Steve Benen:
In competitive states, we’re seeing two kinds of politicians: those who
support new measures intended to reduce gun violence and those who
pretend to support new measures intended to reduce gun violence.
In New Hampshire,
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R), shortly after voting to kill the bipartisan bill
to expand background checks, benefited from new ads claiming she voted
for “a bipartisan plan to make background checks more effective.” In Arizona,
Sen. Jeff Flake (R), who voted the way the NRA demanded last month,
this month is telling anyone who’ll listen how much he loves “to
strengthen background checks.”
And in Nevada, as Jon Ralston noted today, Sen. Dean Heller (R) is sending out interesting correspondence to his constituents.
“Knowing your interest in gun control, I wanted to give you an update on legislation I have cosponsored and supported recently.”
Imagine how Nevadans felt when they received a letter that began that
way from none other than Sen. Dean Heller, who voted against the
Manchin-Toomey bill, saying he feared a creation of a gun registry
despite his general support for the concepts in the measure. He was
hailed by NRA types and blistered by gun control advocates.
I wonder how many folks who received that missive fell for the having-it-both-ways Heller approach.
Probably quite a few. That’s the point — politicians who do unpopular
things have to cynically hope they can mislead voters, not by
explicitly lying, but by taking advantage of public confusion over
details.
It’s yet another sign that voting to do the NRA’s bidding is not
something you proclaim proudly to the world, but something you can only
survive through chicanery. All of these politicians have no interest in
defending their votes — obviously because they’ve come to see their vote
as indefensible. Instead, they’ll try to confuse voters into believing
they
did vote in favor of expanding background checks, when in
reality they voted to sustain the filibuster against it. In fact,
Ayotte’s helpful ad came from the NRA — meaning not even they are
willing to stand by their own position on the issue. The vote was
political poison.
This all might work now, but a good opponent would see the opening
here a mile away. If Heller or Ayotte or Flake, etc., are so terrified
of their own vote that they’d go to such lengths to hide them, then an
election opponent would be a fool not to drag that vote out in the open
and expose the lie.
And this is why common sense gun regulation will win in the end. The
fact that these people feel they have to hide their votes proves we’re
already winning in public opinion and that those who stand against us do
so at their own electoral peril.