RavenVT100
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,107
They need to turn off the TV.
Democratic party may not be lost, after all
- Thread starter jefnvk
- Start date
- Status
RealGun
Member
Not intending to sound racist but feeling a need to be frank, this sounds like Dems will pander to blacks as long as the latter are disarmed. I am making an association, comparing my perception of big city politics versus flyover country politics.
If I am wrong in general about the racial demographics, I am quite willing to be corrected. I don't doubt there are exceptions or extraordinary black people. Lord knows there are plenty of economically problematic white people. It's really all about welfare and an unwillingness to emigrate, but how does one explain that most black voters are Democrats? Is that not factual?
Do we really need to look at how big cities influence politics, both in-state and nationally? Should our economy continue to concentrate around major airports? Dispersion of manufacturing capabilities is becoming a minor issue with free trade. Seems to me that the internet, personal computers, interstate highways, and free trade should have caused some dramatic changes. Hummm...maybe free trade is the fly in the ointment, creating reasons to move to the city, either for employment or for enhanced welfare programs.
What does flyover country offer in employment except personal services, education, preaching, WalMart, McDonald's, missile silos, and nuclear plants? I would add farming, but immigrants of questionable status have that covered.
Is concern for inflation short sighted? Are unemployment numbers cited bogus? I think they are.
Jeez! What a mess.
If I am wrong in general about the racial demographics, I am quite willing to be corrected. I don't doubt there are exceptions or extraordinary black people. Lord knows there are plenty of economically problematic white people. It's really all about welfare and an unwillingness to emigrate, but how does one explain that most black voters are Democrats? Is that not factual?
Do we really need to look at how big cities influence politics, both in-state and nationally? Should our economy continue to concentrate around major airports? Dispersion of manufacturing capabilities is becoming a minor issue with free trade. Seems to me that the internet, personal computers, interstate highways, and free trade should have caused some dramatic changes. Hummm...maybe free trade is the fly in the ointment, creating reasons to move to the city, either for employment or for enhanced welfare programs.
What does flyover country offer in employment except personal services, education, preaching, WalMart, McDonald's, missile silos, and nuclear plants? I would add farming, but immigrants of questionable status have that covered.
Is concern for inflation short sighted? Are unemployment numbers cited bogus? I think they are.
Jeez! What a mess.
The Democratic Party has a crossroads coming on the gun issue. The primary voices on the topic from their perspective, Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer and McCarthy, are all getting up in years. When they die off or retire, that party would be smart to revisit their orthodoxies on that issue.
Knowing them like I do, they will miss the opportunity badly.
Knowing them like I do, they will miss the opportunity badly.
Two points in response.
1) As already pointed out by another poster, Dems cannot be trusted with gun control because of their recent history.
The other poster--Kim, in fact--already pointed out Slick Willy as a southern "moderate" Democrat was never uttered a single anti-gun peep until he got the presidency. I know, because I'm an Arkansas native who grew up during the various Clintonista regimes.
And Al Gore is another example. As a congressman from Tennessee, he never uttered a single anti-gun peep. But once he got to national prominence, he makes anti-gunning a part of his presidential run platform.
2) So Benezra, one Dem, writes one pro-gun essay?
Well, whoop-dee-freakin-doo.
While I applaud BenEzra's ideas, his ideas are going exactly no-where inside the Dem party for both the short-term and the long-term.
Here's one example from US history.
Anyone ever heard of Genreral Patrick Ronayne Cleburne? He was an Irishman who attained the rank of general in the Confederate army. He has towns and counties named after him. He is the only Confederate whose bust statue is on display in the Ellis Island Museum.
Patrick R. Cleburne wrote an official proposal in 1864, and had his entire staff and all his company commanders sign it that proposed that the Confederacy free any and all slaves who would join the Confederate military and give them full citizenship.
That's right, a Confderate general submitted a proposal to the Confederate government to do exactly what the Union did and enlist several hundred thousand former slaves into the military.
That idea would have effectively killed slavery in the Confederacy.
While Cleburne's idea might have been enligthened, and good, and possibly the salvation of the Confederate States of America, just how far do you think his idea got?
Here's a link and an excerpt:
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Patrick-Cleburne.htm
"It became obvious to Cleburne that the Confederate States were losing the war due to the drain on manpower and resources that they were facing. In 1864 he dramatically called upon the leadership of the Army of Tennessee and put forth a proposal to emancipate slaves and enlist them in the Confederate Army to secure Southern independence. This proposal was met with extreme hostility and was officially suppressed on order of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Cleburne would find his military career stalled from this point on and he was passed over for advancement to Corps commander."
Right now, BenEzra is basically DU's Patrick Cleburne.
He's on to something. But as long as the Deaniacs and extreme-leftists control DU, and as long as Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi, and other extreme-leftists control the Democrat party, good ideas are going nowhere fast.
That's why so-called "moderates" who aren't explicitly anti-gun in their home states become so when they reach national prominence in the party. It's because at the core, the national party is, and will continue to be, anti-gun at its heart.
hillbilly
1) As already pointed out by another poster, Dems cannot be trusted with gun control because of their recent history.
The other poster--Kim, in fact--already pointed out Slick Willy as a southern "moderate" Democrat was never uttered a single anti-gun peep until he got the presidency. I know, because I'm an Arkansas native who grew up during the various Clintonista regimes.
And Al Gore is another example. As a congressman from Tennessee, he never uttered a single anti-gun peep. But once he got to national prominence, he makes anti-gunning a part of his presidential run platform.
2) So Benezra, one Dem, writes one pro-gun essay?
Well, whoop-dee-freakin-doo.
While I applaud BenEzra's ideas, his ideas are going exactly no-where inside the Dem party for both the short-term and the long-term.
Here's one example from US history.
Anyone ever heard of Genreral Patrick Ronayne Cleburne? He was an Irishman who attained the rank of general in the Confederate army. He has towns and counties named after him. He is the only Confederate whose bust statue is on display in the Ellis Island Museum.
Patrick R. Cleburne wrote an official proposal in 1864, and had his entire staff and all his company commanders sign it that proposed that the Confederacy free any and all slaves who would join the Confederate military and give them full citizenship.
That's right, a Confderate general submitted a proposal to the Confederate government to do exactly what the Union did and enlist several hundred thousand former slaves into the military.
That idea would have effectively killed slavery in the Confederacy.
While Cleburne's idea might have been enligthened, and good, and possibly the salvation of the Confederate States of America, just how far do you think his idea got?
Here's a link and an excerpt:
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Patrick-Cleburne.htm
"It became obvious to Cleburne that the Confederate States were losing the war due to the drain on manpower and resources that they were facing. In 1864 he dramatically called upon the leadership of the Army of Tennessee and put forth a proposal to emancipate slaves and enlist them in the Confederate Army to secure Southern independence. This proposal was met with extreme hostility and was officially suppressed on order of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Cleburne would find his military career stalled from this point on and he was passed over for advancement to Corps commander."
Right now, BenEzra is basically DU's Patrick Cleburne.
He's on to something. But as long as the Deaniacs and extreme-leftists control DU, and as long as Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi, and other extreme-leftists control the Democrat party, good ideas are going nowhere fast.
That's why so-called "moderates" who aren't explicitly anti-gun in their home states become so when they reach national prominence in the party. It's because at the core, the national party is, and will continue to be, anti-gun at its heart.
hillbilly
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Some are undoubtedly unreachable on the issue. billbuckhead and iverglas (who is Canadian, BTW) come to mind... But there are a lot of pro-gun Dems over there, AND a lot of fence-sitting Dems who are open-minded on the issue and have just never been informed that, for example, the AWB wasn't about machine guns.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Gun control is ultimately based on pure, undiluted stupidity, on multiple levels.
Gun owners number in the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens. On the national scene, attacking the property rights of a bloc that large is bound to cost you more votes than it gets.
The stated justification of gun control is to reduce violent crime. But there is no correlation between the two at all; the places with the most stringent gun control still have the highest murder rates 10, 20, 30 years after the controls were put in place.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and hoping for a different result. The murder capital of the country didn't suddenly move to Arizona or Vermont because there is so much less gun control over there than there is in Washington, DC. Just being practical, gun control doesn't do anything but annoy harmless people. And people typically only vote when they are pissed off about something.
And what, do you think gang bangers in New York are driving to Vermont to get their guns? That would just get them shot by swamp yankees. Come to think of it, that sounds like the basis for a good comedy...
The Democrats claim to be the party of minority rights. But if you really care about the rights of blacks and women and homosexuals, you let them buy guns so they can kill Klansmen and rapists and gay-bashers, rather than just lay back and be victimized.
Gun owners number in the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens. On the national scene, attacking the property rights of a bloc that large is bound to cost you more votes than it gets.
The stated justification of gun control is to reduce violent crime. But there is no correlation between the two at all; the places with the most stringent gun control still have the highest murder rates 10, 20, 30 years after the controls were put in place.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and hoping for a different result. The murder capital of the country didn't suddenly move to Arizona or Vermont because there is so much less gun control over there than there is in Washington, DC. Just being practical, gun control doesn't do anything but annoy harmless people. And people typically only vote when they are pissed off about something.
And what, do you think gang bangers in New York are driving to Vermont to get their guns? That would just get them shot by swamp yankees. Come to think of it, that sounds like the basis for a good comedy...
The Democrats claim to be the party of minority rights. But if you really care about the rights of blacks and women and homosexuals, you let them buy guns so they can kill Klansmen and rapists and gay-bashers, rather than just lay back and be victimized.
>> The Democratic party leadership is simply out of touch with a lot of the Democratic party on this issue, <<
Yes and no ...
If the leadership was out of touch to a serious degree with the party's membership they wouldn't be leaders for long.
The Democrat's strength is in Blue States on the political map. These states tend to be ones with large urban populations, or states where large cities tend to dominate the lesser-settled rural areas. The majority of voters in these Blue States tend to support the liberal/socialist beliefs of the party's current leadership on various issues, including gun control and second amendment rights. Obviously if this wasn't the case they would be Red States, not Blue.
In Red States, Democratic rank-and-file members are much more likely to be supportive of more conservative values, and they might be referred to as Traditional Democrats. They are mostly to be found in mid-western, southern and western states. Unfortunately they don't have the necessary numbers to influence the national party. This being the case they tend to elect those in the party that reflect their views on a local and state basis, and ignore the party's national ticket. These individuals tend to either support other candidates, or not vote for certain offices at all. For us that's a good thing.
While we are most fortunate to have Democrats such as benEzra who fight the battle within the party, we should also understand that in the overall picture they are a minority among Democrats, and have very limited influence on what the party does on a national basis. It is the mis-named Liberal Democrats that are running things, and they will most likely continue to do so in the future. I see no reason to think that there will be a massive influx of more centralist voters moving to the party's left-wing strongholds. Just the opposite. The Democrats are likely to become more urban and more left-wing/Stateist orientated then they are now. Anyone who thinks that these Democrats can be persuaded to really change their position on second amendment/gun control issues is dreaming.
Yes and no ...
If the leadership was out of touch to a serious degree with the party's membership they wouldn't be leaders for long.
The Democrat's strength is in Blue States on the political map. These states tend to be ones with large urban populations, or states where large cities tend to dominate the lesser-settled rural areas. The majority of voters in these Blue States tend to support the liberal/socialist beliefs of the party's current leadership on various issues, including gun control and second amendment rights. Obviously if this wasn't the case they would be Red States, not Blue.
In Red States, Democratic rank-and-file members are much more likely to be supportive of more conservative values, and they might be referred to as Traditional Democrats. They are mostly to be found in mid-western, southern and western states. Unfortunately they don't have the necessary numbers to influence the national party. This being the case they tend to elect those in the party that reflect their views on a local and state basis, and ignore the party's national ticket. These individuals tend to either support other candidates, or not vote for certain offices at all. For us that's a good thing.
While we are most fortunate to have Democrats such as benEzra who fight the battle within the party, we should also understand that in the overall picture they are a minority among Democrats, and have very limited influence on what the party does on a national basis. It is the mis-named Liberal Democrats that are running things, and they will most likely continue to do so in the future. I see no reason to think that there will be a massive influx of more centralist voters moving to the party's left-wing strongholds. Just the opposite. The Democrats are likely to become more urban and more left-wing/Stateist orientated then they are now. Anyone who thinks that these Democrats can be persuaded to really change their position on second amendment/gun control issues is dreaming.
RavenVT100
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,107
And here's what I don't get about your forum. I've seen some serious BS go down there from a moderation standpoint wherein speech that attacks members of the party (such as Feinstein) is prohibited or it'll get deleted. Is it not the duty of a political party member to speak up when they see something going down that can be detrimental to the party? Meanwhile you're letting people from other countries such as Iverglas come on and act as if they have a stake in what is a purely domestic issue. Foreign policy, fine. But issues pertaining to the 2nd Amendment are the business of U.S. citizens alone. I reside in the USA. You won't catch me on a Canadian forum insulting the intelligence of people who oppose my views--and I doubt they would tolerate it either. And yet people like Iverglas, who cannot even belong to the Democratic party because it's in a different country than where she lives, are allowed to peddle their agendas while posts containing anything that criticizes the policies of certain members of the party get deleted.
I quit lurking the "Gungeon" almost entirely because of Iverglas' posting, because it can mainly be boiled down to "By golly, let's post something that's witty and well-worded, and maybe you stupid rednecks won't be able to see that it's just a vain exercise in sophistry, because after all, I'm so much smarter than you." And then I find out that she isn't even a U.S. citizen and in fact, doesn't even live in the U.S. What exactly does this person get out of posting to DU? Yeah, Canada is an enlightened society that doesn't have such barbaric policies derived from English common law like the United States does. We get it already. And yes, she's an attorney, or a lawyer, or whatever it's called in Canada--which automatically enables her to speak ex cathedra on legal matters about a country she doesn't even reside in. We get that also. Perhaps her time would be better spent trying to insult the intelligence of her fellow Canadians? Why does she care so much about us?
The Freeholder
Member
benEzra crafted a heck of a post, and he's pretty much right on the money. But he's like me in a way. I didn't leave the Democratic Party back in the 70s, they left me. I was an Independant (voting mostly Republican) for years, then went Republican. Now that party is leaving me with much of its platform, and I'm going to reciprocate if it doesn't take a major turn very soon.
I've been slammed in various forums for saying this, but there is a desperate need for a viable third party in the US. I would prefer one that concentrates on the enforcement of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constituionalists are making a start at it, but it's an uphill fight at best. Their chance of success are slim.
The big problem we have is not between Republican and Democrats, but between those who think that they are smarter than the rest of us and need to "help", "take care of", "guide", "do it for the children" and so on and, well, the rest of us who don't want to be helped, cared for, guided or anything else, thanks.
That sort of individual infests all political parties to some extent, with Democrats being the sickest patient and Republicans a close second. Even Libertarians and Constitutionalists aren't immune to infestation, although it tends to be small and short-lived.
This probelm won't be fixed in an election or 2 or 10. It's taken decades to let things get this out of hand/close to the edge and it'll take decades more to pull it back. That's even assuming that the majority of people want to, and I don't really see that from where I stand.
I'm not going to give up, though. If nothing else, where do you go? Immigrate to the moon? I plan of keeping up the fight in as many ways as I can, and trying to get/stay ready for any SHTF moment that may come along.
I suspect things will get very interesting (in the old Chinese curse sort of way).
I've been slammed in various forums for saying this, but there is a desperate need for a viable third party in the US. I would prefer one that concentrates on the enforcement of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constituionalists are making a start at it, but it's an uphill fight at best. Their chance of success are slim.
The big problem we have is not between Republican and Democrats, but between those who think that they are smarter than the rest of us and need to "help", "take care of", "guide", "do it for the children" and so on and, well, the rest of us who don't want to be helped, cared for, guided or anything else, thanks.
That sort of individual infests all political parties to some extent, with Democrats being the sickest patient and Republicans a close second. Even Libertarians and Constitutionalists aren't immune to infestation, although it tends to be small and short-lived.
This probelm won't be fixed in an election or 2 or 10. It's taken decades to let things get this out of hand/close to the edge and it'll take decades more to pull it back. That's even assuming that the majority of people want to, and I don't really see that from where I stand.
I'm not going to give up, though. If nothing else, where do you go? Immigrate to the moon? I plan of keeping up the fight in as many ways as I can, and trying to get/stay ready for any SHTF moment that may come along.
I suspect things will get very interesting (in the old Chinese curse sort of way).
jnojr
Member
So where's the essay on the Republican party's ridiculous stance on abortion? That's the rights' deal-killer plank...
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
The secret is the he also posts here.
And the stance on drugs.... that makes no sense either.
And the stance on drugs.... that makes no sense either.
rock jock
Member
First of all, we don't discuss abortion on THR. Second, myself and millions of hardline 2A proponents consider the Republican plank on this issue vastly more important than anything on firearms. That alone should be a clue.
Excellent piece, benErza. Well-reasoned, well-written, and right on target. I like how you managed to make point out the foolishness of "assault weapons" bans without insulting the reader. It was snarky without being arrogant.
Rebar wrote:
Utter hogwash, rebar. The expression does not appear in Lenin’s writing. "We get queries on ‘useful idiots of the West’ all the time," declared Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress, in the spring of 1987. "We have not been able to identify this phrase among his published works."
See They Never Said It: a Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions, written by Paul F. Boller Jr. and John George, published by Oxford University Press in 1989. The phrase apparently first appeared in a John Birch Society pamphlet.
Rebar wrote:
Utter hogwash, rebar. The expression does not appear in Lenin’s writing. "We get queries on ‘useful idiots of the West’ all the time," declared Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress, in the spring of 1987. "We have not been able to identify this phrase among his published works."
See They Never Said It: a Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions, written by Paul F. Boller Jr. and John George, published by Oxford University Press in 1989. The phrase apparently first appeared in a John Birch Society pamphlet.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Last I checked this was a GUN forum, for talking about things relating to GUNS, to include things like the parties' stances on the right to keep and bear ARMS (aka GUNS).
Perhaps so.
You must admit, the effect remains the same. Unless there's a major coup-de-etat in the democratic party leadership, it will remain the driving force for stripping us of our 2nd amendment rights.
All these so-called "pro-gun Democrats" are doing, is voting in gun grabbers. Even if the rare supposedly pro-gun Democrat is elected, they're still going to vote along party lines when it comes to legislation. And the party line is, no guns for the peasants, if you look into a mirror, you'll see one of the peasants they're talking about.
Zeke Menuar
Member
I am enclosing a copy of this essay into the monthly newsletter of my wife's family. They are mostly flaming left leaning liberals. Every month I read some sort of Socialist/Liberal diatribe. This should really rile them up.
No self respecting Liberal/Democrat likes to be confused with the truth. It gets in the way of the mindless ranting.
As long as the Democrats continue to grandstand with non-issues like gun control, and ignore major issues like illegal immigration, the economy, unemployment and our pourus leaky borders, just to name a few, they will never get my vote. That being said, I am not real happy with the Republicans either. But that is another thread for another time.
ZM
No self respecting Liberal/Democrat likes to be confused with the truth. It gets in the way of the mindless ranting.
As long as the Democrats continue to grandstand with non-issues like gun control, and ignore major issues like illegal immigration, the economy, unemployment and our pourus leaky borders, just to name a few, they will never get my vote. That being said, I am not real happy with the Republicans either. But that is another thread for another time.
ZM
The Freeholder's post, and Zeke's sig line sum up my feelings. I can't stand either major party - they both suck hard. Why one would be faithful to a party instead of a set of ideas is beyond me, particularly when it appears there are so many like me who think the Repubs are wrong on most all issues (cept guns), and the Demos are wrong on the single most important issue (guns) because it's the one issue that secures our right to have a free society to debate the others; therefore they should work to support a viable third party rather than trying to change the minds of member of one of the Uni-parties. But in truth, I'd be Democrat in a New York minute if they became stronger pro-gun than the Repubs. As it is, at the federal level, I hold my nose and vote Repub if there's no 3rd party on the ballot. Locally, mostly Democrat. BOTH parties have utterly abandaonded the 10th amendment at the federal level. The Repubs have all but abandoned the 2A at the fed level, but that pendulum is now starting to turn back. The Dems have all but abandoned the 4th amendment, and common sense (after all, seems to me that Kerry was for the war in Iraq). The Repubs have abandoned the 1st and 7th amendments, by and large. It's absurd that people don't "be like Calvin" and pi$$ on the two major parties and form a coalition that protects ALL fundamental civil rights.
Great job, Benezra!
Lmao, Sean!
Great job, Benezra!
Lmao, Sean!
publius
Member
Anyone else notice that one of the responders thought that the Congress had passed the mean looking weapons ban, but that Bush had refused to sign it just before the election for political reasons?
I thought that was hilarious. If it were true, I might have even voted for Bush!
I thought that was hilarious. If it were true, I might have even voted for Bush!
peacefuljeffrey
member
Apart from the voting repercussions, let's think about this:
If there are tens of millions of gun owners in this country, if guns and gun ownership and gun owners were truly any sort of statistically significant problem, there would be hundreds of thousands of gun-related killings each year, far more than the what, 10,000-15,000 non-justified gun homicides that we do get. Illegal use of guns counts for what, 12 thousandths of one percent of the guns that we own as a populace?
In any given year, if I had 17 flat tires I'd say that was a huge pain in the ass. And if I drove only 20,000 miles that year, I'd say it was true. But what if I drove 34,000,000 miles that year?! 17 flats would be a picnic. It's the same with guns and their legitimate versus illegitimate use.
Very good post, Sean.
-Jeffrey
Really
Sorry, folks. But the Democrat Party Leadership will ALWAYS be antigun in their hearts and souls. They will "moderate" to win elections, but once in power, they will go back to their anti-gun ways.
History has taught us this over and over again. We never learn . . . .
If it walks like a duck . . . .
Sorry, folks. But the Democrat Party Leadership will ALWAYS be antigun in their hearts and souls. They will "moderate" to win elections, but once in power, they will go back to their anti-gun ways.
History has taught us this over and over again. We never learn . . . .
If it walks like a duck . . . .
beerslurpy
member
I saw that too and I was like "oh crap I have a crates of those!" *runs and hides*
Sir Aardvark
Member
Look what's happening right now.......
The gun control people have found that they cannot do away with guns with LEGISLATION, because these crazy laws aren't getting the level of support they thought they would get.
So now they are attempting to do it through the JUDICIARY by lawsuit after lawsuit against the gun industry. We've been lucky so far in that the damages have been low.
THEY WILL NEVER GIVE UP!!!
The gun control people have found that they cannot do away with guns with LEGISLATION, because these crazy laws aren't getting the level of support they thought they would get.
So now they are attempting to do it through the JUDICIARY by lawsuit after lawsuit against the gun industry. We've been lucky so far in that the damages have been low.
THEY WILL NEVER GIVE UP!!!
Cosmoline
Member
And I kinda wish the PC mavens at DU hadn't kicked me off three times in a row for daring to express my views against gun control. 
In my extensive experience with the Left, they are not really interested in hearing opposing views. Opposition is silenced, and from internet forums to college campuses those taking a stand against the leftist dogma are shunned and banned.
In my extensive experience with the Left, they are not really interested in hearing opposing views. Opposition is silenced, and from internet forums to college campuses those taking a stand against the leftist dogma are shunned and banned.
beerslurpy
member
Quoted For Truth.
That was exactly what my experience was as well. Iverglas's sophistry is very annoying, especially for a person like myself who enjoys discussing ideas. If someone will do everything in a debate except actually discuss the issues at hand, you cant really get anywhere, can you? If the moderaters delete any post of substance and ban anyone who they think might not be a socialist, how are you going to bring about change in the Democratic party? I havent voted Democratic since I turned 18 in 1994 although I was raised by Democratic parents in NYC with the full expectation I would always vote Democratic.
I think that the Democratic Party will continue to become more and more of a niche party. They cant make things better until they betray their core constituencies and begin to attract mainstream (centro-conservative) voters. Unfortunately if they do that, their core urban constituencies will no longer be a reliable voting block. Can you imagine if the Democrats permanently alienated urban blacks or the liberal urban intellectuals? Any number of "battleground" states would suddenly become "easy republican victory states."
I think either party would both rather help elect Osama bin Laden president than actually begin to encourage citziens to be self sufficient and make decisions for themselves. I predict slow progress on the gun-rights front for this reason alone, although there are obviously other obstacles to overcome.
- Status
