Skip to main content

gallup on gun control 12/27/2012

Gallup from 12/27/2012, showing increased support for stricter laws after Newtown

NY Times:

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, pushing New York to become the first state to enact major new gun laws in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., plans on Wednesday to propose one of the country’s most restrictive bans on assault weapons.
WaPo:
Retired Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former top commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said Tuesday he supports “serious action” to curb the nation’s gun violence, including an assault weapons ban.
National Journal:
Is Gabby Giffords the New Jim Brady?

As former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords announced her efforts to prevent gun violence on Tuesday—exactly two years after she was shot in the head while meeting with constituents—some gun-control advocates say they see a powerful new symbol for their cause.

“Who could express more than she can what it is like to be a victim?” said Sarah Brady, chairwoman of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The issue is not going away. And for those who oppose any new regulation of any kind whatsoever, do me this one favor: take 24 hours and think hard about Newtown before you respond. Just think about what happened, and consider your position. We know not every idea will be a good one. We know gun rights advocates belong in the conversation, and we want you here. But think about what we're thinking about, back in Newtown. Just do me this one small favor.

Dana Milbank:

A pair of polls out this week shows the dire state the Republican Party finds itself in — and a way out of the wilderness, should Republicans choose to take it.

Poll No. 1: Rasmussen Reports found that views of the tea party — the wing of Republicanism that dominates party primaries and therefore the congressional Republican caucuses — at a new low. Only 8 percent of likely voters considered themselves tea-party members, down from 24 percent in 2010. According to Rasmussen (which tends to have a pro-Republican bias), unfavorable views of the movement topped favorable views, 49 percent to 30 percent.

Poll No. 2: Fairleigh Dickinson University found that 73 percent of New Jersey voters approved of the job their Republican governor, Chris Christie, is doing — near his all-time high. Even 62 percent of Democrats approve of Christie, as well as 69 percent of racial minorities and 70 percent of women. The top would-be challenger to Christie in November’s gubernatorial election is trailing him by 33 percentage points.

So here's the thing: The fact that Christie will not be acceptable to Republicans because of his bipartisan moves is exactly why they have a problem.

Nate Cohn has a smart take on that.

Charles Krauthammer is going a bit too far in describing an "internal civil war" among House Republicans, but as others noted last week, the vote on the Senate's "fiscal cliff" compromise revealed a deep divide between northern and southern Republican congressmen—a divide many attributed to non-competitive and deeply GOP districts. But a deeper analysis of the vote reveals that the partisanship of districts is only part of the story: The party's north-south split appears to be a matter of ideology, too. That bodes poorly for the GOP's ability to adjust after November's elections, and promises yet another messy, protracted primary in 2016.
Francis Wilkinson:
President Barack Obama's anticipated nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary shows how the polarization of Obama's second term might differ from that of his first. His first term was polarizing despite Obama's efforts. His second could be polarizing because of them.

After a robust re-election (and not only in the Electoral College; Obama won by 5 million votes), Obama is bound to look at lockstep Republican opposition in a different light. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham described the selection of Hagel, who departed from the Republican foreign policy fold as soon as the Iraq War went south, as an "in your face" move.

So it is. As Peter Beinart argues convincingly, the Hagel nomination represents both an affront to Republicans, who have never honestly reckoned with the disasters of George W. Bush's foreign policy, and to Democrats, who have spent decades crafting foreign policy designed in part to avoid inciting aggression not from abroad, but from Republicans.

Peter Orszag:
One little-noted provision I was encouraged to see tucked in last week’s fiscal-cliff legislation is Section 601(b): an incentive for doctors to expand their use of something called clinical data registries.

These registries collect information on patient characteristics, patterns of care and outcomes that can be crucial to evaluating what medical techniques and strategies work and which ones don’t. Unfortunately, registries are not as widespread as they should be -- and the ones that exist often are limited to particular types of care.

National Journal:
In 1963, Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon delivered a speech at a University of Connecticut awards luncheon—reproduced in the pages of the New York Federal Reserve's monthly review—that argued that no fiscal-policy issue was "in need of more light and less heat as the debt limit." And his arguments are strikingly familiar.

"[L]et no one labor under the delusion that the debt ceiling is either a sane or an effective instrument for the control of federal expenditures," he said.

Hitting the ceiling would force the government to delay paying its bills, Dillon argued. It's an idea central to one modern plan to avert a debt default, but it comes with economic consequences, he said.

"That is exactly what happened in 1957, when an unrealistic debt ceiling forced the executive to defer payment on its bills. No expenditures were cut back; they were simply postponed and government contractors had to wait for their money," he said. "The unhappy economic effect of that unrealistic 1957 debt ceiling—in combination with other restrictive fiscal measures—needs no retelling here. But anyone who recalls the lesson of 1957—the year from which we date the pattern of slow economic growth which the president's tax program is designed to alter—is not likely to forget it," he said.

Holding up the debt ceiling "in the name of fiscal responsibility" would only wreak havoc, Dillon argued. "[A]n unduly restrictive ceiling could place this country in an untenable fiscal situation."

Everything old is new again.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This. (17+ / 0-)
    And for those who oppose any new regulation, do me this one favor: take 24 hours and think hard about Newtown before you respond. Just think about what happened and how you could make a difference. Then come back with suggestions. And if your only response is 'nothing can help', then let the rest of the country have the discussion.
    Amen.

    They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

    by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:35:47 AM PST

    •  I'll modify that (13+ / 0-)

      a few seconds after I wrote it.

      The issue is not going away. And for those who oppose any new regulation of any kind whatsoever, do me this one favor: take 24 hours and think hard about Newtown before you respond. Just think about what happened, and consider your position. We know not every idea will be a good one. We know gun rights advocates belong in the conversation, and we want you here. But think about what we're thinking about, back in Newtown. Just do me this one small favor.
      I am not trying to stifle discussion.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:38:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Quite the contrary. (11+ / 0-)

        But in order to have a discussion, we first need to agree that one is warranted and possible. It's not a zero-sum game between individual rights and collective security, rather, it's a balancing act between the two.

        Personally, I know how to shoot a gun, quite accurately even, but I also don't want to live in a world where this skill is required for my or anyone's safety.

        They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

        by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:44:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah!! I love your last statement. (0+ / 0-)

          Will you concede that it means more than regulating guns?

          Tragically showy events like Aurora and Newtown obscure the fact that the gun violence problem in America is not about assault weapons and mass shootings.  The overwhelming majority of shooting deaths -- even if you filter out suicides -- are committed with more mundane weapons against more mundane numbers.

          We are a society where people kill each other.
          That is a problem.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:46:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            belle1, thomask
            Tragically showy events like Aurora and Newtown obscure the fact that the gun violence problem in America is not about assault weapons and mass shootings.
            The problem is exactly mass shootings and the weapons used to commit them. And quite a few people, myself included, will have that discussion no matter how many look-over-there distractions are thrown in our way.

            They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

            by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:27:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You really don't care about the kids who are (0+ / 0-)

              killed one and two at a time?

              That's the vast majority of killings in our country.

              In Chicagoland, we are inundated by the tragic stories of kids shot on the way home from school, sitting on the porch, etc.

              Those are mostly black and brown kids.
              Is that the difference?

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:32:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  not either-or (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MBNYC, thomask, Dezza, dinotrac, glitterscale

                both

                "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:41:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, nice. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dezza
                You really don't care about the kids who are (0+ / 0-)
                killed one and two at a time?
                Classic false-choice argument; I don't buy your distraction, hence, I must not care about dead children of color and/or less 'spectacular' murders.

                What a load of self-serving, offensive offal.

                They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

                by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:48:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are the one who said it. (0+ / 0-)

                  When I said we should care about the kids who get killed 1 and 2 at a time, you responded

                  No.
                  The problem is exactly mass shootings and the weapons used to commit them.
                  Tell me some reasonable interpretation of your statements that doesn't:

                  1. Require you to be an idiot incapable of recognizing the logical consequences of your position

                  Not acceptable because you almost certainly not an idiot.

                  2.  Require you to make unthinking knee-jerk arguments

                  Acceptable because we all do that sometimes

                  3. Require you not to care about most of the people who get killed by guns because they are not like you or yours.

                  Also acceptable because we tend to be blind to our own hypocracies and prejudices.

                  Have I missed one?

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:57:01 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think Greg Dworkin has it right (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dinotrac

                    We need to deal with both issues and quit hiding behind the constitutional thing. We regulate cars and drivers and bars and intoxicating substances and now even tobacco. We don't need to see any more children killed by guns.

                    So I am all in favor of levying an outrageous tax on bullets, guns and gun paraphernalia, allowing gun manufacturers to face civil suits, restrictions on who can buy, what they can buy and how they are to maintain said firearms and what courses they have to take before ownership. AND turning the CDC loose on the problem and opening up statistics to the world.

                    American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

                    by glitterscale on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:02:26 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I would like to go deeper than that, though. (0+ / 0-)

                      Those things would save lives.
                      Those things would make well-meaning people feel better.
                      Those things would not address most of the problem, nor prevent most of the deaths.

                      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                      by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:07:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I truly believe that we could change things (0+ / 0-)

                        over time with a comprehensive plan of
                        1)educating gun owners and giving them information about safety, gun locks, and gun safes
                        2)keeping ammo down to reasonable limits
                        3)keeping guns confined to those who pass a test showing they understand how to use the firearms safely and having insurance on those weapons for possible misuse and abuse (insurance companies are far greater sticklers for also insuring that those they insure have gun safes and gun locks)
                        4)Truly letting the CDC do its job regarding firearm deaths. We have a truly sterling air traffic safety record and it is time to have something close to that with firearm safety.
                        5)Putting gun manufacturers on notice: NO MORE FLOODING THE MARKETS! And allowing civil suits against them for wrongful deaths. And allowing the ATF to do its job.
                        6)And yes, up taxes on the stuff to pay for the regs and such.

                        American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

                        by glitterscale on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:21:47 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  In order to have a meaningful discussion, first (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greg Dworkin

        we need to identify what it is we are trying to achieve.  In other words, we need to identify the real problem and try to find solutions to that.  Up till now, with the exception of "improvements to mental health care", which is a broad topic, the only things I have been seeing are calls for item bans, sponsored by the same old politicians who have been calling for them year after year that would both be ineffective and simply infuriate a large number of gun owners which in turn works against any sort of meaningful progress.

        Lets first talk about so called "assault" weapons and the "assault weapon" ban of 20 years ago.  One of the most important things to realize is that guns available to civilians are semi-automatic which means that for each pull of the trigger it fires one bullet.  These guns are not "designed to shoot a bunch of bullets really fast" as I have frequently seen stated.  Functionally, these guns are no different than any other semiautomatic gun on the market that are carried by police and for self defense by licensed individuals.  The AWB of yesteryear, focused on cosmetic features that had absolutely no effect on their functionality and the manufacturers simply worked around them to meet consumer demand.  Lets also remember that the AWB did NOTHING to prevent mass shootings.  The current calls for an AWB are a political non-starter and this has been discussed here and elsewhere, so enough on that subject.

        With respect to the .223 /  .556 ammunition used in guns like the AR, there is nothing magical about it.  There is no special "super killing" property to it and it is not even a particularly powerful round.  In fact, it is FAR less powerful than the average hunting rifle round.  This is another false start that might sound good on the surface.

        Now, lets talk about magazine limits.  On the surface, I understand the thinking that if you can limit the number of bullets that a criminal has that you can limit the carnage that they can inflict.  Unfortunately, this is a very false assumption.  The first and foremost reason is that one can simply change magazines and it takes a matter of seconds.  The second reason cuts to the heart of a lot of the problem with "gun control" in that it would only impact the law abiding.  Imposing a limit on magazine capacity will not take away the access to them by criminals.   For starters, there are millions of them already in circulation.  Also, they are very easy to make and modify.  However, most importantly, any criminal will simply not care about the laws and won't follow them and for this reason any ban is a futile gesture.  Also note that in the Columbine shootings the shooters used magazines that held less than 10 bullets and the limit had no effect on their carnage.  In the case of Adam Lanza, the evidence shows that he changed magazines before they were empty, in some cases before even firing 10 bullets.  Again, a capacity limit did not change the outcome and it won't.

        The bottom line is this regard is that the "we need to do something" rhetoric as being stirred up by certain politicians in CA and NY, is getting us no where, will not achieve anything meaningful and it needs to stop.

        Now, as I said at the top of the post, we need to identify exactly what it is we want to achieve, which I see as being ways to prevent mass shootings like the one in CO and CT, as well as reduce the overall rate of violence in society as a whole.  If we take this a step further and specifically say, reduce GUN violence, we need to determine exactly WHO is committing GUN VIOLENCE and HOW they are getting access to their guns.

        With regards to the mass shootings, we need to ask who is committing them.  In every case that I can think of, it has been by someone with mental and psychological issues.  This is one area that I agree we need to look into better approaches.  For example, I have a concealed carry permit issued by my county sheriff.  As part of the background check process, the sheriff checked with the area hospitals to see if I had mental issues.  This is an area that could be expanded upon.

        The next thing we need to consider is that in many of these types of shootings, the shooter obtained their guns illegally.  In the case of Adam Lanza, he stole them from his mother's house.  In the case of Chardon, OH last year, the shooter stole it from his uncle's house.  In other cases, such as, Virginia Tech, there were problems with the NICS system that should have prevented him from buying his weapons and these have been fixed.  This too is an area where most gun owners will agree that we need to find ways to keep ILLEGALguns out of the hands of those who should not have them.  A salient point to keep in mind is that criminals are not walking into stores and buying their guns.  They are getting them on the black market and no restriction on the law abiding citizen will change this.  What we can do is step up law enforcement and penalties on those who commit crimes with illegal guns.

        Lastly, I would like to address what we can do to help prevent mass shootings.  If we look at where these mass shootings have occurred, the truth of the matter is that they are occurring in places where guns are prohibited.   The reason for this is simple.  Only those people who are going to obey the laws will be disarmed - the criminal doesn't care.  In fact, the criminal KNOWS that they will not encounter armed resistance and this increases their ability to murder.  While this is distasteful, it is the truth.  

        What we need to do is have dedicated protectors.  Instead of telling the honest, law abiding, good citizens that they need to be disarmed for safety, we need to take advantage of what they have to offer.  I am not saying "lets arm the teachers", but we do need to make places like schools less attractive to those who wish to commit the unthinkable.   Unfortunately, the current system takes people, like the parents of Sandy Hook, or the people in the theater in CO and requires them to make themselves defenseless.  Remember folks, we are NOT disarming the CRIMINALS and INSANE because THEY DON"T CARE AND WILL NOT FOLLOW THE LAW!  What the criminals and insane do is stop when they encounter sufficient resistance.  The people that have been through background checks, have clean records, no DUI, no assault, no rape, no murder, no mental issues, who have obtained training, know the laws; they are not the problem.  They are good guys and they are protectors of society.  We should be making use of them, not trying to restrict them in vain hopes that it somehow dissuades the criminals because it won't happen.

        •  this part is sketchy, the rest is helpful (0+ / 0-)
          Lastly, I would like to address what we can do to help prevent mass shootings.  If we look at where these mass shootings have occurred, the truth of the matter is that they are occurring in places where guns are prohibited.   The reason for this is simple.  Only those people who are going to obey the laws will be disarmed - the criminal doesn't care.  In fact, the criminal KNOWS that they will not encounter armed resistance and this increases their ability to murder.  While this is distasteful, it is the truth.
          It's true that what you are trying to do needs to be defined. I think it'll take fitting legislation together in the best way to achieve the goal and any one thing won't do it.

          Go back and reread your own post and make sure you are not mixing up  the criminal with the unstable. I don't think what you wrote (highlighted) is actually true. I also don't follow the logic that "criminals don't obey laws therefore there should be no laws" which is the essential NRA position the rest of the country rejects as illogical.

          Also missing from your list is funding research and data on gun violence instead of blocking it.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:13:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am not saying there should be no laws ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Greg Dworkin

            I think that NRA's public statement was in many ways unfortunate as it's biggest effect has been to virtually shut down a whole avenue from consideration, making it increasingly difficult to even use it as a thought starting point.  

            As I said, I am not saying there should be no laws.  Laws set the framework for a functional society.  What we need to do is look carefully at the existing laws as well as their impact.   I do think that the assumption that "gun free zones" create a haven of safety is false.  I think that this was the intent, but I don't think it works.  

        •  further as a Newtown resident I reject the 'arm (0+ / 0-)

          the schools' philosophy, or bring more guns to the school. If my kids are in that school I do not want a good samaritan with little to no training shooting a gun in hopes of hitting the perp.  That's fantasy world.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:15:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're missing that I am suggesting (0+ / 0-)

            I believe almost anyone would agree with you that having

            a good samaritan with little to no training shooting a gun in hopes of hitting the perp
            is a bad idea and this is not what I am suggesting.  I am suggesting two things.  

            One.  What we do know is that when these unthinkable situations do occur that the damage is done very quickly.  In both CO and CT the police response efforts were nothing short of heroic.  Unfortunately, it is still not enough.  Part of a holistic approach to protecting places like schools needs to be a means to respond to events right when they occur.  I am suggesting that instead of declaring schools "gun free zones" that we allow people who are willing and able to obtain proper training and willing to act as protectors do so.  Personally, I think that amongst the parents you will find many who would be willing to take on this role.  These protectors should not be the first line of defense.  Security needs to be in layers and this should be the last line of defense, but it should still be there.

            Two. I am suggesting that we look at the side effects of these totalitarian "gun free zone" rules.  In many places, responsible, law abiding, parents are not able to do something as simple as drop off their child in the school parking lot because they have a gun on them.  These kinds of things are simply absurd.

      •  Lesson # 1 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greg Dworkin

        in "how to be sensible on the internet" it's a new and much needed curriculum.

        ;-)

        You really should give lessons.

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:32:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good morning, Greg, thanks for the roundup! (6+ / 0-)

    I suggest that all Republicans write to their Republican Congress critters promising fury and tribulation if they cause a deficit disaster--thereby delaying or even zapping tax refunds altogether.

    As for Newtown, I am still extremely struck by the sign the Freeway Blogger showed us yesterday in his diary:

    You can have my gun when you pry it from the fingers of my cold, dead child.
    The idea that anyone could slaughter innocents is so stomach-churning and horrifying that surely even gun nuts can't be in favor of it.  

    And who needs an assault weapon to shoot a helpless deer?  Better to hunt with bow and arrow if you're intent on finding food.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:37:43 AM PST

    •  people do (4+ / 0-)

      my next door neighbor is very good with bow and arrow and he has a target in his back yard.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:39:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The bow and arrow has an additional benefit. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare, Diana in NoVa

      It is not likely to startle the deer like a gunshot, which releases stress hormones. The more stress hormones in your food, the more your body has to break down. Modern crossbows are no more expensive than guns and very accurate.

      I personally think legalizing marijuana could help the stress factors contributing to gun violence....

      Also, too. Orzag's observation on the clinical data registries falls short of pointing out the mid to long term cost benefit. Better treatment protocols are also cheaper - the kind of thing that should help bring down our bloated per capita cost of health care.

      "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

      by Ginny in CO on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:07:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It'll help deer with stress hormones (5+ / 0-)

        I'm sure they'd eat marijuana.

        They freakin' eat everything else that grows in our yard.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:19:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do your state laws allow growing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Greg Dworkin

          marijuana for deer consumption?   I should pass that along to some old neighbors in Anchorage. Unstressed moose cows with calves would be FAR less dangerous. And they always go for the most expensive ornamental plants you have in the yard. (Fences?  Their legs are like 40 inches, they don't even have to leap unless the height is >4')

          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

          by Ginny in CO on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:35:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  not either or with Orszag (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ginny in CO

        it's that plus evidence based medicine, which can only be performed with, er, data. Which registries help you collect.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:20:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I should have had more sleep and coffee. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Greg Dworkin

          The section in the block quote didn't say anything about the  evidence based medicine savings and my foggy brain didn't link to the article. Sometimes the only savings is not doing as many unnecessary diagnostic tests. Even that may be exceeded by treatment. The potential long term monetary benefit is when the patient is treated effectively, timely, and returns to the tax paying work force.  

          The data registries expand the initial studies that establish evidence based protocols so they can be fine tuned. Somewhat like what happens when new drugs are approved. The larger data base produces new and refined information which improves the protocols, especially in the danger areas - which are very expensive.

          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

          by Ginny in CO on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:47:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The Republican Divide (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MBNYC

    The fiscal cliff vote in the House is our first sign that the lockstep opposition of the first term is soft. We now know which Republicans are at least open to compromising, and we know that Boehner is willing to break the Hastert rule if push comes to shove and the House GOP is going to act in some what that is politically untenable for the party or disastrous for the country. We need to exploit it.

  •  'Only 8 percent of likely voters consider (13+ / 0-)

    themselves tea party members'.....LOL.....The GOP is afraid of it's own shadow.

  •  If the Republican Party is under strain (9+ / 0-)

    that's increasingly visible, it's a strain of their own design.  It serves them right.  

    I'm for way fewer Baggers, but see that they're serving a purpose in making the Republican brand close to un-electable.  They're loud and shrill and behave like 4-year olds -- make that 2-year olds -- and have shifted the GOP into positions on issues the majority of voters find unacceptable.  

    Greg, your point on Christie, that he "will not be acceptable to Republicans because of his bipartisan moves is exactly why they have a problem," is a bull's-eye.

    •  If you're a gooper...and you stand still inre your (6+ / 0-)

      positions...you'll be a commie bastard in a month....This party is moving.....RIGHTWARD!!

    •  I saw an article this morning (7+ / 0-)

      in the National Journal about the "identity crisis" the Republican party is going through:

      he old Jewish saying “Ask two Jews a question, and receive three different answers” could apply in spades to the varied conservative perspectives on how to tackle runaway spending. Some believe the debt can be responsibly cut primarily by tackling waste. Others will point to runaway foreign aid as their favorite pet peeve. And the responsible ones, led by Ryan, correctly identify entitlement spending as the main driver of long-term debt. But that’s also the most politically tricky answer to give. The fact that Ryan himself avoided campaigning on his budget proposal during the presidential campaign demonstrates that risk, even in some of the more Republican parts of the country.
      Meanwhile, Obama is preparing to prioritize immigration reform on his second-term agenda, a move that would do as much to divide the GOP as it would to score points among Hispanic voters. It would threaten to engulf the GOP in a heated internal debate that would make the fiscal-cliff arguments seem like child’s play. Immigration sparked the beginning of the Republican rebellion from George W. Bush, well before the tea party emerged as a GOP force. And the wave of tea party-aligned freshmen, most representing homogeneous districts, aren’t at all inclined to embrace positions they once railed against. Most Republican strategists believe that, without a jump in support from the growing Hispanic population, the GOP could become a permanent minority party—and immigration reform is the ticket to win them over. But they would acknowledge that quickly adding more Hispanics to the voter rolls could further damage the Republican party’s long-term standing as well. Conservative talker Sean Hannity, the day after the 2012 election, reversed course and came out for some version of comprehensive immigration reform; the next day on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh doubled down on his opposition.
      http://nationaljournal.com/...

      "Serious" Republicans in the media are beginning to sound the alarm that the Tea Party is hurting the Republicans, and someone needs to go.

      "Which side are you on, boys?"

      Is it that much of a stretch to believe that, by 2016, the grassroots base will have taken control of the Republican Party, and the establishment will be looking to bolt?

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:58:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  except kraushaar gets them mixed up (5+ / 0-)

        TP will bolt, establishment is, well, established.

        it's one thing for sugar daddies to push Armey out and keep TP at freedomWorks and another to see it happen everywhere.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:03:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

          The Tea Party will go Galt, and join the Libertarians.
          What about the religious right? I read an article about the establishment GOP trying to distance themselves from the rabid anti-Muslim factions like Pamela Gellar and Michele Bachmann.
          Which side will the anti gay, anti muslim anti abortion crowd pick?

          “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

          by skohayes on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:31:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  If the President does prioritize (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skillet, skohayes, glitterscale

        immigration, it will turn the klieg lights on the GOP.  

        I wonder if there are enough "serious" Republicans left to hold sway.  The Baggers have tossed a lot of "moderates" overboard.  

        The GOP establishment "will be looking to bolt" -- at least if they have a lick of sense in their heads.  Otherwise, they're choosing to remain in a house afire.  

        •  Where would establishment Republicans to bolt to? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Remediator, tb mare

          There is not a chance at all that the GOP establishment will abandon the party they have spent a hundred years building.  If they were to join the Democratic party, it would either destroy the Democratic party by forcing it even farther to the right or substantially dilute the Republican establishment's political power.

          No, this is a war among the factions in the Republican party, and the party is going to have to clean up the huge mess it made for itself without the Democrats.  Democrats are having their own problems with party cohesion, although not nearly so antagonistic,  between the progressive and New Democrat wings of their party.

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

          by SueDe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:37:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, they can't stay in the party (0+ / 0-)

            if the party is so increasingly dysfunctional.  The Republicans are in a danger zone of un-electability.  The louder the Baggers screech on social issues, the less valid the GOP brand becomes.

            They'll either have to mount a coup of their own party, expel the Baggers (which may not be possible), or break off.  

            They have no good choices.  If they break off, they are a minority party for a long time absent a tremendous Ike-like candidate.

            If no new Ike
            Comes down the pike...

            ...the Pukes are kaput.

          •  That process has already begun (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Remediator, SueDe

            and has been doing so for quite some time = DLC and "third way" are indications of such. And, imo, some of our pie fights lately are because of such.

            American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

            by glitterscale on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:12:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I love the thesis of that piece (7+ / 0-)
        It's looking more and more likely the GOP could be split apart.
        Couldn't happen to a nicer, more deserving bunch of people :-)

        They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

        by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:08:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  My nail-biting hope: (5+ / 0-)
    After a robust re-election (and not only in the Electoral College; Obama won by 5 million votes), Obama is bound to look at lockstep Republican opposition in a different light.
    I am not so sure he feels "bound" at all, given his needless bipartisan overtures with regards to the phony debt issue and giving away shit he didn't need to. (Whine elsewhere, I don't want to talk about it.)

    Sometimes I think Obama believes needless compromise is somehow better than getting what you know you needed or wanted. Just so you could say you compromised.

    I hate that.

    I really needed a car but I settled for a coconut and two birds.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:55:59 AM PST

  •  NRA's trying to run out the clock on this. (0+ / 0-)

    Be interesting to see if it works.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:00:34 AM PST

    •  it's the Onion and therefore truer than the news (10+ / 0-)
      Frustrated Wayne LaPierre Thought Murder Of 20 Children By Crazed Gunman Would Have Blown Over By Now

      “Look, I get it: A bunch of kids died, and it’s really fucking sad or whatnot, and blah blah blah, but it’s not the end of the world here, people—the beat goes on,” a visibly agitated LaPierre said. “Hell, people die in car accidents every day, and we don’t make a big stink about that. We don’t shut down—just totally shut down—everything for weeks so we can talk about it over and over and over again, do we? Of course not. Oh, but I guess I’m the bad guy for suggesting we get our priorities straight and stop acting like a bunch of mewling babies because of 20 dead kids. Is that it? I’m the bad guy?”

      “Yeah, I’m the bad guy,” he added. “Fine.”

      http://www.theonion.com/...

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:05:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good morning, Greg. I agree with your comments (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg Dworkin, tb mare

    on gun violence. We need to find a responsible solution. I applaud Gibby Giffords and Mark Kelly for starting Americans for Responsible Solutions. As they note, they are not trying to take away people's guns. They themselves own guns, which are at home, locked in a safe. I hope Newtown will be a watershed moment in our country for turning public opinion toward more responsible gun ownership.
    BTW, once again pediatricians rock. It is 0300 HST and I couldn't sleep. Your round-up made good early morning reading.  :-)

    My lady binder is killing me.

    by surfermom on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:02:19 AM PST

  •  Can somebody tell me what could have been in place (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, Bailey2001

    that would have totally and completely prevented Adam Lanza from making his choices as he did?

    This is a bit different then asking what we can actually do now: what COULD have been in place prior to this that would have clearly and predictably prevented it?

    I gather from the emotion in many posts about all this that some feel very strongly that certain things would have completely prevented this.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:03:25 AM PST

    •  I don't believe any one thing or combo could have (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare, coppercelt, tb mare

      although i agree with McCrystal. Why make it easier for them?

      I think serious action is necessary,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don’t think that’s enough….The number of people in America killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. And I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty culture, and so I think we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”
      Get rid of high capacity magazines. Look to see if there is a practical way towards an AWB (can't be a  standalone) wilt less loopholes. Do the background checks. Look at mental health issues, funding, support.

      If Newtown cannot have been prevented, that is not an excuse to do nothing. Newtown is not the only town to experience gun violence.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:12:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wish McCrystal had said "firearm homicide" (0+ / 0-)

        instead of "killed by". Too often I see suicide added to the mix, not that suicide isn't worth working on too, but I don't think that's what's being discussed.

        As I re read I notice you too use the term "gun violence".

        Suicide and homicide are different.

        I think that before we can rationally discuss issues gun we need to decide what it is we are talking about.

        Gun deaths are increasing for instance, gun homicide is on a long downward trend.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:17:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The lesson of Norway is that... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aitchdee, tb mare, alrdouglas

      ..."totally and completely preventing" mass weapon atrocity is impossible.

      But they very likely won't experience another multiple victim murder by firearm for decades.  

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:33:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am the not-so-proud sibling (6+ / 0-)

    Of a Family Member who is still engrossed in the Tea Party, and who is not giving up on trying to change me and my mother into thinking like we have a chip in our head.  NOT going to happen, and I am glad the country is waking up to the insanity of the Tea Party.

    •  Keep fighting the good fight against (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DRo, coppercelt, tb mare

      that family member.  

      As the Baggers' public support fades, they'll become louder but more lonely.  

    •  I have no energy to argue with teabaggers (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aitchdee, tb mare, pelagicray

      and their variations like birthers, new-world-orderers, etc. They're stuck in a self-reinforcing loop of nonsense, fear and lies. The only way to deal with them is to either ignore them, humor them in a clearly patronizing manner, or harass them with questions they can't possibly answer without sounding moronic.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:27:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Giffords group should do a series of ads... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, Stude Dude

    ....all starring gun violence victims.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:06:26 AM PST

  •  Christie's an interesting case. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, Remediator, coppercelt, tb mare

    Unlike most center-right Repubs, he has the ego and the overbearing personality to fight it out with the wingnuts.

    A primary run by him would probably bring some issues to  the table the Repubs wouldn't have to deal with if, say, another Huntsman-type ran as the token center-right candidate.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:14:47 AM PST

  •  Excellent round up, as always! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, Greg Dworkin

    I can always tell the quality of APR by the number of tabs I have open after reading. :)
    I really hope that Christie meant what he said in the SoTS speech, but that remains to be seen. It would be nice to see governing rather than fighting and posturing for a change.

    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

    by skohayes on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:14:52 AM PST

  •  Today is the 100th anniversary of ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kovie
  •  In Your Face, Republicans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude

    They are afraid of the Muslins wanting to take over the world.  It's too late.  America already has with 700+ military bases in 120 countries.  What Muslim country can match that?

    It is the same with the pro-gun argument that personal arsenals are needed to prevent tyranny at home.  What band of modern-day minute men would stand a chance against the military if they staged a rebellion today?

    Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

    by arlene on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:18:50 AM PST

  •  amazing with the spike (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, tb mare

    in public opinion for stricter gun sale regs, still 20% below where it was in 1990

  •  What is most fasinating about this graph is.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare

    the results over the past 20 years versus what the public wanted.

    In 1990 the overwhelming majority wanted stricter laws, with the minority wanting no changes.  Only a sliver, minority, (a fringe group if you will) wanted the laws made less strict.

    Despite the decrease in the number favouring greater restrictions and the increase in those wanting laws to remain unchanged, the number wanting reduced restrictions remained a thin sliver, fringe status.  At the highest, this number never exceeded 12%

    Yet if you look at what actually happened over the past 20 years, you see the very thing the fewest people wanted happening, happened.  Gun laws became much less restrictive.

    In 1990, nobody walked around on the streets with guns strapped to their hips.  Nobody walked around openly carrying semi-automatic weapons and after 1994, assault weapons were banned.

    Today, you can carry guns just about everywhere, openly and the assault rifle has resumed its place on the coffee tables and bomb shelters of the nation's gun owners.

    It is no wonder the number saying the laws should stay the way they are have increased.  They are actually saying the laws should not get any less restrictive than they already are.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:22:40 AM PST

  •  Gun control has to be federalized (0+ / 0-)

    Doing it at the state level won't keep lunatics from buying guns in states with lax gun control laws and using them in states with tougher laws, and installing tight border controls would be prohibitively expensive and cumbersome and lead to civil liberties issues. Obama has to lead on this.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:23:50 AM PST

  •  Common sense reforms (0+ / 0-)

    America has been held hostage by the NRA and the pro gun lobby for far too long. Now small children are being killed by weapons that have no business being in the hands of ordinary civilians. Our president and this Congress must do something to make sure tragedies like Newtown or Aurora never happen again. Our leaders must realize that the gun lobby is a hollow power, not representative of ordinary Americans in the last. The country wants common sense reforms that protect people, not gun manufacturers and extreme murderers. The only folks to which this is controversial are the NRA and the people who want to shoot innocent Americans in the future. -  progressive

  •  Sad to say this (0+ / 0-)

    but I think the only way ahead on gun issues is to continue appealing to the emotional side of what happened in Newtown. Stories like this http://forward.com/... about little Noah need to be told again and again. It makes me sad because it means loved ones having to be the voice and relive the pain. How can one defend the availability of assault rifles once the destruction they cause is understood in raw reality?

    I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

    by hulibow on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:31:34 AM PST

  •  Hagel seems up for the fight. (0+ / 0-)

    He knows what the senate is like and knows exactly what to expect and is ready to try to take them on.

    I don't think Rice really wanted to go through it, and I don't blame her.

    But that's probably why Obama hesitated on Rice and went ahead with Hagel.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:39:44 AM PST

    •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)
      But that's probably why Obama hesitated on Rice and went ahead with Hagel.
      You mean Kerry? No Hagel. Two different positions. Rice was being talked up for SoS. Hagel is up for SoD.

      "I'm totally pro-choice in the matter of abortion. But of course I'm also so radically pro-life that I think every person from birth onward must have full and affordable access to healthcare." - Gail Collins

      by gritsngumbo on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:33:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am Very Troubled by Hagel's (0+ / 0-)

    recent positions on Womens Rights, Civil Rights, Gun Control, Soc Sec and more!

    http://www.issues2000.org/...

  •  Seems like most gov. contractors have Repub ties. (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe they can be scared into pushing the Repubs to a reasonable position.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:44:20 AM PST

  •  Poll (0+ / 0-)

    The 5 people who voted "No!" on the selection of Barney Frank are:

    Teabaggers

    Homophobes

    Both

    When someone tells you they are lying, you should believe them.

    by shoeless on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:45:35 AM PST

  •  Yeah, well, thanks to Gen. McChrystal... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aitchdee

    we now know that the U.S. military wants to confiscate our guns. We knew that all along, but now we can say "Told you so!"

    I'll only have bows and arrows to use against those armored personnel carriers and mini-tanks that  local police S.W.A.T. teams are all using these days. Well, bows and arrows and pointy sticks! And rocks.  Might as well just roll over and let the machine of totalitarianism run right over me.

    (note: there was a time on this site when it wasn't necessary to state that a comment is snark, but those days are no more.)

    "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

    by RonV on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:13:30 AM PST

  •  I'm looking forward to hearing what Gabby (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg Dworkin

    Giffords has to say. I'd heard that she'd started an org but so far I haven't been able to find what positions she is taking on various issues that could broadly be called gun.

    Gabby is a Westerner and was of that subset called blue dog that many love to revile but actually includes many sensible Dems and means different things in different parts of the country.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:37:08 AM PST

  •  I don't believe the GOP to be in such dire straits (0+ / 0-)

    OK -- here and now, it's gotta REALLY SUCK to be an elected GOP official or wannabe, but...

    let's see -- for 2012 they nominated the former governor of Massachusetts, a state where a conservative is merely a less-showy liberal, and the Godfather of Obamacare, to boot.

    Oh -- did I mention Mormon?

    I never thought much of Romney.  Ran a stupid campaign. Completely misread what he needed to do and said some stupid things, but...

    a party willing to nominate Romney is probably capable of nominating somebody who could actually win the White House.

    That person wouldn't have to have the political savvy of one Mr. William Jefferson Clinton, but should possess some of his skill at determining what the voters WHO MATTER want and appearing to give it to them.  That person would have to figure out that the tea party (whatever the hell that is) doesn't matter and go about winning the election instead of being stupid.

    They have some people in the wings, including Gov. Christie, who might fill the bill -- especially if we have another stagnant 4 years.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:39:39 AM PST

    •  people in the South would have to vote for him (0+ / 0-)

      increasingly unlikely.

      Think on that, and you get the point. Kraushaar is no liberal.

      http://nationaljournal.com/...

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:42:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Increasingly unlikely? (0+ / 0-)

        Did you manage to miss the 2012 Presidential election results?

        The south was solidly red.

        For a Massachusetts faux conservative father of Obamacare Mormon.

        Democrats don't seem determined to steal southern GOP voters.  The GOP won't have to reach very far to get those votes.  

        A third party could complicate things for one electoral cycle, but we don't seem to be a nation friendly to third parties.

        And, of course, who knows what monkey wrenches will be tossed out way.  The post-McGovern pre-Watergate Democratic Party looked DOA.  Amazing what a third rate burglary will do for a party's outlook.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:59:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  as always (0+ / 0-)

          Christie will have to win the primary.

          talk about which one of us was not paying attention...    ;-P

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:44:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Romney won enough to get the nomination (0+ / 0-)

            Somebody like Christie could do the same.

            Tea Party types -- the ones you're so worried about -- never bought into Romney as a conservative.  They bought into him as an alternative to Obama.  

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:44:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  data for you... (0+ / 0-)

          https://twitter.com/...

          RT @ppppolls: Our national poll over the weekend found that Chris Christie is now more popular with Democrats than Republicans
          see my original point.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:11:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Which means what, exactly? (0+ / 0-)

            Never mind that it's 2012 and not 2016.
            Never mind that he (or anybody else) doesn't have to win a majority of the votes -- just more than the other guys.

            Let me whisper a name in your ear from the deep dark past of Illinois: Carol Mosely Braun.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:47:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  ?? (0+ / 0-)

              completely irrelevant to Chris Christie's national ambition.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:51:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not in the least irrelevant if you take the (0+ / 0-)

                position that Christie can't be nominated because he's not "Tea Party" enough.

                Look at how she won the Democratic nomination:

                Alan Dixon and Al Hofeld split a block of votes that otherwise would have gone to Dixon, and Braun won.

                If the tea party still matters in 2016 -- a big if -- there will be sufficient crazies to split the vote.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:55:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  umm... we are talking presidential politics (0+ / 0-)

                  and the question on the table is with 2 sides in the GOP promary, and with the bigger chunk not from the northeast, how does Christie win?

                  jeb Bush or someone else has a better chance of bridging the factions than Christie does.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:30:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Primary politics are state by state over time, (0+ / 0-)

                    not the whole country at once.

                    Jeb Bush or somebody else may well be a better choice,  but that doesn't mean Christie can't win.

                    And you seem to forget that there are Republican primaries in blues states -- places like New York,California, Massachusetts,etc.

                    If somebody is stupid enough to treat the "tea party" like something that matters, more power to him/her/them.

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:05:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  LOL (0+ / 0-)
                      If somebody is stupid enough to treat the "tea party" like something that matters, more power to him/her/them.
                      I'm with you there.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:10:42 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  Romney did run a stupid campaign, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare

      but he was nominated in large part because he had no competition to speak of.  And as incompetent and crazy as his competitors were, they still all led Romney at one point or other in the primaries.  

      Jon Huntsman, while progressives would never have been enthusiastic about him, at least behaved like a grown-up.  He was out of the picture almost immediately.  

      That's a problem for the GOP.  They're in a self-defeating pattern of taking "moderate" candidates and trashing them in favor of unelectable Baggers.  It isn't working.  Romney did take most Southern states, but he lost Virginia and Florida, and almost lost North Carolina.  

      The Republicans need a leader and don't have one.  They haven't had one in some years.  One will emerge, eventually, but it may well be a very troubled birth.  

      •  He had lots of competition -- the very crazies (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Remediator

        who Democrats think will sink a Republican nominee.

        Thing is, the crazies couldn't keep it up to win.
        They won't be able to do  it in 2016.

        A better, smarter candidate will know that, if only because Romney showed it to be true.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:21:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Gun owners and anti-gunners see themselves in (0+ / 0-)

    the same way: Neither group can identify with mass murderers, felons or miscreants.

    I've read much on the subject over the years and it is difficult to generalize, but I will attempt to.  There are two types of "good" people in the world:  The creators...those who make way for positive change in society...those who educate and nurture....those who heal, etc.,  and the protectors...the warriors...the "thin blue line"... and those others who see their role as defenders of things that make a society and civilization worthwhile.

    Oftentimes, the creators look with some disgust upon the protectors and their brutishness. Their coarseness. And the very fine line they ride between violence for defensive purposeness and evil.  But, without those in the defender role, the creators do not long survive.

    I'm tired of the "us vs. them".  I'm tired of people politicizing Newton as if it is something new.  Something special.  The world is a brutal place for more than half the people on this planet. Every day. While any mass murder is a tragedy, it has happened since time began and it will happen tomorrow.  Perhaps not here, but somewhere. If not murder, then other forms of violence:  rape, torture, terrorism, loss of limbs.

    As I stated:  Those on the "right side" of morality, society and civilization do not identify with the killers and butchers of history.  So please lower the rhetoric.

    I personally am in favor of universal background checks and registration of firearms in this country.  Magazine limits of 10 are not an issue for me or for most of the competitors I know in the sport of shooting.  The "Assault weapons" ban was window dressing and will continue to be so in the future.

    If you want a dialogue, quit believing that you hold the high ground.  You cannot hold anything with words alone.  It has never been done and you are not likely to be the first.

    •  I like that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      surfermom

      but I am from Newtown, and it it is special and it is different. I work with law enforcement all the time as a pediatrician and they understand better than anyone it 's different.

      I would suggest to you at least the possibility that you have it backwards. That it is your ingrained attitude that makes you say Newtown is not different. That the soldiers like McChrystal and cops in CT see it different than you and understand that losing 20 first graders with multiple shots to each is not business as usual.

      Consider that, and consider that maybe, just maybe, you really don't have the high ground here and that those that reference Newtown really do.

      Just consider it, rather than dismiss it. That's all I ask.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:17:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, I work with law enforcement quite often (0+ / 0-)

        since I service and repair weaponry for guys from beat cops to SWAT team members.

        In most cases, murder, rape, pedophilia always come as a surprise.  We don't believe our family or our neighbor could do such evil and horrific things.

        There is no high ground here.  

        •  sure there is (0+ / 0-)

          "newtown is not different because it only happened there, when it happens everywhere" is true, but "newtown is different because the event itself is (thank God) somewhat unique" just as 9/11 was. This is our 9/11.

          Look at the graph at the top. The spike is Newtown.

          The horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown on Dec. 14 has sparked a national conversation about how such an atrocity can be prevented in the future.

          Rational, reasonable people can disagree on the most effective actions to take, but they have to agree that all possible solutions must be put on the table for discussion.

          There simply is no one solution for stopping a madman like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old Newtown man who shot and killed his mother at their home and then proceeded to gun down 20 young children and six educators at his former elementary school on that fateful December day.

          Gun-control legislation alone will not solve the problem.

          Neither will improved mental health treatment in and of itself.

          Neither will safer school designs or the presence of an armed guard in every school.

          Neither will a solitary focus on reducing violence in our society -- in movies, on TV, in video games.

          Rather, all of those issues must be considered as individual parts of a potential whole solution.

          http://www.newstimes.com/...

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:49:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, Greg. Newtown was different. (0+ / 0-)

        I think it has changed things.

        My lady binder is killing me.

        by surfermom on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:09:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  2014 will go a long way... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax

    "The fact that Christie will not be acceptable to Republicans because of his bipartisan moves is exactly why they have a problem."

    to determining whether Christie can get nominated.  My take is that if the GOP has another wave year like 2010 (which is unlikely, since they already had a wave year four years earlier, and there isn't much to be waved left), then they will retake the Senate and expand in the House.  Under this scenario, they could really make Obama's last two years miserable.  If that happens, the Tea Party would be feeling their oats, and would demand a more conservative candidate than Christie.  That doesn't mean Christie couldn't win, but he'd have to go through a 2012-like primary.  To win in 2016, the GOP has to avoid another 2012 primary at all costs.

    But,...if the GOP merely makes minor gains in the Senate and the House in 2014, then things change.  After four more years of Obama holding back their agenda, they might be as desperate as the Dems were in 1976 or 1992 - and be willing to hold their noses for a charismatic candidate that is less hardline than their base.  Lets make no mistake about it, Christie would be GREAT for the GOP on all of the things that the Powers that Be in that party really care about.

    Eight years in the wilderness can really soften a party up for a saviour, any saviour.  And, with his favorables, it's going to be hard for the Dems to keep Christie from getting a second term in NJ.  In fact, it would be interesting to see if he makes NJ competitve in a presidential election for the GOP?  2012 made it quite clear that teh GOP needs to soften their rhetoric on women's issues and immigration, and nominate a candidate that can bring some of the Gore/Kerry states in to play.  They can't keep alienating large voting blocks and fighting these elections in 5-7 states, allowing the Dems to get out-fundraised and still compete with micro-targeted, early advertising.  

    •  I think you are right (0+ / 0-)

      The desire to win will trump ideology and Christie's forceful style will play well with a combative electorate that is hungry to stick it to the other side.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:36:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It goes both ways (0+ / 0-)

      The R party has historically had better turn out in mid term elections.  Part of this is believed to be caused by demographics in which their core base is more likely to turn out in the elections.  

      One thing to consider is if, and how, actions like pushing for gun control, or more specifically "assault weapon" and magazine capacity limits galvanize people against the the (mostly D) politicians making such calls.   One could say that the Democrats need to soften their rhetoric on these issues too.

      I, myself, lean left on many issues, both social and economic, but the calls for these gun bans really turns me off and impacts me directly.

  •  Appealing to Newtown is counterproductive (0+ / 0-)

    Individual tragedies like that can capture the attention of the wider public that wants to ignore the ongoing issue of loose gun laws, but focusing on Newtown (or any particular incident) makes it seem like we are talking about how to prevent that one specific situation from happening.

    Don't use a tragedy to brow beat gun rights advocates.  The conversation is should be systemic.

    There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

    by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:34:47 AM PST

    •  I live in Newtown (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax

      it isn't a trick or a gimmick.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:27:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not what I mean (0+ / 0-)

        I didn't say its a trick.  Its an extreme example on a continuum of unacceptable gun violence.  It got everyone's attention and opened up a wider discussion.

        It is much easier for someone to argue that none of the measures being discussed could have 100% guaranteed that that shooting didn't happen.  So we should be avoiding that argument, not encouraging it.

        There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

        by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:56:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slothlax

          though you can't avoid that which will be argued regardless.

          Thanks for commenting! Sincerely.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:11:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site