Gun Control Not on the Agenda

[Pangloss]

One of the fallouts of the mid-term election is that gun control is actually now LESS likely to pass in the coming year. Not that it was especially likely in the Republican-controlled legislature, but Democrats have clearly pushed it to the back burner in order to keep the Big Tent open for moderates who are angry about Iraq.

 

This will be one of the areas where you'll want to watch and see if Democrats can stay together under the Big Tent, or if they instead start to fragment and disperse. This is one of those subjects that often play very well with a local constituency but very poorly on a national level. So you won't see it raised by any of the Democrats with 2008 presidential aspirations, because they're playing the middle ground. But you may see it brought up by House members trying to ensure re-election in 2008. And that's when things will get interesting.

[-Demosthenes-]

What is on their agenda? I was hoping for a change to minimum wage, something with the health care system, and possibly some protection for Net Neutrality.

[CurvKyle]

This is a good thing.

[JesuBungle]

Well basically, in the recent elections, the stance of democrats has been republicans = bad. Now that they are in control, they need to regroup and come up with a real plan, which everyone wants to do something different. This will happen until the dems have had control for a few years.

[Pangloss]

What is on their agenda? I was hoping for a change to minimum wage, something with the health care system, and possibly some protection for Net Neutrality.

 

Raising the minimum wage, changes (including a lower interest rate) in the Federal Student Loan Program, immigration reform, lobby reform, authorizing federal health insurance to negotiate with drug companies for lower prescription drug rates, increased spending for airports and port security, and of course getting us out of Iraq.

 

Of those, the minimum wage, FSLP changes, and immigration reform are all likely to pass (almost half the state already have a higher minimum wage law anyway). Lobby reform is a hypocritical crock, pure face (the Dems are every bit as bad as the Repoobs in this area). Aside from Iraq, the other measures are a toss-up at this point.

 

Iraq will continue to flounder unless she finds some sort of compromise with the administration, because ultimately the only authority the House has (by itself) is to cut off the flow of money, which it cannot do because that would hurt the troops in the field.

[Pangloss]

By the way, I'm surprised there hasn't been more realization of this in the media yet, but Iraq is basically done. Neither party has any interest in fielding a candidate for the presidency while we're still in Iraq, and the 2008 presidential race begins in January. The fat lady may not be singing yet, but she's certainly warming up.

 

And there's not a Iraqi alive who doesn't know it. Sunni Iraqis have some tough times ahead of them.

[bascule]

I'm certainly glad to see this... I'm a liberaltarian who respects gun rights (although personally I prefer knives)

 

I'm also glad the Democrats are getting down to business and not tossing any weird red herrings out there like Bush and the Republicans have been doing for quite some time (e.g stem cells, gay marriage, intelligent design) But then again, they're pretty united in righting what they see as the wrongs of "the course" we have been staying, and gun control is pretty irrelevant when you look at, say, Iraq, or the deficit, or the dissolution of civil rights like habeas corpus.

 

And yes, many, many Democrats voted for that bill, but Harry Reid is already drafting a bill to reverse the clauses that impinged upon the right to habeas corpus, and you can damn well bet that given the uproar it caused many Democrats are now regretting their decision (I'm sure many voted for the bill without knowing about the provisions which strip habeas corpus rights).

 

Plus anything they want to put through either has to get past Bush, or enough Republicans to override Bush's veto.

[ParanoiA]

There will be effectively no change in Iraq. There will only be a change in the tone of speeches and the verbiage used to justify this and that - we will leave Iraq exactly as Bush said. I also don't believe there will be any changes in the field.

 

Iraq was a red herring by the democrats because while everyone is not happy with the law and order compliance there, there is little to really do to change it that we're not already doing or trying to put into place - which is Iraqis policing Iraqis. That's not even going well, so I have no idea what the democrats plan on doing that's going to be soooooo much better than anything we've seen yet. That's because it won't.

 

I see minimum wage and FSLP passing easily and righteously. I'm not so sure about immigration reform. I only say that, because so far the democrat's firm stance has been to keep the illegal aliens illegal so we can pay them pennies of what they're worth and not have to provide them any benefits. And the illegals want to be illegal - their own demonstrations have shown they stand with the democrats in their own economically oppressive status. Or maybe I'm mixing this up with border security.

 

The only people who want immigration reform appear to be the repubs and libertarians. Neither of which are in power. The repubs blew it when they had a chance and came up with a fence....a freaking fence....

[Pangloss]

I'm also glad the Democrats are getting down to business and not tossing any weird red herrings out there like

 

Well I would consider lobby reform (trying to eliminate the influence of special interest groups) to be a "weird red herring". All through the mid-term election cycle Democrats tried to portray themselves as the honorable alternative to corrupt Republicans. Which of course is ridiculous -- plenty of Republicans were corrupt, but not because they were Republicans, and Democrats have *exactly* the same relationship with SIGs as Republicans. Just a couple of weeks ago ABC News ran a piece showing Harry Reid blasting Republicans for going to partys funded and hosts by lobbyists, IMMEDIATELY after which he went straight to a party funded and hosted by a lobbyist. It boggles the mind.

 

But I don't know, maybe I'm just being pessimistic. I suppose the only way the problem is going to be solved is if legislators work on it, so maybe they'll come up with something useful here.

[Sisyphus]

If it's a red herring, it's not a very good one, since most people don't even care/understand. They must know that there's no way it will ever happen barring a series of very public and outrageous abuses (well, even more...), but it would at least be good in principle. Compare that to something like flag-burning amendments, which, giving the Republican congress any credit at all, they must understand is a stupid and unnecessary erosion of liberty, and yet actually might pass some day. Nobody looks good, but come on, they're not the same.

[Pangloss]

The fastest way you'll see an anti-flag burning amendment pass is if you put a Democratic president in charge of a Democratically-controlled Congress. The same applies to video game censorship. These are two issues that have been identified by moderate Democrats as ways by which they can appeal to the "flyover" states.

 

Gay marriage used to be one of these issues, even as recently as a year or two ago. But there's so much play on that issue that I think a change may be in the wind.

[D H]

and the 2008 presidential race begins in January. The fat lady may not be singing yet, but she's certainly warming up.

 

I thought it already started -- on the first Wednesday in November.

 

 

I'm also glad the Democrats are getting down to business and not tossing any weird red herrings out there ...

 

The Democrats won't take control officially until January. Don't count them out yet! Both parties are such excellent cooks when it comes tossing up a meal of red herring with some tripe on the side.

 

Regarding immigration reform, I see that as a populist movement more than an issue either party can claim as its own. Whether it continues to pick up momentum or withers away depends on how the economy performs. To tell the truth, I suspect the leadership of both parties would rather not be bothered with immigration reform.