Sunstein Gives Litmus Test of Real Support

By Jim Shepherd

[Recently], several readers asked if I hadn't "given up the fight a little early" when it came to opposition of the nomination of Cass Sunstein to the position of head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Actually, it was not premature to take the confirmation of the avowed animal rights advocate, anti-hunter and opponent to individual firearms rights as a foregone conclusion. When the hold on the nomination proposed by Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson was overridden, it meant 40 votes would have been necessary in the Senate to block the nomination. Only 35 opposition votes were there, and the remainder of the so-called supporters of hunting and outdoor issues voted in favor of Sunstein.

Effectively, once the vote was taken Wednesday night, the final approval vote, was nothing but a formality.

From my chair, the vote did accomplish one thing: it clarified the real positions of 22 of the 53 Senators who are members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus.

Realizing this isn't going to win me any personal votes with the many outdoor groups operating in Washington, I'd personally like to see those 22 Senators tossed off the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. When the rubber met the road, they showed their true colors.

You can pretty much tell me anything you like and I'll take you at your word. But once you show me the disconnect between what you say and what you do, it's pretty much over between us. The 22 senators I named in last Thursday's Outdoor Wire can pretty much be assured they flushed their credibility on behalf of sportsmen on Wednesday night.

And there's no excuse for the vote. It wasn't as if they didn't know there were problems with Sunstein that would make him toxic with sportsmen across the country. More than a dozen outdoor groups went on record opposing the nomination - and made their opposition known to the entire senate.

It doesn't take a mental giant to understand that a man who's made no secrets of his opposition to recreational hunting and the second amendment is not good for the outdoors. To take those facts into consideration and then vote for that same man after he's stated -many times - he wants to give animals standing in court makes me believe that anyone voting to confirm him is either: a) in agreement with his positions, or, b) a complete nincompoop.

I'd prefer to think option B, but I'm afraid the political "minds" in Washington lean toward selection A these days.

That leads me to believe we need to let the "people's representatives" know we don't like their stench as it's being carried home on the political winds these days.

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised. It seems our leaders seem to see no contradiction in voting restraints onto the rest of us.

They seem totally convinced they represent complete nincompoops. Who could blame them? Their constituents sit like sheared sheep and watch as they say one thing and do another - time after time after time. And they keep getting reelected.

OK, they've rigged the election laws to give themselves huge advantages against anyone who opposes them, but their constituents seem OK with that, too.

Maybe they really ARE smarter than the rest of us.

If you judge us on our actions; it's hard to argue otherwise.

As the old expression goes "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Anyone out there feeling ashamed?

Republished from The Outdoor Wire.