My mistake.
The only three non-CSPAN “news” shows I watch regularly are John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Rachel Maddow. Its been painful watching them be so clueless and make such horrible arguments about guns (its been especially hard with Rachel Maddow because I know she’s not just joking or trying to build up to a punchline)
My only exposure to Fox is when one of those shows plays a clip of Fox.
Do you think of guns as a partisan issue? I think of it as a regional issue. I think of it as the one issue where the Democrats are wrong factually and VERY wrong politically.
The Democrats are going to have a horrible time in the next election (assuming they continue to largely ignore their tea party members) and not just because they are midterms.
Da fuq? The Tea Party Democrats? What, the Rabid Blue Dogs? Old Yeller Democrats? Huh?
It would have to be a pretty close election for the Tea Party Democrats to swing it.
At last, somebody the Libertarian candidate can beat!
the “they” in your quoted text referred to the Republicans. I think they have been doing a much better job of ignoring the Tea Party recently after they realized that the tea party wasn’t able to deliver elections with any greater success than normal Republicans.
Can’t it be both?
I think the only reason they would be wrong politically is because the opposition is wrong factually. I don’t disagree that raising the issue itself is not popular for Democrats among conservatives. Only time will show if that hindrance is balanced by equal or more moderates and liberals who are glad we’re finally doing something substantive about gun violence
We will see
I suppose that the parties have startred to regionalize a bit but when both Democrats from rural states are more consistent with the Republicans from rural states than theya re with Democrats from places like California and the Northeast and Republicans from California and the Northeast are more consistent with Democrats from California and the northeast than they are with Republicans from rural states, I think that ergionalism has a lot to do with it. the Democrats may end up making guns a partisan issue but then they run the risk of
AFAICT, there is not a lot of anti-gun state that the Republicans won the last time around. On the other hand Democrats won quite a few pro-gun states. The gun issue was thought to be pretty much settled.
What?!? YOU can’t be both politically and factually wrong on an issue (e.g. global warming)? I don’t understand what you mean.
If you were actually doing something about guns rather than chasing some meaningless ymbolic vitory with an AWB. But thats not what happened. You had a chance to achieve something meaningful; you could have had a much more robust background check law back in January but your side decided to chase an asinine and meaningless AWB. heck i think you could have laid the groundwork for licensing and registration in January but you went after the scary looking black guns.
How much do you want to bet that it is the Republicans that bring up this issue during 2014 much more than the Democrats do?
Politically wrong meaning harmful to your political chances, though not factually wrong. Its supporting something true but may be unpopular, is what I meant. The NRA side is vocal, flush with cash, and crazy. They could do damage to people (Democrats) who are not. That doesn’t mean the NRA side is right, as I believe gun control is an issue that Democrats are correct on. They may be hammered in future elections, but it won’t be because they were wrong on the issue, it means the population is stupid and likes to get shot
We’ve disagreed on this before. The AWB was not meaningless. It was, however, unable to cut through the BS by the NRA side, so it failed. It probably took down the background check with it, I don’t know, because according to the lies about gun control and fears about confiscation and Agenda 21, it probably wasn’t going to get much support anyway. I can comfort myself with the belief that, even if the AWB was never mentioned, the arguments against gun control would probably still have been the same
Depends on the state. I don’t think many Republicans will be eager to tell constituents they voted against it in Democratic states
Keeping his mouth shut on guns WAS the Obama margin of victory both times around. The Democrats just can’t help themselves. Ending wars? Fixing the economy? All that stuff they actually got elected on? They’re pathologically unable to pretend to care about that and eventually regress to their core platform, which is expanding tons of energy on bullshit issues like gun and cigarette restrictions. If someone came down from Mars with no prior information and was asked to figure out what Democrats stood for, the answer would be “a party that has no coherent plan for the economy, loves dropping bombs on foreign countries, and wants to ban guns and cigarettes.”
Get to work on the next “I can’t believe how stupid the voters are!” manifesto. It was very becoming in 2004. Pretend that you don’t know what happened when we’re saddled with President Jeb Bush thanks to the idiotic Democratic monomania about gun bans. This will be the fault of you and Obama and everyone else who can’t focus on shit that actually matters for a prolonged period of time.
You know, every time you say “the Democrats are the party that loves dropping bombs on foreign countries” the rest of the Internet laughs at you.
People who aren’t blinded by Obama Juice don’t make the distinction between Bush-ordered and Obama-ordered bombs. That’s the point. To the neutral observer, the foreign policy distinctions between the parties are minimal.
“Blinded by Obama Juice”. I love that. I may even write that down.
I’m no fan of the Obama administration’s liberal [sic] use of drone strikes, but come back when they start a pre-emptive war for spurious reasons as the last administration did, or start banging the gong for invading Iran as the Republicans periodically continue to do. Your equivalence is falser than Dolly Parton’s boobs and much less supported.
Iraq ended. Afghanistan winding down. Health care and wall street reform passed. Many budgets submitted but rejected by a GOP controlled House. Actually, I think the Democrats did do a lot of things they were elected on. Plus, Sandy Hook happened after the election. I suppose to you, if something happens after the election that needs to be dealt with, you’re supposed to just ignore it because it wasn’t part of your campaign. Moron :rolleyes:
They’ve switched the gong-banging to Syria in the last few days. At least that one has some small degree of military feasibility, in theory.