1. Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi has endorsed John Murtha for Majority Leader, according to The Hill. Murtha is a a southwestern Pennsylvania Democrat with a long-standing A rating from the National Rifle Association. Hoyer is a Maryland Democrat, with a long-standing and well-deserved F rating, although he has sometimes worked to procure federal military contracts for Beretta USA, a firearms manufacturer in his district.
Murtha is, of course, known as a prime advocate of cut-and-run in Iraq strategic redeployment to Okinawa, whereas Hoyer is merely a supporter of cut-and-run a rapid exit from Iraq, but not necessarily to Okinawa. And it is even more obvious that Pelosi's preference for Murtha has much to do with her desire to take revenge on Hoyer (a rival Democratic leader) and absolutely nothing to do with Murtha's pro-gun voting record.
Nevertheless, it the odds have increased that the Senate (with usually pro-gun Harry Reid) and the House (with inflexibly pro-gun John Murtha) will both have Majority Leaders who will be receptive to the argument that the gun control issue is a loser for the Democratic party.
2. The Rocky Mountain News (Nov. 11) chalks up the winners and losers of the 2006 election. First on the list of losers is "Gun control advocates. Democrats see this as a radioactive issue for them, have to wait for now."
3. In The New Republic, Thomas Edsall suggests that pro-gun "pragmatic, culturally conservative, libertarian" Democrats from the Rocky Mountains hold the key to the party's salvation.
4. During election-night blogging on this site, and in a follow-up on National Review Online, I suggested that about half the R to D shifts in the House had involved the election of pro-gun, Blue Dog Democrats, while the other half had involved the replacement of pro-gun Republicans with anti-gun Democrats. Gun Owners of America points out that several seats in which one Republican replaced another Republican (in Michigan, Nebraska, and Ohio), which I had not written about, resulted in a strongly pro-Second Amendment Republican replacing a mediocre Republican. Accordingly, my estimate that the pro-gun side lost a total of 14 votes in the House should be revised to a loss of 12.5.
The loss still leaves intact the pro-Second Amendment majority in the House. More significantly, the fact that fervent gun control advocates Charles Schumer and Rahm Emanuel won a Democratic congressional majority by deliberately recruiting so many pro-gun Democrats suggests that the party has outgrown the mistakes of the Clinton/Columbine era, when party leaders lost the Congress (1994) and then the Presidency (2000) on the mistaken belief that gun control was a popular issue.
UPDATE: Here's the opening of the Monday issue of National Journal's Hotline, which was delivered to subscribers at approximately 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time:
"What signal is Pelosi sending by backing Murtha over Hoyer? It depends on how you choose to view the maj. leader's race. -- Viewed through the prism of Iraq, Pelosi is embracing her party's lefty protest crowd. But on many other issues, from abortion rights to gun control to ANWR, Murtha is decidedly to the right of Hoyer (check out their Nat'l Journalratings ). Pelosi's move could endear her to the Heath Shulers and Brad Ellsworths of the 110th, who are leery of backing the liberal Speaker. It could also help Hoyer among those Blue Dogs, who are itching to say they're bucking Pelosi.A few commenters on this post, and on some of my previous posts, continue to push that the Democrats' new-found respect for the Second Amendment had nothing to do with their wins on Tuesday, or on their governing plans. National Journal, a well-respected source of the conventional wisdom of Washington, obviously disagrees.
Yep, y'all were right, gun control isn't a winning issue, the Dems appear to have learned that. Now, please oh please continue stridently opposing withdrawal from Iraq.
I bet most of the people voting for Democrats on Tuesday (or in the primaries that preceded the general election on Tuesday) had no idea they were endorsing gun rights or were condemning gun control when they voted. I bet most of them thought they were voting for 1) more executive branch oversight, 2) less congressional corruption, 3) a different strategy in Iraq (not necessarily cut-and-run, but surely including shitcanning Rumsfeld), 4) a smaller deficit, 5) a sensible immigration policy, 6) less influence for the Religious Right (see Terry Schiavo), and/or 7) a different course on any of a number of other prominent issues.
In fact I barely even recall anyone (besides Kopel) discussing gun rights or gun control. If you try hard enough, you can spin that as proof that gun control has receded as a goal of legislators, but less partisan eyes would interpret that as proof that it no longer swings elections in the way it used to, so neither side chose to emphasize it.
Ordinarily I think these "thank you" posts are sort of pointless, but otherwise I feel like I'm leaving you to the trolls. You DO seem to attract them...
Others have commented on this, but I really would expect more out of this site. That things like this aren't unexpected any more is a sign that the once-great Volokh Conspiracy really has gone downhill.
Don't be dumb. The point is that the Democrats quite specifically set aside gun control this campaign, even though it's factored into pretty much every election in the past decade or so. In fact, a lot of key candidates -- as pointed out in the post -- are strong supporters of the Second Amendment. That's pretty incredible for a party that usually has trouble letting dissenters on it's sacred cows even speak at the conventions, let alone get its full support.
And that implies (a) that they know that gun control's a loser at the ballot box and (b) that it's not worth sacrificing the votes for. Which is pretty much Kopel's point.
Statements like this using empty, politically-charged phrasing in an article on their gun control views (with no other references to Iraq) is at best intellectually sloppy and removes credibility from your post has...if I'm wrong, what point does the "cut and run" sentence make that’s germane to the rest of the post?
Undoing a grotesque error in judgment? Facing reality and putting wishful thinking to bed? Not throwing away American lives for a quixotic cause?
Or "the unilateral disengagement and withdrawal of US forces from Iraq."
You know, a few weeks ago, when some posters made not-so-thinly veiled accusations that the Conspiracy was conspiculously silent about the legislation concerning detainees, some of its memebers were shocked--SHOCKED--that posters might believe that they were keeping their mouths shut because they were lackeys for this Administration.
Kopel's mindless recitation of Rovian cant has done nothing to undermine this concern about intellectual honesty.
As Mr. L ponted out, the point of the post is not that everything is about gun control. Kopel is pointing out the impact of the election on the gun control issue.
I enjoy seeing the 2nd amendment analysis but when you throw in stupid comments like this, all you do is align yourself with the the lard-ass recruits of the 101st Keyboard Brigade.
I don't know your bio, but I am just going to assume that you've never been involved in any sort of combat - other than the op-ed pages - unlike Murtha who has bravely sacrificed for this country.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Why does "cut and run" strike such a cord with readers? Murtha and Hoyer believe that the US should cut its losses and exit Iraq forthwith which is exactly a "cut and run" strategy. Are the words words "disengagement" or "redeployment" less threatening? Use those words instead, it makes no difference.
Please don't act dumb--there is enough genuine dumbness in the world.
Heed your own advice. So did the Republicans. It wasn't on voters' list of priorities, so no one spent any time talking about it. But that hardly means that 1) Democrats have abandoned gun control, 2) Republicans have won the debate on gun control, or 3) the public was expressing a view on gun control on November 7th.
Neither party spent any time talking about banning abortion either. Do you think that is because a majority of the GOP no longer favors banning it? Or because Democrats have won this fight? That is one interpretation, but it would be equally blind to reality.
Politicians talk about voters' priorities if they want to win. That doesn't mean politicians have ceded their positions on non-priority items, nor does it mean that voters are expressing an opinion on non-priority items when they choose their representatives.
If you want to support the Second Ammendment, find a law that infringes that right and get it overturned in a court of law on 2nd Ammendment grounds.
There's certainly enough money and lawyers aligned on your side to persue such an action. So why isn't anybody doing it?
Ahh, the tired but reliable old "chickenhawk" argument.
So, using your logic, anyone who has not seen combat is not allowed to criticize John "Abscam" Murtha.
Does that include the millions of military personnel who served during peacetime?
How about all those rear-area types who are in Iraq today, but who never leave the base and never see "real" combat?
Just where do you draw the line?
uh clem - The danger of getting an adverse ruling is high. I believe no one on either side really wants to push a court case because a ruling against them would be catastrophic.
My god, man-- we've got the best Supreme Court in many, many decades for such an issue. Could get get better? Possibly--and possibly not, if Stevens hangs on for another two years (and I am not just referring to a Democrat picking the next justice--I have no confidence whatsoever that a McCain or Guiliani appointee would be much better on this issue).
Get the right case and go for it. If we lose, come back later, and take the fight to the state constitutions (anybody remember them?)
The idea that the 2A can bestow individual rights in some circuits (e.g. the 5th) and only "collective" rights (sic) in others (e.g. the 9th) is abhorrant. Why in hell do we have a federal judiciary if not to resolve these issues?
I draw the line at people who have never been anywhere close to actual combat impugning the honor and bravery of those who have, especially when it is done in such a flippant, off-hand way.
There may be plenty to criticize about Murtha's positions. That's fine, lay it out.
But calling an honorable former soldier a coward (and, let's cut the bullshit, that's what the phrase "cut and run" does) is despicable.
te... please never comment on someone else's rhetoric again.
"You should be ashamed of yourself."
So you are standing up for the rights and dignity of all the greasy-fingered volunteers of the 101'st Keyboard Brigade?
Super. Are you going to be designing their uniforms, too?
"Death Tax" not "cut and run" was the focus of the opponent's ads. BTW, both districts were redistricted in 2005 specifically to beat Marshall and Barrow. And both opponents, Collins and Burns were former U.S. House members, Burns in Barrows, Collins newly districted in.
Oh, I see. Kinda like Bill Clinton organizing anti-war demonstrations while safely in Britain.
So you are standing up for the rights and dignity of all the greasy-fingered volunteers of the 101'st Keyboard Brigade?
Why not? Don't they have First Amendment rights, too?
You still haven't answered my question: Just who in your opinion is eligible for membership in the 101st Keyboard Brigade?
Well, I think Chapman has the contract to design their uniforms, but maybe you could chair the base wives committee.
I almost wonder if this post got linked from one of the more... unsavory corners of the web.
Does that mean that you can't be an anti-war protestor and insult the manner in which we have conducted the war unless you are a combat veteran? How could someone be upset about accidentally bombing civilians unless they've been in combat?
Thank you for providing an excellent example of the mindset of the 101st Keyboard Brigade. Keyboarders love to fantasize that they are engaged in actual combat with "points" - instead of live rounds - whizzing by. Bravo. Spot on.
Sam - I don't think you can "insult" the manner in which we have conducted the war. I don't know what you mean.
Calling our discourse "combat," even metaphorically, is an overstatement. You make an ass of yourself, I attempt to correct you, you make a fool of yourself, I swat you down. At this point, you're no longer worth my time.
They did, quite successfully. They splowly and cautiously pursued theuir battles, first pushing publci accomodation, then law school, and only quite late, acess to primary education. If Brown had been brought back in the early part of the century, Plessy would likely have been reaffirmed.
Pro gun groups have brought 2d amend challenges that were probably not politiclaly ripe for a 2d amend victory (see Silveira). But SCOTUS has consistently denied cert, probably bcs justices on either side were concerned about what the middle (O'Connuh, Kennedy, etc.) might do. Or just bcs they honestly didn't think them cert worthy. The Court may be the best one in years, but a pro-gun majority is still not a foregone conclusion, so the best litigation strategy woudl still be incremental.
But 2d amend. supporters have made significant strides legislatively and in the executive branch, which has adopted the 5th Cir. individual rights interpetation.
This issue is very important to a lot of people (&voters). Pity so many of those to whom it is not important nonetheless feel the need to chime in to attack Kopel. Keep up the good work, David.
You chose the metaphor, Captain Cntl+Alt+Delete
Behold, another field mark useful in identifying a member of the 101st Keyboard Brigade - a hyper inflated sense of one's abilities. You must be buckin' for a promotion.
Incidentally te, what branch of the service were you in? Army? Navy? Coast Guard? Or are you one of those brave souls who always finds an excuse not to join, but still feels he has the right to criticize the military?
I joined the Marine Corps Reserve back in the fall of 1979, just after the Iranian hostage crisis started and just before the Soviets went rolling into Afghanistan. During boot camp we were all told we would be at war with Iran soon, and considering that President Peanut had authorized the ill-fated (and poorly planned) hostage rescue just a couple of months earlier, we believed it. And since my MOS was 0311 (infantry) if there had been a big war in 1980 I would have been on the front lines of it.
But since I didn't serve in combat, and more importantly, since I think John Murtha is a vain, self-serving ass, I guess I'm a "chickenhawk", even though I've done far more to defend this country in a time of need than you have.
But I admit I might be wrong. So tell me, te, where did you serve? Were you ever in combat? Receive any citations for bravery? What have you done to protect America, besides make snarky comments about people who support the war, and then run and hide behind John Murtha's war record?
Well if you did actually serve, then I regret to inform you that you can only be a member of the 101st Keyboard Brigade auxilliary.
Yep. Try reading my post.
Please give it a rest. The "fighting keyboard" nonsense is almost as hackneyed (and hackish) as Kopel's gratuitous "cut and run" remark.
Sincerely,
Just about everyone
And after you graduate from the 101st Fighing Hall Monitors, I'm sure they will have a spot for you, too.
<blockquote>
Second for the obsession with gun laws. I think you are the only commenter I've seen who has even commented on the issue, I don't remember seeing anything about it mentioned by anyone else during the election. Here's the funny thing: it didn't, and doesn't, make any difference.
</blockquote>
Then you must not be getting out very much. The New York Times did a wonderful profile of John Tester today which pointed this out and the Washington Post had one on Heath Schuler making the same point before the election.
In fact, but for running to the right on guns with Webb (who, I've argued, is possibly the most vocally pro second amendmet Senator ever elected: "<b>I know first hand the importance of armed self-defense by law-abiding citizens as a deterrent to criminals, and in the long term, to would-be tyrants</b>"), Tester, and Ford the Democrats wouldn't have overtaken the Republicans.
Heck, Casey's race in Pennsylvania was the only one where they put in someone pro gun, where the gun control issue wouldn't have made an impact (though we could argue that by putitng Casey out to the right early on issues like abortion and gun control they were much better positioned to control the debate).
Actually, as I think about it, I've seen few commentaries in the MSM that <i>actually haven't</i> touched upon this issue.
Then you must not be getting out very much. The New York Times did a wonderful profile of John Tester today which pointed this out and the Washington Post had one on Heath Schuler making the same point before the election.
In fact, but for running to the right on guns with Webb (who, I've argued, is possibly the most vocally pro second amendmet Senator ever elected: "I know first hand the importance of armed self-defense by law-abiding citizens as a deterrent to criminals, and in the long term, to would-be tyrants"), Tester, and Ford the Democrats wouldn't have overtaken the Republicans.
Heck, Casey's race in Pennsylvania was the only one where they put in someone pro gun, where the gun control issue wouldn't have made an impact (though we could argue that by putitng Casey out to the right early on issues like abortion and gun control they were much better positioned to control the debate).
Actually, as I think about it, I've seen few commentaries in the MSM that actually haven't touched upon this issue.
But he ran to the right on guns and positioned the Democrats so that simply winning 2 of 3 races (along with Casey who was nominated in large part because of his 2nd Amendment stance and who didn't realize how much the Republicans would screw up when he was nominated) would get them over the hurdle.
scary looking gunassault weapons ban second ed. passed. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to have fun with it at the range.Murtha demonstrated his character in the ABSCAM scandal, when he told the supposed Arab emissaries that he wanted to "do business", just not right then (thus escaping indictment). If Murtha is Majority Leader, it will not be for his moderation on anything; it's a sign that the Democrats' program for the next two years is all Iraq, all the time. This will be the most extreme, irresponsible, and destructive Congress in U.S. history. They will engineer disaster in Iraq. They will bludgeon the administration into collapse with continual "investigations". They will crush Congressional Republicans with ruthless partisan exploitation of majority status. And they will happily play to their delighted base with, among other things, new anti-gun laws.