuals whose actions have resulted in serious illnesses. My brain says it is unfair to expect people who act responsibly in regard to their health to be saddled with the cost of care for individuals who give no thought to how their behavior will subsequently affect their minds and bodies. There appears to be no way to reconcile my heart and my brain over this issue. I am my brother’s keeper, or am I?

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

“It’s such a cowardly act, whoever did this,” said Romney, the oldest son of 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. “Then you see the warmth of the first responders, and the people around who rushed to the scene. Such a contrast to their bravery. It just really is a family event. And it’s the best of Boston. It’s wonderful to see how people have been responding and how people are pulling together.”

[...]

“They’re going to come together,” he continued. “They messed with the wrong people. There’s going to be a period of grief, I’m sure there will be some anger. And we’re going to want to figure out how to keep this from happening again. Not just here but all over the country.” Source: CNN

Tagg Romney and his kids were watching the Boston Red Sox and had left before the twin bombings occurred. I would tend to agree with him that the perpetrator(s) messed with the wrong people. It is my hope that t his person is caught alive so they can be brought to justice.

Boston Police Commissioner says no suspects are in custody, but multiple news sources are saying a Saudi national, who is a ‘person of interest,’ was being guarded at a Boston hospital.

This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.

Just a few months into her first U.S. Senate term, Democrat Elizabeth Warren is generating increasing support among liberals as a White House contender — putting her on a potential collision course with presumed front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Warren’s tough stand against the Obama administration’s proposal to potentially cut Social Security benefits has become a lightning rod for progressive groups looking for a more liberal standard bearer in 2016.

“If Elizabeth Warren ran, millions of people would obviously support her candidacy enthusiastically,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who helped draft Warren to run for U.S. Senate against GOP incumbent Scott Brown.

Green said Warren already has won huge support from progressives for her recent bold questioning of financial regulators who she said are protecting big banks over families. Her rapid opposition to Obama’s proposed cuts only added to her star power.

“If Hillary Clinton or others don’t firmly oppose these cuts, they open up a huge amount of political space for an insurgent to run and win,” Green said.

T. Neil Sroka, communications director for the progressive group Democracy for America, said the group would push for an alternative presidential candidate such as Warren in 2016 if the Democratic candidate supports benefit cuts of any kind.

If we do see Warren versus Clinton in 2016 it would be historic since this time it wouldn’t be one woman running against a bunch of men. It’d be two women running against a bunch of men and running against each other — a further sign that women running for the highest office is now the new normal, just as it has in many countries for many years.

Daryl Cagle, CagleCartoons.com

Is President Barack Obama taking the country’s political middle — both by choice and by what is occurring with both political parties? There are increasing signs he is given how he is under fire from right and left and from Democrats and Republicans. Here are just a few tidbits that indicate his increasingly middle-of-the-road status.

*The Daily Beast’s John Avlon on Obama’s budget:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall catch hell from both sides.”

So said a sign on the Justice Department wall of Burke Marshall at the height of the civil rights era. But it could also apply to President Obama’s new budget, finally offered up two months late and on the heels of competing Democratic Senate and House Republican proposals.

But this budget is not like all the others. It is not a positional bargaining document, designed simply to rally the base at the outset of negotiations. One way you can tell is that liberal activists and congressmen are already screaming “sellout” at the White House for offering Social Security reform as part of a balanced plan to reduce the deficit and debt.

The Republican response so far has been crickets, and that throat clearing you hear in the distance might just be a recalibration before another reflexive “tax and spend liberal” attack on the president.

But resorting to the same old bumper sticker is going to strain credulity when the president is catching hell from real socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders, who declared that “I am terribly disappointed and will do everything in my power to block President Obama’s proposal to cut benefits for Social Security recipients.”

“The first sign it’s a good plan or at least a step in the right direction is that Obama is getting hell from both sides,” says former Bush and McCain strategist Mark McKinnon, a fellow Daily Beast columnist and No Labels co-founder. “If they’re not barking, then the proposal has no teeth and ain’t biting.”

By offering entitlement reform through the cost-of-living formula adjustment for future retirees sonorously known as “Chained CPI,” saving almost $125 billion over the next decade while exempting the most elderly and impoverished seniors, the White House is formalizing offers made in negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner in the past, putting them down in the black-and-white of the proposed budget.

*The AP’s Liz Sidoti notices the trend:

He wants to slash funding for the Democratic sacred cows of Social Security and Medicare. He doesn’t agree with a judge and women’s rights groups that girls of any age should have easy access to emergency contraception. He has hinted that he may disappoint environmentalists by letting the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline be built.

And, to varying degrees, President Barack Obama seems to be going middle-of-the-road on everything from gun control to immigration reform to drone policy, much to the annoyance of many Democratic activists and liberal lawmakers.

Go to the link to read it all.

*Note the cartoon above by Cagle Cartoon’s Daryl Cagle. Political cartoons are good in picking up trends and displaying conventional wisdom. The cartoon captures where Obama is in today’s politics.

*The buzz on liberal talk shows. Last week I drove from San Diego, CA to Merced, CA to Sacramento, CA, Dublin CA, and finally San Francisco, CA and then down. I listened to a LOT of right wing and left wing talk. Right wing talk clearly focused on Obama as a kind of radical. But it was the left wing callers on talk shows (left and right) on AM and XM radio who were the most fascinating. Some were extremely angry at Barack Obama for his budget and still talking about him not going the public option. One caller typified the Democrat’s historical problem and Achilles heel which partially explains why Democrats dropped the ball over the years on the Supreme Court and lost their majority on the court.

This caller said — no surprise here — that if Obama caves more on issues such as social security then maybe it would be time doing what many Demcorats did in 2010 (yes he said this) and stay home.

So once again some liberal Democrats response is that if they don’t get all they want they’ll stay home in 2014. Again allowing the GOPers flooding to the polls to sweep their party to victory in Congress, perhaps win states with vulnerable Republican govenors, get the power to gerrymander, and be in a stronger position to check-mate a Democratic President or Democrat’s majority’s legislation. Perhaps even win both houses of Congress and be able to repeal Obamacare. The Democrats’ “Why, I’ll teach my party a lesson — and help elect Republicans” attitude may not be totally out there, but it’s most assuredly out there and back.

Of course, GOPers looking to raise money and talk show hosts and Fox News will continue to paint Obama as a far left liberal and socialist who secretly sneeks into a room to study the Communist Manifesto. Members of the Democratic Party’s left will continue to say he has “caved” — saying someone “caved” in 21st century American usually means they compromised with the other side in the interest of getting a policy in place that can benefit the country, no matter how big or small the benefit may be.

American political history has proven that there IS a political center in America. And Obama — by choice or political geography — increasingly seems to be in it.

Writing a novel, Mr. B.?

If only, Selig. Doing my taxes. Or starting them anyway. They are so, so, so…

Crazy? Irritating? Unfair?

All that, Selig. No time now to complain about them, though. Gotta run. Places to go. People to see. Derivatives to churn out.

You know, Mr. B., maybe we don’t really need taxes. I have an idea that might let us abolish them altogether.

Abolish taxes? Really?

Yes, sir. The other day I was speaking with one of the company’s bond traders…

Always an educational experience, Selig. Continue, please.

Well, sir, he mentioned how the Fed is buying $45 billion a month in long-term Treasury bonds.

That’s right, Selig.

And that comes out to $540 billion a year.

I don’t have my calculator with me, but that sounds right. Carry on.

Then on the radio, Mr. B., I heard that the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, this fiscal year was projecting the national government’s deficit would be $845 billion. Which means that this year one part of the government, The Fed, would be buying 64 percent of the debt issued by another part of the government, the Treasury, with both using the same collateral — the full faith and credit of the United States.

You see a problem here, Selig?

Of course not, sir. Who could possibly think such a thing? It got me thinking, though. If The Fed is already borrowing 64 percent of new debt issued by The Treasury to fund the deficit, why not borrow it all? Then there wouldn’t be all those arguments in Washington about how deficits are endangering the economy because there would always be a willing buyer for this debt.

Not a bad idea, Selig. But what has this got to do with taxes?

Well, Mr. B., if one part of government spending — the part funded by deficits — was all funded by The Fed’s buying bonds from the Treasury, why not have The Treasury issue bonds to cover the part of government spending now paid for with taxes? Then we could do away with income taxes altogether.

Great Reagan’s ghost! You’re right, Selig! Then all the extra spending possible because Americans would no longer be paying taxes would generate the biggest boom since sub-prime mortgage lending. I’m seeing Dow 50,000 here. But wait. Wouldn’t this notion play havoc with the country’s credit rating?

It probably would, Mr. B. In fact it might give the United States a credit rating a notch or two lower than the Bank of Cyprus. But so what? Low credit ratings may scare off private lenders, or make them demand higher interest on their loans. But when S&P lowered the credit rating of the U.S. from triple-A to AA+, borrowing of this country’s debt actually increased and at lower rates, too, because the main buyer is The Fed, and it doesn’t care about the country’s credit rating, doesn’t demand higher interest rates either, because in essence it is lending to itself.

I’m feeling a little dizzy here, Selig. No more deficit worries. No more income taxes. Surely this would have to catch up with the government somewhere down the road.

Not necessarily, sir. You know my wife reads her Bible regularly.

I do know that, Selig. I hope your good woman is well and she still prays for me.

She is well, sir, and she prays for you nightly. Fervently. As if our economic survival depended on your good will.

A prudent woman as well as a religious one. Good combination. But why do you mention her now, Selig?

Because when I told her my idea, she referred me to Leviticus in the Bible where it speaks about debt forgiveness every few years, and declaring a Jubilee celebration when one occurs.

So, Selig? So?

So, sir, every few years government leaders and Fed policy makers could go on a retreat together, and come back declaring a Jubilee on all outstanding government debt held by the Federal Reserve. Then the worrisome debt built up by deficits would disappear, income taxes would never have to come around again, and we could start the whole borrow-from-ouselves-to-pay-for-everything cycle all over again. And because this would be sanctioned by God, and no one in Washington would dare admit being a non-believer, there would be no objections.

Selig, I’ll admit I am impressed. Very impressed. I thought all the cleaning chemicals you’ve been inhaling in order to keep this washroom sparkling had probably damaged your brain. Now I see they have actually enhanced its operation. I’m even thinking we hold meetings of the company’s Ethic Committee down here in the future, have them do some washroom inhales, better to ensure we’re compliant with all government regulations.

I’ll work on the seating arrangements, sir.

Do that.  Ha ha ha ha. Forgive me for tittering, Selig. But won’t people be surprised when they hear that this country’s new economic policies were devised by a man whose main job is unplugging toilets at Goldman Sachs?

Actually, Mr. B., I don’t think many people would find that surprising in the least.   

(Michael Silverstein’s new comic novel, Murder At Bernstein’s, about a financial news billionaire who wants to get elected Mayor of Philadelphia, is now available on Amazon.)

Should the United States apologize to Iraqis and pay their country reparations? Now, ten years after an invasion that was illegal under international law and based on mistaken pretexts, Al-Iraq News columnist Jamal Muhammad Taqi argues that it’s time for America to make amends – but he has little expectation that it will.

For Al-Iraq News, Jamal Muhammad Taqi starts off this way:

To turn the page on the past, the least America and Britain can do for the Iraqi people is apologize and compensate them for the catastrophic material damage inflicted on themselves, their natural environment and their infrastructure. This is damage that will leave its mark for a century. The most practical punishment would be to see the U.S.-British agenda for which the invasion and occupation were carried out – thwarted. That would be the only reasonable punished for a crime unequaled by any in the world.

On the anniversary of the invasion, the above suggestion seems like some kind of dream or small talk between acquaintances, since the people who currently rule Iraq consider the invasion and occupation to have been necessary to liberate the country from those that used to rule! According to them, the Americans and British deserve thanks, gratitude, and sometimes compensation for what they lost in Iraq during the invasion and occupation. This is understandable coming from a group that collaborated from the beginning, and for which the invasion and occupation are the reasons for their hold on power. Naturally they owe everything to the occupiers and will inevitably stand against any of the above-listed demands. In any event, we’re not counting on those appointed to govern by the occupiers, but on all free patriots who are organizing themselves and shifting from armed resistance to political and legal resistance. And thanks to Allah, they are many!

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR ARABIC AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Arrested last week on charges he abused his position to imprison a 20-year-old Trainer man during a drunken, gun-wielding encounter at his home in February, Marcus Hook Mayor James “Jay” Schiliro has dropped his bid for re-election. But he said Wednesday he plans to finish out his term as mayor.

And the details of what happened make it clear that they couldn’t be used to win votes and might be hard for a p.r. person to spin:

Before his arrest, Schiliro said he was planning to run for re-election and hoped voters would forgive his behavior. The embattled mayor blamed the incident on a problem with alcohol and said he is seeking treatment.

Schiliro, 38, of the 1000 block of Green Street, surrendered a week ago today on charges of official oppression, recklessly endangering another person, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment and providing alcohol to a minor, all misdemeanor offenses. He is free on $50,000 unsecured bail, with conditions prohibiting firearms possession and contact with the young Trainer man.

A preliminary hearing is pending assignment of a new court, due to a conflict of interest with Magisterial District Judge David Griffin in Linwood.

Authorities allege that late on the evening of Feb. 21, Schiliro contacted the young man by text message and had a Marcus Hook police officer deliver him to his borough home. There, with Schiliro’s 13-year-old daughter sleeping upstairs, the mayor allegedly gave the young man alcohol and produced three firearms, one of which was fired into papers inside the house.

During the encounter, the mayor repeatedly asked the young man if he could give him oral sex, according to court documents. Schiliro is not charged with any sex-related offenses.

Yes, when you look at these allegations, re-election might have been tough.

h/T Political Wire

Is there a special hell for Wayne LaPierre?

It’s Sunday. One can but hope.

Three months and a day after the Newtown massacre, Mr. LaPierre, dressed in his trademark business suit and starched white shirt, arrived with a security detail at a convention hall overlooking the Potomac for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, a gathering of thousands of activists sponsored, in part, by the N.R.A.

From the earliest days after the shooting, Mr. LaPierre had been working to counter any legislative impact: sowing concerns about background checks, which in the late 1990s he supported; introducing his “National School Shield” plan to arm teachers, administrators and other school personnel; and making sure his base felt protected as the national trauma sank in…

…“They call us crazy, but no one — no other organization in the world — has spent more millions over more decades to keep Americans safe,” Mr. LaPierre said, referring to the association’s gun safety efforts. …NYT

Except for those who have been mowed down by guns, every day, some place in America.

Disgust for LaPierre grew in late January when he appeared on Capitol Hill for a hearing. His arrival was described in the Washington Post.

Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s chief executive, arrived for his hearing on Capitol Hill in the organization’s trademark fashion: violently.

When he and his colleagues stepped off the elevator in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Wednesday morning and found TV cameras waiting in the hallway, LaPierre’s bodyguards swung into action. One of them, in blatant violation of congressional rules, bumped and body-checked journalists out of the way so they couldn’t film LaPierre or question him as he walked.

“You don’t have jurisdiction here!” a cameraman protested as an NRA goon pushed him against a wall. After the melee, congressional officials informed the NRA officials that, in the halls of Congress, they had to follow congressional procedures — which prohibit manhandling.

This must have come as a surprise to the gun lobbyists, whose swagger seems to suggest that they are, in fact, in control of Congress. In their world, nothing trumps the Second Amendment — not even the First Amendment. …Dana Milbank, WaPo

Time is not on LaPierre’s — or the NRA’s — side. Reality will catch up with them. Some day sooner rather than later we will probably marvel that effective gun control has taken hold and a broad deflation in the NRA’s funding is common knowledge. That’s often the way these hot fights end: with a whimper, not a bang. A whimper is just what we want to hear from LaPierre. Tomorrow or next week, please, not after two or three more mass slaughters.

Cross-posted from Prairie Weather

Stirred by a message from the heart
by Dana Milbank

WASHINGTON — In a city where David’s righteousness almost never beats Goliath’s might, what Nicole Hockley and the other Sandy Hook families did to the gun lobby last week was nigh unto miraculous.

Gun-control legislation had appeared to be a lost cause. But over the course of four days, Hockley, who lost her 6-year-old son, Dylan, in December, joined with 10 other kin of the Newtown dead — and brought the legislation back to life.

Last Sunday, the families appeared on “60 Minutes.” On Monday, Hockley introduced President Obama at an event in Connecticut. The families then flew to Washington on Air Force One to begin their lobbying — emotionally grueling meetings with 26 senators, Republicans and Democrats, over three days.

By Thursday morning, a Republican-led filibuster of the gun legislation had been soundly defeated. Obama called the family members immediately after the vote to thank — and credit — them for the reversal of fortunes. The legislation’s supporters in the Senate did, too.

“They spent all week fanning out across the Capitol,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., “and I think it’s no coincidence that we will end this week in a much better position than people thought we would a week ago.”

Lobbyists like this would be worth millions on K Street — but Hockley and her peers succeeded precisely because they weren’t the usual actors following the usual script. “At the start of the week I didn’t even know what a filibuster was,” Hockley told me Thursday.

There were other factors involved. Obama, after a slow start, stepped up his pressure on Congress. Opponents changed tactics, too, calculating that it would be easier to defeat the bill by amending it on the Senate floor than by blocking its consideration. Indeed, the legislation still faces an uncertain future in the Senate and daunting odds in the Republican-led House.

Still, it’s worth pausing to celebrate an against-the-odds moment in the capital. Hockley’s group, Sandy Hook Promise, is advised by a skilled Washington hand, Ricki Seidman, but many of the parents involved knew one another from playing ultimate Frisbee. They decided to avoid the most contentious issues (they don’t favor a ban on assault weapons) and, instead of using pressure tactics, told the senators stories of the dead and shared photos.

“They didn’t expect that,” said Tim Makris, co-founder of Sandy Hook Promise and father of a fourth-grader who survived the attack. “They expected banging on the tables.” The families are said to have been instrumental in the compromise on background checks between Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., that revived the legislation’s prospects.

The stories lawmakers heard are much like those the families told on “60 Minutes,” where Hockley said she put her son’s ashes in an urn on her bedroom dresser: “Every night I beg for him to come to me in my dreams so that I can see him again. And, during the day, I just focus on what I need to do to honor him and make change.”

The day after the show aired, Obama, speaking in Connecticut, repeated those words of Hockley’s. “If Nicole can summon the courage to do that, how can the rest of us do any less?” he asked.

Her story was again the focus of attention Wednesday. In his maiden speech on the Senate floor, Murphy described the close relationship between Dylan, who was autistic, and his special-ed teacher, Anne Marie Murphy (no relation). “When the bullets started flying, she brought Dylan into her arms,” he said. “And that is just how the two of them were found.”

Although the families’ lobbying was private, two of them, Erica Lafferty (who lost her mother, Principal Dawn Hochsprung) and Jillian Soto (who lost her sister, Victoria, a teacher), appeared at a news conference with senators before Thursday’s vote.

Hockley wasn’t at the news conference, but the lawmakers invoked her name yet again. “Newtown has changed us,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “As Nicole Hockley said, there is no going back now.”

When I caught up with Hockley on Thursday afternoon, she was tired and eager to return to her husband and surviving son. She had postponed the interview to take the president’s call, but Hockley, a stay-at-home mom with a background in marketing, wasn’t impressed by that or by all the lawmakers’ attention. “This has been quite a whirlwind,” she said, “but honestly I would rather be at home with Dylan.”

Follow Dana Milbank on Twitter, @Milbank. (c) 2013, Washington Post Writers Group

heart graphic via shutterstock.com

We hereby present this certificate of hypocrisy to Republicans who’ve been blasting President Barack Obama over a concession he made to them. It’s yet another sign of our hyper-partisan, hyper-ideologist times.

It has been said many times before the past several months, but it’s worth saying again: rebranding reshmanding. The New Republic notes:
Want to know whether bipartisan compromise on the budget has a future? Then watch very clearly over the next few days, to see whether Republican leaders distance themselves from Republican Congressman Greg Walden—and whether Walden himself walks back some rhetoric from yesterday.

Walden, from Oregon, is chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
So he’s not — to use conservative talker’s favorite name for Joe Scarborough — an average political “shmo.”
And after President Obama released his budget Wednesday, he was quick to attack it. By itself, that was unexceptional: Pretty much every Republican leader spent the day criticizing it. But most Republicans stuck to the familiar arguments conservatives make against Democratic budgets—that it calls for too much spending and too many taxes. Walden went after something else: Obama’s proposal to reduce Social Security benefits.

By now, you’re probably familiar with the proposal, which would change the inflation formula that government uses to calculate a variety of benefit and tax levels. Wonks call it “Chained CPI,” with CPI standing for “consumer price index.” Many experts believe the Chained CPI would better reflect true inflation, because consumers, when faced with higher prices, substitute cheaper goods. But it’s still a benefit cut and many experts also believe that some consumers, the elderly among them, are less able to adapt.1 Obama has said he would support the measure only in exchange for concessions, such as higher taxes on the wealthy and spending on infrastructure. Even so, he’s taken all kinds of grief over the idea from the left, where the idea remains highly unpopular, even in the abstract.

For that reason alone, endorsing the CPI change represents a major concession, albeit one Obama had made previously in private and then in public. And it’s a concession that, on multiple occasions, Republicans have insisted Obama make formally, in the budget, as a show of good faith. Now he has done that. Yet the ink was barely dry on the budget before Walden went after it, not because it was insufficient but because it would hurt the elderly. “A shocking attack on seniors,” he called it.

The fact that Walden is in charge of the committee that will coordinate congressional campaigns for Republicans in 2014 is significant here, because it foreshadows a campaign in which Obama, having accepted an entitlement cut that conservatives demand, gets attacked for it. We’ve seen this play out before—in 2010 and 2012, when Obama and Democrats came under merciless attack for cuts to Medicare, as part of the Affordable Care Act, no less harsh than cuts Republicans were simultaneously advocating. Sure enough, Walden linked the two during an interview with CNN.
And so it goes.

To Mr. Walden we proudly present the certificate above. He has worked hard to earn it and we’re sure he’ll inspire many other Republicans to follow his example.

Unless polls show it won’t work.