tellner
12-01-2004, 12:33 PM
Arianna's latest column is full of excellent advice, particularly when it comes to firing the consultants and DNC leaders who will continue to line their pockets while losing in the approved fashion.
But she misses one important point, one which a lot of us would like to ignore.
The Republicans didn't win the House and Senate in 1994. The Democrats threw them away. Of course the Republican lie machine was running full tilt. Of course there were the PACs, the Arkansas Project and all the rest. There was one thing the Democrats did in 1994 that undeniably cost them the election. It was one man, Tom Foley, and one piece of legislation, the 1994 Crime Bill.
I don't know how any of you feel about the recentl-expired Assault Weapons ban. In a certain sense it doesn't matter how we do. What matters is how an awful lot of angry, scared people felt about it and about Foley bending House rules in order to ram it through. House and Senate fax machines were melting down. The primitive email system crashed under the load. Phones in every legislator's office rang off the hook as millions of gun owners called to protest the legislation and the Speaker for limiting debate on it.
Up until then gun-owning households (at least a third of all homes by the government's best estimate) were less likely to vote than the rest. The NRA gave money and published its ratings. But gun owners as a group weren't all that active. 1994 changed all that. They felt with good reason that the legislation wasn't aimed at stopping crime but was part of a campaign to restrict and prohibit what they see as an important Constitutional freedom right up there with religion and the press. They came out and voted in large numbers and have continued to do so.
In the last few weeks Nicholas Kristoff has written two columns in the New York Times saying that gun control is a non-starter and that the Democrats will have to drop it if they ever want to win a Red State again. He's correct. In huge parts of the country we are seen as the people who want to take away their civil rights. Pictures of John Kerry or Bill Clinton duck hunting don't fool anyone. In firearms circles, even among people who are just interested in hunting, it's understood that this is the equivalent of blintz-eating and baby kissing.
Dropping gun prohibition and its cousins will not lose us any supporters among people who would vote for us otherwise. Keeping them will keep us from ever reaching huge parts of the country. Treating gun owners as dangerous knuckle-dragging lunatics as the Democratic party does now as a matter of policy will ensure that we will shrink from the political scene.
But she misses one important point, one which a lot of us would like to ignore.
The Republicans didn't win the House and Senate in 1994. The Democrats threw them away. Of course the Republican lie machine was running full tilt. Of course there were the PACs, the Arkansas Project and all the rest. There was one thing the Democrats did in 1994 that undeniably cost them the election. It was one man, Tom Foley, and one piece of legislation, the 1994 Crime Bill.
I don't know how any of you feel about the recentl-expired Assault Weapons ban. In a certain sense it doesn't matter how we do. What matters is how an awful lot of angry, scared people felt about it and about Foley bending House rules in order to ram it through. House and Senate fax machines were melting down. The primitive email system crashed under the load. Phones in every legislator's office rang off the hook as millions of gun owners called to protest the legislation and the Speaker for limiting debate on it.
Up until then gun-owning households (at least a third of all homes by the government's best estimate) were less likely to vote than the rest. The NRA gave money and published its ratings. But gun owners as a group weren't all that active. 1994 changed all that. They felt with good reason that the legislation wasn't aimed at stopping crime but was part of a campaign to restrict and prohibit what they see as an important Constitutional freedom right up there with religion and the press. They came out and voted in large numbers and have continued to do so.
In the last few weeks Nicholas Kristoff has written two columns in the New York Times saying that gun control is a non-starter and that the Democrats will have to drop it if they ever want to win a Red State again. He's correct. In huge parts of the country we are seen as the people who want to take away their civil rights. Pictures of John Kerry or Bill Clinton duck hunting don't fool anyone. In firearms circles, even among people who are just interested in hunting, it's understood that this is the equivalent of blintz-eating and baby kissing.
Dropping gun prohibition and its cousins will not lose us any supporters among people who would vote for us otherwise. Keeping them will keep us from ever reaching huge parts of the country. Treating gun owners as dangerous knuckle-dragging lunatics as the Democratic party does now as a matter of policy will ensure that we will shrink from the political scene.