Why Confirmations are Different

There were an awful lot of A-rated Democrats and Republicans who voted to confirm Eric Holder, and there’s some suggestion that this bodes ill for coming fights on anti-gun legislation that’s likely to appear in this Congress.  The current political climate is certainly not good for us, and one thing is for certain — if President Obama and the anti-gun forces in Congress commit themselves to rolling us in the 111th Congress, they likely have the votes to do so.  But the odds on defeating anti-gun legislation are higher than they are for a confirmation because the political dynamics are different.  Here are some of the factors that are present in a confirmation vote.

One, whether it’s right or wrong, there is a sense that a President should be able to choose his cabinet, and unless there’s some issue of qualification or gross malfeasance, the President should get his man (or woman).

Two, If the President and Senate are of the same party, there’s an expectation among party leadership that they will deliver their President his nominees.  Party leadership will tend to be sensitive toward a member’s situation in his own state when it comes to legislation, and will often give the nod to vote against legislation the leadership wants, because it puts him at risk in his home state.  There are times when that’s not the case, but a party that wants to stay in power will typically not ask a member to vote their way on too many issues that will put his seat in danger.  That dynamic is not typically present with confirmation votes, so consequences are more serious for bucking the leadership, and the White House, which is why no Democrats were willing to do it.

Conformations are one of those areas where far-reaching political ignorance comes into play.  The vast majority of voters, including most gun owners, don’t pay attention to confirmations.  NRA’s cover story on Holder didn’t hit people’s mailboxes until a few weeks before the Senate confirmed him.  It’s hard to hold politicians accountable when most people aren’t paying close attention to what they are doing at great detail.  This differs from legislation, where we’ve had a long time to educate gun owners on what could come down the pike.  Most everyone, by now, knows the consequences of a new assault weapons ban.

Those who say if we held these A-rated Senators feet to the fire, we could have defeated Holder, I think give NRA too much credit.  A thirty vote deficit on a confirmation is beyond NRA’s power to influence.  If they had twisted arms, and counted it as a “key vote”, that might have gotten maybe a dozen lawmakers to switch sides, at great cost to NRA.  You only get so many “key votes” in every legislative session, because you only get one shot every two years, or six years for Senators, to demonstrate your organizations electoral muscle.  In short, you only get a few chances to screw with a politicians grade, and if you do that, you better be able to unseat him, or he will be forever lost as an ally.

Any strategy that proposes to count every vote, with no regard to the cost and relative imporance compared to other threats, overestimates our influence, and is the fast train into the political wilderness.  We are an important interest group, but we do not rule Washington D.C.  If we had 20 million Americans who were willing to vote like gun owners — if we had a quarter as many pro-gun activists, we could probably do it.  But we don’t have that.  Not even close.  So we don’t have the luxury of spending ourselves on hopeless battles this early into Obama’s Administration.  Eric Hodler’s confirmation as Attorney General is not, by any means, good news for gun owners, but we did not have it together enough to defeat Obama, and nor did we to defeat Holder.  Gun owners are in the weakest political position we’ve been in for 15 years.  We only have the resources for a few fights this Congress, and we had better spend them wisely.

Clinton Throws Helmke a Bone

Bill Clinton mentioned how nice it would be if we could just pass another Assault Weapons Ban:

Nobody wants to repeal the Second Amendment, and nobody wants to keep you out of the deer woods, but wouldn’t it be nice if your children didn’t have to worry about being mowed down by an assault weapon when they turn the corner?

Except statistically that’s not even a worry, compared to say, having to worry about your kid being killed by a drunk behind the wheel.  Yet we do not ban alcohol and cars.  Bill Clinton is still trying to sell people on the notion that the Second Amendment is about duck hunting, and speaks of a new communitarian vision of the 21st century.  There is a party that’s stuck in the 20th century, but it’s not the Republicans, they are mostly stuck on stupid.  Both political parties have work to do if they want to recover the approval of the American People.

I am Categorically Opposed to Private Police

I have no problem with people who are appointed or elected to animal control positions carrying guns in the same manner of private citizens, but I am categorically opposed to giving law enforcment powers, particularly immunity, to people who are not sworn law enforcement officers.  This is a recipe for trouble, and no good will come of it.

If Pennsylvania is going to have animal enforcement officers, they ought to be sworn police, employed by, and accountable to the public.  I am very uncomfortable with giving private organizations, like the SPCA, quasi law enforcement powers.

Hat Tip to Another Gun Blog

Holder Passes: 75-21

Eric Holder’s nomination has been confirmed by the senate by a vote of 75 to 21.  The senators to vote against him are:

Barrasso (R-WY)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

This was not enough to sustain a filibuster, unfortunately, but this is better than I thought the Republicans would do. No Democrat voted against the nomination. The Republicans to vote “yea” were:

Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Sessions (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

This is not a positive development, but I will stand by my assertion that the time to stop this was in November.  It is very difficult to derail a cabinet nomination under the best of circumstances, which this wasn’t.

Working Together

This is not an example of how to do it:

Michael Guzman, a senior at Texas State University and president of the grassroots gun group called “Students for Concealed Carry on Campus,” is worried that the two issues will be “muddled” together by the media once the respective bills are filed, causing confusion among lawmakers and regular Texans.

Plus, there appears to be another element causing tension between the members of SCCC and the Virginia-based group OpenCarry.org — one of competing interests.

“If these open carry guys get enough attention with the introduction of their bill, it’s going to knock off our bill,” Guzman said. “Our biggest obstacle is another gun rights group. It’s ridiculous that two gun rights groups are going to be canceling each other out.”

Guzman’s concern is a legitimate one, but that’s not something that’s a good idea to go expressing to the media.  If they understand that gun groups are divided on the issue, you can expect a divide and conquer approach from our opponents, which is a pretty effective tactic.  To some degree, it’s much harder to hide these kinds of priority disagreements now than it has been in the past, but I think we ought to try to keep it relegated to the back waters of Al Gore’s Internets (like this place).

I think changing both laws would be a good thing for Texas, but there might only be room for one pro-gun bill this year.  I won’t toss my 2 cents in as to which it should be.  That’s for Texans to figure out.

Madness in Stimulus Debate

Megan McArdle takes a look at the madness of crowds:

I have a general rule for debates:  he who loses his temper, loses.  His supporters see him as righteously inflamed by the moronic arguments of the other side.  But the rest of the audience sees him as bully with a case too weak to be made without screaming.

I’ve been pondering recently how this applies to blog discussions. Just as with live debates, losing your temper and fulminating about the many character deficits, general stupidity, and probable misbehavior of the target is perceived by people who already agree with you as the natural reaction to an opponent so morally bankrupt and thoroughly stupid that there is no point in wasting further time actually arguing with them.  But how does it play to the rest of the audience?

Read the whole thing.  The rest is about the stimulus debate, I swear.

Hope and Change in New Hampshire

It would appear they aren’t a fan.  More states need to pass resolutions making sure the President knows what the states think the limitations of his power are.  It’s awfully hard for federal overreaching to mean much if the states aren’t willing to go along with helping enforce it, or will actively interfere with its enforcement.

New Comment Disclaimer

I do not like that I have come to the point where I am informing folks that I reserve the right to moderate (polite way of saying delete) comments, but that is what I have added to the comment widget, shamelessly paraphrased from the Volokh Conspiracy Comment Policy, on every post.  Comments have gone downhill lately, to the point where I no longer really enjoy blogging.  As soon as this becomes an obligation rather than something I enjoy, I’m not liable to continue doing it for much longer.

I want discussion, and I don’t mind disagreement, even passionate disagreement, but we’re going with dinner party rules in the comments from now on.  I do not pay for the bandwidth, server, storage, and I don’t bum backup services off my friend Jason, to host a platform for nastiness.  If you want to disagree with me or other commenters, that’s fine, but I think it’s not too much to ask to make your case with civility and class.  That’s what’s going to be enforced around here from this point forward.  It’s a big Internet.  Everyone is entitled to a voice, just don’t ask me to pay for it if you’re going to be rude.

UPDATE: I should note that Robb has a special dispensation to not wear pants when he comments.  I didn’t say my dinner parties had to be completely boring :)

UPDATE: Randy Barnett is going without comments entirely.  No plans to do that here.  Prof. Barnett must have heard about Robb posting with no pants.