Two Tickets To The Gun Show

Mike Bloomberg is in an election that is surprisingly tough (in single digits) despite spending around $75 million dollars, and despite his faults he's always been a strong supporter of gun control. So I'm not surprised he launched this investigation into gun show practices and released some damning hidden-camera video.

Even though private unlicensed sellers are not required to run background checks using the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check system, it is a federal felony for them to sell guns to people they have reason to believe are prohibited purchasers (such as felons or the mentally ill). In purchases attempted on 30 private sellers, the undercover investigator showed interest in buying a gun by asking about stopping power or by dry-firing the weapon. After agreeing on a price, the undercover would indicate that he probably couldn’t pass a background check. At that point, the seller is required by law to refuse the sale – but only 11 out of 30 sellers did so. Investigators found private dealers who failed these integrity tests at every show, including two sellers who failed at multiple shows. In total, 19 of the 30 private sellers approached failed the integrity test.

The 11 sellers who terminated the sale confirmed that private sellers know the law. As one seller in Columbus, Ohio, explained “I mean even as a private citizen, I’m kind of allowed a certain latitude, but once you say that [you can’t pass the background check], I’m kind of obligated not to….I think that’s what the rules are.”

The investigation also revealed that some private sellers are in fact apparently “engaged in the business” of selling firearms without a federal license, in violation of the law. For example, one seller sold to investigators at three different gun shows and acknowledged selling 348 assault rifles in less than one year.

There are more videos at Gun Show Undercover. The gun show loophole seriously needs to be closed, and this investigation could provide that. The ATF Bureau reports that 30% of all illegal guns are coming in through these gun shows.

Media Matters wonders if this undercover investigation will tickle the fancy of outlets like Andrew Breitbart and Fox News, who have shown such an affinity for this kind of operation in the past.

And Digby writes:

There's lots of anger and frustration out there right now. The zeitgeist is as angry and negative as I've ever seen it. Economic stress almost always leads to a rise in crime. The conservatives' only answer to this problem is to allow business to exploit their customers even more than they already have and create an ever more authoritarian police capacity to "keep people in line." The real answer is to find ways to ease the economic stress and get some of these deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals. You can probably guess which way this is likely to go.

But still, there is a need to shine a light on this out of control gun industry. I'm not a gun control absolutist, but the kind of activity that's exposed in these undercover videos is far more unacceptable than somebody giving tax advice to phony pimps. This is a deadly business that's killing innocent people.

One can only hope that this legitimate undercover investigation will get the kind of attention the ACORN videos did. It's a matter of life and death.

Indeed.

Give A Wingnut An Inch, He'll Take A Mile

Republicans have gotten increasingly crazy. Ideas that would have been laughed out of a Birch Society meeting now get the full treatment on cable and throughout the media. The "Nancy Pelosi is trying to feminize America by taking the patriotic music off the Capitol hold music!!!1!" non-story springs to mind. But this is all being driven by success. How it works is:

1) Wingnuts throw a hissy fit
2) Democrats try to be reasonable by offering a concession
3) Repeat

To wit:

The President is giving a national address to schoolchildren on September 8, the first day of school. It will stress the virtues of hard work. The wingnuts think he's recruiting a Hitler youth brigade. They point to some supplementary materials containing the suggestion to kids to "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president," clearly pointed at helping him realize their own goals, since the speech is about kids working hard and bettering themselves. Off that thin strand we have this confab:

Gordon directed me to the official teaching materials that the Department of Education has posted. Gordon especially took exception to this part of the materials: "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals." I pointed out that this item came from a list of bullet points headed "Extension of the Speech," which clearly means it's in the context of the speech on personal responsibility and academic goals.

But Gordon begged to differ. "Why are you willing to accept that in good faith, the Obama administration is asking them to write a letter in the context of the speech," said Gordon, "but you're not willing to accept in our release, where we're saying there's no guidelines that it has to be in the context of the speech?" [...]

"Our point is that there are some questions about this address that need to be answered, and parents need to be given the option to choose whether or not their children who are students are going to be expected to watch this propaganda in a public school," Gordon later explained. "Students can't pray in school, but they can discuss new ideas and actions that the President is challenging them to think about. Well, I know that a lot of the President's ideas don't reflect my values and don't reflect the values that I would be teaching my children. And to be quite honest, there are a lot of the President's ideas that I wouldn't want my children discussing in a public school. It's not appropriate, the place for that is in the home."

I asked Gordon how this is any different from presidents routinely visiting classrooms, or the President's Challenge in gym classes (which I certainly hated, being the non-athletic nerd that I am). "This is different than trying to make sure that you have a good level of physical fitness," she said. "It would be a different if President Obama were going into a particular classroom on the first day of school and encouraging students to work hard and achieve academic goals. It's diff from sending out a blanket set of guidelines for a specific address that is supposed to be shown in every school, talking about how you can help the President advance his new ideas."

That's just plain crazy.

And so the Department of Education responded by altering their supplementary materials, in essence admitting that they were wrong in the first place.

If this is a bar fight primary, the Democrats are spitting up blood in preparation to spit up more blood. So conservatives learn that the way to win is to freak out in the craziest way possible and watch Democrats try to placate you.

Meanwhile a report shows that gun shows are the leading source of violent crimes in North America, and 2/3 of the vendors are unlicensed, but I see a hissy fit neither here, there, or anywhere...

The NRA Doesn't Get What It Wants?

The Senate shot down the Thune amendment to the military budget bill, which would have allowed concealed carry of firearms rules to be portable, essentially, from state to state. This amendment would have made the most forgiving state on concealed weapons - Texas, I'm guessing - the new national standard. So much for state's rights.

It got majority support in the Congress, but Democrats filibustered this time, enough to block passage. Amazingly, the NRA was denied a goodie today in the US Congress. Color me shocked.

A Small Point

When violence from terrorism killed worshippers at a mosque inside Iran, Robert Gibbs released a statement. When violence from terrorism killed George Tiller in Kansas, the President himself made the statement. It's symbolic, but also important in terms of him using his bully pulpit.

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Meanwhile, a Muslim convert acting alone killed a soldier in a recruiting center in Arkansas. The President should release a statement on that as well.

At some point in the future, a President will release a statement on these killings tying them to easy access to firearms, one hopes.

Slaves To The Clock

So the revised credit card reform bill passed the House overwhelmingly today, after overwhelmingly passing the Senate, and the President will sign it probably within a couple days. Most of the rules in the bill would have already been instituted by the Federal Reserve, but this sped up the timeline, as they will take effect immediately instead of in July 2010. Very little else is new here, save for some slight strengthening from the Senate.

And in exchange for that acceleration, gun owners will be allowed to carry loaded weapons into national parks.

To the frustration and discouragement of many Democrats, House and Senate lawmakers and aides say it now appears likely that President Obama will this week sign into law a provision allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to carry loaded and concealed weapons.

The White House is lukewarm at best on the gun provision, which was added to a popular measure imposing new rules on credit card companies. But the Democrats who now control both Congress and the White House appear ready to allow it to survive rather than derail a consumer-friendly credit card measure that Mr. Obama is eager to sign as Congress heads off for a Memorial Day recess.

“Timing is everything in politics,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and the champion of the gun proposal [...]

“It is a shame,” said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California. “But you have to come to a realization around here that at this point in time, the N.R.A. gets the votes,” she said referring to the National Rifle Association.

“Either you are going to bring down the whole Senate and never do anything or you or going to swallow hard and say, ‘I will just vote my conscience on those amendments and speak out until people get a hold of their senses,’ ” Mrs. Boxer said.

Far be it from me to contradict Sen. Boxer, but I don't know what the hell she's talking about. Here's how my Civics 101 book tells me how legislation works: the House passes a version, the Senate passes a version, the differences are reconciled in conference, and both Houses then vote on the final version. That's not what happened here. The House passed a version, the Senate passed a version with an unrelated gun rider, and then the House just shrugged and passed the Senate version. Why? With Democrats controlling the conference, the rider could have easily been tossed out. And if Boxer is telling me that 40 US Senators would be able to go back to their districts and explain they voted with the credit card companies, I just don't believe her.

There was absolutely a remedy here, and no need for this measure, which does not have majority support among Democrats, to be included. But there's the matter of the clock. The President wanted a bill on his desk by Memorial Day. And the House passing the Senate's bill was the best way for that to happen. The gun measure stays because Congress wanted to facilitate the President's schedule.

Because if there's one thing Congress is known for, it's punctuality.

It's amazing how Democrats learned the worst lessons from Republicans while forgetting the simple lessons, like how to screw the opposition in conference committee.

Pyrrhic Victory On Credit Cards

We're going to get a credit card reform bill passing the Senate today, and the House will pick it up and pass it as well, even with the amendment allowing licensed gun owners to carry a concealed weapon in national parks. After a series of victories, the bank lobby could not hold back the tide on this issue, sparked by consumer anger.

The Senate on Tuesday is expected to pass the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights, which would outlaw retroactive rate hikes and some penalty fees and give consumers more notice of rate changes and more time to pay their bills.

Similar legislation passed the House two weeks ago on a lopsided 357-70 vote. And President Barack Obama wants Congress to get a final version to his desk by Friday [...]

So, while praying for an eleventh-hour glitch (which can happen in the Senate), the once-dominant bank lobbyists are bracing for passage of the first credit card reform bill in history.

“We just have to be OK with people getting their pound of flesh out of us,” said one weary industry insider.

Now, as much as the banksters poormouth this, I wouldn't get crazy. The Fed already mandated most of these changes; the bill just codifies them into law. The lobbyists probably figure it's good to let the President win one for a change, especially one as inoffensive as credit card reform that would have taken effect anyway. On the big issues, like regulating derivatives (which the Treasury Department is pretending to do) and CEO compensation (which Geithner has no plans to touch), the banksters still own the place, and their millions of dollars in lobbying has most certainly paid off.

Meanwhile, here's the credit card industry's counter-move:

Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.

Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.

“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

The more things change...

UPDATE: The bill passes 90-5.

Credit Card Reform Takes Shape

The President held a town hall meeting today in New Mexico, and they got "populist Obama," the one looking out for consumers and concerned about credit card companies jacking up their interest rates.

You should not have to worry that when you sign up for a credit card, you're signing away all your rights. You shouldn't need a magnifying glass or a law degree to read the fine print that sometimes don't even appear to be written in English -- or Spanish. (Applause.) And frankly, when you're trying to navigate your way through this economy, you shouldn't feel like you're getting ripped off by "any time, any reason" rate hikes, and payment deadlines that seem to move around every month. That happen to anybody? You think you're supposed to pay it this day, and suddenly -- and it's never on the end of the month where you're paying all the rest of your bills, right? It's like on the 19th. (Laughter.) All kinds of harsh penalties and fees that you never knew about.

Enough is enough. It's time for strong, reliable protections for our consumers. It's time for reform -- (applause) -- it's time for reform that's built on transparency and accountability and mutual responsibility -- values fundamental to the new foundation we seek to build for our economy.

I actually think, judging from the support in Congress and the outcry from consumers, that some form of this actually gets done on the President's timetable, with a law signed by Memorial Day. Tom Coburn tossed in what he thought would be a poison pill about carrying concealed weapons in national parks, but since the NRA has essentially silenced gun control advocates in Washington that pill tastes like a blueberry pie, even to Democrats. And I don't know if it'll make it through conference. Interest rates won't be capped, and some of the provisions will be a bit weaker than the initial bill, but basically something along the guidelines of the Federal Reserve will pass. And that's because the credit card companies are just the most contemptible companies in America, and they pushed it too far.

The exploration into cardholders’ minds hit a breakthrough in 2002, when J. P. Martin, a math-loving executive at Canadian Tire, decided to analyze almost every piece of information his company had collected from credit-card transactions the previous year. Canadian Tire’s stores sold electronics, sporting equipment, kitchen supplies and automotive goods and issued a credit card that could be used almost anywhere. Martin could often see precisely what cardholders were purchasing, and he discovered that the brands we buy are the windows into our souls — or at least into our willingness to make good on our debts. His data indicated, for instance, that people who bought cheap, generic automotive oil were much more likely to miss a credit-card payment than someone who got the expensive, name-brand stuff. People who bought carbon-monoxide monitors for their homes or those little felt pads that stop chair legs from scratching the floor almost never missed payments. Anyone who purchased a chrome-skull car accessory or a “Mega Thruster Exhaust System” was pretty likely to miss paying his bill eventually.

....Testing indicated that Martin’s predictions, when paired with other commonly used data like cardholders’ credit histories and incomes, were often much more precise than what the industry traditionally used to forecast cardholder riskiness....Data-driven psychologists are now in high demand, and the industry is using them not only to screen out risky debtors but also to determine which cardholders need a phone call to persuade them to mail in a check. Most of the major credit-card companies have set up systems to comb through cardholders’ data for signs that someone is going to stop making payments. Are cardholders suddenly logging in at 1 in the morning? It might signal sleeplessness due to anxiety. Are they using their cards for groceries? It might mean they are trying to conserve their cash.

Unbelievable.

Total Victory

It shows you how decisively the NRA has won the debate over gun control, that a rampage of gun violence throughout the United States over the past couple weeks can happen, that mass deaths in Mexico can be attributed to the sale of guns smuggled across the border, and the White House still can't bring itself to advocating for banning assault weapons, for which there is no legitimate hunting or personal protection use.

THOMAS: Is the president concerned about the epidemic of killings by guns and is he willing to move towards reinstating the ban on assault weapons?

GIBBS: Obviously, we, while we were overseas last week, were surprised and shocked at the news at what had happened in New York. … That’s one of the reasons that increased money to hire more police officers as in the Recovery Act. I was asked specifically about assault weapons. I think the president would — the president believes there are other strategies we can take to enforce the laws that are already on our books.

I fully recognize that Obama's in a tough spot - the far right has basically claimed he would ban all guns, which he never advocated. But this is of course the Overton Window in action. Obama has to respond to those charges by taking even sensible gun control off the table. The NRA has been one or two steps ahead of this game for a long time.

Good Stuff

A spectaculardecision by the Department of Defense. Shielding the public from seeing the costs of war was hideous policy made by imperialists. We are turning that around.

Defense and congressional officials say news organizations will be allowed to photograph the homecomings of America's war dead under a new Pentagon policy.

The officials say Defense Secretary Robert Gates has decided to allow photos of flag-draped caskets at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, if the families of casualties agree.

As John Aravosis says, "The Ministry of Truth is no more."

Another great policy - the President will seek a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. If the time comes where I really need an Uzi to protect my family and go hunting, we've either entered into a Thunderdome-like hellscape or deer have gained super-strength through genetic mutation.

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

I'm happy with these developments. In the next post, I'll discuss the developments that anger me.

This Too Is Terrorism

A man in Knoxville, Tennessee walked into the Tennessee Valley Universalist Unitarian Church, which had a newly hung sign up welcoming gays and lesbians into their congregation, and opened fire, killing two before being wrestled to the ground by congregants. Earlier, he wrote a letter explaining his motives:

The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday’s mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of “the liberal movement,” and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.

Jim D. Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his “hatred of the liberal movement,” Owen said. “Liberals in general, as well as gays.” [...]

Owen said Adkisson specifically targeted the church for its beliefs, rather than a particular member of the congregation.

“It appears that church had received some publicity regarding its liberal stance,” the chief said. The church has a “gays welcome” sign and regularly runs announcements in the News Sentinel about meetings of the Parents, Friends and Family of Lesbians and Gays meetings at the church.

The church’s Web site states that it has worked for “desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women’s rights and gay rights” since the 1950s. Current ministries involve emergency aid for the needy, school tutoring and support for the homeless, as well as a cafe that provides a gathering place for gay and lesbian high-schoolers.

As the terror alert level has just been raised (it is, after all, an election year, and the Federal Election-year Antiterror Repsonse, or F.E.A.R. Unit, has to justify its budget), I suspect we're going to hear a whole lot about how the Bush Administration has kept us safe from attacks on US soil. Except that this is also terrorism, designed to terrorize and intimidate a particular sect or group, and instead of paying attention to right-wing domestic extremists, the White House has directed its homeland security efforts at peace groups and Quakers. So they once again have failed at protecting the nation from acts of terror. In fact, given that the conservative movement's amping up of violent rhetoric has been so obvious to many, this failure is either a dereliction of duty or a complicit action. To wit:

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

Assuming causation may be an imperfect science, but these are the same folks who blamed Marilyn Manson for Columbine so I don't have much sympathy.

So we can all debate whether Adkisson's murders were a function of a lack of guns in the hands of church members (although they got him to the ground in 15 seconds without firearms), but we should not forget that this was a terrorist attack from a committed right-wing fundamentalist. The conservative movement has created an ideology of hate, and while the vast majority of its adherents are not inspired to actual violence, just one murder is too many.

Somehow I don't think this will be inserted into the discussion of terrorism.

God Save This Blessed Court

It's getting so I try not to read anything with "Supreme Court" in the headline on the last week of June, because that's when all the most controversial cases come down, and given the current makeup of the Court it means "pound progressives into the cement" week in America.

The Court did rule that the death penalty shouldn't apply to child rapists, which, while a horrible crime, is not proportional to state-sanctioned murder. Sen. Obama short-circuited the inevitable Kitty Dukakis question by saying he disagreed with the ruling, but the fact that he did so on state's rights grounds is alarming. I don't know if Justice Kennedy made a well-argued case here, but I don't believe in the death penalty as a deterrent (I don't think rapists and murderers are all that rational) or as a properly applied system of jurisprudence (look at all the problems with cases at the state level) so anything that blocks its expansion is generally fine with me. I wish we had a court that would throw the whole practice out as cruel and unusual punishment and recognize that life in prison without possibility of parole is a pretty stiff punishment.

The other decisions were varying degrees of horrible. The Court stepped into the Exxon Valdez civil case in an activist fashion and lowered the damages to citizens affected by the oil spill. It's outrageous that the shattered lives on the Alaskan coast are worth $15,000, according to the law. And moreover, it shows corporations that they can appeal and appeal and appeal and they will eventually get their way in the highest court, where fealty to corporations is really the order of the day.

Today, in a 5-4 decision the Court overturned the Millionaire's Amendment which ruled as part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that candidates facing a rich, self-funded challenger can raise above the contribution limits if their opponent pumps millions into the race. The ruling also waives several disclosure requirements on the part of the self-funder. What is key here, a signal that this Court will rule against any and all public financing laws, is that Congress cannot seek to "level the playing field."

The argument that a candidate’s speech may be restricted in order to "level electoral opportunities" has ominous implications because it would permit Congress to arrogate the voters’ authority to evaluate the strengths of candidates competing for office. See Bellotti, supra, at 791–792 ("[T]he people in our democracy are entrusted with the responsibility for judging and evaluating the relative merits of conflicting arguments" and "may consider, in making their judgment, the source and credibility of the advocate"). Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities; some have the benefit of a well-known family name. Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which strengths should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of an election. The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not Congress, the power to choose the Members of the House of Representatives, Art. I, §2, and it is a dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters’ choices.

This sounds reasonable enough, but it could be the wormhole to end public financing and eliminate contribution limits. Considering that we're in the age of the Internet where the low-dollar revolution has taught that there need not be a reliance on big corporate money, that could be OK. But not if limits start getting removed. McCain-Feingold was reinforced by a 2003 ruling, so hopefully it'll remain robust. I'm worried that this will challenge "fair fight" funds in use in public money states like Arizona and Maine, where the publicly financed candidate gets extra money if a privately funded challenger spends above certain thresholds.

Finally, there's the Second Amendment case of the DC handgun ban, and in another 5-4 ruling the Court asserted an individual right to gun ownership and struck down the DC law. This is really the end of the gun issue as a political football; the 2nd Amendment has been defined. I don't know if it was defined correctly, but even such Constitutional scholars as Russ Feingold assert an individual right to bear arms. Here's Sen. Obama on the issue:

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Actually, that kind of strikes the right balance to me. What I do find striking is that not long ago, Justice Scalia assured us that the Court's ruling in Boumediene would "surely cause more Americans to be killed," yet he doesn't see the same consequence of allowing firearms in everyone's hands. Overall, we have a Court that bounces back between activism and restraint when it suits their ideological needs. It reinforces the need for a Democratic President to retain our core values and not continue on this path of a hard-right agenda in the highest Court in the land.

UPDATE: According to Phillip Carter, the ruling in Heller is pretty restrained, and most current forms of gun control wouldn't fall under it, outside of total bans.

Just Words

Hey, before you go off on this, just lighten up, 'kay? Mike Huckabee was only joking about the assassination of a leading black candidate for President in front of the NRA.

During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Why can't you libruls take a joke? Sure, the jokes normally take the form of violence against political opponents, but it's not their fault if you don't know what FUNNY is!



Yuk it up, you bastards! You know you love it!

Your 2007 Congress - A Wrap-Up

We have an instant-gratification society. When the Democrats took the Congress in 2006, a lot of people thought that gold would start coming out of the faucets and every problem wrought by six years of Bushism would be miraculously overturned. The problem is that these same people weren't paying attention to the office of the Presidency over the past century. By accruing enormous amounts of executive power, and with the bonds of party so strong, it's impossible for any party to fully implement their agenda with any kind of speed from just the legislative branch.

Nevertheless, we have seen a Congress that's done far better in their first year implementing their legislative agenda than the last example of divided government, the 1995 Gingrich "revolution".



Let me add to that the passage of the first meaningful gun control legislation in 15 years, and the recent efforts to block Bush's recess appointments by leaving the Senate in pro forma sessions. Plus, they got around Bush's budget obstructionism and actually allowed it to reflect Democratic priorities to some extent (though why a Democratic Congress is honoring the Mexico City rule of denying international funding for family planning is shocking).

However, why I ultimately have to give Congress a failing grade is their inability to move forward on the big issues, and more importantly, their inability to hold the Republicans accountable for their epic obstructionism. On one level, they aren't using the Congressional instruments at their disposal; they don't have to pass any money for Iraq, which would put the onus on Bush to change course if he wants funding. They could force an actual filibuster on these major issues and let everyone see out in the open what the Republicans are committed to doing, which is nothing less than shutting down the government. And they could negotiate from a position of strength, asking for far more from the President in exchange for the bills he desires. They could also invoke the Hastert rule and stop movement on key bills without the support of a majority of the majority.

Unable to garner enough votes from their own party, House Democratic leaders had to turn to Republicans to win passage of a $555 billion domestic spending bill after the Senate appended $70 billion to it for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war funding passed 272 to 142, with Democrats voting 141 to 78 against it.

The Democratic leaders again had to appeal to Republicans to win passage of a measure to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, because fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats were in open revolt and refused to go along. The Blue Dogs insisted that the Senate offset the bill's cost with tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers.

Needing two-thirds of the House to pass under fast-track rules, the tax measure was approved 352 to 64, with all 64 "no" votes coming from Democrats standing by their pledge not to support any tax cut or mandatory spending increase that would expand the national debt.

The AMT patch is a tragedy. Adding $50 billion to the national debt with no offsets is a crime. As is giving any billions more for a failed occupation in Iraq. And this tendency to value the concerns of George Bush over the concerns of the rank and file of the party is what's pissing everyone off.

The military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains open. Bush's warrantless surveillance program was actually codified and expanded on the Democrats' watch. Lawmakers were unable to eliminate the use of harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA.

Democratic leaders also could not overcome the president's vetoes on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, despite winning over large numbers of Republicans. Policies that liberals thought would be swept aside under the Democratic majority remain untouched, including a prohibition on U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that offer abortions.

And this is all extremely disappointing. Particularly SCHIP, it's already a campaign issue, there's no need to further string that out with votes, it should have been part of the war funding deal. Instead, it'll be funded at the status quo.

But it's important to recognize the historical anomaly of what the Republicans are doing. Here's another chart:



Republicans have set the record for filibusters in a Congressional session in HALF the time. There is no analogue to this. And you would think that would get the attention of the traditional media, but it seems like almost nothing can unless Jamie Lynn Spears is involved.

Democrats have to do a better job, though, of highlighting this obstructionism, of placing the blame on the Republicans for subverting the will of the people, of making individual legislators pay the price. I'm confident that they will.

Color Me Surprised

The Supreme Court declined to take action in the case of the District of Columbia's 31 year-old ban on handguns. One would think this would be the type of case the newly emboldened Alito-Roberts Court would love to get their hands on. They still may take it up at a later date, however.

Replace a John Paul Stevens with a movement conservative and these cases would almost certainly be taken, and ruled in favor of the Scalia-Thomas faction. Just another reason why 2008 is so important, and a frequently overlooked one.

Freddie Goes Deep Into The Wingnut Well

When demagoguing on illegals doesn't work, when holding forth on the scourge of the Soviet Union fails to inspire, when fearmongering on Iran can't gain any traction, there's always pretending the UN will take your guns away.

Says Thompson, "Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These "minimum" provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment of our Constitution."

Except, that's not true.

As you can see, these are pretty broad directives. And as you can see, no country is required to do anything. In fact, the only UN body that can require something of a member state is the Security Council, on which the United States has a veto.

He also claims that the UN has denied "the existence of any human right to self-defense," which is so not true that it's in Article 51 of the original UN charter of 1945.

This whole "The UN is about to take your guns" away is pretty far down the significant rung of made-up fears from the lunatic fringe, right down there with the NAFTA Superhighway and the fluoridation of water. It's pretty deep in the wingnut id. Freddie can't figure out how else to prove to the fundies that he's one of them, so he has to pretend these lies are the truth, because that's all he's got.

9/11 Changed My Mind On Fees In National Parks

At what point is Rudolph G. just going to start showing up for press conferences dressed in an elaborate Twin Towers costume?

September 11th has persuaded him that gun rights are necessary. He said:

"I also think that there have been subsequent intervening events — September 11 — which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights. It doesn't change the fundamental rights, but maybe it highlights the necessity for them more."

Because a plane flew into the 106th floor of an office building, people on the streets should have guns? Why, so they can shoot up at the plane? What the hell does this even mean?

I know we are all members of the 9/11 generation and everything, but Rudolph is turning it into a catch-all for every societal issue, much like how everything for Tancredo is about immigration. It's embarrassingly poor logic.

Then again, this is coming from a man who thinks we can balance a tax cut with another tax cut.

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Friday that the alternative minimum tax — which is expected to generate as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years — could be eliminated over the long term by balancing it out with even more tax cuts.

Giuliani's remarks prompted a bewildered response from his audience of technology executives. Both Republicans and Democrats said they assumed that the candidate must have misspoken as he responded to a question about the tax and its affect the middle class.

But a Giuliani spokeswoman said later that Giuliani meant what he said — tax cuts could replace the lost revenue from the AMT by boosting the overall economy.

...and anyway, after 9/11 I learned that less revenue actually means more, and maybe if you were patriotic like me, you would too. Also everyone knows my name, so shut up.

Priority is Job #1

I do agree with this LA Times op-ed that the Democrats are stepping up in some ways, particularly on gun control and energy, in recent weeks. And the fact that they plan to investigate Cheney's signing statements, which according to one report have nullified 30% of all Congressional laws last year, is also encouraging.

But nobody is going to give the Democrats in Congress credit for a job well done until they do something about Iraq. They were the ones that responded to public sentiment by announcing it as a priority - and now they have to deliver. This is the Pandora's Box they've opened up, such that nothing else they do will be seen as sufficient to the immediate problem at hand.

First Gun Control Law In A Decade

People claim that the Democrats have given up the gun debate, but maybe they're just being smarter about it.

The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade, spurred by the Virginia Tech campus killings and buttressed by National Rifle Association help.

The bill, which was passed on a voice vote, would improve state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to stop gun purchases by people, including criminals and those adjudicated as mentally ill, who are prohibited from possessing firearms.

This closes the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy guns in Virginia.

If you can get the NRA aboard on gun control legislation, you can strike a balance between Second Amendment rights (which I generally support) and ensuring public safety and the needs of law enforcement, without electoral consequences. The argument that "the Democrats are going to take your guns away" has little resonance when the NRA is signing on to their legislation. This is a game of inches, and so I'm happy that the Democrats appear to be playing it that way.

Some Things Are More Important Than Terrorists Getting Uzis, K?

This was actually a brilliant bit of politics, and just because something is designed for political means doesn't mean it isn't revealing. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey created legislation called the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act and somehow got the Justice Department to support it, daring gun groups to oppose it. They obliged.

The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

I guess the idea is to use the terrorist watch list in background check screening, and if that's the same watch list that is used for airline passengers I'm against it too, considering how awful that list is (Ted Kennedy's on it). But Sen. Lautenberg has cited a GAO study showing that "35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials." And there are apparently various protections and challenge options in the bill. I'm wary of denying constitutionally protected liberties based on suspicion, so hopefully if it is enacted there are safeguards. Of course, there are already background checks for purchasing firearms, so if this adds something to else, well, maybe.

I'm ambivalent on the bill. But regardless of that, the NRA is now on the record for allowing terrorists to buy guns. This is, as thereisnospoon said, a brilliant wedge between the authoritarian "stop the terrists" crowd and the pro-Second Amendment crowd. They literally don't know what to do on this one.

I would imagine you could create 20 bills like this, that get in the cracks of 21st-century conservative ideology, and just drive the wingnuts crazy.

Democrats Do Something

While the conservative movement wants to blame the Virginia Tech shooting on everything liberal society has ever created (not the individual, of course - they're the party of personal responsibility), the Democrats actually want to do something about it:

Grappling with the deadliest shooting spree in U.S. history, lawmakers said Sunday they want to eliminate a gap between state and federal laws that can allow someone with a history of mental illness to buy guns [...]

Seung-Hui Cho, who gunned down 32 people on campus and killed himself Monday, was evaluated at a psychiatric hospital in late 2005 and deemed by a judge to present "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." That should have disqualified him from purchasing a gun under federal law, experts say.

But Virginia court officials insist that because the judge ordered only outpatient treatment — and did not commit Cho to a psychiatric hospital — they were not required to submit the information to be entered in the federal databases for background checks.

Lawmakers pushed Sunday to eliminate such breakdowns. They called for uniformity between state and federal reporting to make background checks more dependable.

That's the extent of the lessons that should be learned from this nightmare - fixing the loophole so that the law works the way it was intended. We can all stop pretending we're victims because it's offensive to the real ones, and our media can pack the hell up and go home. But at the very least, we should fix the flaw in the law that enabled this circumstance. That's the response of a political party that actually believes in government and doesn't hold it in contempt.

In short, this is why I'm a Democrat.