Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich "State-Sponsored Terrorism!" (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Their gun control stance got them recalled. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    Guess they should soften their gun control stance.

    •  the laws are still on the books (31+ / 0-)

      the democrats still control the state senate. it was worth it.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:40:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Their gun votes got universal background checks (27+ / 0-)

      and magazine limits - that's what their support of gun safety yielded. And they and I would do it again.

      And a fluke of a recall from a group of deranged loons who think the recall process is a way to settle policy differences is the response they got.

      The gun lobby could only get two of the 19 who voted for gun safety legislation. TWO and one of them was recalled by less by 300 votes. Turnout for the vote was about 10%.

      What a pathetic showing by the so-called big bad gun lobby.

      I thought there was supposed to be a wave of fear and the gun supporters were going to crash like a mighty wave over the country side and sweep the Constitutional trampling scum out of office.

      Honestly, I expected more from the raging gun supporters.

      What happened?

      The pro gun folks read far too much into those recall elections.  

      •  So you didn't support Walker's recall? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, Norm in Chicago

        I know I did.

        If it's an overestimation, it looks like it's not just the pro-gun folks who are doing it. Gun control at the federal level and in states that aren't Cali/NY style looks DOA.

      •  "group of deranged loons" otherwise known as (0+ / 0-)

        "voters".

        Shocking you cost the Democratic Party so much of those.

        But yeah.....the first & second recalls in a state that has never had so much as a single successful recall petition in its 137 year history;
        Managing to lose Democratic incumbents in Democratic precincts in an election in a non-election year.....with a 6-1 spending advantage.
        Big deal, amirite?

        "What happened?"
        You.
        Glad to see you are proud of losing elections. In 2014 you will be positively beaming.
        Fortunately, the party will be somewhat less impressed with your 'big winner' of an issue.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:14:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What happen? Universal background checks (0+ / 0-)

          happened - that's how politics works, Frank. And we've already establisehd you're an utter hypocrite - you're claim that you don't want to take liberties away from innocent Americans is a crock - you vote for politicians (Kerry, Obama and I;m sure others) who take innocent Americans liberties away. So, you think you can decide for everyone what liberties are important and which are not.

          Grow up and leave the delusion libertarian utopia that only exists inside your own head.

          Those who would sacrifice integrity for a cheap tagline deserve neither.

          •  Magazine ban happened & then recalls (0+ / 0-)

            happened - that's how politics works, WeShallOvercome.

            "you're [sic] claim that you don't want to take liberties away from innocent Americans is a crock"
            No, it isn't. But you are right to be ashamed that you do.

            "leave the delusion [sic] libertarian utopia"
            Oh sure. If there is anybody libertarians admire its FDR.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:36:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure, just blow past the BS that is your (0+ / 0-)

              "position"

              If you can't square your hypocritical contradiction about "taking innocent American liberties away" you can't really have a serious opinion on gun safety. I'm sure that won't stop you though in your confused FDR/libertarian/Rand Paul universe that bears no resemblance to reality. Rand Paul is a big pro gun supporter, remember. You can Rand seem to be like two peas in pod.

              •  I can & I do. (0+ / 0-)

                Further there is nothing hypocritical nor contradictory about my position.

                "confused FDR/libertarian/Rand Paul universe"
                Somebody is confused. Very confused.
                Do tell how you just juxtaposed FDR & libertarians.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:45:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Right on cue, move on to denial .... (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not a hypocrite - you are. Great argument.

                  You say you support politicians who don't take liberties away, and then you vote for politicians who take liberties away.

                  You can't pick and choose what liberties are important and what liberties are not.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty (ie, FrankRose) for security deserve neither.

                  •  I never called you a 'hypocrite'. (0+ / 0-)

                    Way to start off on the right foot, big-guy.

                    "You say you support politicians who don't take liberties away"
                    I don't.

                    "then you vote for politicians who take liberties away."
                    I won't.

                    "You can't pick and choose what liberties are important and what liberties are not."
                    But you can?

                    Brilliant post.
                    Really.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:57:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not the one harping on taking away people's (0+ / 0-)

                      liberties - EVERY politician takes away liberties, jeez, Frank, grow up and join the real world.

                      Yeah, you do say you won't support politicians who take liberties away - I can understand the selective memory now that you see the contradiction of your ways.

                      So, you're just not going to vote anymore then, because ALL politicians take away liberties. Grow up.

                      You suck, Frank.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security (ie, FrankRose) deserve neither.

                      •  "I'm not harping on taking people's liberties" (0+ / 0-)

                        You are simply insisting on doing so.

                        "You suck, Frank"
                        You have made your opinion of, not only me, but of all your fellow citizens very clear.
                        Which explains why 20%-30% of Democrats voted for the recall.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:16:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Frank, you make no sense - you say you will (0+ / 0-)

                          only support politicians who do not take "innocent American's liberties away" - but you vote for politicians who do exactly that.

                          I on the other hand, understand the real world isn't a libertarian fantasy land.

                          Could you tell us which liberties are OK to trample on and which are not?

                          Based on your voting record you are a big proponent of taking away people's right to privacy. In fact, you seem insistent on taking innocent American's right to privacy away.

                          Those who would sacrifice the right to privacy for security (ie, FrankRose) deserve neither.

    •  So if Republican legislators (7+ / 0-)

      lose their seats for their intractable positions on gun control (definitely possible in the wake of Sandy Hook and the Navy Yard), what conclusion will you draw?

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:48:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "If" (0+ / 0-)

        Gun Control is such a loser Democratic incumbents in Democratic districts are losing elections in non-election years.

        The converse of your hypothetical question is already happening in the real world.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:18:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you're referring (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, Smoh, coquiero

          to the two recalls in Colorado, that's a lot less than it seems to be.

          That said, that was what KVoimakas was referring to, which is why I asked him the converse question.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:20:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It seemed to be two utterly humiliating loses (0+ / 0-)

            where two Democratic Senators, with a 6-1 spending advantage, in a state that had never had so much as a single successful recall petition managed to lose in districts that were Democratic & voted for Obama by 19 points, where somewhere between 20%-30% of Democrats that voted for the recall.

            It seems that way primarily because it was.

            Honestly, if it was GOPers that lost 2 unprecedented elections in a GOP district, that voted for Mitt, had a 6-1 spending advantage and 20%-30% of Republican voters voted for their recall because they voted against a background check what would your conclusion be?

            What would be your opinion of RedStaters that claimed that voting against B/Cs was an electoral winner, in the aftermath of such a vote?

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:36:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Noting you're dodging a direct response to my (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Smoh, Glen The Plumber, coquiero, JVolvo

              question, here's some facts:

              The NRA very, very strategically selected the two most vulnerable Democrats in the Colorado Senate for their campaign, out of the 20 they could have chosen to target. They gauged based on the margin of their victory, the activity of the NRA's voting base, and the relative likelihood of their supporters turning out for a mid-year recall election.

              And they have some powerful number crunchers working for them, to make sure that they were going to have their best shots at victory, spending margins notwithstanding.

              In a regular election cycle, it's very likely that neither of these candidates would have been threatened, and it's very likely that at least one of these two seats will flip back to the D column in the next cycle.

              The NRA is playing a game of 'hit the weak points and make people think we can inflict the same damage anywhere.' They showed they have some strength, but are pretending they have far, far more.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:39:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't 'dodge' anything: (0+ / 0-)

                However you have. If this exact same situation happened with GOPers becoming the first recalled legislators in state history despite being in friendly districts & having a 6-1 spending advantage with 20%-30% of Republicans voting for their recall because of their vote for background checks, what would be your conclusion?

                "The NRA...."
                Did they mastermind this devious plan in a hollowed-out-Vol-ca-no lair?
                Because the NRA only gave $985 to the recall petition.

                "In a regular election cycle..."
                Excuses are for losers.
                Results are for winners.

                "flip back to the D column"
                Exactly. A pro-gun-rights Democrat.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:03:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's no hypothetical, you realize. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                  We've already lived that scenario, only over union rights instead of background checks, in Wisconsin.

                  So we don't need to pretend. We saw the results, and what happened in the next election cycle. And what I described is pretty much an identical scenario with the issue changed and the parties reversed.

                  And yes, you're still dodging my question because it continues to go unanswered.

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:49:29 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  1) No you didn't answer. I wonder why....;) (0+ / 0-)

                    2) If gun control actually managed to not humiliate the party with unprecedented electoral losses then the party would continue to pursue it.......
                    Of course, the contrary is true.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:54:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Uh, (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                      I just DID answer it. With the real-world scenario where it happened.

                      You also seem to have tried to answer my question but answered a significantly different one.

                      Methinks you're not listening. But KVoimakas answered my question quite directly, and so I'm cool with that. Have a nice day.

                      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                      by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:03:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That wasn't my question. (0+ / 0-)

                        Which is fine. Both of us know exactly why you won't;)

                        "Answered my question directly"
                        As did I.
                        The only one who didn't answer a question directly is you.

                        Glad you've managed to stay consistent in your inconsistency.
                        Irony.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:14:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  That their areas want more gun control. (0+ / 0-)

        I don't expect to see that happen, but good for the goose...

        •  That would not be a correct conclusion to draw. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Smoh, Glen The Plumber, coquiero, JVolvo

          The correct conclusion, as with the two recalls in Colorado, would be that, regardless of what the overall populace in their areas wants, a sufficient number of people are passionate enough about that issue to turn out to vote on that issue, rather than stay home or only vote on elections that are larger.

          A small, active, mobilized base can be more important to elections than the preferences of a larger, but less mobilized, electorate.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:51:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site