Scandal May Shape Election; School Shootings Inspire Delayed Wisdom
October 20, 2006

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

“If the election were held today” is a caveat that is included in most public opinion polling reports. That’s an important phrase that reminds people that each particular survey is just a snapshot in time; it confirms that a single poll is not a guarantee of a given outcome. Events can effect rapid, dramatic changes, especially in politics, even for incumbents who usually win handily.

A few months back, there were some national polls which indicated that the Democrats might have a chance to capture enough seats held by Republicans in the 109th Congress to become the majority party in the next Congress. Many pundits and political experts claimed at the time that while polls might show the Dems winning many congressional races, the 435 seats in the House would be decided in individual district races, largely on local issues. Further, they noted, few of the House seats were truly open contests.

Late Summer polls and political soothsayers suggested that while the Democrats might pick up some seats, they were unlikely to win enough to regain control of the House they lost in the historic 1994 elections. Gunowner dissatisfaction with the anti-gun Clinton agenda of 1993 and ’94 played a key roll in that Republican takeover, but as Nov. 7, 2006 draws near, the gun issue may be trumped by other voter concerns. Mounting casualties in the costly Iraq war, the handling of post-Katrina relief, high gas prices and the continuing exportation of American jobs have been undercutting the confidence voters had in the Republican leadership.

October Bombshell
But now the sordid October scandal surrounding the GOP leadership’s handling of the antics of Rep. Mark Foley of Florida has given the Democrats even more hope. What may be an even bigger problem for the Republicans is if their core constituents stay home on Election Day because they’re turned off by the Foley business.

There are people who accuse the Democrats of Machiavellian manipulation of the Foley affair. Others accuse the media of blowing the whole matter out of proportion, the same media that tried to downplay the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. But in politics, when your opponent displays a weakness, you take full advantage of it.

Here in Western New York, where Gun Week is published, the Foley scandal draws as many gigantic front-page headlines in The Buffalo News and Rochester Democrat & Chronicle as a North Korean nuclear test. That’s because both papers reach portions of the district of Rep. Thomas Reynolds, a strong pro-gunner who is chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee and one of the top Republican leaders.

Reynolds had been a target of the Democratic National Congressional Campaign, chaired by leading Clinton-era anti-gunner Rep. Rahm Emmanuel of Illinois, before the Foley bombshell. He is opposed by millionaire Democrat industrialist Jack Davis, who had run a surprisingly strong but failed campaign against Reynolds in 2004.

Reynolds involvement in the Foley affair is similar to that of House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, largely of the “what did they know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it” variety.

Still the Democrats and their allies are using Foley to club Reynolds or any other Republican. Three days after the scandal broke, a public employee union was running radio ads against Reynolds based solely on the Foley wedge. I’m sure similar campaigns have been mounted in other districts even if I have not witnessed them myself.

All of this places gunowners and other voters between the horns of a dilemma: public policy vs. egregious improprieties. What voters decide is their business, but for those Gun Week readers who care about gun rights, the firearms policy gains made during Republican control of the House and Senate should be an important factor.

September Votes
The skyline story on Page 1 of this issue reports on two of those votes taken Sept. 27 and 29 (click to read).

While the Sept. 29 House vote on HR-5013 was important, it passed by such a lopsided vote—322-99—that publishing the roll call did not appear to provide as good an indicator of a representative’s position on gun legislation as the Sept. 27 vote on HR-5092.

The 277-131 recorded roll call vote on HR-5092 appears on Page 7 of this issue (click to read). We believe it provides a reasonable measure of a House incumbent’s voting record on the gun rights issue. If measured alongside the Oct. 20, 2005 roll call vote on S-397 on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (283-144 with six not voting) which appeared in the Nov. 10, 2005 issue of Gun Week, readers have a fairly clear measure of their representative’s recent voting record. (The 2005 roll call vote on S-397 can be found on our website under the news archives for November 2005.)

As this issue goes to press, the elections are exactly four weeks away. What will happen between now and then remains to be seen. The gun debate is not a Democrat vs. Republican contest; some Democrat challengers who may come to the House in January are pro-gun, but the successes achieved by pro-gunners in Congress in the last few years stand a good chance of being replaced by the anti-gun zealotry of extremist Democrat leaders like Reps. Nancy Pelosi (CA), John Conyers (MI), Carolyn McCarthy (NY) and Henry Waxman (CA).

While the Foley story was exploding through the media, a series of school shootings during one week in late September in “gun-free schools” helped provide new grist for the anti-gun mills. The antis, who hover over our national life like so many vultures waiting for roadkill, began to beat their drums for new national restrictions on firearm sales, possession and use. As is their custom, the Brady Bunch and their allies proposed more gun controls as a solution to a problem which they helped create. They ignored the fact that criminals and lunatics who perpetrate such heinous crimes like the gun-free, victim-rich and risk-free schools. They ignored the fact that gun laws have not prevented such random and wanton acts of mass violence in Britain, Canada or the US.

They also ignored the words of one of their favorite anti-gun governors, Democrat Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania. In commenting on the Amish school house massacre, Rendell said:

“I believe with all my heart that Pennsylvania needs stronger gun control legislation. But, I think we should all understand, no proposed law that I would think of or none that I’ve seen could have ruled out this situation.”

Delayed Wisdom
Nor were the anti-gunners listening to a proposal by Wisconsin state Rep. Frank Lasee, a Republican, who proposed legislation to allow teachers, principals, administrators and other school personnel to carry concealed firearms in the wake of school shootings in Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennsylvania.

Lasee, a Republican, said Oct. 4 that, while his idea may not be politically correct, it has worked effectively in other countries.

“To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table,” he said. “Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin.”

In Thailand, where officials have been waging a bloody fight with Muslim separatists for the last two years, some teachers carry weapons for self-defense as they are viewed as part of the government. In Israel, teachers are not allowed to carry weapons in the school, but security guards at the entrances are armed.

The media at least reported on Lasee’s proposal. It makes sense. It eliminates the guarantee of safety for the murderers who would prey on innocent children. For once, pro-gunners can offer the argument that we should do it for the sake of the children.
Return to Archive Index