2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGun Control Issue Hurting Bernie Sanders
...
Sanders on Thursday night used a Facebook post to call on Congress to allow the federal government to research "causes and effects" of gun-related events. "We must authorize resources for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study and research the causes and effects of gun violence in the United States of America," the Facebook post said.
But that position is a reminder that Sanders, as congressman, in 1996 voted against barring the CDC from studying gun violence. Asked by CNN if he now regrets that vote, Sanders' campaign declined to say yes or no.
...
Gun control is an issue that appears to continually trip up Sanders with the liberal base. And the shootings in San Bernardino, which left 14 dead and 21 wounded, show that it's an issue that will only reappear throughout the race with each subsequent tragedy.
More at http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-gun-control-no-fly-list/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)There will be more mass shootings between now and when the first primary votes are cast.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Hillary Clinton said her Iraq War vote was a mistake and apologized. Senator Bernie Sanders hasn't apologized at all. So, did he evolve on the issue out of convenience? I want a genuine apology from him.
safeinOhio
(32,687 posts)representing the people of Vermont at the time and their wishes. Like Clinton saying she represented the Wall Street bankers at the time in 2008 when she voted to help out Wall Street rather than Main Street.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Pfft.
Bernie owes you nothing. He's always been pro-gun control.
This is all just an act because Hillary supporters don't want to discuss anything else.
Go demand an apology from the pro-NRA Republicans and stop attacking Democrats.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)He doesn't see it as a problem. He thinks he was right and that is that. Voting against the Brady Bill to protect Vermont gun shop owners was a big mistake!
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)Hmmm?
safeinOhio
(32,687 posts)gun control is an issue that appears to continually trip up CNN.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Wait, what?
After a little reading, it seems that such a funding cut was indeed introduced to the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill by Jay Dickey.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3610
Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 301,
and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, and sections
20, 21 and 22 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, title
IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee
Education Assistance Act of 1980; including insurance of official motor
vehicles in foreign countries; and hire, maintenance, and operation of
aircraft, $2,262,698,000, of which $30,553,000 shall remain available
until expended for equipment and construction and renovation of
facilities, and of which $32,000,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 1998 for mine safety and health
activities, and in addition, such sums as may be derived from authorized
user fees, which shall be credited to this account: Provided, That in
addition to amounts provided herein, up to $48,400,000 shall be
available from amounts available under section 241 of the Public Health
Service Act, to carry out the National Center for Health Statistics
surveys: Provided further, That none of the funds made available for
injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control: Provided
further, That the Director may redirect the total amount made available
under authority of Public Law 101-502, section 3, dated November 3,
1990, to activities the Director may so designate: Provided further,
That the Congress is to be notified promptly of any such transfer:
Provided further, That the functions described in clause <<NOTE: 30 USC
1 note.>> (1) of the first proviso under the subheading ``mines and
minerals'' under the heading ``Bureau of Mines'' in the text of title I
of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1996, as enacted by section 101 (c) of the Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134), are
hereby transferred to, and vested in, the Secretary of Health
Now, here's the fascinating thing. You see what I quoted in the title, about then-Congressman Sanders "votign against barring" this restriction?
it's 100% true, Sanders voted against this stuff put in there by Dickey. In fact, he voted agaisnt the entire bill.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll247.xml
Sanders is recorded as a "nay" vote on the final vote in 1997.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)So what the hell is CNN doing?
I can understand DUers not knowing any better but shouldn't someone at CNN have caught that?
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR), the NRA’s point person on the Appropriations Committee, pushed through an amendment cutting funding for the CDC by $2.6M — the exact amount that the previous year’s federal budget had appropriated for the CDC program on gun research.
Once the bill got to the floor of the full House, on 11 July 1996, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) offered an amendment to reverse the Dickey amendment — and to restore full funding for the CDC program.
Lowey demanded and received a recorded vote on her amendment.
Bernie Sanders voted against the Lowey amendment — i.e., he voted for gutting the CDC program on gun research, as the NRA wanted. The amendment failed.
You can read more at https://medium.com/@emperor65/the-sanders-gun-vote-that-never-makes-the-lists-but-should-1eeda369e02b#.8kkubjeh9
P.S. Just in case you ask for the actual roll call, here's the link http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll302.xml
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Seriously, had CNN included that information the searching would have been easier.
Amends: H.R.3755
Sponsor: Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] (offered 7/11/1996)
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment sought to increase funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control by $2.6 million and decrease Area Health Education Centers funding accordingly.
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment, printed as amendment No. 4 in the Congressional Record of July 9, 1996, to increase funds appropriated in the bill for the Center for Deasease Control research activities by $2.6 million and reduce funds appropriated for Health Resources and Services Administration comensurately. The intent of the amendment is to fund research into firearm-related injuries.
Bolding mine. Now, what's an Area health Education center?
Along with state and local partners, the AHEC programs and centers:
Recruit and train students from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds into health careers;
Place health professions students in community-based clinical practice settings - with a focus on primary care;
Promote interprofessional education and collaborative teams to improve quality of care; and
Facilitate continuing education resources and programs for health professionals - particularly in rural and underserved areas.
http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/grants/areahealtheducationcenters/
So had sanders voted yea on the amendment, you would instead be here telling me he voted against providing health care and medical training to poor, rural, and underserved communities, wouldn't you?
Welcome to congress. ProudToBeLiberal.
Now again, have a look at the final roll call of the entire bill. Sanders voted nay. he voted against the Dickey language with that nay. he voted against cutting funding to the CDC for gun research.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Nita Lowey amendment would not defund AHEC. It would take 2.6 from 31 million and give it to gun violence research to the CDC.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)1) Had Sanders voted for the amendment, you would be saying he voted to cut funding to AHEC instead.
2) Sanders voted against the entire bill, including the language put in by Dickey.
Now here's a question. Rep. Lowey has apparently tried to get this rider overturned ever since. Do you perhaps - with your superior searching skills, which I bow to - have a record of hte votes on these?
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)As to your first point, I will be honest with you. Until 25 minutes ago, I knew nothing about AHEC until you brought it up. So, no I would not have made a big deal about it.
As to the second point, I am just the student and you are the master in terms of digging up data. So, I defer to your skills. I will eagerly wait for your results and conclusions.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)How familiar are you with the contents of hte 1996 appropriations omnibus? Probably you don't know anything about it beyond the Dickey Rider, Lowey's attempted amendment, and sanders's vote on that amendment and hte overall bill, right/ Why do you know about these things? becuase CNN just came up with this piece to try to slam Sanders with it. Until you got your hands on thatpi ece, you didn't know any of this, did you?
So, had he voted the other way, we would instead have a CNN piece taking him on for attempting to defund AHEC or something, and you would be painting him as the devil, and i'd be pointing out where that money would be going instead, you know how it goes. We'd know exactly as much as we know now, you'd be as invested in attacking sanders, and I'd be invested in defending him against it.
I welcomed you to congress before. Now? welcome to the media. You could spend a lifetime expoloring that rabbit warren.
As for my second point? Sanders voted against the bill.
You want to cast Sanders as the devil here, by all means. Show me. it's your claim.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)I created this post yesterday and the info was from reuters http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251872055
Like I said, I defer to your expertise when it comes to googling and searching. Stop being so modest and humble. You are a talented researcher.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Had it not been thrust at you by a media outlet, you would neither know nor care that you didn't know. had the vote gone the other way, we would be seeing these sources going after sanders for taking needed money away from AHEC. I disagree with your assessment that it wouldn't miss 2.6 million dollars; if my knowledge of Cynical civics is any good, it says that a program intended to bring medical service to broke-ass communities isn't likely to have cash to spare.
And we'd be in the same spot. "Sanders is EEEEVIL for voting against AHEC" vs. "No he wasn't here's why"
I actually did search library of congress vote records. I couldn't find anything on Lowey's amendments for this issue in the intervening years. S'why I was hoping you could come up with something. Sanders was in congress until 2007, and according to the article you linked earlier in this thread, Lowey's put the amendment forward for every appropriations bill. Did Sanders vote against it consistently for decade? Did Lowey actually do what the article claims? I can't seem to find out either answer.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Yes.
Funny.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Oh the DRAMA of it all!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=875517
Fearless
(18,421 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He already explained his vote against the Brady Bill:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
And his record is consistent:
....However, the Nation and the other reports like it don’t shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They don’t explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if there’s a consistency to Sanders’ positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernie’s position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.
Yet there is an explanation. It’s consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And it’s in Bernie’s own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. House—in 1990—where he was endorsed by the NRA, even after Sanders told them that he would ban assault rifles. That year, Bernie faced Republican incumbent Peter Smith, who beat him by less than 4 percentage points in a three-way race two years before.
In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmen’s groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle ban—even bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.
I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidates—as the Sanders’ campaign press secretary—and recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in hunting—he previously was mayor of Vermont’s biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nation’s characterization, isn’t “open-minded.”
As you can see, Bernie—who moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960s—has an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. He’s not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jock—being captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.
“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”
That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/
Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernie—to test his mettle after Smith’s about-face.
“Do you support additional restrictions on firearms? Do you support additional restrictive firearms legislation?” he asked. “Bernie Sanders, explain yourself, yes or no?”
“Yes,” he replied. “Two years ago, I went before the Vermont Sportsman’s Federation and was asked exactly the same question. It was a controversial question. I know how they felt on the issue. And that was before the DiConcini Bill. That was before a lot of discussion about the Brady Bill. That was before New Jersey and California passed bills limiting assault weapons.
“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”
That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.
“I said that before the election,” he continued. “The Vermont sportspeople, as is their right, made their endorsement. The endorsed Peter Smith. They endorsed Paul Poirier. I lost that election by about three-and-one-half percentage points, a very close election. Was my failure to get that endorsement pivotal? It might have been. We don’t know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. All I can say is I told the sportspeople of Vermont what I believe before the election and I am going to say it again.
“I do believe we need to ban certain types of assault weapons. I have taked to police chiefs. I have talked to the police officers out on the street. I have read some of the literature all over this country. Police chiefs, police officers are concerned about the types of weapons which are ending up in the hands of drug dealers and other criminals and our police oficers are getting outgunned.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-gun-control-critics-are-wrong-his-stance-has-been-consistent-decades
WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.
“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.
The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”
In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
He even voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:
A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."
Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just don’t think the state itself, whether it’s the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/
Cha
(297,275 posts)Thank you for this, ProudToBeLiberal
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-gun-control-no-fly-list/
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I'm not impressed with him at all. Looking at his polling and endorsements, I can easily see that I'm not alone in being underwhelmed with him.
Response to NurseJackie (Reply #23)
99Forever This message was self-deleted by its author.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Not where I want him to be but few are and I realize I'm in a minority. I also recognize my hypocrisy in fighting against some argument I have made in the past. I don't begrudge my own evolution and I won't begrudge Sanders his. I will say it's similar to some of Clintons more recent evolutions where history shows a different thought with each candidate; their history deserves discussion.
We win when people evolve toward more sensible thoughts. It's pretty much what we are doing. Changing society for the better. That change happens in individual minds first.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)If this is a subject that you know a lot about, or if you think it would generate interest, maybe you should start a discussion thread. Try it and see!
