Stupid Party Versus Doctor No

Ron Paul needs a hand (.pdf) (via Triggerfinger).

In his post A Choice, Not A Referendum: Support Senator DeWine Hugh Hewitt makes the argument that (in part) you can't be a serious supporter of the 2nd amendment & not support DeWine. (I should point out that Hugh didn't think the "assault weapons" ban was worth withdrawing your vote for a republican over, that he seemed to confuse 'assault weapons" with machine guns, that he's argued against "self help" & that an intermediate, not a strict, scrutiny of the 2nd amendment should be the proper view of the courts.)

DeWine supported the addition of the "assault weapon" ban renewal to the Lawful Protection in Commerce Act back in March of 2004. He also supported the trigger lock amendment (requiring trigger locks to be sold with every handgun purchase); the ammunition restriction study (asking the AG to do a study & determine if the "cop killer" bullet ban should be expanded); the McCain gun show ban; & a bill that would create liability for any unsecured firearms on your property. (from the GOA's "key votes" page on DeWine). & as a matter of damn fact Dewine was a co-sponsor of the "assault weapons" ban reauthorization act of 2005 introduced by Feinstein.

Rep. Paul voted no on the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (he found it to be an imperfect & unconstitutional solution to the problem). He voted for a repeal of the D.C. gun ban; withdrawing funds from the anti-gun UN; withdrawing funds to anti-gun U.N.E.S.C.O.; to withdraw the u.S. from the UN; to allow pilots to arm themselves; and a bill to exempt 2nd amendment groups from McCain-Feingold as well as stating the 2nd amendment protects an individual Right. He voted against a .50 caliber ban; a national I.D. card; & McCain-Feingold. (From the GOA's "key votes" page on Rep. Paul). He also co-sponored the Citizen's Self Defense Act of 2005 (HR 47).

Looking at GOA's Gun Bills in Congress page:

Representative Paul currently has bills in the house that would pull the u.S. out of the UN & one that would repeal the Brady law & the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA of 68.

DeWine currently has a bill in the senate that would repeal the Smalls decision (which said that a foreign conviction was not justification for prohibition of owning or possessing a firearm)

GOA rates DeWine as an "F". GOA rates Rep. Paul as an "A+".

I think it's pretty damned clear who the more ardent supporter of the Right to Arms happens to be. Yet Hewitt argues you can't support the 2nd amendment without supporting DeWine, yet the GOP runs a primary against Rep. Paul who's a freakin' incumbent!

Hewitt beats the drum pretty hard to support anyone with an "R" beside their name for the sake of party control. & to be honest if I could get behind a collective instead of principle then he'd make some good points. But his argument that the Republicans must win or it'll be worse for gun owners is a little weak considering the facts.

How is that? Well it's true the Democrats have a more openly anti-gun agenda than the Republicans do. But what the hell have the Republicans done for us? Not just lately, but ever?

In the post Subdivisions I list (if ya scroll down) the major firearms legislation since 1927. even the few pro-gun laws that were passed can be argued as not going far enough to repair some of the damage created by the previous anti-gun laws.

The republicans have had a majority in both houses & the oval office for 6 years now. They've managed to pass protection for gun dealers & manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits & to not re-enact the "assault weapons" ban. There are a few pro-gun bills pending as well as some anti-gun bills but nothing has been passed as of yet.

Hugh has heard & I do believe often joined in the criticism that the republicans are afraid to act like a majority. Well if they're the best hope for gun owners then by their record I'd have to say that we're sunk. They haven't done a damn thing (except for those two things I mentioned) in 6 years.

In Stupid Versus Evil I touched on some of this. Let me elaborate:

In the short term it may be bad for us. All of us. The Dems are not great as a party when it comes to simple little things like not screwing up the country royally. But I'm thinking of the long term.

Rep. Paul has to defend against a republican primary yet I've heard of no primaries for RINO's such as DeWine or Chafee. The GOP would rather throw some effort into dislodging one of the most (if not the most) principled people in the party rather than take on the ones who actually cause the base to pop a cold one & watch the elections on the news instead of voting.

Hugh beats the drum very hard urging the base to support the Republicans. But I think the proper solution would be to urge the Republicans to support the base.

Contrasting Rep. Paul's treatment with DeWine’s shows a sign of a sickness within the GOP. A sickness with potentially disastrous ends for all of us. The symptom is that the GOP is fine with its DeWine's & Chafee's & hopes to change its' base to accept them.

In the short term the easy way is to hold your nose & vote for DeWine. It's true; the Dem he's running against would probably be worse on the issues you care about. But in the long term it reinforces the GOP's current condition. It does not send the message that the RINO's views are not the direction the base wants the party to go. In fact it's quite the opposite.

My good friend Geek With A .45 takes an opposite view (to a degree). He feels that while the Repubs are in definite need of reform that we're still too tender to afford giving any ground to the democrats. & I can't argue that he doesn't have a logical premise. What I can argue is that we'll be too tender 20, perhaps even 30 years down the road unless his wish that the Dems straighten up & fly right comes true. My breath won't be held for that one.

We stand to lose a bit in the short term but I feel we'd stand to lose much more in the long term by going along with the RINO's.

Of course the preferable solution would be to have primaries for incumbents & purge the RINO's from the party, but apparently that mechanism is only reserved for the likes of Rep. Paul.

The reason it's "The Stupid Party" is that "the Disgustingly Stupid Party Who Couldn't Find Its Ass With Both Hands & An Ass Map" is too long for polite conversation.

Support Rep. Paul if you can. Apparently fighting the GOP primary has made him vulnerable to the Dem running against him. Considering that last election he ran unopposed I'd say that placing the blame on whatever asshats that decided to run a primary for his seat would be the appropriate course of action.

Oh & by all means support DeWine. That is if you like the idea of voting for a guy who wants to ban your homeland defense rifle & shut down free trade (known as gun shows) amongst other apparently Republican Party approved things.

Posted by Publicola at May 25, 2006 03:31 AM | TrackBack