Re: "...[T]he desperation of the left side tryng to save gu[n] control since their President did not go far enough on his own, and they [know there] is no hope through legislation. ..."
Clearly, they have been looking for an 'in' to run gun control again since the '94 law expired. This faction has been confounded by the fact that the former law didn't work, support for gun rights has actually grown, and liberal arguments for it are too easily shot down--cheesy pun intended. So what better opportunity than to be early in your term, a defining event occurs and there you are. But emotion has a way of quickly subsiding or changing to something else once cause is again defined by common sense.
Call Obama what you will, but the fact of the matter is he is a left leaning moderate. If he has a clear path, he will cut left like he did with health care. He doesn't, so he won't burn political capital on lost causes he can't win. He'll give it lots of lip service and run in what he can, but he won't fall on this, not even as a lame duck. There is no guess work here as they know how this goes. They have already missed their window. It was too short and they knew it. That is why you saw Biden's panel. That is the 'do something' cry at work.
O's pattern is to take a plan and ram it through early in his term if it's controversial and position the rest for negotiation or another run at an opportune place. It gives him rehab time with the public. He did that with health care, the budget, and taxes. He is done with taxes and health care, but the set up is there for the second run on those other issues. But gun control? It's done already. Why? Simple. It can't pass the House, maybe not the Senate, either, and trying to ram it through will probably fail.
Whether or not it does is mostly irrelevant as in either case it risks turning Congress and many Democratically governed states over to Republican rule via coat tail results in the mid-term elections--which is exactly what happened after the '94 law was passed. The risk is now greater as Republicans could get a veto proof majority out of it in the next election if the current fight and policies of the last 6 years should backfire on O. In a country voting 50-50 in elections because the middle isn't clearly held it's a realistic risk, and he can't afford to lose the Senate for there lies his ability to graft his legacy--and a liberal leaning appointee--into the Supreme Court. It also would render him toothless and potentially unwind health care and everything else, never to be regained.
Should that balance decisively change to a safer framework after the next election you could see the gun issue return, but only 'if', and lots if things could drive that, including more gun events. This is clearly the case. But for recent events O wouldn't have touched it. The fact he didn't before tells you that much. Not one direct word was about it in the Inaugural Address. People are showing their preferences in the rush to gun purchases in the past few weeks. Those are votes to a politician.
We don't get a clear feeling of other parts of the country, but there are a few obvious factors. One is the southern border which is holding the line on an open drug war. Texas alone is 20 million votes--and they are not surrendering their individual security, nor is Arizona, New Mexico or southern Nevada--Harry Reid land, and they really don't like him at home. These are just a few reasons. There are many more. Examples include Bill Clinton acknowledging his support for the '94 law was his mistake, Hillary wanting to run, and the continuing risk to Democrats. So stick a fork in it, lunch has been served.
And that's my speech.
|
