Bill Clinton and John Kerry: No More Gun Control Needed.

[Irreverend IX]

Bill was just chatting with Larry King about the VTech incident and he repeated what many DUers have been saying about the tragedy: mental health care, not guns, is the primary point of concern in this case. John Kerry was talking with Larry Kudlow from CNBC yesterday and he said much the same thing. Part of the Clinton/King transcript is below, but I haven't been able to find any videos or transcripts of the Kerry/Kudlow talk.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/19/lkl.01.html


B. CLINTON: You know, each of these things you mentioned -- in Waco, in Oklahoma City, in Columbine -- there are things that you can say, well, if they had been done differently maybe you would have had a different result. And actually they were all quite different.

In this case, the issue here wasn't really the gun laws, for example. He cleared the Brady bill checks. But he had been identified as being profoundly troubled and having violent tendencies, at least, either toward himself or others as early as 2005.

So I think we really -- without recrimination, because nobody tried to have this happen, there ought to be some serious attempt to see whether there was some breakdown in the way the law works and the way the mental health systems works, to see if we can make some positive changes to avert this in the future.

KING: Would you change any gun laws?

B. CLINTON: Well, based on this case, I don't think that you can make that case, because he...

KING: He got a gun in a half hour.

B. CLINTON: He got a gun in a half hour, but he passed the background check. And, you know, one of the things that you might argue -- I like the three-day waiting period. But in order to get this -- the Brady Bill passed -- and then get it extended, we had to agree to allow that waiting period to be waived if you could do an automatic background check.

And, you know, that wasn't really the problem here. The problem was that if he had been committed, if it was clear that he was unstable, then he would not have -- if there was something in his record, he would not have passed the background check.

So we have to go back, I think, in this case, to the mental health care record. It's not like Columbine where you -- we needed to close the gun show loophole, which the voters of Colorado voted to do, 70 to 30 -- to do the background checks at the gun show, as well as other sale points.

It's not like Oklahoma City, where we needed, I think, to, you know, have taggants in chemicals that could be made into bombs so we could track them. There are lots of things -- all these cases are different.

This case gives us the obligation to look at how our mental health system works.

[JI7]

1. they are talking about THIS case specifically, doesn't mean they are against other gun control

measures.

[davepc]

2. Clinton and Kerry learned that gun control is an electoral albatross and costs Democrats elections

I don't want to destroy the good atmosphere in the room or in the country tonight, but I have to mention one issue that divided this body greatly last year. The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it. And I know, therefore, that some of you who are here because they voted for it are under enormous pressure to repeal it. I just have to tell you how I feel about it.

- President Clinton, 1995 State of the Union Address.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/bc42/speeches/sud95wjc.htm

In 1994 Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban. Then Democrats lost control of Congress for the 1st time in a generation that November.

A quick recap of the 2004 election:

21 Electoral Votes in 2004.

North Carolina:

Mike Easley (D) 55.6% -- NRA "A" Rating
Patrick Ballantine (R) 42.9%

Bush 56%
Kerry 44%

West Virgina:

Joe Manchin (D) 63.5% -- NRA "A+" Rating
Monty Warner (R) 34%

Bush 56%
Kerry 43%

Montana:

Brian Schweitzer (D) 50.4% -- NRA "A" Rating
Bob Brown (R) 46%

Bush 59%
Kerry 39%

3 Democratic Gubernatorial candidates beat Republicans while at the same time voters rejected Kerry for Bush.

If Kerry had carried these 3 states where voters had no problems voting for pro-gun Democrats, then every single vote in Ohio could of been stolen and Bush still would of lost the Presidency.

Kerry came off the campaign trail to cast a senate vote ONCE in the entire campaign. It was a YEA vote in the failed attempt to renew the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.


These events are not funny coincidences.

[jody]

4. Outstanding!

:thumbsup:

[jgraz]

9. Still more BS from the gun fetishists

The fact is the the vast majority of the country favors tighter gun control, and has for quite some time. For example, check out this data from the Washington Post:

Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country? Is that strongly or somewhat favor/oppose?

            ----------- Favor --------    ---------- Oppose -------   No
            NET    Strongly   Somewhat    NET   Strongly   Somewhat  opin.
10/8/06     61        45         16       37       22         15       2
5/12/02     57        39         19       37       22         15       6
1/15/01     59        46         13       39       26         13       2
5/10/00     67        50         17       30       22          9       3
4/2/00      64        49         14       34       21         13       2
9/2/99      63        52         11       35       25         11       2
8/15/99     63        46         16       34       22         12       3
5/16/99     67        55         12       31       21         10       1
10/13/93*   64        40         24       33       20         13       3
6/8/89*     60        28         32       34       23         11       6
*Gallup: "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose enacting
tougher gun control laws?"

Your use of the 1994 elections is particularly dishonest. Clinton had just gone through a disastrous first two years, with his failed healthcare proposal, botched gays in the military issue, support of nafta, etc, etc, etc. The right hated him and the left felt betrayed.

That election has become a Rorshach test for politics: the homophobes blame Clinton's pro-gay agenda, gay rights advocates blame his anti-gay pandering, unions blame his free trade policies, civil rights advocates blame his craven collapse on Lani Guinier and, yes, the gun nuts blame his signing of the Brady Bill. However, no one has ever provided conclusive data to back up any of these claims. I suspect it's the combination that played into his image of spinelessness and unprincipled triangulation.

The fact is that Americans respect someone who stands up for their principles. Poll after poll has shown that people who hate Bush's policies voted for him anyway because they thought he was a "Strong leader". That's what the Dems need: a strong leader who sticks to his/her principles and can advocate forcefully for them.

Both sides in the gun debate are able to spot dishonest pandering, like Mitt's "varmint" comments or Kerry's idiotic goose hunting fiasco. It's much better for a candidate to have some actual principles and show that they're not willing to cave in just to get votes.

And, of course, it's much easier to stick to a position that's supported by 61% of the population.

[beevul]

10. Of polls and polling...

And what one might find on the internet...


http://www.txproradio.com/index.php

Thier poll says differently. Theyre a progressive radio site. Whodathunkit.

[jgraz]

11. I'm sorry, did you just cite an radio station's website poll to refute a GALLUP poll?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I think you're suffering from gunpowder poisoning.

[beevul]

12. I think the point...

that you so successfully missed, is that your milage may vary with polls. Time will tell.

[jgraz]

13. I think the real point is that you're lying again

Have you EVER had a good-faith discussion on this topic? Ever?

[beevul]

14. If I am lying, quote the lie I told.

Good luck.

[jgraz]

15. Equating a web poll with a scientific poll

And then pretending you don't know full well that the comparison is complete bullshit.

[jgraz]

22. * cricket noise *

[beevul]

23. I guess "milage may vary with polls" is lost on you...

The only one here equating those 2 polls is you, then ascribing it to me. I said your milage may vary, and I am right. You may not like how I choose to show it, but its a fact. Theres no denying it. Are YOU gonna claim polls don't vary? Didn't think so. And I should expect no less than that from an individual that pimps for an organization that gives some of the best grades on its "report cards" to some of the most statisticly violent places in the country, anyway.

Anymore of this saying that I said something I really did not say, or ascribing a meaning to something I said, that I really did not mean, and I might to have to bust out Carnac the Magnificent on ya.

[jgraz]

26. Repeating the lie ain't gonna make it true

It's too late to bandy words with someone as disingenous as you are. Your words are two posts above this one, readable by anyone. Anyone who has the barest understanding of polling can easily evaluate what you wrote for themselves. Further argument is useless.

Again, if you're ever ready to have a good-faith debate on this subject, you know where to find me.

[beevul]

28. Repeating what lie? QUOTE IT ( you cant)

"Your words are two posts above this one, readable by anyone. Anyone who has the barest understanding of polling can easily evaluate what you wrote for themselves. Further argument is useless."

Aparently, you cant count. Two posts above this one, is YOUR post. And yes, people can evaluate what I wrote just fine on thier own. None of them will deliberately ascribe to what I wrote something I did not mean by it. You are the only one that will do that. And heres a nugget we can actually agree on. Further argument is useless. You could not be more correct.


"Again, if you're ever ready to have a good-faith debate on this subject, you know where to find me."

Where to find you, thats a given. That anyone would go looking for you, when they wanted to find someone capable of arguing in good faith? Thats entirely another matter.




Anyway, you asked for it:


May an evil genie put splinters in your bathroom tissue.

[jgraz]

30. Bored now...

Why don't you go play with your guns and let the smart people talk for a bit...mmmkay?

[beevul]

31. Awww...And I was hoping to get a laugh out of you.

And I was hoping to get a laugh out of you.Carnac always cracked me up.

Anyway. We both likely agree on just about every other issue except guns. Your gonmna feel how your gonna feel, and the same for me. We are not likel;y gonna change each others mind one iota. Might we just accept that for what it is? Rather than hurl insults back and forth can we just agree to disagree?

[jgraz]

32. sorry, I was pulling splinters out of my ass

This week has been pretty rough on everybody, and I'll admit I was caught off guard by the new trolls (and some older members) coming on the board to say that the students were pussies for letting themselves be shot and that all these killings would be prevented if everyong was armed. Oh, and the joyful, crowing messages about how I'm gonna git my guns and go out in my truck and look for girls. Those started about 3 hours after the last body fell in VaTech.

I'm used to debating people who vehemently disagree with me, but this discussion has a different, darker character. I've had at least two people threaten to shoot me (though that may have been one guy twice), I've been called a coward for not having a carry permit and had no end of homophobic insinuations directed at me.

But my main source of annoyance comes from the fact that I'm in this discussion mainly to learn and develop my views, not to hold forth or convert others. And that goal has been constantly frustrated by the huge glut of misinformation, mostly coming from the pro-gun side. People quote stats and stories that have been repeatedly debunked (Bridges and Gross, John Lott's study) instead of using factual statements to support their positions.

What you did a few posts ago was to look at a scientific poll, done over a period of almost 2 decades, and dismiss it with "your mileage may vary" while using a web poll as an example. You either didn't read or understand the data that was presented, which was a significant refutation of the assertion that gun control is a bad issue for politicians.

Now you don't have to agree with the conclusions I draw from that poll, but you DO have to deal with it sensibly. That's the part where I get annoyed. I'm not expecting agreement or even minor compromise on the basic issues. I do want honest debate and I don't feel like that's what you were doing in the previous postings.

[beevul]

40. ROFL

This week has been pretty rough on everybody, and I'll admit I was caught off guard by the new trolls (and some older members) coming on the board to say that the students were pussies for letting themselves be shot and that all these killings would be prevented if everyong was armed. Oh, and the joyful, crowing messages about how I'm gonna git my guns and go out in my truck and look for girls. Those started about 3 hours after the last body fell in VaTech.

I'm used to debating people who vehemently disagree with me, but this discussion has a different, darker character. I've had at least two people threaten to shoot me (though that may have been one guy twice), I've been called a coward for not having a carry permit and had no end of homophobic insinuations directed at me.

But my main source of annoyance comes from the fact that I'm in this discussion mainly to learn and develop my views, not to hold forth or convert others. And that goal has been constantly frustrated by the huge glut of misinformation, mostly coming from the pro-gun side. People quote stats and stories that have been repeatedly debunked (Bridges and Gross, John Lott's study) instead of using factual statements to support their positions.

What you did a few posts ago was to look at a scientific poll, done over a period of almost 2 decades, and dismiss it with "your mileage may vary" while using a web poll as an example. You either didn't read or understand the data that was presented, which was a significant refutation of the assertion that gun control is a bad issue for politicians.

Now you don't have to agree with the conclusions I draw from that poll, but you DO have to deal with it sensibly. That's the part where I get annoyed. I'm not expecting agreement or even minor compromise on the basic issues. I do want honest debate and I don't feel like that's what you were doing in the previous postings.

I can agree wholeheartedly, that theres absolutely no question that this has been hard on everyone. Everyone except perhaps the media. It is my opinion, that there is no single issue that can bring out the worst in people who might generally agree on just about every other topic.

On the topic of misinformation, every bit as much misinformation has come and been expressed by both sides. This IS something that can be shown. And realisticly, once it gets betond a certain amount and the debating process is so damaged, does it matter anymore which side is the source of more? (I don't say this is permanent, but it defenitely adds to the "somehow darker" that you attributed to it)

As far as those polls...My point, or points, was that polls that ask general questions can be interpreted a host of different ways, depending on the questions asked. The poll I linked, while not scientific or done over ten years is an example of a poll that asks fairly specific questions. And it gives options that are distinctly more polar. The poll you linked, while being done over time, asks verry general questions and in my opinion is much harder to interpret any one way, since respondants quite likely all have thier own differing interpretations of what the poll is asking them. For example:



"*Gallup: "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose enacting tougher gun control laws?"

What does that mean? "Enacting tougher gun laws". A respondant might have answered yes to that, even being pro-gun, if they interpreted "tougher gun laws" as the same basic package of gun laws we have now, with harsher penalties for breaking them, and tougher enforcement. If it had said "more restrictive" gun laws, quite a different responce would be illicited on the part of that same respondant.


"Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country? Is that strongly or somewhat favor/oppose?"

Same can be said for the above. I being pro-gun tend to favor stricter gun laws. Not more restrictive ones. In my mind, those are 2 different things.



While a poll such as the one you linked done over a long period of time may show trends, unless some more specific questions are asked
its verry difficult to point a finger and say that it definitively means any one thing, or supports any one stance more than another.
Where as the poll I linked, while being completely unscientific, taking smaller samples, and being an internet poll, CAN be easily interpreted in terms of what respondants mean by thier answers. Thats not saying that the poll I linked is even accurate, just that the formula in terms of the questions posed and thier degree of ambiguity are far more likely to lead to a specific logical conclusion.


Hence, your milage may vary. I will admit, that I didn't do the best job of making that point. Often times when debate gets as heated and dark as this has, I don't.



Like you said. Things have been hard on everyone. Both sides see this (VT) as evidence that what they have been saying is true. One side sees this as an issue that they're backed into a corner on, have been backed into a corner on, and can't afford to give one inch. The other side does not understand it,sees it as unreasonable, and characterizes the other side as x. That other side sees that characterization and says "I was right, your intent is Y otherwise you wouldn't be making such a characterization". And round and round until we get where we are collectively, today.


May a genie remove the splinters from your bathroom tissue.

[jgraz]

41. now here you make some good points

I, too, would love to see a very specific, detailed poll on how people currently feel about gun control. But more importantly, I'd like to see a national dialogue on the subject. If Clinton were still president, we would be having nationally televised town meetings on the subject and we might arrive at some productive solutions. The fact that we seem to be afraid to even discuss the issue in the political arena is extremely disheartening.

[silverojo]

35. Wow, so people with different opinions aren't "smart"!

How mature. :eyes:

[silverojo]

34. That Gallup poll was too vague to have any meaning

"Gun control" is a pretty broad topic. The question needs to be a lot more specific, if it's going to reflect the true feeling of the American people.

For instance....

Do I oppose people being able to buy AK-47's? Yes. That's a form of gun control.

Do I support background checks on people purchasing guns? Yes. That's a form of gun control.

Do I support the right to bear arms? Yes. That's an anti-gun-control position.

Do I support a ban on handguns? No. That's an anti-gun-control position.

I could honestly answer that Gallup question with either a yes or a no, depending on what I *thought* the pollster was asking me. Was I being asked about "gun control" to stop people from buying AK-47's? Or about a ban on handguns?

Without the question being specific as to various aspects of gun control, it's too vague to have any value. And let's face it, for every poll gun-grabbers cite, the NRA will find another poll that will contradict it.

If excessive gun control is as popular as you believe, why do so many politicians lose elections for supporting it? That's the only "poll" that counts: The voting booth.

[jgraz]

39. speaking of vague

If excessive gun control is as popular as you believe, why do so many politicians lose elections for supporting it? That's the only "poll" that counts: The voting booth.

The idea that you can show "so many politicians" losing races for supporting gun control is ludicrous on its face. All I've seen is a few anecdotes about pro-gun candidates winning and some pro-gun-control candidates losing. There are plenty of other anecdotes about pro-gun-control candidates winning in overwhelmingly pro-gun areas (See posts re: Feingold, Tim Kaine, etc). Either way, they are all anecdotes and do nothing to prove your premise.

People vote for candidates who have principles and are willing to fight for them. People vote against candidates who pander and seem insincere (See Kerry, 2004).

And even if in some gun-loving Bizarro world you were right, it still wouldn't change the actual facts on either side of the debate. Choosing which position you hold based on how many votes you win is digusting, especially on something this important. If we followed that same reasoning in the 60s, the south would still be segregated.

[charlie]

17. And then there's governor Tim Kaine

F-rated Kaine whupped the NRA's A-rated candidate in Virginia, another state that went for Bush over Kerry. So, it appears gun ownership, while a powerful and contentious issue, isn't always THE mighty-mighty Third Rail of Certain Death ardent gun advocates would like to believe.

[jgraz]

18. I'm sure there are plenty more where that came from

Just more bullshit scare tactics from the Handguns Über Alles club.

[Ben Masel]

25. Even presuming those numbers legit,

There's still the problem that the gun control votes are heavily concentrated in a few States which go Dem anyway. The Purple States are all much more pro-firearms.

Something similar happens within States so far as House and State Legislature seats are concerned.

[jgraz]

27. See above re: Tim Kaine

Good candidates tend to win elections, period. Pandering candidates tend to lose. If you are honestly pro-gun and good on other progressive issues, I would likely vote for you. If you're a bullshit panderer who's just lying to get votes, I want nothing to do with you.

This pattern has been repeated over and over again on right-wing issues. They said no one who would raise taxes could get elected, and yet we have fiscally responsible Dems winning election. They said no one who didn't hate gays could get elected and we have more and more pro-gay-rights candidates winning. The same for the the death penalty, the same for unlimited defense spending, the same for the Iraq war...and now the same for gun rights.

It's beyond me how someone from WI can believe that gun control is such a campaign-killer, when your state has elected people like Russ Feingold (NRA rating: D), Herb Kohl (NRA rating: F), Jim Doyle (NRA rating: F) and Tammy Baldwin (NRA rating: F).

[silverojo]

33. More BS from mentally-ill haters like yourself

You'd rather pretend you're doing something for society, than examine the true, tough issues affecting the mentally ill.

Here are some facts you gun-grabbers need to chew on:

* Three THOUSAND people were killed on 9/11 by men "armed" with nothing more than carton cutters...they had no guns.

* Thousands more are being killed by suicide bombers...who aren't using guns.

* The deadliest gang in America, MS-13, routinely uses machetes as their weapon of choice. (Yes, they have guns, too...but they're not law-abiding citizens. You'll never take guns away from criminals. This point is simply to illustrate that even gangs don't rely solely on guns to perpetrate violence.)

* Thousands of people have SAVED their own lives and the lives of their families, with the help of a firearm.

Guns are like abortions--if you don't want them, don't have them. But don't try to stop law-abiding citizens from having their freedom of choice.

THINK ABOUT THIS: Cho could not have gotten guns, if he'd had a criminal record. The reason he had no criminal record was that the girls he stalked refused to press charges. Those girls' selfish, cowardly refusal to be good citizens is why Cho was able to obtain firearms and go on a rampage.

[jgraz]

38. Some facts are more equal than others

You confuse "facts" with "evidence". Let's see how yours hold up.

* Three THOUSAND people were killed on 9/11 by men "armed" with nothing more than carton cutters...they had no guns.

Anecdotal and off-topic. Thousands of people also die in car crashed, slipping in the bathroom and stroking out while taking a crap. None of that has anything to do with the gun debate.


* Thousands more are being killed by suicide bombers...who aren't using guns.

Not in the U.S., which is where the gun laws we're debating exist. Or have I missed some news?


* The deadliest gang in America, MS-13, routinely uses machetes as their weapon of choice. (Yes, they have guns, too...but they're not law-abiding citizens. You'll never take guns away from criminals. This point is simply to illustrate that even gangs don't rely solely on guns to perpetrate violence.)

Again, anecdotal and irrelevant. The fact that American killers can choose from a veritable Fresh Choice Buffet of weapons does nothing to help your argument.


* Thousands of people have SAVED their own lives and the lives of their families, with the help of a firearm.

Unsupported and cherry-picked. If you quote the benefits of individual gun ownership, you must also cite the dangers:

• A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.


• When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.


• The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.


• The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.

Guns are like abortions--if you don't want them, don't have them. But don't try to stop law-abiding citizens from having their freedom of choice.

Again, a false analogy -- but not the first. In the past 3 days I've heard "guns are like apples", "guns are like cars", "guns are like tools" and now "guns are like abortions". Tell me, of all the things guns are "like", which one of them killed 33 people on a college campus this week?


THINK ABOUT THIS: Cho could not have gotten guns, if he'd had a criminal record. The reason he had no criminal record was that the girls he stalked refused to press charges. Those girls' selfish, cowardly refusal to be good citizens is why Cho was able to obtain firearms and go on a rampage.

Why YES, it all makes sense now. It wasn't the fault of VA's insanely open access to guns, or the prick who sold Cho his guns or the assholes who make millions manufacturing the guns or the fact that Cho could buy any number of 33-round, sub-second reload magazines to go with his shiny new guns, or even the drooling fetishists who support this deadly industry both politically and financially in order to preserve their shiny metal weenies.

No, it's the fault of cowardly GIRLS (a.k.a women) who didn't press charges. They should have known that, in Virginia, any vaguely creepy stalker could be a rootin-tootin mass murderer with only a credit card and a ride to Ye Olde Gunne Shoppe.

I suppose next you're going to tell me it was the fault of the 32 victims for not wearing head-to-toe kevlar to class that day.


And no, people who don't share my opinion are not necessarily dumb. DUMB people who don't share my opinion are dumb.

[jgraz]

19. If Democrats followed similar advice in the 60s the south would still be segregated.

[jody]

3. Attaboy!

:thumbsup:

[brentspeak]

5. Bill "NAFTA" Clinton doesn't speak for me

though I do have a lot of respect for John Kerry.

The fact of the matter is, if the local law enforcement had the authority to check up on Cho, and to deny/grant handgun permits, Cho wouldn't have been able to get his Glock and his Walther. They would have discovered that he was a nut case, and turned his handgun permit down flat.

[AZBlue]

6. Yes...but...

Yes...mental health is the main issue here.

But...given that Cho's history didn't prevent him from getting a gun, doesn't that say perhaps we should alter the gun laws?

I'm not saying outlaw them entirely, but according to the law, I could have checked myself into a mental hospital, say, 5 times in my life for all sorts of problems, and no longer be in one now because maybe my insurance ran out or I'm no longer covered, but not because I'm any healthier now. Yet I could go out tomorrow and get a gun. Or two. Because I checked myself in voluntarily, that wouldn't show up on any background check.

That's completely illogical.

[brentspeak]

8. You're correct -- it is illogical

More to the point: It's downright stupid.

Cho was ruled a potential danger by a judge the other year, and that information should have been included in the information that a Brady check would have turned up. Thanks to loopholes in the national background check program, that information wasn't included. Legislation to close those loopholes has been opposed by all the NRA-type organizations for the past several years.

[silverojo]

37. Cho WOULD have had a criminal record

If the stalking victims had followed through by pressing charges.

It's not the gun laws that need to be altered, because the existing laws would have prevented Cho from getting guns (see above) It's the healthcare laws that need to be altered, so that people with ANY ailment (mental or physical) can be treated.

Another law that should be altered is the one that allows people to call the police and not press charges. It's your duty to protect others from being victimized. Even if Cho hadn't gone on a rampage, he would still have stalked others--possibly even become a rapist at some point.

[Ben Masel]

7. Wisconsin: Real votes, 1998, 76%

On adding the following to our State Constitution

SECTION 25 Right to keep and bear arms.
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

The Amendment carried in every one of our 72 Counties, with only Dane (Madison) at 56% and Milwaukee at 63% coming in under 2/3 support. In the north woods, support reached 92%.

More than 80% for Dave Obey's district.

Map, County totals http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1998&off=50&elect=0&fips=55&f=0

[jgraz]

21. That's a resolution, not a candidate

Saying that a majority in your area supports the people's RKBA (not even an individual's RKBA) is quite different than saying that they will not support candidates who favor tighter gun control.

In fact, I seem to remember my home state voting for several very progressive candidates who favor gun control (hint: one of them rhymes with Bluss Bleingold).

[Ben Masel]

24. Russ voted against renewal of Assault Weapons Ban

which had something to do with his most recent re-election being a landslide, as compared to his squeaker 6 years previous. Nearly all the split tickets that went to Russ for Senate and Bush for Prez were in the Northwoods and Southwest Wisconsin Coulee region, in other words the 'gun belt.'

[jgraz]

29. See also: Herb Kohl, Tammy Baldwin, Jim Doyle

All NRA-rated F, all elected in WI. Feingold has a rating of 'D', no doubt due to his assault-weapons vote, but Kohl and Doyle also won statewide elections with their "terrible" (i.e. great) ratings.

[Ben Masel]

36. All Russ' D rating proves

is that the NRA's a front for the Republican Party, more than it's a representatoive of firearms rights.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Which shows their ability to be wrong on more than a few occasions.

They both played the DLC tune when they ran. And, Kerry did manage to murder a ferocious goose.

[GreenTea]

20. DLC - Stay close and kiss the republicans constituents ass..since they believe

they will always get the progressive Dems...at another time and place.