When the Party's Over

And what is the state of the gun control movement in the United States today? This is a missing piece from Clayton's analysis. The Assault Weapons Ban has been allowed to expire. Even with a Democratic Congress, we're not seeing major votes on Gun Control legislation on the House floor. And the Democrats have a pro-gun National Party Chairman

Thus making the argument for why pro-lifers should vote for Giuliani-or perhaps not. Had Clinton never been elected President, and drifting clueless Bush I Administration continued in power, Republicans would have continued to slowly bleed members from the House and members from the Senate. The only way the spectacular bloodless Coup of 1994 occurs is with Clinton in power.

Am I calling for Democratic victory in 2008? Certainly not, but the idea that life doesn't exist beyond this election is completely shortsighted. Sometimes, things need shaken up and as long as a party holds onto power, it's very to do. As John Quincy Adams said, "Duty is our's, results our God's."

There is a possibility that Republicans could pressure a pro-choice Republican President to nominate a mixture of pro-life and pro-choice judges to the federal bench. This is not an ideal situation for a pro-life Republican, obviously. But if a Democrat ends up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, any pro-life judge that gets appointed will be an accident.

Why would Giuliani bother? Pro-Lifers who would support him would show themselves morally weak patsys who are so scared to death of the Democrats that they'll support him no matter what. What leverage would pro-lifers have? None.

A reader sends a write on comment to Clayton:

A more dynamic analysis would note that how you vote in one election influences the choices you get in the next election. If, for instance, pro-gunners demonstrate to Republicans our willingness to vote for an anti-gun Republican candidate, the rational response by Republican candidates is to become more anti-gun, because this gains them some marginal votes from anti-gunners, but does not lose them our votes. The Democrats then respond by also becoming more anti-gun. And suddenly we're not debating the Lawful Commerce in Firearms act, but instead renewal of the "Assault weapon" ban.

Clayton responds:

I understand the logic of this. But is letting President Clinton pick the next two or three Supreme Court justices a case of "temporary setback is likely to lead to a permanent loss"? Imagine a Supreme Court that decides that same-sex marriage is Constitutionally mandated, and limiting "hate speech" allows revoking the non-profit status of churches that speak out against homosexuality or abortion. Imagine a Court that rules that freedom of religion does not include the right to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

Imagine that we put a guy in as President who appointed someone who was an officer for International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. That would be Giuliani.

There's also the experimental example. After the 1992 elections, when gun owners to a large extent sat out the elections because Bush Senior was mildly anti-gun, what was the name of that strongly pro-gun candidate that Republicans picked in 1996? I'll bet he just cleaned Clinton's clock! (Oh, that didn't happen?)

The NRA sat out 1992 and 1996, and then in 2000 endorsed Bush. As explained above, this wasn't awful times for the NRA or Gun Right other than the first two years of Clinton's term.

Ditto for what happened when gun owners sat out the Dan Lundgren for Governor campaign in California? He was strongly anti-gun. And which strongly pro-gun Republicans have followed him at the top of the ticket?

I would quote the 2002 Republican nominee for Governor of California, Bill Simon, who stated:

Says California has enough gun control laws and does not support new legislation. Would enforce current California laws in court but says some state gun laws are ineffective. Says he would not have signed a ban on cheap "Saturday night special" handguns, calling the law too broad.

I wouldn't define Simon as "strongly anti-gun." And at this point, there have been two general elections since 1998. Hard to judge the long-term effectiveness of a strategy. In addition, the gun issue is different. For a whole host of folks it is the rubicon, you do not cross. It is the reason they're active in politics, the reason they're Republicans at all. Some people feel that way about guns, but it's a far smaller group.

Clayton concludes with a warning:

Sometimes, if you sit out an election, those parts of the Party that don't particularly agree with you anyway have a reason to say, "Why are we worrying what they think? When we needed them, they weren't there for us."

The best possible outcome for our country of a Giuliani nomination is for a conservative third party to emerge that either leads to the GOP going the way of the Whigs or moving the GOP to the right and then disbanding. What I fear most is that some will give up on politics for good, so that yes, the GOP can ignore them with good reason....they won't be there, and the GOP will fade as Democrats enjoy long-term rule whoever wins the 2008 election