BLOOMBERG: Concerned citizen? Or meddler? |
Yet
it doesn’t seem like the locals are all that upset. Somehow, I suspect if Mayor
Rahm Emanuel were to try to influence a New York election, we’d hear the cry
from the Bronx to Brooklyn to Staten Island – “Shaddup!!!”
HE'D BE DEMONIZED. He’d get trashed for meddling. We’re not hearing anything like
that against Bloomberg. Is it because the bulk of us approve of his message?
Specifically,
Bloomberg has used his personal wealth to create one of those Super PAC
organizations that can pay for campaign advertising related to issues (instead
of candidates).
For
Bloomberg, the issue he wants to promote is gun control. He also wants to take
down the political influence that the National Rifle Association. So he’s
making much of the fact that the NRA did not find Halvorson completely
repulsive back when she was in Congress (and before that, in the state
Legislature).
Bloomberg
is even endorsing former state Rep. Robin Kelly in the campaign to replace
Jesse Jackson, Jr., in the House of Representatives – on the grounds that her “F”
grade from the NRA makes her ideal!
YET KELLY DOESN'T seem all that concerned. She goes around citing her “F” as an
accomplishment. She seems to think the legislative district is so overwhelmingly
urban (about 85 percent of its voters are from either Chicago proper or the
inner suburbs) that the rural residents at the district’s southern end won’t be
able to hurt her – no matter how much they object to her stance on firearms-related
issues.
She
may be right, although I encountered a suburban mayor this past weekend who
supports Halvorson, and said he thinks all those rural voters will turn out so
strongly for her BECAUSE they will want to send a message to Bloomberg that
they don’t want his firearms restrictions into law.
HALVORSON: The target? |
Yet
there probably aren’t enough of them to shift the results of the Tuesday
Democratic primary election (also because I think most of those people will be
looking to the Republican primary and its five candidates).
But
for the bulk of people who live in the Illinois Second Congressional district,
it would seem we’re seeing these Bloomberg television spots and not getting all
that upset by the message.
MANY OF US may even agree with them.
I
couldn’t help but notice on Tuesday the results of a new poll by the Paul Simon
Public Policy Institute – 59.5 percent of those surveyed think controlling gun
ownership is more important than protecting the right to own guns (31.3
percent).
And
some 72.3 percent said they think laws concerning firearms sales should be made
more strict – compared to the 2.2 percent who want them to be less strict.
In
Colorado this week, the state Legislature gave its approval to a series of restrictions
on firearms and ammunition – including the latest fad of banning ammunition
clips that can hold dozens of rounds of bullets at once.
SOME
62.8 PERCENT would like to see such a measure in Illinois, according to the
poll.
All
of which makes me wonder about the political fight we’re going to see in our
own Legislature this spring. Don’t forget that there’s an appellate court
ruling that indicates Illinois has to create some sort of measure that allows
people to carry pistols on their person in public.
KELLY: The beneficiary? |
The
firearms rights advocates are going about with a sense of confidence that they
don’t have to concede anything, and that a lot of the talk of restrictions they
have had to fight will now be on the defensive.
But
if that were true, wouldn’t we have more public outcry in Halvorson’s defense?
Wouldn’t we have people publicly denouncing the effort – instead of sitting
quietly on the sidelines with a little smirk on our collective faces?
ONE OTHER FACTOR from that poll I couldn’t help but notice – 49.7 percent of those
surveyed don’t think the Constitution’s Second Amendment includes “concealed
carry,” compared to 39.5 percent who say “yes.” Some 71.3 percent think there should be exceptions to concealed carry, as in places where firearms can be banned absolutely.
That
brawl we’re going to see in coming months will be ugly. It may wind up making
the rhetoric against gay marriage look weak and tame by comparison.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment