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 »

Behind the Ad: The RNC attacks President Obama's legislative agenda

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: The Republican National Committee (RNC).

Where: RNC website.

What's going on: Oh, my. What a slimy little ad. It's called "The First 100 Days," and it's a reference to Obama's legislative agenda, and the GOP's accusation that it has been unsuccessful. 

The Republicans certainly have no shame. Not only do they use an image of the president reaching out to comfort a mother of a Sandy Hook victim as a suggestion of failure, but they cite the Senate's unwillingness to pass gun control legislation as the president's fault. Let's forget that Republicans killed the bill.

In light of Sen. Pat Toomey's (R-PA) comments that gun legislation failed because Republicans didn't want to give Obama a victory, this ad is even more pathetic.

It's all in the game. Republicans are the party of "no," and they hope they can get Obama to take the blame for their obstinance.

You'd have to be a pretty low information voter to fall for that.


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Pat Toomey

By Michael J.W. Stickings

No, not for his and Democrat Joe Manchin's less-than-stellar but probably better-than-nothing gun control bill that went down in the Senate because of a Republican filibuster but because he is blaming his fellow Republicans for its failure.

And not because he's necessarily wrong, because he may be right, but because it's generally not a wise thing to do to criticize Republicans if you're a Republican yourself, particularly if the Republicans you're criticizing pretty much dominate the party. Actually, it's not just unwise, it's fucking crazy if you have any hope of getting your party to support you ever again:

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't want to "be seen helping the president."

Two weeks ago, only three Republican senators voted for the bipartisan background checks amendment sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), despite overwhelming popular support for such a measure.

"In the end it didn't pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa.

Republicans are "politicized" and obstructionist -- opposed to anything and everything the president wants to do simply because it's the president? Sure. This has been the Republican strategy ever since Obama took office. It's a way of life now for Mitch McConnell and the minority Republicans in the Senate.

Read more »

Manchin-Toomey: A gun control "compromise" manufactured by the gun lobby

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Gun-crazy "bipartisanship"

I wrote on Friday that there was no hope in hell of meaningful gun control legislation getting through Congress. Manchin-Toomey may be a "bipartisan" "compromise," insofar as it has a few Republican backers, but even if it were to get through the Senate it would still have the House to contend with -- and there the NRA, which opposes the measure, has even more sway. Which is to say, we're a long way even from this limited measure making its way into law, and it may never get there.

Ah, but the tide is turning, is it not, what with two Republican senators -- John McCain and Susan Collins, joining Mark Kirk -- coming out this weekend in support?

Well, there's your "bipartisanship" on an issue that has the overwhelming support of Americans: Democrats plus a few Republicans. And we're not talking about a comprehensive gun control package here. This is just expanded background checks (important, yes, but not nearly enough). And even then McCain's support is a tad wishy-washy: he's "very favorably disposed," which is not a full endorsement, leaving him more than enough room to back out. What's more, Republican Jeff Sessions, a staunch opponent, said yesterday that he didn't think the measure would pass, and co-sponsor Pat Toomey acknowledged that passage is an "open question."

And again, this is just the Senate.

But okay, let's say it does pass, and let's say House Republicans buck the NRA, however unlikely, and support it, doing the least they can do as a way to make it seem like they're doing something, appealing to popular opinion, while pushing off having to do anything else. And let's say President Obama signs it, which he would, even though he's called for much more, because it's something, and something is supposedly better than nothing, and he likes the whole bipartisan thing anyway.

Read more »

Not a hope in hell: Gun control now up for debate in Senate

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There was much ado yesterday about the bipartisan (but still mostly Democratic) Manchin-Toomey proposal to broaden background checks for gun purchases (specifically to cover gun shows and the Internet), a deal that broke the NRA-backed Republican filibuster (the cloture motion passing 68-31) and allows for debate on the Senate floor of a package of gun control measures supported by Obama and the Democrats (and, of course, opposed by most Republicans and the NRA).

Is it a step in the right direction? Yes. Is it possible that something will end up passing, even if it's just expanded background checks (which would certainly be good in and of themselves but which aren't nearly enough)? Sure. And is it encouraging that Majority Leader Harry Reid is demanding a renewed ban on assault weapons and limits on the size of ammunition magazines. Of course.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. You know how the Senate works, you know what Republicans are all about, and you know that the Republican-led House isn't about to support anything resembling meaningful gun control legislation. Indeed, as Jonathan Bernstein writes in a sober -- and depressing -- post looking past yesterday's pro-debate vote to what lies ahead:

[W]e still don't know that an intact bill can make it to the final vote stage in the Senate; we still don't know if an intact bill can defeat a filibuster to get to that final vote; we don't know whether the House would take up a bill if it did pass the Senate; and we don't even know whether a bill could get a majority in the House even if they did take it up. So there's a long, long, ways to go. What happened [yesterday] was the easiest part.

In other words, as it says over the gates of hell in Dante's Inferno: "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate."

As you may know, that translates as "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

With Republicans able to block whatever they want, there's really no hope at all.

When independents turn stupid (and vote for Republican extremists)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There are a number of reasons why Republicans will win next Tuesday, likely taking back the House (if not the Senate) and doing very well at the state level. The so-called "enthusiasm gap" is a big reason, with anti-government yet also theocratic Tea Party-led Republicans frothing at the mouth, as is the general and thoroughly irrational anti-incumbent sentiment sweeping the country. But it seems that "independents," that ever-so-important group, are also pushing this election to the GOP.

As Time is reporting, new polls show independents helping Republicans to the lead in four key Senate races:

-- In Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey is leading Joe Sestak 49-45.

-- In Kentucky, Rand Paul is leading Jack Conway 50-43.

-- In Colorado, Ken Buck is leading Michael Bennet 47-46.

-- In Nevada, Sharron Angle is leading Harry Reid 49-45.

Of course, independents are not the only group, or demographic, pushing these Republicans over the top. In Nevada, for example, Angle maintains "sizable margins among males, white voters and voters over 50." And, of course, these are four somewhat purple states where state-wide Republicans wins aren't at all surprising. It makes some sense, even if their specific policies/views do not, that Paul's libertarianism is popular, that Angle is ahead of a deeply unpopular incumbent (and Democratic leader), and that Buck may pull out a victory in a flip-flopping state that can usually go either way. Even Toomey's lead is understandable. Pennsylvania can be described as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in between. It's a purple state that is Democratic only because of its two metropolises. When the urban vote isn't there, Republicans can win.

I say that it "makes some sense," but at least three of these four are ideological extremists who shouldn't win, ever. I'll leave Toomey off that list, though he too has embraced the far right, such as on climate change. And, poor economy and anti-incumbent sentiment aside, it makes absolutely no sense that these three are leading, solidly, among independents -- most of whom, presumably, are more or less in the wishy-washy center, and who should be swayed against such Republican extremism even if they don't much care for what Democrats have to offer either.

Take Buck, for example, who is an anti-gay bigot and a theocrat who objects to the separation of church and state. Or Angle, whose sheer craziness, as she has proven throughout this campaign, is enormous. In this year of collective voter ignorance and insanity, of fear, anger, and bitterness dominating the political landscape and motivating voters to make terrible choices, it's almost surprising that independents aren't putting the supremely unqualified Christine O'Donnell over the top in Delaware. In some states, like Delaware and New York, where the anti-gay bigot and wealthy teabagger Carl Paladino will get crushed in the gubernatorial race, I suppose not even delusional independents are enough.

This, of course, would not be the first time that voters turned stupid. But while we can expect Republicans to embrace the most partisan and most ideologically extreme of their kind, independents are supposed to know better, are they not? Well, no. Some may suppose that they do, but they don't. The David Broder-influenced media drool all over independents, giving them a place of prominence they don't deserve, as if they are by far the most important voters in America, but, really, they often don't much of a clue and are easily manipulated, this year by Republican propaganda.

Call me a cynic, but I think this Family Guy clip about undecided (and hence more or less independent) voters (which I found here), with Lois running for mayor against incumbent Adam West and, on Brian's advice, resorting to GOP-style appeals to idiocy ("Jesus," "9/11" -- you might as well put "tax cuts" in there, too), says it all:

Craziest Republican of the Day: Pat Toomey

By Michael J.W. Stickings

No, he's not as crazy as, say, Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell, or countless other Republicans around the country, but, well, he's still out there. Greg Sargent makes a great point:

As many people have already pointed out, some of the leading beneficiaries of this season of Tea Party craziness are Republican candidates who hold extreme views on specific issues but nonetheless come across as moderate and reasonable when compared to the likes of Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.

Case in point: Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey. In a local radio interview on Friday, Toomey said the degree to which human activity is to blame for global warming is being "very much disputed" and "debated."

*****

Toomey's claim isn't as out there as some Tea Partyers who say flatly that there's no proof whatsoever that human activity has caused global warming. Toomey at least allows that this topic is up for debate. But Toomey's claim that this is "very much disputed" is sharply at odds with scientific consensus, which holds that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming.

Indeed, Toomey seems to be something of an agnostic on the core question of whether human activity is global warming's true culprit. That would put him at least partly in the company of O'Donnell, who recently said she doesn't have an opinion on whether global warming is created by human activity, or Angle, who recently dismissed that notion as a "mantra of the left" that's not backed up by "sound science."

Yet because O'Donnell and Angle have upped the crazy bar so high in so many other, more attention-grabbing ways, this sort of stuff from the relatively buttoned up Toomey passes unnoticed.

Once upon a time, Toomey would indeed have been considered something of an extremist in the Republican Party, or at least on the right of a fairly right-wing party. But now? Now he seems relatively sane.

When even global warming "agnosticism," despite all the evidence and the broad scientific consensus, passes for sanity, you know the crazies have taken over.