Gun Control Charade

Let’s talk about the gun control deal between Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Buckwild) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa) because there are some interesting facets of it that have come to light. I suppose we’ll need to wait to see how the amendment process goes, but right now it looks like this bill is going to freak out both sides. Interesting.

From what I’ve seen, the stuff Obama claimed he wanted is already out of the bill, but then we knew it would be. Obama’s gun control promises were basically impossible promises mixed in with a few placebos. I suspected the goal was always to get the placebos and declare victory, but now I’m not even sure they even want the placebos. Observe.

The big issue everyone is talking about which Manchin and Toomey worked on is the issue of background checks. Most people favor background checks and this makes a lot of sense. Criminals and the mentally ill simply should not be allowed to buy guns legally and the only way to prevent that is with background checks. Moreover, most on the right have accepted the idea of background checks. So I figured that would happen. But now I have my doubts.

What happened is that there are some concerns with background checks. For example, conservatives don’t want leftists like Obama’s Justice Department trying to create a database of gun owners. There are also concerns that requiring background checks will prevent sales by anyone except retailers. Thus, for example, people couldn't sell their own guns if they wanted get rid of them and they couldn’t give them to their kids. These concerns basically would have killed the bill if they weren’t addressed.

So along come Manchin and Toomey, who apparently worked out deal. This deal will:

● Require background checks for all commercial gun sales, including sales at gun shows, but excludes gifts and sales between families and “temporary transfers” between hunters and sportsmen.

● It will include some form of record keeping, but it’s not clear what that is yet.

● Moreover, the background checks apparently will be done through some sort of licensing requirement rather than a federal database. It’s not clear what that is either, but it sounds like you will need a federal license to buy a gun.

On the surface, the first one seems to make sense, but the next two seem to be intended to make conservatives oppose the bill. Requiring a federal license strikes me as unacceptable because it is the first step in creating a gun-owner database. Indeed, while I see no issue with creating a database of people who cannot own guns, I think that creating a database of those who can is a different matter entirely because it tells the government where to look for gun owners. I think the combination of needing a license and there being some sort of record keeping requirement on sales also makes this worse because it’s pretty obvious this will result in a database of who owns what, even though the bill supposedly prohibits the creation of a gun registry. So I expect conservatives will shoot this bill down.

But then, get this. . . the bill also includes a provision requiring states to grant reciprocity for concealed carry permits. Thus, a state like New York would need to honor and allow someone granted a concealed carry permit in Texas to carry their gun in New York.

Excuse me for a moment...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I’m back. It will be interesting to see how liberals respond to this. I can’t imagine this will be acceptable to them.

Similarly, the bill apparently will allow dealers to sell across state lines. That means that all those wonderfully stupid laws passed in places like Colorado will become meaningless because I could then mail order a gun from Texas. Essentially, all Colorado gun control will do is make Colorado gun dealers less competitive.

Excuse me again...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Ouch, my kidney.

I’m back. Anyway, I think these provisions will be stripped from the bill in the Senate because they would wipe out state-level gun control... or at least make it ineffective. That will then allow the Republicans to vote against the bill on the basis that the Democrats broke the deal they had crafted.

In the end, this lets both sides paint themselves favorably. The Democrats can tell their left that they passed strong gun control measures, which those meanie Republicans stopped. send us money They can also tell the center that they aren’t radicals because even far-right-Republican Toomey agreed before he reneged, plus nothing happened anyway so why worry about it? Meanwhile, the Republicans can tell their base that they stopped this monster cold. send us money They can also tell the center that they are moderates who were ready to reach a deal on background checks if only those radical Democrats hadn’t tried to break the deal.

Call me a cynic, but this reeks of political theater and I’m seriously starting to wonder if the two sides aren’t working together to write the scripts.

Thoughts?

Update: After I wrote this, Lindsey Graham decided to oppose the bill, so it looks like the thing is doomed for sure. His reasoning was that this bill does nothing to solve the problem of gun violence.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Senate: Why Winning Isn't Enough

Senate Democrats have some serious problems in November. Not only will they be weighed down by a deeply unpopular Obama and their own vile actions over the past couple years, but they are facing a significant enthusiasm gap. Also, they are defending many more seats. What’s more, their people are choosing to retire rather than fight. So I think winning the Senate is all but assured. But we need more than just winning, and we aren't going to get it.



The key fight in this next election cycle will be the Senate. The Senate is important because it can block most reforms. President GenericRepublican (R) can do a lot of reforming from inside the Executive Branch, but anything like repealing laws, reforming entitlements, or amending the tax code will need to overcome a Senate filibuster. And filibusters aplenty you should expect. . . by the plethora. Indeed, expect the Democrats to filibuster everything because they have no incentive whatsoever to cooperate. So we need 60 seats.



Actually, we need 64 or 65 seats because the Republicans have a RINO problem. But what are the chances of that happening? Frankly, zero. So let's go with 60.



The Republicans currently hold 47 seats. The Democrats hold 53. In 2012, 23 Democratic seats and 10 Republican seats will be up for grabs. Most pollsters say it’s unlikely the Republicans will lose any seats, though I personally predict a surprise loss for Scott Brown in Massachusetts as most of his base in the last election will refuse to turn out. Hence, the Republicans need to win either 13 or 14 out of 23 seats to get to 60.



The problem is, there’s no “roadmap” to get them there, i.e. there just aren’t enough competitive seats. Consider:



Helping the Republicans, six Democrats have decided to quit rather than face re-election. This includes: Joe Lieberman (Conn.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), James Webb (Virginia), and Herb Kohl (Wisconsin). Unfortunately, Lieberman’s seat and Akaka’s seat are all but assured to remain Democratic. The other four are considered up for grabs.



Also, depending on who you ask, Democratic seats in Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Michigan, Florida, Ohio and West Virginia are all up for grabs.



So do the math. Eleven total seats are considered up for grabs. That is not enough. Even if we win each seat, we will still be two seats short of 60. What’s more, I don’t think each of these is legitimately up for grabs. Every election we hear about seats in liberal bastions (e.g. Washington state, California, New Jersey) being up for grabs, and every election cycle these turn out to be mirages. This election is no different. I know, for example, from personal experience in the state that Joe Manchin simply cannot be beaten in West Virginia. History tells me that Ben Nelson also will win Nebraska quite easily despite his role in ObamaCare. I also have my doubts about Wisconsin and New Mexico. So I’m thinking that only seven Democratic seats are actually up for grabs. That works out to 54 total seats if we win them all.



Unfortunately, winning only 54 seats would be a disaster. Not only does that mean we can’t stop filibusters, but it also means that our 3-5 seat RINO contingent will hold a lot of power should the Republicans try to achieve anything through reconciliation. That means most (if not all) reform will need to come from the White House. Unfortunately, that all but excludes entitlement and tax reform.



Now, there are some factors that may affect this. For example, Obama’s incredibly low poll numbers suggest a landslide against him, which could mean inverse coattails will drag down the Democratic candidates. There is also some evidence for this in a 6% enthusiasm gap found by the Democratic PPP pollsters. That too could be serious trouble for these Democratic candidates (the 2010 election showed an 8% enthusiasm gap). But I think it’s unlikely this will do anything more than improve our chances of winning the toss up seats.



That’s a little depressing, but it’s better to know the truth and adjust accordingly. Indeed, this tells me that we need to focus much more carefully on what our Presidential candidate has to say about reforming government. . . because the Congress isn’t going to be a lot of help.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama "Failed to Lead"

Exactly what makes a person a leader is difficult to define. Some people have it, some don’t. But one thing all leaders have is the ability to chart a course and persuade people to follow them on that course. Barack Obama is not a leader. . . and people are starting to notice. People like Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. John Kerry.

In February, Democratic Senator John Kerry publicly worried that Obama’s Afghanistan policy was failing. His reasoning? At the core of his argument is a lack of leadership. Said Kerry:

“What I don’t want is to be party to a policy that continues simply because it is there and in place. . . that is what I’m determined to try to prevent.”

Translation: there has been no leadership here. Obama is just doing what everybody else has done, and he doesn't have the leadership ability to change course.

But at least he's done something, which is itself unusual. Indeed, compare this to Egypt, where Obama had no idea what to say, so he said nothing, before he said something, before he said something else. At the same time, his “team” was busy contradicting him in every direction. Finally, when the outcome was clear, Obama tried to pretend that this was his plan all along.

Interestingly, his non-leadership on Egypt continues. This week, British Prime Minster Cameron is in Egypt, to meet with the new government and offer support. Obama was golfing.

Or look at Libya, where Obama didn’t say a word for over a week. When he did finally speak, he told us he had to be briefed first. While he was busy arranging a meeting with his staff, the British went to the UN and started working on sanctions against Libya. Then the British, Chinese and others evacuated their people, as Obama issued statements on Wisconsin. Now the British and NATO are working on imposing a no fly zone and/or aiding the Libyan rebels. Obama went golfing.

Now we have West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin ripping apart Obama’s budget proposal. He calls Obama’s budget a failure of leadership:

“Why are we doing all this when the most powerful person in these negotiations — our president — has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to fight for?”

Oh Joe, you poor deluded hillbilly. Obama doesn’t lead from the front, he never has. When he came to power, he didn't outline a clear agenda like other Presidents, he spoke vaguely of giving health care to everyone, saving the world from global warming, fixing China, producing millions of jobs, and about two dozen other quasi-policy platitudes. And when the Democrats asked, “what do we work on first?” He said, “that’s up to you.” When they plowed into healthcare and the cracks emerged between moderate and liberal Democrats, and they asked him “help us decide who is right,” he said “hey, I’m not going to decide for you.” When they asked him to decide how to pay for ObamaCare and whether a single payer should be used, he got angry and told them to do the right thing. Then he went golfing.

Immigration reform and cap and trade died because he refused to get involved.

Financial reform? “Go ahead Sen. Dodd, I’ll sign whatever you and countrywide send me.”

Stimulus spending? “Sure, send it on over, I’ll sign it. . . whatever it is.”

You don’t want to approve my appointments? “Ok, whatever.”

When BP tried to destroy the Gulf of Mexico, Obama went golfing. He waited weeks before he even said the words "BP." Then he whined that his handlers hadn’t told him yet “whose ass to kick.” Leaders usually know those kinds of details.

He failed to respond to a terrorist attempt to blow up an airplane over Detroit, because he was on vacation. He failed to respond to Haiti until others showed him the way. The Chinese and other BRIC countries blew him off in Copenhagen because they saw him as irrelevant. The pirates in Somalia see him as a joke. He had to send Bill Clinton to save some journalists in North Korea, and he was nowhere to be seen when the North fired artillery shells at the South. He hasn’t even been able to find the American border with Mexico.

When the Republicans took over the House and a budget war started, he sold out the Democrats before the negotiations even began. Heck, even his State of the Union speech was just a list of things prior Presidents have done and a whiny request that everybody try harder. . . at stuff.

Obama is not a leader. He lacks the brain power to have an ideology, i.e. he has no ideas what he wants. He lacks the savvy to persuade people. And he lacks the willpower to stand in a fight.

So poor Joe Manchin better get ready for a lot more disappointment.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...