The new gun-control movement, post-Newtown

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I wasn't terribly disappointed when the Manchin-Toomey gun bill was defeated in the Senate (even though it got well more than 50 votes, because of a Republican filibuster), because it was a bad bill. But it did include an expanded background checks provision, along with various pro-gun provisions, and so in the end it was probably better than nothing.

And yet in defeat that bill did more for the gun-control movement that it would have done had it ever become law, and in that sense a lot of good may come from what at the time seemed like a serious, embarrassing, and revealing setback.

Actually, though, it started not on April 17, 2013, but on December 14, 2012, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. There had been many other mass shootings previously in America, including recently at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, but Newtown was different. It was a brutal attack on a school, where parents leave their children and expect them to be safe, and the fact that so many children were killed in cold blood was simply too shocking, too powerful, too overwhelming, to ignore. (And there was a cultural/racial element to it as well. This wasn't inner-city Detroit. This was a part of America with which more Americans, including the political and media elites who shape public opinion, could identify. It's easy, sadly so, for many to ignore the plight of a city like Detroit. But if it could happen in Newtown, it could happen anywhere.)

This is not to say that the country was suddenly ready for significant gun control. That will take time. No, if not that, it was at least ready for something meaningful to be done to curb gun violence, to put a stop if at all possible to a mostly unregulated gun market that has resulted in guns, including weapons of mass destruction for which there is no reasonable justification for private ownership, falling into the wrong hands way too many times.

President Obama himself took the lead. In an incredibly moving vigil in Newtown a few days after the shooting, he said:

We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.

And this: 

Charlotte, Daniel, Olivia, Josephine, Ana, Dylan, Madeline, Catherine, Chase, Jesse, James, Grace, Emilie, Jack, Noah, Caroline, Jessica, Benjamin, Avielle, Allison, God has called them all home. 

For those of us who remain, let us find the strength to carry on and make our country worthy of their memory.

Yes, the country was finally ready, at least for expanded background checks, and perhaps for much more, and they overwhelmingly expressed that in poll after poll. 

Read more »

Reading the tea leaves of Romney's demise

By Richard K. Barry

If things really start to go badly or, I should say, worse for Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations, it will be interesting to see what the early signs might be. Will some super-PAC money start to move away from Romney and towards tight Senate and House races? Will the blame game among the radical right begin sooner than we might have expected? And, maybe most tellingly, how soon will it take for Republicans in close races to begin to distance themselves from the top of the ticket?

Well, on that last point, apparently not all that long.

The Hill reports that Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass), who is currently on the losing end of polls against Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, wasted no time denouncing Romney's controversial remarks on the "47 percent."

Everything's good... right?

In an e-mail to The Hill, he said this:

That's not the way I view the world. As someone who grew up in tough circumstances, I know that being on public assistance is not a spot that anyone wants to be in. Too many people today who want to work are being forced into public assistance for lack of jobs.

In a decidedly blue state, Brown knows what he is up against as Elizabeth Warren had this to say about Romney's comments in an interview with The Washington Post:

It's a party that says, "I've got mine and the rest of you are on your own," versus those who say, "We're all in this together." There's a clear choice in this election, between those who believe that to build an economy, the rich and powerful should get richer and more powerful, with tax cuts for the wealthiest and deregulation, while everyone else is left to pick up the pieces.

Yes, Romney might have made things harder for himself, but he is making things damn near impossible for Republicans who are tying to win in more progressive states.

He said what?

Meanwhile, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon, who is running for an open seat in Connecticut, also denounced Romney's comments in a statement posted to her website:

I disagree with Governor Romney’s insinuation that 47% of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care. I know that the vast majority of those who rely on government are not in that situation because they want to be. People today are struggling because the government has failed to keep America competitive, failed to support job creators, and failed to get our economy back on track.

McMahon's Democratic opponent Chris Murphy dismissed McMahon's criticism of Romney as a "desperate attempt to distance herself from the right-wing agenda and Republican party she strongly supports."

So, there you have it, two Republican Senate candidates running away from Mitt Romney as fast as they can.

Who's next? Don't be shy.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)