He was accused of "...misleading the country after he said the Senate had already defeated..." the "assault weapons" ban.
Well it's really a matter of perspective. The Senate did vote 52-47 (that'd be the Republican controlled senate, therefore pro-gun, right?) to attach teh AWB onto the Lawful Commerce in Arms bill, but then turned around & defeated the bill 98-2 if I recall correctly.
Why did this happen? Well, the 52 who did vote for the AWB to be added onto the Lawful Commerce in Arms bill weren't crazy about the parent bill passing. That's one reason why it was added on - to kill the bill it would be attached to. The NRA was rumored to be in favor of letting the bill pass despite the AWB being added onto it, but gun owners pressured the NRA into opposing the bill's pasage.
So the Senate does have enough votes to pass the AWB, but it did defeat it as part of the overall package last March. It is misleading to imply that the Senate is opposed to the AWB being renewed as if it were attached to a non gun related bill I'm sure it would have passed. But technically Hastert is correct.
Now for some possible good news: After Difi tried to pressure Hastert into letting an AWB renewal get voted on in the House, "...Hastert's press secretary, John Feehery, said Wednesday that a vote 'doesn't look likely right now.''
But there's bad news:
"In an interview with National Public Radio broadcast Wednesday, Hastert, R-Ill., said the extension 'might have a chance' to pass in the House, but 'there's no promise we can get it out of the Senate because the Senate has defeated it already.''
Let me break that down. Hastert is saying an AWB renewal might have enough votes in the House, which would be in agreement with my estimates of the Representatives pro gun v. anti gun slant. (My estimates are based on GOA's House ratings of the 108th Congress).
He's also trying to say that it doesn't have enough votes in the Senate, but this is not true, as the Senate only killed the bill they attached the AWB renewal to in order to stop the pro-gun part of the bill. Yes, the pro-gunners in the senate voted to kill the bill tostop the AWB renewal, but they were the minority & couldn't have stopped the package from passing if the anti's felt the AWB was worth the Lawful Commerce in Arms bill getting passed.
So the votes are close to there in both the House & Senate. Close enough that it should be troubling.
More bad news:
"In an interview, Feinstein said she seized on Hastert's comment that an extension might be able to pass the House to call on him to hold a vote.
'The fate of this bill clearly rests with Speaker Hastert and the president of the United States,' she said. 'It is doable, and I think everybody knows that."
So because of Hastert's admission (deliberate or not) Difi has a new weapon to use: the idea that there are enough votes to pass it.
What I think is happening is that Hastert &/or Bush have seen the writing on the wall & don't want to piss off as many gun owners as they would be letting the ban pass. They also don't want to risk the soccer mom vote by opposing the ban, so they attempt to justify why it won't get a vote. Unfortunately Hastert's justification is rather flimsy & will be used against him & possibly Bush by those who want the AWB renewed.
It's unfortunate that the GOP is still toying with sacrificing gun owners to appease the soccer moms, especially since no soccer mom is going to vote for Bush simply because he supports what they think is a ban on machine guns that fire nuclear tipped bullets. They should come right out & say the AWB is junk & immoral & they won't have it.
Shame though, as I was getting excited about Hastert possibly pushing for a Fair Tax. & truthfully his statements about the AWBrenewal vote not being likely are encouraging, except that they're based on a faulty premise & I'm not at all sure he's capable of withstanding the presure that will result from them.
The second week of September looks to be interesting in the Senate, & I hate interesting weeks in the Senate. Hopefully the House will be boring for quite a while.
Posted by Publicola at August 7, 2004 10:02 PM