TPM Reader JH thinks the new gun control push is a fool’s errand and a political mistake …
I think the Dems are making a big mistake with gun control right now. Going into this legislative session, they had a plan to get past the fiscal cliff then move on to immigration. In doing so, they would not only move the focus from fiscal matters (where the GOP’s sole desire seems to be disruption of any momentum of recovery), but also nail down the most important voting demographic.
House Republicans are reportedly preparing a proposal to increase the debt limit four years — still in exchange for massive cuts but trying to sweeten the deal by taking the issue off the table for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.
Remember that Mississippi Congressman who voted against Sandy Relief? He’s now not only recanted his own vote he’s urging other Sandy Relief opponents to do the same.
From TPM Reader JB, in response to JH’s caution to Obama on gun control …
One of your correspondents asked today whether the Obama administration’s effort to move gun violence legislation was a politically foolish diversion from its interest in passing immigration legislation. I really don’t think it is.
TPM Reader EA asks, is there more to this than we’re seeing?
I asked you about the guns at Prime last week and wanted to share my thoughts since then and in light of JH’s skepticism.
In wondering about the politics of all this, I was struggling to figure out the WH’s logic in making suggestions about executive orders and what-not in a manner that almost has seemed to be intentionally provocative toward the grassroots right.
Another response to TPM Reader JH’s letter on gun control as a fool’s errand.
My response to JH’s very pragmatic and reasonable discussion is this: I keep coming back to this page.
Normally, I’m all in favor of not wasting political capital on unwinnable battles. But for me, this started in Tucson. I had just about hit the point where I had thrown up my hands and said “fine. This is the way America wants to be and so be it. The people who want to have their guns are willing to put up with the occasional massacre and frequent homicides–accidental or deliberate in ones or twos as the cost of whatever psychic benefit they derive from their hobby and I can’t stop it, so to hell with it. Let’s let it be and move on to the things we can change.”
From the Globe …
Swartz and his lawyers were not looking for a free pass. They had offered to accept a deferred prosecution or probation, so that if Swartz pulled a stunt like that again, he would end up in prison.
Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not.
The ‘Archive Team’ releases the ‘Aaron Swartz Memorial JSTOR Liberator’ as a tribute to Aaron Swartz who committed suicide over the weekend. Our Carl Franzen talks to a member of the team.
Top Filibuster Reformer (i.e., Curtailer) fears Harry Reid is getting behind a watered down filibuster reform bill.
This email from TPM Reader JS over-simplifies a lot and doesn’t cover a lot of people. There are obviously plenty of female gun aficionados, though it’s obviously an overwhelmingly male scene. It’s a ‘complicated issue’ as we all say about pretty much every issue. But when I read it I could not help think, ‘Yeah, you’re definitely on to something.’
I view gun control from the prism of the gender wars. It’s a last-gasp attempt by lower-income men to hold onto some shred of self-respect: at least a capacity for autonomous violence, if they are left with nothing else.