Comments: Push?

I disagree.

First, there simply isn't enough time left. They may be able to attach something in the senate to a spending bill, but it would need to be germane. Its simply not going to happen in the house (no committee chair will allow it - Delay keeps em in order). What ever the Seante manages to attach though, will be quickly stripped out in Conference because, again, the House won't allow it through.

Second, Kerry doesn't want it. He gets much better coverage with it expired. If it passed, he doesn't pick up any votes (anyone who votes on the issue is already in his column) and isntead looses some soccer moms to Bush plus, more importantly, the ability to make it an issue everyday in the press.

Bush doesn't want it, for all the reasons you already know about.

Now, however, there is one scenario I image it might pass in. When Sen. Craig introduces his rider to the DC Appropriations bill undoing the DC Gun ban I would not be surprised if the AWB was attached. Generally, I think that would be a great event, because the Craig rider will pass the Senate along with the AWB, and in the Republican Controlled Conference (no Ds allowed, thanks!!!) it would be stripped out of the final bill to be voted on. Ds will then be left with a choice of voting to pass a DC Approp bill that eliminates the gun ban or waffling on a bill they already voted for. They could filibuster it, but that would leave the District without any many, expose many to charges of waffling, and when the Rs called for a vote on Cloture, the Ds would have to fly Kerry and Edwards into town to effectivly vote to BAN ALL GUNS (ie: DC Gun Ban), not something Kerry wants to do at all.

Id say, if the Rs play it right, we are pretty close to a checkmate here, but as always, things can change fast. . .

Posted by countertop at September 20, 2004 07:43 AM

I agree that there's a threat.

But I don't think much of one. About the only thing that could lose the election for Bush now *would* be another "A"WB, or worse, one that expanded on the last one.

The Democrats have learned that they have to hide their gun-banning impulses. I still believe it played a major factor in Bush 41's defeat. It certainly kicked the Democrats hard in '94, 98, and is what killed Gore in '00.

The RNC won't want the boat rocked - that could swing way too many local, state, and House and Senate races. Either gun owners would vote against, or more likely, stay home.

Nah, the DNC is scared of doing something like this - notice even Kerry didn't sponsor a bill, so only very very very safe House and Senate seats will talk about it (Feinstein, for instance). The RNC .. well, it would be suicidal, so I won't put it past 'em.

Posted by Addison at September 20, 2004 09:35 PM

I think it is going to rear it's ugly head again. I am with pub on this, there will be some trial balloons between now and Nov. Between Nov. and Jan. it is going to be a really hot item especially if the Dems loose big. They will want to get it done while they still have the votes.

Posted by Gunscribe at September 20, 2004 09:55 PM

I agree there is a threat but not as soon as you guys seem to think. They want the election first and foremost. they want seats in the Senate and House secondly. in any way that the gun issue would hurt them accomplish those two goals, i think they will defer their desires to ban guns till they are stronger. there is not really much one can do to predict what some of the loonier members will do, they may tack on an amendment but it will just probably kill the host bill. Most of all they fear a veto proof majority. Secondly they hate W. (so maybe I inverted there but you get my point). I think abortion and other issues will trump the desire to go after guns (for now). we must always be vigilent, but I dont think they can win on another ban that soon.

Posted by dogfish at September 21, 2004 03:00 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?