Democrats Getting Nervous About Gun Control Stance?

[BenW]

The full story from CSPAN is at:
http://www.rollcall.com/pages/news/00/2002/02/news0204d.html

But here's an interesting excerpt:

"The poll's findings on the gun issue were particularly evocative.
Asked to choose between the positions of generic GOP and
Democratic candidates on the question of "restrictions on gun
sales," 58 percent of the persuadable voters chose the Republican."

 

[Jeff White]

The congress we elect this fall will be pivotal in the overall RKBA debate. The incoming congress will either extend or do away with the biggest piece of gun control legislation since the GCA of 68. The question is; will they turn their backs on those foolish enough to be duped into voting for them because they publically take the more moderate approach, or will they risk big losses in the 2004 election and go with their core beliefs?

Jeff

 

[C.R.Sam]

Scary isn't it ?

Every elected or appointed official is important, at all levels.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Excuse me, Jeff, but if you look at the fact that the Republicans won big time in '94 by claiming to be balls to the wall pro-gun, and have lost ground in every subsequent election as they adopted "moderate" stances on the issues that got them elected in '94, it's clear you have that formulation exactly backwards.

The real question is, (For the Republicans; You nailed it for the Dems.) will they turn their backs on their supposed core beliefs, and the votes following those beliefs brought them, or will they attempt to slide by on a moderation which gives no-one any reason to drag themselves off to the polls to vote for the Democratic party lite?

To ask the question is to answer it; As Republicans, could they ever do other than the latter? We're in trouble!

 

[Jeff White]

Brett,

I wasn't giving the Republicans a break on anything. Was only commenting on the Democrats.

I don't think Republicans have any core beliefs. All they care about is doing what will give them favorable press. They learned a lot from Clinton....see which way the press wants to spin it and lean that way. How Sam and Cokie will view their actions on Sunday morning is more important to them then how those that elected them do. They get by with it because gun owners (and conservatives in general) don't have any place else to go.

Jeff

 

[HankB]

Republicans...have lost ground in every subsequent election as they adopted "moderate" stances on the issues that got them elected in '94

That's why Ann Coulter started calling them The Stupid Party. They win 54 seats - fifty four! - seats in the House on a good, solid, pro-American. "Contract with America" agenda, and then, frightened by their success, start backpedaling. And losing. So they backpedal some more. And lose more.

They try to curry favor and good press with the liberals, and get some of it . . . but The Stupid Party is too dense to understand that despite some favorable press from the Left, the liberals will NOT vote for them - period.

And their base - the people who put them in office - feeling betrayed and lied to, don't vote for them either.

The Stupid Party.

 

[Waitone]

Republican fumbled '94 because of its leadership.

I specifically refer to Trent Lott. The man had seniority but is unfortunately a moral eunich.

When Jeffords jumped, Lott could not wait to assume minority leadership status.

Republicans know political fighting. They just ain't got the package on the right leader.

I get requests from various republican orgs for money. In every case I tell them Trent Lott has to go.

 

[HankB]

I get requests from various republican orgs for money. In every case I tell them Trent Lott has to go.

Excellent point. As election time draws near, I start to get calls from the RNC and other GOP orgs looking for money. I tell them - bluntly - that while I will donate to specific candidates, as long as there's ANY chance that my RNC money will go to a RINO, I absolutely WON'T donate to the party at large.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, I DO think the Republicans have core beliefs. It's just that those beliefs are, in way too many cases, very similar to the core beliefs of Democrats.

Back when the Republicans were in the minority, talk was cheap for privately "liberal" Republicans. They could appeal to voters they despised, and visibly fight the good fight, confident that they'd lose, and that the policies they privately prefered would be implemented anyway.

And then came 1994, and they were thrust into the majority. Suddenly it wasn't just talk, they risked actually winning the fights, and implementing policies they had insincerely advocated for years.

Some of them responded by backpedaling, abandoning positions they'd ineffectively "championed" for years. Others continued to publicly hold those positions, but saw to it that they somehow continued to lose the fights, despite having the majority. Only, it's really hard to deliberately lose fights when you're the majority, and not have people notice that you're taking a dive.

So both responses hurt them at the polls, and worse, hurt even the sincere Republicans, because voters who'd took the GOP seriously became disheartened, and difficult to motivate.

 

[ankara36]

To Brett Bellmore;

I have no doubt the Republicans have shifted to a more 'moderate' stance, but most of this has been the perception they get from the general public. I doubt many Republican politicians notice what's going on at TFL and other pro-gun websites. What gets their attention is when tens of thousands of angry people show up in DC shouting about something. They are reacting to what they perceive as a populist sentiment and figure if they try to stand by all of their principles, they get voted out of office. So they give on what they see as 'unpopular' issues and try to get the rest of their agenda through.

Unfortunately, these big, high visibility demonstrations are just not in the idiom of pro-gunners.

The Republicans slide to mediocrity is as much the fault of the non-voters and non-activists as it is the party bosses.

 

[HankB]

...when tens of thousands of angry people show up in DC shouting about something. They are reacting to what they perceive as a populist sentiment...

What they're doing is listening to screams from people who won't vote for them. They listen, and lose. And listen to the screamers some more. And lose again. And either they're not bright enough to realize it, or, like Brett said, they don't want to win.

 

[gorlitsa]

Question...

What do they mean by...

58 percent of the persuadable voters chose the Republican.

What's a 'persuadable' voter? And why did they only poll them? That seems like a possible point of manipulation....

 

[RAThomas]

OK People - I confess that I was a registered Democrat from 1982 until Nov 2000. The most important thing and deciding factor for me was the 2nd amendment and the lack of support for it from the democratic party. The second thing that just ticked me off was the "count every vote" farce in FL. In 2000 I voted for "W" as Gore gored himself and lost my vote along with every other Democrat candidate where I live. If they won't support one of the bill of rights then what else won't they support?

I think that the Democratic party had better be very nervious because of their gun stance. The Republicans had better keep from sitting on their ass and doing nothing about supporting the second amendment.

 

[BenW]

What's a 'persuadable' voter?

Lizzi,

I believe they're referring to non-hardliner democrats who have voted that way because they historically have gotten (or believed they would get) some personal benefit from it. The article seems to be referring specifically to Hispanics, and indicates that they are currently "swayable" to the Republican position on some issues. I would guess this is both based on potential benefits as well as dissillusionment with the democratic party. Sort of like the geographic "push-pull" equation.

 

[Jeff White]

Certain voters can be counted on to vote for a party regardless of what it's platform is. They don't waste their time and money polling them, because their mind is already made up. I've seen estimates that say only about 35% of all voters decide an election. The rest are party faithfull and can be counted to vote for their party no matter what.

I have heard the republicans referred to as actually being two parties. The Rockefeller republicans and the Reagan republicans. But there are differences between the democrats too.

I think that the fourth estate is the biggest threat to our traditional American way of life. The propaganda that spews from the media outlets does more to shape our society and the direction it's going then any politician. But we can in no way shape or form try to regulate it. The only thing we can do is beat them in the marketplace. And there are some victories to report on that front.

It is encouraging to know that gun control isn't the winning platform they'd like it to be.

Jeff

 

[ankara36]

To HankB;

That's true enough, but when was the 'million gun-owners march'?. I can't pin it all on the Republican leadership.

Look, I know George Sr. sucked and all, and he creeped me out with his 'one-world' claptrap, but for now I will continue to try and work from the inside to change the party. I'm not ready to bury my guns and stock up on canned goods yet. And so far I don't see another party with a platform I can support more.

 

[HankB]

kidao35:

When was the 'million gun-owners march'? Well, employed people find it harder to travel halfway across the country and march than a bunch of unemployable blissninny soccer moms sponging off employed husbands or the welfare department . . . who numbered no more than 1/10 of the "million" they claimed, anyway. Some of us write letters, make selective donations, and try to bend the ears of people in the middle who may be persuaded to vote our way.

Yes, I usually vote Republican (aka "The Stupid Party") and have helped elect people like Ron Paul, who's one of the few bright lights in Congress. But far too often, I'm holding my nose while I cast my ballot.

(And don't get me started on Bush Senior. :barf: )

 

[Brett Bellmore]

We could stage a million gun owners march, wouldn't be difficult. (Except logistically.) All it would require is convincing the NRA leadership that it would be a good idea. THAT is the hard part! They're not much for marches. I think it has something to do with the lack of control. And the certainty that among 1 million people, SOMEBODY would do something stupid, and they'd be the only person in the crowd that got reported on.

 

[striderteen]

All I can say is, it's clear that I have some important things to vote for now that I'm 18.

 

[ankara36]

To HankB and Brett;

I'd give up a day of vacation to march. Anytime.