Worst Democrat of the Day: Mark Pryor

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ThinkProgress:

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) hinted on Tuesday that he would oppose a Democratic initiative to expand background checks to all gun purchases, but reiterated his support for an NRA-backed measure that would permit individuals deemed mentally ill or incompetent to purchase firearms more freely. Pryor is part of small group of Democrats in red states who have not endorsed universal background checks, even though the measure is supported by a majority of residents.

"You know, I'm a Second Amendment guy, everybody knows that. People in our state are very strong believers in the Second Amendment and the right to gun ownership," Pryor told "The Alice Stewart Show," which airs on KHTE 96.5 The Voice. The conservative Democrat then highlighted his co-sponsorship of an NRA concocted proposal that would reduce the number of records in the existing background check system by removing prohibitions against individuals who were involuntarily committed to mental institutions. 

This is insane. The problem isn't that some people "got their name wrongly in the first place or they've gone through some issue or whatever and that's behind them and they need to get their name out of the database," as Pryor put it, as if it's all about rectifying unfortunate mistakes and administrative errors, it's that, as TP explains, "[t]he bipartisan NICS Reporting Improvement Act would allow these people [those "ordered by a court into involuntary treatment, found to pose a danger to themselves or others, or lack the mental capacity to enter into legal contracts from buying weapons"] to purchase weapons immediately after being released, unless it can be proven that they pose an 'imminent' danger."

Read more »

Quote of the Day: Mark Pryor on reconciliation and health-care reform

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Hill quotes the Arkansas Democrat:

I haven't seen all the details of what the president's trying to do with reconciliation, and it's not my first choice. But under the circumstances, it may be the only way to pass legislation around here... It's not my preference. But we have reconciliation. It's in the rules. We can do it if we want to. My preference would be to have a big, bipartisan agreement, but in today's environment it's hard to do that.

I don't really have much to add.

Of course it's not anyone's "first choice."

Of course it's not anyone's "preference."

Of course it's "hard" to pass bipartisan legislation."

Of course it's "the only way," what with Republicans behaving like the obstructionist extremists they are.

But let us note again, just to be clear, that no one is talking about passing the entirety of the reform package through reconciliation. And why? Because both the House and Senate have already passed legislation.

Now it's just a matter of using reconciliation to pass improvements, or patches, to the Senate bill (assuming, that is, that the House passes the Senate bill).

At least Pryor, who's one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate, seems to get what needs to be done.

**********

The same cannot be said of thankfully-soon-to-be-retiring Evan Bayh of Indiana, a fellow centrist Democrat, who said yesterday, presumably with a straight face, that reconciliation would take the Senate into "uncharted waters," as if it's never been used before. Is he really that stupid, and that ignorant? Does he not remember what Republicans did when Bush was president, not so very many years ago? Does he have absolutely no grasp of even recent Senate history? It's like he's intentionally trying to subvert Democratic efforts, that is, the efforts of the majority party, his party, to pass meaningful health-care reform.

But what else is new?