Ayotte at center of negotiations: ‘Sometimes clarification can have the appearance of change’

The New York Times reports Sen. Kelly Ayotte is at the center of negotiations that could result in her support for legislation to expand gun background checks.

Ayotte’s spokesperson, Jeff Grappone, denied she is participating in the talks, but other senators confirm the discussions are underway and say momentum is building.

Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledged the effort but warned lawmakers he will not accept “a watered-down version of background checks.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) insisted proposed changes will not weaken the bill:

“We have to give them a credible and commendable way to change their votes,” Mr. Blumenthal said of a handful of senators who could be persuaded, starting with Mr. Begich and Ms. Ayotte. Such modifications do not have to weaken the bill substantially, he added.“Sometimes clarification can have the appearance of change,” he said.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ ‘No More Names’ bus tour headed to Concord for June 18 vigil

Next Tuesday, June 18, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ “No More Names” bus tour will make a stop in Concord for an all-day vigil.

The event will feature gun violence survivors, family members, and community members reading the names of loved ones who have been murdered with guns. Participants will urge Congress to pass comprehensive and enforceable background checks legislation to reduce gun violence and save lives.

The 25-state tour launches in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday, the six-month anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. The 100-day tour will commemorate the thousands of Americans killed with guns since Newtown.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the anti-gun violence group spearheaded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has been running television ads in New Hampshire since March targeting Sen. Kelly Ayotte for her vote opposing expanded background checks for gun purchases.

For more information, visit NoMoreNames.org.

What They’re Saying: Brickbats for Ayotte

Sen. Kelly Ayotte issued a press release today titled, “What They’re Saying: Praise for Ayotte’s Support of Bipartisan Immigration Reform Bill.” As you would expect, it’s a one-sided survey of editorial support for her position. Here are a few reactions from the other side — most expressing anger over her perceived flip-flop on the issue.

Madison Project’s Daniel Horowitz called her “another Schumer Republican who lied to get elected:”

It’s amazing how many Republicans ran for election as absolutely opposed to any form of amnesty — certainly before enforcing existing laws. Somehow within a year or two, all of them have had an epiphany. The latest example is Senator Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire, the third amigo in the McCain/Graham Schumer club.

In 2010, Ayotte ran strong on the issue of illegal immigration, and actually aired a number of ads lambasting her Democrat opponent on support for amnesty. During the primary, she had a strong Tea Party challenge from Ovide Lamontagne, winning by just 1600 votes. Needless to say, she wouldn’t have been caught dead supporting amnesty during that primary.

Long time conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly said Ayotte should “stop echoing Karl Rove” and read the “Amnesty Bill:”

“As a Senate candidate, Kelly Ayotte had it right when she said that we don’t necessarily need to add new immigration laws, we need to start by enforcing the laws already on the books,” said Schlafly. “Ayotte even ran ads against her Democrat opponent for supporting amnesty.”

“Ayotte betrayed every conservative who supported her when she announced her support for this shameful bill,” Schlafly declared. “She has apparently been spending too much time with serial Establishment election losers like Karl Rove instead of reading the bill.”

Even Birther Queen Orly Taitz got in on the act, linking the immigration bill to the President’s alleged invalid Social Security number:

Senator Ayotte, aside from being a U.S. senator, you are a former Attorney General of New Hampshire, a Chief Law Enforcement officer of a state. You are being held to a higher authority. It is your duty to demand to stay the hearing on the new immigration bill and seek to hear the issue of Mr. Obama’s use of a stolen Social Security number, which failed E-verify.

You will have zero credibility in promising U.S. citizens and your constituents that e-Verify of millions of illegals will be checked, if you are covering up the failed E-Verify of an individual occupying the position of the U.S. President and Commander-in-Chief. Moreover, if you do not take action, you will be criminally complicit in the cover up of forgery, fraud, Social Security Fraud, IRS fraud, violation of Identity Theft Act of 1988 and treason.

Huffington Post: Ayotte rebuffed Rubio on immigration

Huffington Post confirms Sen. Kelly Ayotte undercut efforts by Sen. Marco Rubio to beef up border security measures in the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill. The story validates analysis by WMUR’s James Pindell who called Ayotte’s actions a “political fumble” by a rookie politician.

Ayotte’s announcement that she plans to vote in favor of the immigration overhaul weakens Rubio’s hand at the bargaining table as he attempts to make the bill more palatable for conservatives.

Citing three sources, Huffington Post writers Elise Foley and Sam Stein describe a private conversation between the two senators in which presidential hopeful Rubio asked Ayotte to hold back before announcing her position in favor of the bill:

Rubio had privately urged fellow Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) to remain quiet about her support for immigration reform, in hopes that Senate negotiators would amend the bill’s border security measures to win her vote, according to three sources, including one Republican Senate aide. …

Rubio “has not been telling them to vote no,” said one Senate Democratic aide familiar with negotiations. “He has been apparently holding people back from declaring support for the bill, while at the same time saying the bill needs changes in order to garner support. My understanding is he told Sen. Ayotte’s office to hold back, but she didn’t care.” …

A spokesman for Ayotte flatly denied that such a conversation took place. A spokesman for Rubio said he could not confirm the anecdote.

Ayotte apparent rebuff of Rubio’s request came just days after he came to her defense with a six-figure ad buy when she faced withering criticism over her opposition to expanded background checks for gun purchases.

James Pindell: ‘Ayotte is playing Candyland while many in the Senate are playing chess’

The announcement by Sen. Kelly Ayotte that she will vote for the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill was a “political fumble” by a rookie politician, writes WMUR’s James Pindell:

Ayotte is playing Candyland while many in the Senate are playing chess. The way Ayotte played it, she did two things damaging politically.

First, she undercut Rubio. Lately Rubio is saying that while he was among those crafting the bill he wants the amendment process to beef up border security measures. Before Ayotte’s announcement Rubio would have had a seat at the table to drive those changes. Now, immigration supporters can tell Rubio to buzz off because they have the 60 votes to do what they want.

Second, by going all in for it, she is now irrelevant in the next few weeks of immigration debate, for a few days of news coverage Sunday and Monday of her decision. If, instead, she said she generally favored the bill, but wanted to watch the amendment process, she would have received the same amount of headlines as a potential 60th vote, but reserved the right to vote against the bill. In that position, Ayotte could have crafted changes in the final bill. …

Now she doesn’t have that option and nor does Rubio.

That was then, this is now: Kelly Ayotte on ‘amnesty’

Yesterday, Sen. Kelly Ayotte announced she will be voting for the bipartisan immigration overhaul crafted by the “Gang of Eight.”

In an op-ed defending her vote, Ayotte cited the need for a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. “We need immigration reform that serves the best interests of our country,” she wrote, “a solution that … creates a tough but fair means for those who are here illegally to earn citizenship….”

No complaint here.

But I will point out, as her disapproving friends on the far right have noted, this is a far cry from her position in 2010 when she ran hard as an anti-amnesty candidate.

To prove that point, National Review posted a copy of a direct mail piece Ayotte sent out in 2010 attacking her primary opponent Bill Binnie for “standing together” with Pres. Obama on immigration reform.

And then there was the Letterman-style top ten list she released on the eve of a visit by Vice Pres. Joe Biden. Number six on Ayotte’s list of the “Top Ten Things Bill Binnie and Joe Biden Have in Common:”

6. Binnie and Biden both support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Quote of the day: Another young up-and-comer

If New Hampshire conservatives had any doubts about Ayotte, they’ve been asked and answered at this point. What Ayotte’s opponents, especially New Hampshire Democrats, hope is that they can use this issue to reduce her appeal beyond the GOP base. The more they reduce her crossover appeal, the greater the chance they can do to her what they did to another young up-and-comer, John Sununu, in 2008.

— Dante Scala, UNH political science professor, on the electoral implications of Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s vote opposing expanded background checks for gun purchases.

Police chief: Don’t be fooled by Sen. Ayotte’s alibi

With the release of a new television ad, Mayors Against Illegal Guns keeps the focus on Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s opposition to universal background checks for gun sales. The ad, which features Chaska, Minnesota police chief Scott Knight, refutes Ayotte’s claim that she actually supports background checks:

As a police chief, I look at facts. Some U.S. senators claim they supported a law to strengthen background checks. They cite this vote. [Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013, Roll Call Vote 98, April 2013]

I looked. Their vote actually weakened current gun laws making it easier for the dangerously mentally ill to get guns.

Sen. Ayotte uses her vote for this law as an alibi to claim she is tough on crime. Don’t be fooled. She voted to kill comprehensive background checks making us less safe. That’s a fact.

TMP reports the spot is part of a new 10-day, $400,000 campaign that will air in New Hampshire and Boston-area media markets. The group has previously spent over $650,000 on a series of ads criticizing Ayotte for her opposition to gun safety legislation.

CREDO to Ayotte: ‘Stop lying about your vote’

CREDO, the social change organization that placed boots on the ground in 2012 to help defeat 1st District Congressman Frank Guinta, is targeting Sen. Kelly Ayotte over her claim that she supports gun background checks.

The group that has generated 12 million letters and three million calls to decision makers across the country is now calling on its members to “push back against these misinformation campaigns, and push back hard, by shaming these legislators and telling their constituents the truth about their right-wing records:”

It was outrageous when the Senate killed an up-or-down vote to require background checks — the most modest part of the president’s gun reform agenda.

But now four Republican senators who voted against the Manchin-Toomey amendment that would have strengthened background checks — and who have seen their popularity crash in local polling as a result — are scrambling to convince their constituents they actually supported background checks.

This is not only an outright lie, but it’s also a blatant and cynical attempt to mislead constituents about their senator’s voting record.

Tell Republican Senators Ayotte, Heller, Portman, and Paul: Shame on you for lying about your vote on background checks. 

Closing the Terror Gap: Which side are you on, Kelly?

Under current law, a suspected terrorist on the FBI’s No-Fly List can’t board an airplane but they can still legally purchase guns and explosives.

Legislation introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Rep. Peter King would give the Department of Justice the authority to deny suspected terrorists the right to purchase a gun. After a two-year study of federal gun laws, the DOJ under Pres. George W. Bush backed the proposal.

The NRA opposes it. “There’s no evidence terrorists are buying guns,” says NRA president David Keene.

Today, Granite Staters delivered petitions to Sen. Kelly Ayotte calling on her to stop bowing to the NRA and vote for legislation to close the “Terror Gap” and keep guns away from potential terrorists.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns is spearheading the effort. “Suspected terrorists should be prohibited from purchasing guns and explosives just like felons, domestic abusers, and the severely mentally ill,” they said.

Kelly Ayotte’s fundraising bravado: ‘They’re messing with the wrong Senator’

Faced with withering and unrelenting criticism for her vote against expanding background checks for gun purchasers, Sen. Kelly Ayotte responds — by fundraising:

I urge you to make a generous contribution of $25, $50, $100 or more to help me defend the Second Amendment and set the record straight.

Bloomberg and his radical allies are going to great lengths to try to discredit me, and it’s appalling. One quick look at my record and you’ll see I’ve always been tough on criminals, while remaining a staunch defender of the Constitution.

They think that I’m an easy political target, but they’re messing with the wrong Senator. Because they can’t bully me into throwing my values and beliefs out the window.

Steve Benen on Kelly Ayotte’s ‘smoke screen’

Steve Benen blasts Sen. Kelly Ayotte, along with Sens. Dean Heller and Jeff Flake, not for her vote to kill bipartisan background check legislation, but for eagerly pretending she didn’t kill it:

The point here isn’t just to criticize poor policy judgment, though that certainly matters. Rather, the point is that these three — and only these three — feel compelled to mislead their constituents in a coordinated way, cynically hoping that public ignorance will allow them to get away with their vote. It’s about putting a smoke screen — emphasizing support for “strengthening” background checks through half-measures that won’t pass, instead of “expanding” background checks in real legislation — that confuses voters just enough to let these three senators off the hook. …

Instead of saying, “Here’s why I opposed the bipartisan measure on background checks,” they’re effectively arguing, “I love background checks so pay no attention to those pesky facts.”