Centerfield

Well as they will soon find out, showing up in front of the tv cameras a week before the election holding a shotgun isnt going to do anything for them. People have been lied to for a long time and they recognize a election photo op when they see one.

How about publicly promising to vote against ANY! assult weapon bans,registration scemes, taxs on firearms. or voteing for repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act.

If they do this the Democrats have a chance of actually winning a few western states and maybe reclaiming a few border states.

But you know that as addicted as they are to trying to win both sides of any issue by telling them what they want to hear they will as usual lose both.

Pulling back on gun control is another of those issues that will enrage the "base" of the party and probably cause the Daily Kos to plant bombs in the cars of DLC members. Personally, I'm ambivalent about gun control--I'm uncomfortable with guns myself and I think it's legitimate to regulate them, but it's not the panacea for violence that liberals think it is. But I think it's a little hypocritical for Democrats to totally reverse their historical position on guns (not that that ever stopped a politicians). It's one thing to say that we aren't going to push more gun control--it's another thing to openly court the NRA. On the other hand, if we look at the Dems as a series of regional or local parties rather than a national party, the individual candidates could pull this off. I think the Democrats can and should run as the party opposing executive power because the "new conservatives" seem to have become enamored with the power of the presidency and this was traditionally something Republicans and traditional conservatives opposed (at least when Democrats were in office).

I have to admit to being a little bit amused by the notion of pro-gun anti-federal government democrats.

If you ask me, what the Democrats need to do on guns is both a bit more tempered and a bit more radical. They need to strongly voice acceptance of the right to bear arms. They should come out strongly in support of the right of individual law-abiding Americans to own guns for protection and sport, within reason. They should invite the NRA and its members to help come up with strong and serious ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But they should promise never to support banning gun ownership, and frame such a view as both unconstitutional and fringe.

They might piss off some of their base, but they'd lose zero votes.

I don't know what specific proposals the Democrats have to support/oppose but it seems gun control is a complete political loser. Like mandatory minimums and the death penalty, gun control was a response to the late 1980s/early 1990s crime wave. As the crime wave has dissipated, support for mandatory minimums and the death penalty on the right, and comprehensive gun control on the left, has died down. I don't know what the NRA is asking for, but I think the Dems should just flat out say that the so-called assault weapons ban is useless. I doubt the big city or coastal Democrats will be all that bothered by shifting on gun control. Seems an easy gain for the Dems.

"In an ironic twist, Democrats can run as quasi-libertarians, arguing that people in their region just want to be left alone from meddlesome government bureaucrats"

Simon,

Despite some of our past disagreements, I have to say that your post and the article it links to is probably the best thing I have seen at the Centerfield Weblog in ages.

I have long argued that for the Democrats to survive in the long term, the solution is not to drift further left or toward the center but toward a more libertarian-leaning agenda. With unprecedented federal spending, an erosion of civil liberties, and a growing disregard for states rights (i.e. the federal government prosecuting medical marijuana users in Western states in which medical marijuana is LEGAL) all taking place under a Republican president and Republican-controlled congress, there has never been a more opportune time for Democrats to reach out to libertarians.

Having said that, the Democrat's position on gun control is a real loser, and the Dems are absolute fools for their continued support for it.

For one thing, it is COMPLETELY at odds with the rest of their platform (if you can really call what they have a "platform"). The Democratic base is stidently pro-choice on social issues such as abortion, sex, and freedom of expression (and slightly more pro-choice on drugs than the Republicans) but is anti-choice when it comes to gun rights. How can Dems expect to be taken seriously on civil liberties when their party leaders aren't willing to defend the Second Amendment?

Secondly, the gun control position CAN'T be winning the Dems any votes. Sure, left-leaning special interest groups love to rant and rave about the necessity of gun control at election time, but gun control simply isn't a priority for most liberal-leaning voters. And among the far-left voters, there are so many other issues that they care about more passionately, that gun control falls down towards the bottom of their priorities. I find it hard to believe that come election day, very many liberal voters would refuse to support a pro-reproductive rights/pro-gay rights Democrat simply because he/she is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. On the other hand, I can imagine a significant libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives either voting for a Democrat (or at least not voting Republican) if such a Democrat ran on a GENUINELY pro-gun rights platform. And no, John Kerry, posing in front of a camera with a shotgun in one's hand DOES NOT qualify as being genuinely pro-gun rights, especially when your voting record shows otherwise.

I have to agree that with a more libertarian-leaning record (particularly on the issues of gun rights, marijuana laws, and civil liberties in general), Dems could definitely stand to pick up more votes in western states.

Ah, fate has handed the Dems a golden opportunity. As always, look for them to squander it.

All you people talk about is guns and abortion. If you people are truly pro-life, then you'd realize that gun control and safety is indeed one of the most important solutions especially since we're supposed to be fighting and winning the war on terrorism. I live in Idaho and I can tell you idiots out there you don't know squat about the midwest. Do you people really think that loosening the gun laws is really going to stop crime or for that matter terrorism? You bastardized centrists have no idea what you're talking about. Everyone knows that Democrats will never take away hunters' rifles or for that matter firearms from legitimate gun owners who haven't had a criminal or for that matter mental record that makes their ownership questionable at the least. If you truly believe in national security and are pro-life as you claim, you pathetic imbeciles would start thinking about preventing gun violence and stop making it too easy to allow criminals to posess firearms. Even criminals with stolen guns were easier to crack down on when gun control was in effect.

Just to say hellow!

Democrats should strongly endorse the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Support of gun control has been an albatross around the neck of Democrats running in the rural West or anywhere in red America. Ask any blue collar guy in a red state who voted Republican why he did so and there is a very good chance thet gun rights will be the reason. If Democrats dropped gun control and embraced the Second Amendment, millions of votes would go back into the swing vote column.

I realize that it will be very difficult for Democratic Party to let go of their need to support gun control and punish "rednecks" who they regard are their intellectual and moral inferiors. Still, I think that the social progressives who dominate the party could more easily let go of gun control than abortion rights and gay rights.

As a social conservative and economic populist Democrat from the South, I would like to see the Democratic Party distance itself from gay marriage and move to the center on abortion. Of course, I know this is too much to ask. Asking the self-centered single issue activists on a death march for their pet unpopular social cause will likely result in angry demands to get out of the Democratic Party. I have always defined myself as a Democrat because of my belief that activist government can play a positive role. I support a safety net of social programs and recognize that the greed of the marketplace must be regulated to protect workers and consumers. I know that this is a terribly outdated definition of what a Democrat is to the single issue social activists. It's really sad that our party has reached the point where we allow single issue activists to define our core values.

Nice blog!