TexasCHLforum.com

Not to cut too fine a point, Reid is a nation-wide issue because he's the majority leader in the senate. His actions go way beyond the borders of Nevada and affect us all. But I understand your point. Moreover, I second your focus on good candidates, not just single-issue voting. We need the NRA and I appreciate what it does. But we have our own obligation to vote intelligently, and to work for good candidates. Moreover, we often forget the significance of political involvement at the local level: precinct work, school districts, utility and water districts, hospital districts. These are all matters that affect us directly, and on which we can have an immediate positive effect. Thanks for your post.

It sounds like Reid's pro-Kagan vote cost him. Well it should have.

Charles, My posts on this thread began and ended with the point that Reid is a disaster on judicial nominations. I've never stated nor implied that he has an anti-gun voting record in the Senate, except for his horrible voting record on judicial appointments. I don't speak for others who may claim he has an overall anti-gun voting record. Nor am I a member of any gun organization except one: I am a member of the NRA. Nor am I a resident of Nevada. I am a life-long Texan. But non-Nevadans can support Nevada senate candidates via political contributions to the candidate, or to their national party. But more than that, this whole discussion has centered around whether Reid should go or stay. Whether I call that "support" or use some other verb, that's what we're talking about. When you re-posted your point soliciting a response about Schumer and Durbin as the likely senate majority leader, it appears you prefer Reid to stay on as majority leader. Apparently I misunderstood, but my misunderstanding is also a fair reading of what you have posted. I'm not criticizing the NRA for its political strategy. In fact, I have posted on another board how I thought Tom Gresham was unfair and rude to Wayne LaPierre on Tom's talk show when they discussed the NRA carve-out on the disclose bill. I think we have just about beat this poor dead horse back to life. I vote we let him lie. Best wishes.

Charles, Nope, I don't know what bills Reid kept from coming to the floor. I cannot at all cite his pro-gun voting record. Please say what anti-gun bills he blocked from coming to the floor. Apparently you think I must have written that Reid had an anti-gun voting record. I'm not sure that's what I wrote. I pointed to his votes and actions supporting all of the anti-gun justices now on the supreme court. I think that's an important part of his voting record; in some respects, the most important part. I thought I had given some response to your questions, apparently not a good one:

"After Bork, after Miguel Estrada, republican presidents have tweaked their supreme court nominations to try to get a nominee that could be confirmed by the senate. If you have a republican in the senate in the seat currently held by H. Reid, and if the republicans have a stronger minority (or even a majority), then the next Supreme Court nominee (even one nominated by Obama) may well have to be more acceptable. Nothing in Reid's background recommends keeping him. Not his position as majority leader, not his voting record. It's a choice, yes, and there are plenty of reasons not to choose Reid. Even if Durbin or Schumer is the next majority leader, if Reid is gone then the republicans will have a better shot at blocking anti-gun legislation. Why keep Reid if the democrats are so weakened that they cannot pass anti-gun bills?"

If Reid is gone, does it not make a difference if the democrats have less than 60 votes? To sum up, it appears you are willing to support Reid. I am not. Reid's actions on non-gun bills is also part of the destruction of our constitution. Your reasons seem to be practical political ones. Fine, I understand. If you dont' want Schumer or Durbin as majority leader, fine. That's a very good point. But under that scenario, neither Schumer nor Durbin would have close to a 60 vote majority in the senate. I'm willing to take the smaller democrat majority that results in an enhanced ability of the pro-gun minority (including both republicans and democrats) to block bad bills.

If my ignorance of the particulars of Reid's voting record and bill management are the trump card in this discussion, then I readily fold. But I think Reid's record on Supreme Court (and district and appellate court) nominations ought to be part of the discussion. Perhaps you disagree.

Good points. However, a 40+ minority is fillibuster insurance, even on judicial nominations under present day practice. It's the fillibuster I'm talking about. And I note that there are more than a few pro-gun democratic senators. If the republicans have 40+, then those dems will be much more likely to go against the dem party position on gun issues.

After Bork, after Miguel Estrada, republican presidents have tweaked their supreme court nominations to try to get a nominee that could be confirmed by the senate. If you have a republican in the senate in the seat currently held by H. Reid, and if the republicans have a stronger minority (or even a majority), then the next Supreme Court nominee (even one nominated by Obama) may well have to be more acceptable. Nothing in Reid's background recommends keeping him. Not his position as majority leader, not his voting record. It's a choice, yes, and there are plenty of reasons not to choose Reid. Even if Durbin or Schumer is the next majority leader, if Reid is gone then the republicans will have a better shot at blocking anti-gun legislation. Why keep Reid if the democrats are so weakened that they cannot pass anti-gun bills?

As majority leader, H. Reid brought the nominations of Sotomajor and Kagan to the floor for votes. They are now on the supreme court. Are those actions not as important as other gun issues Reid has dealt with? I'll readily concede that Reid has been responsive to pro-gun pressure. It could be argued that at least some of his votes were cast when his vote (albeit against his party's position) would not have made a difference in the final outcome, and therefore allowed him to continue to claim a pro-gun record. Whether you count his pro-gun overall voting record (and his actions as majority leader) as true support for second amendment rights, or whether at least some of his votes were "safe" votes in which he could get away with taking a stand against his party, it is pretty clear that when push comes to shove, Reid will carry the water for any progressive agenda that his party demands. The country is suffering, thanks in part to Harry Reid.

Yes, of course, S. Angle would not come in as senate majority leader. (Did anything in my post even remotely suggest that?) Do you understand that H. Reid will continue to support anti-gun supreme court nominees?

When confirmation votes came up in the Senate, Harry Reid voted for each of the 4 justices who wrote those amazing dissents in Heller and McDonald. He can be counted on to vote for confirmation of every anti-gun justice candidate that comes up. That's a very bad voting record on guns for senator Reid. One more non-constitutionalist on the Supreme Court, and you can kiss your NRA victories goodbye. Harry Reid's so-called great voting record on guns is not really so good after all when you consider his support of Sotomajor, Kagan, and that ilk. Reid has very little regard for the constitution. The result? The present Washington D.C. government that constantly looks for ways to control the citizens. That will include 2nd amendment issues.

Nevada has a chance to send a better, wiser constitutionalist to the Senate. That's better than keeping Harry Reid. You should not live in fear of the bad democrat Senate majority leaders (Schumer, Durbin, or whoever). They are like poisonous mushrooms in the forest. Get rid of one, another will pop up. Don't live in fear of Schumer, Durbin, or any of those hands. Just send better people to the Senate.

++++1 what PWK said. Reid will carry the left-wing water when it comes to ALL democratic nominees for judgeships (Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, and DIstrict Judges). Reid is odious. He complained of the "smell of tourists." His own foul reek is infinitely worse. Get him out of the senate.