Hi. " Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States" is an
invaluable study just put out by Ezra Klein in the Washington Post.  I'd
send it to you if it weren't 935 Kilobytes!  I urge you to check it out, for
the  amazing graphs alone;  at  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-
guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
 - Ed
 
 
 
<http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dont-be-afraid-mr-president-you-c
an-take-gun-lobby?akid=9806.78931.YOIkRv&rd=1&src=newsletter761596&t=3>
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dont-be-afraid-mr-president-you-ca
n-take-gun-lobby?akid=9806.78931.YOIkRv&rd=1&src=newsletter761596&t=3

Don't Be Afraid, Mr. President -- You Can Take on the Gun Lobby

Salon/ By Steve Karnacki
 
Barack Obama and his party have been too terrified of angering gun owners to
realize they can win without them.
December 15, 2012 | 
 
<http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/photo_
1355517158052-7-0_7.jpg> 

A grieving President Barack Obama wiped away tears and struggled to compose
himself Friday as he mourned the dead in the Connecticut school shooting.
Photo Credit: AFP

 
 
There's no disputing that the Democratic Party has regressed dramatically on
the issue of gun violence over the past two decades. When a shooting rampage
on the Long Island Railroad killed six people and injured 19 others in
December 1993, Bill Clinton responded immediately by calling
<http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/barack_obama_bill_clinton_and_guns/> for
specific legislative action to prevent future tragedies. Contrast that with
the response <http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-gun-control-2012-12>  of
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Friday to a question about whether
the carnage in Connecticut might prompt President Obama to pursue gun
control measures. "I'm sure there will be another day for discussion of the
usual Washington policy debates," Carney said, "but I don't think today is
that day." 

It can be hard to remember now, but well into the 1990s, national Democrats
proudly associated themselves with gun control, championing laws that
restricted access to deadly weapons. Under Clinton, the Brady Bill, which
mandated a five-day waiting period for the purchase of handgun, was passed,
and so was a ban on assault weapons. The 1996 Democratic Convention that
nominated Clinton for a second term featured Jim and Sarah Brady as
primetime speakers. 

The years since then, however, have been marked by a steady and thus far
enduring Democratic retreat on the issue, with the Second Amendment crowd
now largely dictating the terms of public discussion and Democrats mainly
trying to avoid their wrath. Consider Obama's record on guns, which includes
one
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57477652/major-garrett-obama-has-exp
anded-not-reduced-gun-rights/> achievement : a law making it easier to carry
concealed weapons in national parks. 

While the violent crime rate that fed the gun control zeal of the '90s is
much lower today, horrifying mass shootings seem to be on the rise. Six of
the 12 deadliest sprees in American history have
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/deadliest-us-shootings/
> taken place just since 2007. In his own remarks Friday, delivered a few
hours after Carney's, Obama seemed to hint that the latest deadly outburst
might actually shake him and his party from their defensive crouch on guns.
"[W]e're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to
prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of politics," the president
said. 

What that means is anyone's guess right now. It appears that the Connecticut
killer used several weapons, at
<http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/17017680-418/assault-rifle-used-in-conn-
shooting-seen-on-chicago-streets.html> least one of which would be illegal
if the assault weapons ban - which the Republican Congress refused to
reauthorize in 2004 - were still in effect. Obama is on the record
supporting the ban's reinstatement; might he now demand action? Or will he
pursue other policy changes? Or maybe he'll just end up doing what leaders
of his party have done for more than a decade now: nothing. 

The Democrats' cowardice on guns traces back to the fateful election of
2000. Clinton, despite his aggressive pursuit of gun control measures, fared
relatively well with rural gun-owning populations in his 1996 reelection
campaign. But those same voters turned hard on Al Gore in '00, shifting
Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee to the Republican
column. A victory in any one of those states - all of which Clinton carried
twice - would have made Gore president. Democrats concluded that they'd
scared off rural, lower-income white voters who had traditionally supported
them - and that guns were the big reason why. A new consensus emerged: Gun
control could no longer be a central component of Democratic messaging. So
it was that John Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and 2012 did their best to
ignore the issue. Kerry went so far as to embark
<http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=1600&bih=791&tbm
=isch&tbnid=JlkPyoyVsr4WuM:&imgrefurl=http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/60
63&docid=PPAqc1H3hhrAbM&imgurl=http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4044300
0/jpg/_40443187_041021_kerry203body.jpg&w=203&h=152&ei=kQXMUPihEsmT0QG9roH4B
w&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=291&sig=115306991911563486148&page=1&tbnh=121&tbnw=162&
start=0&ndsp=37&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0,i:109&tx=38&ty=34> on a goose hunt in
rural Ohio just before Election Day. 

In terms of political strategy, there's been one obvious shortcoming to this
approach: It hasn't worked. Kerry did no better than Gore in West Virginia,
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and Arkansas, and Obama has failed to win any
of those states in two elections now. What's more, there's been no
<http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/when_democrats_gave_up_on_guns/>
improvement in Democratic support among gun owners in any election since
2000. As Nate
<http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/111151/could-newtown-change-gun-control
-politics> Cohn pointed out Friday, the lesson Democrats should be drawing
from Obama's two victories is that they can win nationally without the
pro-gun vote. The Democratic coalition continues to evolve and grow, and the
rural white voters who were key to its success generations ago have become a
reliably Republican constituency. 

What's more, Democrats continue to be painted as the party of gun
confiscators by the NRA and its allies. Even though there was nothing in
Obama's first term record for them to object to, the NRA bitterly fought his
reelection this year, treating him as if he were Michael Douglas
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCsGMwHGINI> ' character in "The American
President ." In other words, Democrats are already paying the political
price that comes with being the gun control party. So if they believe in it,
why not just say it - and act on it? 

The answer typically provided to this question is that there are a number of
Democrats in Congress from states with large gun-owning populations - think
Joe Manchin and Jon Tester - and that the party's current posture makes it
possible for them to win. But a better way of understanding the success of
these Democrats is that it's come in spite of the national party's
reputation. Democrats like Manchin and Tester are already winning over
voters who believe national Democrats want to take their guns away; this
challenge will be exactly the same if national Democrats actually do start
pursuing gun control again. 

There were a few
<http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/12/ny-pols-express-horr
or-send-prayers-in-wake-of-newtown-connecticut-school-mass> notable
Democratc voices on Friday demanding that the party recommit itself to
tackling gun violence. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Long Island Democrat who
entered politics in response to her husband's death in the '93 LIRR tragedy,
said
<http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/mccarthy-i-will-embarrass-obama-
on-gun-controls-152047.html> Friday that she will be pushing "full force"
for new gun laws in Obama's second term - and that she's willing to
"embarrass" the president if necessary. 

McCarthy, it should be noted, was showcased by her national party when she
first ran for Congress in 1996. Her story of turning her loss into a crusade
for gun control was one with which Democrats very much wanted to be
associated. As her congressional career progressed, McCarthy became a lonely
voice, on Capitol Hill and within the Democratic Party. But the spike in
mass shootings has given her a new audience and an opportunity win new
allies (and to win back old ones) - and to exert real pressure on Obama to
get serious. We'll know soon enough if Obama is really feeling the heat. 

 
  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5956 - Release Date: 12/13/12



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to