Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Tuesday that gun control
legislation in the Senate will emerge from committee disemboweled. The
ban on assault weapons is dead, with no more than 40 Senators expressing
support, and the ban on big ammunition clips is on life support. A
“victory” at this point will be, at best, watered down background
checks. And that is in the Senate. Mr. Boehner’s GOP controlled House
will likely demolish background checks, too.
Flashback to the
weeks after the Newtown, Connecticut massacre. We pledged to make a
difference; we vowed that it was different this time. We posted
article after article and meme after meme on Facebook. We shouted down
NRA supporters in comment threads and in Washington, DC, we staged a
little march on the NRA offices and held a candlelight vigil or two.
And then we lost focus.
We
spend an awful lot of time crowing about our clever online organizing, but
Internet activism has given us the attention span of fleas. We hang out on web sites where anyone can
start a petition on any topic at any time. But political victories
require real organization, real leadership and although it pains most of
us to admit it, laser focus on a relatively small number of issues.
While we flitted about signing a hundred Internet Petitions on dozens of
topics, or engaged in useless cyber fisticuffs with Tea Party trolls in
comment threads, the NRA was working. They shored up their votes in the
Senate and lobbied their supporters online and offline. The Tea Party joined the fray, coordinating meetings and informing supporters with fusillades of email alerts, including one with the astoundingly crass
subject line "Bang Bang". But Bang Bang, they won. In the realpolitik of legislative advocacy the
NRA was savvy and effective
while our brave new online world was little more than sound and fury,
signifying nothing.
Look back at your Facebook feed from Tuesday,
the day Senator Reid announced the debacle. How many posts about gun
violence did you see? How many appeals to mount a massive lobbying
campaign to support the assault weapons ban in the Senate? Now, count how many shares you received about
the clever folks that painted gay pride colors on the house across the
street from the Westboro Baptist Church. Post your counts in the comment
feed below. On my Facebook page, it was Cool Colorful House 7, Gun
Control 0. Yeah, the stunt with the house was worth sharing, but what is
ultimately more important?
As I type tonight, police sirens are
wailing, heading down Pennsylvania Avenue and racing south across
the Anacostia River, where gun violence is as frequent as a sunset. If those
sirens aren’t responding to a shooting tonight, they will be tomorrow.
While we pat ourselves on the back for painting a house, kids are dying
of gunshot wounds from DC to Denver to LA.
The NRA wins; we lose. It’s as common as the gunfire.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Binary Blinders
The binary system. It’s
all computers do. Everything is zero or one. From “a” (binary 01100001) to "z" (binary 01111010)
everything we look at or see on a computer boils down to a staggering number of
zeros and ones zipping around on our motherboards.
Binary Thinking is a great way to transfer data but a pretty
ineffective way of thinking about politics. A nifty little piece in the
Atlantic Monthly spells out why our partisan thinking
makes us divide the world into polar opposites http://tinyurl.com/d2cz93e Our world is made of ZERO ( evil and dumb) and ONE (good and smart). Republicans are ZEROS, Democrats are ONES.
On a more moral plane this makes us a rather unforgiving lot.
We claim only to want the ZERO to become a ONE, but often we have a hard time
abandoning the “once a ZERO, always a ZERO” way of thinking.
Consider the events of last week in Binary Thinking terms:
Senator Rob Portman (ZERO), an arch conservative (ZERO) from
Ohio, “came out” in support of same sex marriage (ONE). His son, an
undergraduate at Yale University(Yale=ONE, unless you are from Harvard, then
ZERO), is gay (ONE). After some soul searching, Mr. Portman now agrees with us
(ONE) that same sex marriage should be legal (ONE). Coming during the same week
that saw the Conservative Political Action Congress ( a ZERO of epic
proportions) in suburban (ZERO) Washington, DC (ONE) this should have been
greeted by progressives (ONE) with a parade down the streets.
Curiously, my Facebook feed was cluttered by moral
condemnations of Senator Portman from my friends (ONES). He (ZERO) did not, you see,
come to our way of thinking (ONE) in a politically correct manner (ONE). To wit,
he only came around because of his son. I see the point; it would be nice if Mr.
Portman could have thought about other people’s sons and supported gay marriage
sooner, but he did not.
In political terms, rejecting Senator Portman as an ally is short-sighted.
The Senator routinely talks to very powerful people in Ohio who reject same sex marriage. He has access to
the ZEROS. If we use our rational brains and ally with him, we might help
Senator Portman convert a few more ONES.
We’ll need bipartisan support if we expect to overturn Ohio’s State
Constitutional ban on same sex marriage. Rejecting Senator Portman sends a breathtakingly
bad signal to other conservatives who have a gay or lesbian relative they love
and who are struggling to muster the courage to publicly support same sex
marriage. Our message needs to be one of
acceptance not derision.
Let’s make same sex marriage legal across the land. The
leaders of the Civil Rights movement should be our guides; they accepted all conversions from ZERO to ONE regardless of their reasoning. We
should embrace Senator Portman as an ally and keep our eyes on the prize.
#####
You can receive notices about new posts on the Data Driven Beltway on Twitter @MichaelAgosta1
#####
You can receive notices about new posts on the Data Driven Beltway on Twitter @MichaelAgosta1
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Gridlock 1 Berkley NONE
The first of a number
of periodic posts examining last November’s election from the “Data Driven” perspective.
Last summer, a gaggle of Nevada Republicans filed suit (Townley
v. Miller) to drop the option of voting for “None of these Candidates” on the
Nevada ballot, apparently in the belief that “None of These” votes hurt GOP
hopefuls. In September, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the
GOP case was likely groundless and granted a stay: “Plaintiff’s arguments offer no colorable basis for this
court to conclude that Nevada’s 37-year-old statute providing for “None of
These Candidates” ballots is contrary to the Constitution or to any federal
statute.” http://tinyurl.com/a8erwrh
Ironically, None of These Candidates remained an option for
Nevada voters, but much to the detriment of the Democrats!
None of These
Candidates played a significant role in Shelley Berkley’s 12,000 vote defeat to
arch-Conservative Dean Heller in her run for the US Senate. Yes, Ms. Berkley
ran a terrible campaign, and she was dragged down by ethics allegations, although
even the conservative Las Vegas Review-Journal (think Manchester Guardian with demonstrably
lower journalistic standards) had to admit the ethics allegations were trumped
up:
“In the end, the [House Ethics] committee dismissed substantive allegations
against her while finding her in violation of a conflict- of-interest rule the
panel said could be clearer.” http://tinyurl.com/al9vxbl
To win Nevada, a Democrat must carry metropolitan Las Vegas (Clark
County) by a solid margin. Reno (Washoe County) tends to break even, but
Democrats get clobbered in the states 15 rural counties.
In evaluating the impact of the None of These Candidates on the
2012 ballot, it is instructive to examine the state’s most heavily Democratic
precincts in Clark County, those which President Obama carried 75% or more of
the vote. In these 104 precincts, None of These votes totaled 3,922 in the
Senate race, compared to just 314 in the Presidential contest. Undervotes in
the Senate race accounted for an additional 2,152 votes (cases in which a voter
cast a ballot for President but did not select a choice in the Senate race). In
spite of the fears about the role of the None of These votes playing against
Republicans, GOP voters held solid. Mitt Romney garnered 10,269 votes in these
precincts, and Dean Heller captured 10,147. Meanwhile, Democratic voters
abandoned Berkley in droves. President Obama captured 54,879 votes to Berkley’s
47,407. Mr. Obama’s big margins in these precincts helped him turn Nevada blue,
but Berkley fell short. Undervotes and “None of These” just in these highly
Democrat precincts account for comfortably over 50% of Berkley’s deficit in the
2012 Senate race.
President Obama garnered over 50,000 more votes than Berkley in Clark County, while Romney outpaced
Heller by a mere 12,000. Countywide, there were 3,447 None of These votes in
the Presidential contest, compared to a staggering 30,675 in the Senate race. Shelley Berkley would be in the Senate if None
of These Candidates had not appeared on the ballot.
Presidential campaigns are seductive, especially in the
swing states. While it is far more fun to canvass for President Obama than a flawed
Senate candidate, progressives do a lousy job of encouraging down ballot
voting—voting for Democrats NOT running for President.
But by sending Mr. Obama to the White House and Mr. Heller
to the Senate, Nevada voted for continued gridlock in Washington, as Dr.
Michael Green pointed out in his post election analysis for Vegas Seven.: http://tinyurl.com/b8e5mcv
In Senate races across the country last November, Democratic
women won; None of These Candidates
ensured that was not the case in Nevada. Every time the GOP plays the
filibuster card this year, remember the curse of None.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)