Sometimes us folks who spend way too much time watching the Legislature have to wonder how many different political layers there are to virtually everything that happens here — especially in an election year.
Take last week, when the House was debating an all-Republican sponsored concurrent resolution dealing with the possibility of Guantanamo Bay detainees—presumably from the Mideast—being moved to the United States, possibly the military prison at Leavenworth.
Now that’s pretty simple, and there aren’t many Kansans of voting age who if they think about it want those terrorist suspects moved into the state, even though Leavenworth has a pretty stout military prison where we’re probably safe from them. But, then their families might move into the state, or to the United States wherever those prisoners might be moved if President Barack Obama closes Guantanamo as he’s wanted to do for the last seven years and still wants to do as his term wanes.
So many political bubbles emerging from this stew.
The resolution itself tends to anger Democrats as disrespectful. “Whereas this president has continually sought to weaken our standing in the world…” is one of the phrases that rubs Democrats the wrong way.
But Republicans, especially those from the Leavenworth area, don’t want those Gitmo folks coming to town, even into a high-security prison, which some feel might be targeted for terrorist activities. Fairly simple stuff.
Republicans were reminded, though, that if the Gitmo folks wind up in this country, and even at Leavenworth, Kansas, might be slighting its duty to the nation by refusing to hold those prisoners. Lots of mention of German war prisoners held in Kansas during World War II, and if Gitmo is closed, Kansas has the patriotic duty to hold those prisoners and keep Kansans and the rest of the nation safe.
While the debate was heating up, Democrats offered an amendment to get rid of that Gitmo stuff and instead make the resolution about prohibiting folks on the national terrorist watch list from buying guns. Another not-bad idea, but sharply different than a resolution that slams Obama.
It did have a cultural problem, though, because what if that terror list was wrong, and some upstanding Kansan couldn’t buy a gun because he/she was mistakenly on the list? It’s always politically tough to mess with guns. Kansans like their guns, don’t want terrorists wandering around with guns, but what if someone wound up on that watch list accidentally who ought to be able to carry a gun?
See how this goes both ways?
But it gets more complicated. The House rules committee rejected that Democrat gun amendment because it didn’t deal with the same topic as the original resolution. And, that decision went to a vote, too.
Vote for the rules committee decision which maintained the original resolution, and you’re against moving those Gitmo prisoners and maybe their friends who might be sympathizers or terrorists into Kansas. Vote against the rules committee decision and you’re for the gun check and not-so-much the Gitmo language.
Replace the Gitmo language with the “watch list” gun prohibition? It didn’t happen. The House’s rules panel decided that the amendment to substitute the gun stuff was not germane to the Gitmo stuff, so it came to a vote. And, the Gitmo stuff won, but it required supporters to vote against prohibiting terrorists from buying guns and carrying them around the state.
Now, many people are against both the gun checks and the Gitmo transfers, and can play their votes however they think their constituents want…and put it on their websites and campaign cards.
***
Or, they might just leave it alone. The effect of either resolution would be printing it out nicely and sending copies to President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and the six members of the Kansas congressional delegation.
That ought to keep the Gitmo folks out of Kansas.
Syndicated by Hawver News Co. of Topeka, Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report. To learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit www.hawvernews.com.