Heller, Ayotte, Flake slammed for 'deception'

Getty Images

We talked last week about Republican Sens. Dean Heller (Nev.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), and Jeff Flake (Ariz.), who have something important in common. They were each among the 45 senators who killed a bipartisan bill on expanded background checks, but these are the only three of those 45 who seem eager to pretend they didn't kill the proposal.

Over the weekend, the New York Times editorial board blasted their collective "deception."

This kind of dissembling by gun control opponents has been rampant for years, but rarely have the National Rifle Association's most captive lawmakers been so nakedly deceptive as in the weeks since public rage grew over the gun vote. [...]

Rather than admit that they fearfully follow the dictates of the N.R.A., these senators are instead seeking to fool voters by supporting measures with fancy titles and hollow cores.

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.

If Heller, Ayotte, and Flake believe they did the right thing on the merits -- if they think the right call was to filibuster a popular, bipartisan measure that might have saved Americans' lives -- they should say so. There's ample room for a spirited debate about the underlying policy, and it's an argument worth having. These three senators took their time, listened to the pros and cons, and cast the vote the NRA told them to cast. They must take responsibility and be prepared to defend their best judgment.

But they're not. 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."

The rhetorical games are tiresome and unnecessary,