Recent Shotgun News column about danger of Democrats

[hillbilly]

Did anyone else see the column in a recent Shotgun News about how Democrats killed Wisconsin's CCW bill?

I forget who wrote it, but I think it shows perfectly why Democrats, all of them, must be defeated at all costs.

The column points out that Democratic party loyalty is what sank the Wisconsin bill.

The deciding vote that killed the bill was cast by a pro-gun Dem who actually suppoted and sponsored the CCW bill.

That's right, a Dem who supported CCW and sponsored the bill is the one who killed it with his one vote.


Why did he kill it?

Because the Democrat governor had promised to veto it and the Democrat representative did not wish to cause the Democrat governor embarassment and controvery. Especially since the veto might get overridden.

So, the pro-gun Democrat representative who sponsored the CCW bill voted against it to politically protect the anti-gun Democrat governor.

Yes, there are pro-gun Democrats out there. They are hard to find, but they do exist.

However, even pro-gun Democrats will sell out gun owners in a heartbeat if it means protecting the larger Democrat Party.

And for the forseeable future, the Democrat Party will remain the party run by Fienstein, Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, and all the other anti-gun bigots.

hillbilly

 

[Skofnung]

No offense meant, but do you think a Republican would do something else in the same place?

In partisan politics, party loyalties are more important than constituent loyalties.

At least that is how I see it.

 

[AJ Dual]

Actually it was the veto override session when he flipped, the Democrat Govenor had already vetoed... Before he flipped, we had exactly the number of votes needed for that override in the assembly, the override had already passed the state senate with a comfortable margin.

This Democrat is in a rural northeren district of WI, where there's not much more to the north than Lake Superior, a wee bit of Minnesota, some Canadians, then Santa Claus.... So he has a pretty good pro-gun constituency he was playing to already. He even wrote a scathing op-ed piece using all of our best arguments to blast opposition to CCW. He was a co-sponsor of the bill.

He switched his vote at the last minute for a few reasons:

1. He knew he wasn't running for re-election anyway. (See #3)

2. He decided that self-defense for Wisconsinites was less important than party solidarity, and not letting a Democrat Govenor suffer the first override in 20 years.

3. The Govenor will surely appoint him to a cush state job with a nice six-figure salary when his term is up in fall.

 

[R.H. Lee]

More evidence that the self serving principle of power retention trumps the pious notion of "public service". This does point to the politicians greatest weakness, however-remove them with your vote.

 

[dischord]

Whenever you buy a Democrat, it should come with a safety lock.
(Republicans too.)

 

[geekWithA.45]

Personally, I think people should responsibly store their Democrats in small, dark and heavy safes.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Is it not a crime to cash in on positions of authority? THis guy is clearly looking for a quid-pro-quo since he CO-SPONSORED THE BILL. And then voted against it so as not to embarrass the Governor. It is suggested that since he is "retiring" from the legislature he may be shopping for a job in the executive provided by: The Governor.

Seems pretty clear to me. Investigate, indict, and convict.

 

[RobW]

Corruption whereever you look. And there must be a lot of people out there, voting for this creatures again, and again, and again...

Example: 42 years for King Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy. It's time to make a hereditary kingdom out of Massachusetts.

 

[hillbilly]

AJ Dual, thanks for the correction on the details.

I was hoping some Wisconsinites who new the details better would jump in.

And Skofnung, point taken about Republicans.

But when I do the math and count the number of truly virulent anti-Dems and the number of truly virulent anti-Repubs, I know which party is hopelessly infected with a raging anti-gun disease and which party has a mild case of the anti-gun sniffles.

hillbilly

 

[Treylis]

Perhaps people should stop voting Democrats and Republicans into office and instead start putting in people who don't have a huge history of continual compromise .

 

[fix]

people who don't have a huge history of continual compromise .

...and don't have a huge history of anything, other than neat utopian theories that don't stand up to the reality that is the real world.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Perhaps people should stop voting Democrats and Republicans into office and instead start putting in people who don't have a huge history of continual compromise

As much as I support a lot of libertarian ideas, the Libertarian party stands exactly zero chance of succeeding in America until they start building their party base at the lowest levels of government. You are not going to magically see a Libertarian Representative, Senator, or President before you see an organized party base at the local level that can support that campaign. Even Ron Paul realizes that and runs as a Republican, even though he is really a Libertarian; because the Libertarian does not have the party base to support most local candidates, let alone candidates for state and national offices.

The above paragraph is especially true now that campaign finance has formally enshrined the Republican and Democratic parties with huge advantages over the smaller third party organizations.

Also there is the fact that our government, like pretty much any form of democracy anywhere in the world, is built around compromise - even at the lowest levels. As long as Libertarians remain a party that doesn't compromise on principal, they will remain an isolated party with no power. The reason for this is that you can't build a base of support among many people without compromise because the more people there are, the less they will agree with each other. Yet, in a democracy, you have to tailor your views to reach the widest possible base of support. If you refuse to do that, then you will cede the election to the party that will.

 

[greyhound]

42 years for King Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy.

Sweet Jeebus, has it been THAT long?

Does he even have to campaign anymore?:banghead:

That is NOT what our Founding Fathers intended, I am sure!

 

[Monkeyleg]

There's certainly more than a grain of truth in the idea that Republicans aren't always our friends. The Wisconsin CCW bill has been around for over 10 years. One of the reasons that it never went anywhere was the Republican Governor Thompson didn't want it on his desk. He was opposed to CCW, and the Republicans obligingly kept it from going any further than public hearings.

Once Thompson left for DC, the course was clear for the bill to be introduced, since Governor McCallum was in favor of it. But there was that pesky little problem called Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala.

AJDual, I think that Rep. Amy Sue Vruwink was Doyle's backup in the event that Gary Sherman couldn't be bought. She wouldn't commit to the NRA on the override vote. Of course, that's history, and the NRA is obliged to give her an "A" rating. We'll see if I'm right when/if the bill comes around again next year.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Perhaps people should stop voting Democrats and Republicans into office and instead start putting in people who don't have a huge history of continual compromise .

If the election were held tomorrow, I'd vote Libertarian. I don't entirely agree with the Libertarian approach to all issues, but at least I can tell the Libertarians from the Republicrats and Democans.