When It Comes To Sane Gun Policies, Who You Going To Trust? The DCCC? Gabby Giffords? Watch Out

I'm not so sure about former Education Secretary Arne Duncan idea about parents pulling their children out of school until elected officials pass stricter gun control laws. That would be alike a dream come true for conservatives who don't want kids from poor homes going to school anyway and who believe only kids from wealthy families need to be educated. I prefer a different approach. As the NY Times reported over the weekend, "The pace of new voter registrations among young people in crucial states is accelerating, a signal that school shootings this year-- and the anger and political organizing in their wake-- may prove to be more than ephemeral displays of activism."

Precisely a month ago, the Washington Post's Katie Zezima took this up as well, noting that the next battle over guns is at the ballot box. "The massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February," she wrote, sparked a renewed interest in gun control, with students who survived the attack leading rallies, marches, walkouts and pushes for gun legislation. People across the country, and the world, participated in hundreds of events demanding action on gun violence. Now, leaders are hoping the momentum from the March for Our Lives movement will lead to a more enduring next phase: getting young people to the voting booth in November, an effort to change not just policy in Washington, but the people who set it. Groups from around the country are hosting voter drives at high schools and colleges, including during widespread school walkouts on Friday, the anniversary of the 1999 massacre at Colorado's Columbine High School. They are setting up voter-registration tables at gun-control marches and are working to galvanize the nation's youngest voters around a single issue."

"By voting in the midterms, I will choose to vote for senators and representatives who do not support the NRA," said Kira Pomeranz, a senior at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Virginia, who registered to vote in February and will turn 18 in August.

The push started shortly after the Parkland shooting and was evident at last month's March for Our Lives rallies, where volunteers at numerous events, including one in New York, roamed around with clipboards asking people to register to vote. Organizations including Rock the Vote and Mi Familia Vota trained more than 400 volunteers at Georgetown Law School and then fanned them out to the rally in Washington, where they distributed federal voter-registration forms and then dropped off those that were completed. Survivors of the shooting at Stoneman Douglas also have joined voting drives across the country.

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, 53 percent of respondents say students across the country holding rallies to call for stricter gun laws represent a lasting movement.

"Who here is going to vote in the 2018 election?" David Hogg, a Parkland survivor, asked at last month's rally in the District of Columbia. "We are going to make this a voting issue. We're going to take this to every election, to every state, to every city."

NextGen America, a liberal advocacy group founded by hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, and gun-control advocacy groups Giffords and Everytown for Gun Safety have announced an initiative aimed at getting 50,000 teenagers registered to vote ahead of the midterm elections in November.

Giffords, huh? Giffords is a pawn of the Democratic Party-- 100%. It's VERY politically incorrect to bring it up, but before she was shot, she was a reactionary Blue Dog. Is there a reason to think she has changed? She endorses right-wing Democrats... including right-wing Democrats who are sketchy on guns and even allied with the NRA. She will always pick a conservative over a progressive. In her old district, for example, she has fulsomely endorsed Ann Kirkpatrick, long Arizona's poster girl for... the NRA. Kirkpatrick, a northern Arizona conservative, is a carpetbagger running in Tucson, and she is clearly the most conservative of serveral Democratic candidates-- and the only one who has been in bed with the NRA. Kirkpatrick suddenly claims she favors sane gun control but her record tells a different story. She welcomed the NRA convention to Phoenix by telling the delegates that "as a gun owner myself, I firmly believe in the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms, and I am proud that my state is hosting the group that has protected that right for 138 years. This is a chance for Arizonans to show our nation’s leaders we will not let them take away our freedoms... People in Washington need to stop undermining the Second Amendment. That’s why I took on the Attorney General for his proposal to ban so-called 'assault weapons.' I will continue to work vigilantly to maintain and protect our Second Amendment rights against every challenge they face." 

Giffords endorsed her this cycle instead of any of the strong NRA opponents. Giffords herself-- before the assassination attempt-- was decidedly pro-gun and actively opposed efforts that the NRA opposed. I hope these kids registering to vote don't get fooled.



And it isn't just Gabby Giffords talking out of both sides of her mouth. The DCCC is far worse. They love beating up on Republicans for being NRA shills but... The DCCC has been recruiting-- not just supporting, recruiting-- NRA allies all cycle. Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), New Dem Ann Kirkpatrick of course, Lauren Baer (New Dem-FL), Elaine Luria (VA) and Paul Davis (Blue Dog-KS) are all NRA/DCCC candidates. There are others in Congress already who have had long records backing the NRA and, of course, the DCCC backs them too-- from Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and Colin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) to Darren Soto (New Dem-FL) and Tim Ryan (would be Speaker-OH).

"This could be a turning point for us," said Mark Kelly, who founded [Americans for Responsible Solutions] with his wife, former U.S. congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) a survivor of a mass shooting. "If we're able to get 100,000 young people registered to vote and get them to show up in key places, in the right place, that could have a serious impact."

The drive will focus on young voters in 10 swing states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Each state has candidates who are supported by the National Rifle Association on the ballot.

The groups plan to mail voter-registration forms to 18- and 19-year-olds on their birthdays, target them with online voter-registration ads and, where legal, preregister 16- and 17-year-olds to vote. The focus will be on students who will reach legal voting age by Election Day 2018.

Kelly said that after Parkland, young people are suddenly realizing that they have inherited a "pretty lousy set of circumstances" from their parents and grandparents and those who have previously been elected to office.

"And they don't like it. Who can blame them?" Kelly said.

A spokesman for NextGen said that the registration efforts are nonpartisan, but just appearing on the voter rolls would allow the groups to focus dissemination of gun-control information to the new voters and would allow candidates to reach them directly with text messages or on Facebook. The groups also are trying to do peer-to-peer recruitment, believing that the word of a friend or classmate will hold more sway than a targeted ad.

In many ways, the gun-control advocacy groups are trying to catch up with the NRA, which puts tremendous effort into elections. The group and its Institute for Legislative Action spend millions of dollars on campaign contributions, lobbying, political spending and getting its membership to vote. The group's political victory fund ranks candidates and politicians with a letter grade, and the website of the Institute for Legislative Action-- known as NRA-ILA-- allows people to check their voting status.

"Over the past few years, NRA-ILA members and the NRA have decidedly changed politics in America," the NRA-ILA's website says.

Now gun-control groups and the students who work with and support them believe they can counter that power at the voting booth.

Get To Know Concealed Carry Reciprocity-- Paul Ryan Just Rammed It Through Congress

Ready for more gun mayhem-- even if you live in a state with rational gun laws? Yesterday afternoon, Congress took a procedural vote providing for consideration of H.R. 38, Richard Hudson's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which happens to be the NRA's #1 priority for the current session of Congress. The procedural motion passed 232-194, four Blue Dogs crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans: Henry Cuellar (TX), Collin Peterson (MN), Vicente Gonzalez (TX) and Sanford Bishop (GA). The underlying bill itself has three Democratic cosponsors: Cuellar, Peterson and Bishop. There were 10 Republican NO votes, all kooks and nuts like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan and Steve King who didn't feel the bill went far enough. A few hours later the bill itself passed 231-198 with fully 6 NRA-lovin' Democrats on board:

• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)

It's worth mentioning-- for the umpteenth time-- that if the DCCC gets its way, 2019 will see many more NRA-supporting Democrats in Congress. Ben Ray Lujan and Nancy Pelosi have freely and publicly admitted that the DCCC is now working with the Blue Dog Caucus to recruit more Blue Dogs into Congress. I spoke to one of them a few months ago, Andrew Janz, and, after saying he doesn't know what "single payer" is and professing to have never heard of the phrase "Medicare For All," he offered to tell me what is motivating his run for the Central Valley district seat held by Devin Nunes. I was stunned when he told me-- unprompted-- that there are two over-arching reasons he's running-- to protect the 2nd Amendment and to make sure the death penalty is more widely used. Ah, yes, another DCCC-type fake Democrat, taking a firm stand against the energy that is propelling a Democratic take-over of Congress.

The L.A. Times editorial yesterday, No matter how they dress it up, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is really bad policy, was a warning that wasn't needed by L.A. area Democrats and was ignored by all the L.A. area Republicans (like Ed Royce, Steve Knight, Mimi Walters, Dana Rohrabacher and Darrell Issa). The Times editors noted that the bill is "a spectacularly stupid and dangerous piece of legislation intended to undercut the right of states to determine what qualifications a person must meet before being allowed to carry a concealed firearm."

Under the proposed reciprocity law, anyone with a valid permit from another state would be able to carry a concealed firearm in California, even if they do not meet California’s more stringent standards. This is a highly objectionable infringement on the responsibilities of state and local law enforcement to maintain public safety, and is clearly aimed at undermining gun control efforts nationally. What’s more, it will put guns into the hands of more people who shouldn’t have them.

Gabby Giffords' gun control organization released some radio and TV ads in a few swingy GOP districts urging voters to contact their members of Congress and urge them vote NO. It's just a partisan election ad, not one meant to change any votes. This is the radio ad and here's the TV ad, These are the targeted congressmembers:

• Jason Lewis, MN-02
• Rodney Frelinghuysen, NJ-11
• Steve Knight, CA-25
• Ed Royce, CA-39
• Mimi Walters, CA-45
• Mike Coffman, CO-06
• Lee Zeldin, NY-01
• Barbara Comstock, VA-10

The irony here isn't the Giffords was an Arizona Blue Dog who supported the NRA before she was shot but that she recently backed another NRA-supporting gun nut, Ann Kirkpatrick, who's running against several normal gun control-supporting Democrats in Giffords' own old Tucson-area district. I guess that helps explain why Giffords' ad didn't run in any of the Democratic districts with NRA congressmen or candidates. Here's how Kirkpatrick talks about the NRA and their agenda. Keep in mind when you read these quotes, that Kirkpatrick, who isn't even from anywhere near this district, is being relentlessly pushed not just by Giffords but by the DCCC and the New Dems as well.

"I am not going to allow Washington to ignore the values of Arizonans and the traditions of four generations of my family in District One, and I am proud to be pushing back against the federal government to stop our Constitutional rights from being infringed. Every time the anti-gun rights groups propose legislation that restricts our freedoms, I am going to make sure they know millions of Americans will fight them every inch of the way." [Congressional Documents and Publications. May 13, 2010. "Rep. Kirkpatrick Updates Greater Arizonans on Her Fight to Defend Second Amendment Rights in Tele-Town Hall."]

Kirkpatrick welcomed the NRA to Phoenix for its annual convention, calling it "one of the country’s oldest continuously operating civil liberties organizations" in a press release.

"As a gun owner myself, I firmly believe in the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms, and I am proud that my state is hosting the group that has protected that right for 138 years. This is a chance for Arizonans to show our nation’s leaders we will not let them take away our freedoms."

"People in Washington need to stop undermining the Second Amendment. That’s why I took on the Attorney General for his proposal to ban so-called 'assault weapons.' I will continue to work vigilantly to maintain and protect our Second Amendment rights against every challenge they face."  [States News Service. July 22, 2009. "Rep Kirkpatrick Reaffirms Support for Critical Second Amendment Protections, Continues 'Defending Arizona Values' Campaign."]

Kirkpatrick was a co-sponsor for the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act which allows those authorized to carry firearms in their home state to travel with their weapons. [Congressional Documents and Publications. November 20, 2009. "Rep. Kirkpatrick Emphasizes Importance of Protecting Second Amendment Rights to Greater Arizonans in Tele-Town Hall."]

Kirkpatrick agreed with a radio caller in 2010 that citizens should be able to buy and own fully automatic firearms. "I agree with you, I think people should be able to legally purchase and carry the gun they want." She also stated that she opposed bans on some types of firearms, opposed DC and Chicago laws barring private ownership of some gun types, and supported allowing guns in national parks.[Arizona Daily Sun. January 10, 013. “Kirkpatrick pivots on guns.”]

Kirkpatrick did not support President Obama’s call to reinstitute the assault weapons ban and limit magazine size. [Eastern Arizona Courier (Safford, Arizona). February 5, 2013. “Kirkpatrick talks guns, jobs, water.”]

Kirkpatrick continued her opposition to limiting extended magazines.

Kirkpatrick was the only Congressional Democrat in Arizona to receive an "A" rating from the NRA in the last decade which she maintained through Fall 2012. [The Arizona Republic April 5, 2013. Final Chaser Edition. "Arizona’s Gun Divide."]

Not that I'm saying Giffords' organization is completely useless, quite the contrary. Despite her shocking and hypocritical endorsement of Kirkpatrick, which would have added another Democratic vote to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity win for the NRA today, Resist the Gun Lobby debunked 7 myths perpetrated by the NRA and their allies (like Kirkpatrick):

MYTH 1: Concealed carry reciprocity will make it easy for people to travel with their permits nationwide, similar to how driver’s licenses work.

MYTH BUSTED!

Unlike concealed carry permits, driver’s licenses are standard, verifiable documents that meet almost the same criteria in every state. In fact, in order to be recognized by federal agencies, driver’s licenses must meet federal criteria established by the REAL ID Act that contain physical security features including a photo of its holder and uniform data such as identity, date of birth, principal residence address, etc.

Concealed carry permits, on the other hand, do not contain uniform information or standard security features. Permits’ appearances vary significantly among states: some states issue permits that resemble paper library cards, while others issue permits that lack photo identification. In order to verify the authenticity and validity of a permit, law enforcement would have to contact the issuing agency in the permit holder’s state because no national database--  and sometimes no statewide database-- containing concealed carry permit information exists.

Furthermore, to obtain a driver’s license, people must also undergo several forms of testing--  including a vision exam, exams that test knowledge of driving and relevant laws, and an in-person driving test. Underage applicants in most states must also fulfill practice hours or complete driver’s education classes. Training to obtain a concealed carry permit, however, varies widely throughout the states. A number of states require classroom instruction and live-fire training to obtain a permit to carry concealed. In 19 states, however, individuals do not need to undergo any training to carry concealed. In 12 states, individuals do not even need a permit-- no less any training-- to carry concealed, loaded firearms in public.

If concealed carry reciprocity becomes law, untrained individuals could carry concealed, loaded firearms nationwide. The lack of identifying data and divergent information on concealed carry permits would present a serious challenge for a law enforcement officers seeking to determine if an individual is lawfully carrying a concealed gun. This would create a lengthy, complicated process that would take law enforcement away from critical policing duties. In many cases, law enforcement could lack the ability to verify if concealed carry permits are forged or stolen, allowing guns to fall into dangerous hands.

MYTH 2: People with concealed carry permits are law-abiding and highly trained.

MYTH BUSTED!

While many states require concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate that they have received firearm safety training, the gun lobby has worked aggressively in state capitols to weaken or eliminate training requirements for permit holders.

The most drastic example of the erosion of state standards is the proliferation of “permitless” carry states. In 2011, the last time the U.S. House of Representatives took up a concealed carry reciprocity proposal, three states did not require a permit to carry concealed. In 2013, the last time the U.S. Senate voted on this proposal, four states did not require a permit to carry concealed. Today, 12 states do not require a permit or any training to carry a concealed, loaded handgun in public and 19 additional states do not require any training to obtain a permit. Law enforcement in the 12 “permitless” carry states have no way to know who is carrying concealed guns, let alone if these are trained or law-abiding individuals.

Additionally, many states poorly manage their concealed carry permitting systems. Dangerous flaws in permitting systems in North Carolina, Tennessee, Colorado, and other states have allowed individuals disqualified by criminal convictions, including convicted felons and individuals with outstanding arrest warrants, to nevertheless maintain concealed carry permits. Many of these permit holders go on to commit further crimes.

MYTH 3: Laws that make it easier for people to carry concealed guns will reduce crime. Every year, millions of gun owners and concealed carry permit holders use firearms defensively, thwarting crime and attackers.

MYTH BUSTED!

There is no credible statistical evidence that shows that weak concealed carry laws reduce crime. In fact, the evidence suggests that permissive concealed carry laws may actually increase the frequency of some types of crime, such as assault. One recent study found that states that award concealed carry permits to anyone who meets minimum standards experience 13 to 15 percent more violent crime than states with stronger laws. Overall, research confirms the commonsense conclusion that more guns create more opportunities for injury and death, not fewer.

Claims that firearms are used defensively millions time every year have also been widely discredited. Even when a firearm is used in self-defense, which is rare, research shows that a firearm is no more likely to reduce a person’s chance of being injured during a crime than other various forms of protection. One study suggests that carrying a firearm may actually increase a victim’s risk of firearm injury during the commission of a crime.

Few Americans believe the U.S. would be safer if more people carried guns. Just 35 percent of voters surveyed by a June 2017 Quinnipiac Poll believe that the country would be a safer place to live if more people carried guns.

MYTH 4: Concealed carry permit holders who are lawfully able to carry in their state are often considered “accidental criminals” just because they are traveling to another state with a concealed firearm.

MYTH BUSTED!

Currently, each state decides whether it will recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states. Through reciprocity agreements, states ensure that permit holders from one state can travel to another state with a loaded, concealed firearm without endangering public safety. Concealed carry permit holders can easily check to determine whether their permits are recognized in other states, as states make this information directly available online. Furthermore, if a permit holder wants to travel with a gun through a state that does not recognize his or her permit, the permit holder only needs to properly lock the gun in the trunk of the car-- federal law already guarantees the permit holder that authority.

Concealed carry reciprocity would not create a national permitting standard. Instead it would require states to accept all permits and permissions to carry from all other states even if they don’t meet the requirements in that state. The wide array of state laws would remain intact and concealed carry reciprocity would only reinforce the confusing patchwork of state laws that currently exists.

MYTH 5: Concealed carry reciprocity would NOT override existing state and local gun laws governing where people can carry.

MYTH BUSTED!

The House version of concealed carry reciprocity would override a host of state and local laws that currently prohibit permit holders from carrying guns in places like bars, daycare centers, places of worship, athletic events, and near polling places. These laws allow private property owners to prohibit guns on their property, and enable law enforcement to anticipate where they are most and least likely to encounter armed individuals. For example:

• In Florida and many other states, a concealed handgun license doesn’t authorize the license holder to carry a concealed handgun into a bar.
• Administrative regulations in Indiana prohibit the carrying of guns in certain casinos and childcare centers.
• Louisiana prohibits the carrying of concealed handguns in churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, unless special requirements are met.

These kinds of laws are common across the country, and law enforcement, private property owners, and the public rely on them. Concealed carry reciprocity would override these laws, allowing guns in spaces most people assume are gun-free.

MYTH 6: Concealed carry reciprocity doesn’t make it any easier to buy a gun.

MYTH BUSTED!

Gun traffickers frequently cross state lines to obtain guns from states with the weakest laws. Concealed carry reciprocity would make it easier for them to do that. It would tie the hands of law enforcement officers who encounter armed, out-of-state residents, who may be trafficking guns.

Under the House version of concealed carry reciprocity, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, a law enforcement officer who pulls over a person with a permit could face a lawsuit for questioning the person. An unscrupulous concealed carry permit holder would be able to gather large number of guns in states with weak gun laws, and then cross state lines unencumbered by questioning at traffic stops. Those guns would then be available in the criminal market, making us all less safe.

MYTH 7: Law enforcement officers support concealed carry reciprocity.

MYTH BUSTED!

Major law enforcement groups, including Major Cities Chiefs Association, Police Foundation, and Police Executive Research Forum, oppose concealed carry legislation. The House version of concealed carry reciprocity goes a step beyond the Senate version and exposes law enforcement to personal litigation if officers mistakenly question a person’s legal authority to possess a firearm. As a result, officers would fear conducting thorough investigations and would be deterred from effectively doing their jobs.

In a letter urging Congress to oppose the House bill, 9 national law enforcement organizations, including the groups referenced above, state that “The lack of consistent and in many cases the absence of training standards coupled with the exposure of agencies and police officers to tort claims present an unacceptable risk to the public, specifically our law enforcement personnel. We reject the idea that one state’s approach to carrying a concealed firearm will work across every state, city or community. States and localities should have the right to legislate concealed carry.”

Carol Shea-Porter explained her vote against this yesterday to her New Hampshire constituents. "Today I voted against the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act because it would undermine states’ rights and would expose law enforcement officers to lawsuits and an increased risk of harm. That’s why leading law enforcement organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Police Executive Research Forum, are opposing this bill. Moreover, at a time when the majority of Americans want Congress to work on bipartisan solutions that address the national epidemic of gun violence, passing the NRA’s top legislative priority to loosen gun safety laws takes us in the wrong direction."

Guns And Gays And Hillary Clinton

It takes me hours, most of it in research, to write most DWT posts. Early in January, 2011 I was writing a post about a Blue Dog who had been in office for 5 years. She had joined both Democratic congressional reactionary factions, the Blue Dogs and the Wall Street-owned New Dems. She wasn't bad on gay issues and she was perfect on women's issues but sided with the bad guys on most economic inequality-relkated stuff. Her last rating from the AFL-CIO (2011) was a zero. The NRA had mixed feelings about her. She was pretty pro-gun-- helped them with their jihad against DC's ban-- but they graded her a "C." My post was pretty negative but they day I was going to post it, a right-wing terrorist tried to assassinate her. She was shot in the head and was no longer a grubby conservative politician but a living saint and an icon against NRA gun insanity. I scrapped the post.

She and her husband have been working to achieve safer, saner gun policies in America ever since. And she gets wheeled out-- icon-like-- to support whichever grubby politician can find a way to exploit her, generally Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but this week, Hillary Clinton-- a club in her vicious and dishonest attacks on Bernie Sanders-- whose D-minus indicates that the NRA hated him more than they hated Gabby.

Hillary's desperate gun nonsense didn't work when she used it against Obama in the 2008 primary and her own flip-floppy record on guns makes her the imperfect vehicle for a gun purity message, but her hack establishment surrogates are out in force cynically attacking Bernie as though he was some kind of an NRA champion.

I don't hear Bernie, or anyone from his camp, launching a divisive attack on Hillary for being the anti-gay candidate-- although she once was. A certain kind of gay man loves tragic women figures-- Judy Garland first and foremost-- and a lot of affection towards Hillary stems from that feeling. Yesterday I got an e-mail from her about what a great champion of gay rights she is. "Howard," she wrote "in 2011, I went to Geneva to tell the UN that 'gay rights are human rights, once and for all.' We’ve seen so much progress since I made that speech, particularly with last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision on marriage equality. But there’s still so much at stake for LGBT families in America and around the world, and we need our next president to keep us moving forward. I’ve laid out an ambitious plan to advance LGBT rights in our country." But an examination of her LGBT record, wouldn't make her nearly so attractive to gay voters. PolitiFact looked into her flip flops on LGBT issues last summer.

On the day that the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to hear oral arguments about same-sex marriage April 28, Hillary Clinton changed her "H" logo to rainbow-colored and tweeted: "Every loving couple & family deserves to be recognized & treated equally under the law across our nation. #LoveMustWin #LoveCantWait."

Clinton came out in support of same-sex marriage in 2013 after more than a decade of opposing it. But her views are particularly in the spotlight now that she is a presidential candidate.

We decided to put Clinton’s statements about same-sex marriage on our Flip-O-Meter, which measures whether a candidate has changed their views without making a value judgment about such flips. We found that as public opinion shifted toward support for same-sex marriage, so did Clinton.

She has had plenty of company among members of her own party to change their stance on same-sex marriage. In 2012, we gave Obama a Full Flop when he announced his support for same-sex marriage.

Currently about three dozen states allow same-sex marriage. The outcome of the decision, expected in June, could mean either that same-sex marriage will become legal in all states or that some states will institute new bans on same-sex marriage. (A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign declined to comment for this Flip-O-Meter item.)

Clinton’s statements during her 2000 Senate race

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that defined federal marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Hillary Clinton would face questions about same-sex marriage starting with her 2000 campaign for Senate. Let’s look at the highlights of her statements between 1999 and 2015 in a timeline:

December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband.

The New York Times reported that Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said she supported the Defense of Marriage Act but added that "same-sex unions should be recognized and that same-sex unions should be entitled to all the rights and privileges that every other American gets."

January 2000: At a news conference in White Plains, Clinton said, "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."

April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions. "I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont," she said.

July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman."

October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law.

"I support states making the decision," she said.

As a 2008 presidential candidate

In 2007, all the presidential contenders except for longshot candidates-- both Democrats and GOP-- were against same-sex marriage, the New York Times reported. So were the majority of Americans, polls showed.

May 2007: In a questionnaire for the Human Rights Campaign in 2007, Clinton backed away from the Defense of Marriage Act:

"I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may prohibit the federal government from providing benefits to people in states that recognize same-sex marriage."

In response to a question about whether marriage should be made legally available to two committed adults of the same sex, Clinton marked that she was "opposed" though she stated she supported civil unions.

August 2007: In a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO Network (a gay-oriented TV station) Clinton was asked "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?"

Clinton replied: "Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."

As a 2016 presidential candidate

As Clinton got ready for her second presidential bid, she again modified her position.

March 2013: After leaving her position as secretary of state, she announced her support for same-sex marriage in a video with the Human Rights Campaign on March 18, 2013.

"LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones. And they are full and equal citizens, and they deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage. That’s why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law, embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and all Americans."

The comments put her in line with other Democrats at the time who were mentioned as potential 2016 presidential contenders, including Vice President Joe Biden, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. Obama had announced his support for same-sex marriage in May 2012.

June 2013: Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton issued a joint statement about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. The congratulatory note didn’t mention that Bill Clinton had signed the law back in 1996: "the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union."

June 2014: NPR’s Terry Gross grilled Clinton about her past positions’ on gay marriage in what led to a testy exchange. Gross tried to get Clinton to explain if she had truly changed her stance or if the shifting political landscape made it possible for her to announce her support.

At one point Gross asked, "Would you say your view evolved since the '90s or that the American public evolved, allowing you to state your real view?"

Clinton replied: "I think I'm an American. (Laughing) And I think we have all evolved, and it's been one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations."

April 2015: On the day of the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments about same-sex marriage bans in a handful of states in April, Clinton changed her "H" logo to rainbow-colored and tweeted a message of support: "Every loving couple & family deserves to be recognized & treated equally under the law across our nation. #LoveMustWin #LoveCantWait."

Our conclusion

Clinton opposed same-sex marriage as a candidate for the Senate, while in office as a senator, and while running for president in 2008. She expressed her support for civil unions starting in 2000 and for the rights’ of states to set their own laws in favor of same-sex marriage in 2006.

As polls showed that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views changed, too. She announced her support for same-sex marriage in March 2013.

It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance, but on same-sex marriage we give Clinton a Full Flop.

Is she better than Trumpf or Cruz or Rubio or any of the garbage candidates the GOP is offering? Of course she is. But is she any better than the same old transactional hack politician that is rapidly turning Americans off to our whole system of democracy? No, she isn't. Come November, if she wins the nomination, she'll be the lesser of two evils. But still evil. During the primary, though, there is still an opportunity to vote without picking evil. If you'd like to help Bernie's campaign, you can do so here.

UPDATE: MoveOn Endorses Bernie

Nearly one in five votes-- 340,665 people-- chose Bernie over Hillary for the MoveOn endorsement. And, this morning, the progressive activist group officially endorsed him. Ilya Sheyman, MoveOn's executive director:

MoveOn.org only endorses candidates based on votes by our members. Our only previous presidential endorsement during a Democratic primary was for Barack Obama, in early 2008. In 2004, no Democratic candidate reached the threshold for an endorsement.

Here are 5 of the top reasons MoveOn members support Bernie and will mobilize to get out the vote on his behalf in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other crucial early states.

1. Bernie’s lifelong commitment to standing up to corporate and 1% interests to fight for an economy where everyone has a fair shot.

2. He’s standing up for justice for communities facing oppression.

3. He’ll say no to permanent war.

4. Electability: This election will hinge on turnout, and Bernie is inspiring and mobilizing the communities it’ll take to win.

5. Putting members in the driver’s seat is what MoveOn does, and a whopping 79 percent voted to endorse Bernie.

...With Sanders campaigning on a message of standing up to big money and powerful interests and fighting for the rest of us, and with new polls this week showing that message resonating and Sanders ahead or running even in both Iowa and New Hampshire and gaining ground elsewhere, it feels like great timing for MoveOn to join Bernie's political revolution.

We're getting to work right away to turn out the more than 43,000 MoveOn members in Iowa and the more than 30,000 in New Hampshire and are excited to join Friends of the Earth WFP, CWA, DFA, National Nurses United, PDA, and others in helping Bernie win.

You can contribute to Bernie-- and to the congressional candidates who have endorsed him if you'd like-- on this Blue America ActBlue page.

Good News For The GOP: People Have Forgotten About Gun Violence As An Election Issue

So far this cycle, the NRA has handed out direct checks to congressional campaigns to the tune of $540,612. $20,450 went to Democrats and $520,162 went to Republicans. Virtually every Republican gets a piece— and the only Democrats who get anything from them are a handful of the worst of the reactionary Democratic gun shills— John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV), Kurt Shrader (Blue Dog-OR), Tim Walz (MN), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN). All their biggest bets, however, were on Republicans like Mitch McConnell ($9,900), Joni Ernst ($7,450), Steve Southerland ($7,450), Barbara Comstock ($5,000) and, oops, Eric Cantor ($9,900) and Ralph Hall ($5,950). There’s every reason to believe that by the end of the cycle, the amount will have increased dramatically. Last cycle the total was $1,022,237 and in 2010 it was $1,287,900. The NRA has also spent $15,685,221 in Independent Expenditures this year. These were their 10 biggest investments so far for 2014:

• $2,838,055 in favor of Tom Cotton (R-AR)
• $2,793,304 in favor of Thom Tillis (R-NC)
• $2,017,708 attacking Bruce Braley (D-IA)
• $1,757,873 in favor of Cory Gardner (R-CO)
• $1,561,634 attacking Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
• $1,367,083 attacking Mark Udall (D-CO)
• $983,098 attacking Kay Hagan (D-NC)
• $788,769 attacking Alison Grimes (D-KY)
• $710,374 attacking Michelle Nunn (D-GA)
• $697,065 in favor of Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

The biggest Independent Expeditures in House races were on behalf of Stewart Mills (R-MN), Dan Benishek (R-MI), Steve Southerland (R-FL), Marilinda Garcia (R-NH), Mike Coffman (R-CO), Barbara Comstock (R-VA) and Carlos Curbelo (R-FL).

Interestingly enough, though, 2014 is also the year that gun reform groups are reporting that they are spending an equal amount in congressional races for the first time— even as gun violence has completely faded away as a top electoral issue. John Anzalone, the Blue Dog pollster: “I can’t think of one race where the gun issue has been prominent in any way.”

That isn’t stopping each side in the gun debate from planning to pump tens of millions of dollars into this fall’s races. There are numerous close contests, particularly for seats in a Senate that both parties hope to control next year.

“It’s an important issue to segments of voters on both sides” of the gun issue, said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster. “You don’t need to make a huge difference, you just need to make a little difference because these races are all so close.”

Few doubt that organizations led by billionaire Michael Bloomberg and the wounded former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., will unleash huge sums in the campaigns’ closing weeks to back candidates favoring firearms curbs. They’re off to modest starts— unlike the NRA.

Barely a month from Election Day, the nation’s most powerful gun rights group has so far reported spending over $10 million for ads and other efforts either for or against more than 60 congressional candidates. The efforts include sending NRA field representatives to gun shows to tout favored candidates.

That spending— which is supposed to be done independently and not coordinated with candidates— makes the NRA the ninth highest spender of more than 300 groups tracked by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending.

Virtually all NRA spending has been to help Republicans. As of Aug. 31 it reported having $18.5 million banked and was still raising money.

NRA expenditures include over $1 million in each of five states— North Carolina, Arkansas, Iowa, Colorado and Louisiana— to help GOP hopefuls capture Senate seats held by Democrats. All those races seem tight.

Some NRA ads have targeted Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who is bankrolling two groups that back gun curbs.

In one recent NRA spot, a Colorado woman, Kimberly Weeks, describes an assault she survived in her home and says, “Michael Bloomberg wants to take away my gun rights for self-defense while he surrounds himself with armed guards” at his New York home.

The NRA’s early spending advantage could be short-lived.

Bloomberg has pledged to spend $50 million this year to advance his gun control goals. Some of that is to support his Everytown for Gun Safety, which is focusing largely on state contests, including backing a Washington state ballot initiative to require background checks for private sales of firearms.

Bloomberg’s separate political committee, Independence USA PAC, has reported no significant campaign spending since helping two Democrats win special congressional elections last year. Bloomberg has reported contributing $11.4 million since January 2013 to several committees, mostly to Independence USA.

“We tend to spend late and heavy,” said Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson, referring to 2012, when the then-new Independence USA spent virtually all of its $8.2 million on ads in that campaign’s closing days. “It’s a strategy that we think is effective.”

Americans for Responsible Solutions, headed by Giffords and husband Mark Kelly, the one-time astronaut, has said it will at least match the $20 million the NRA spent during the entire 2012 campaign, which included a presidential race.

Giffords and Kelly plan getting involved in at least a dozen congressional races this month, including backing incumbent Democratic senators in Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire and North Carolina.

Their group reported having $9 million in cash this summer and spending $2.5 million so far this year for candidates favoring gun control. That has included support for the re-election of both Democratic congresswomen from New Hampshire and Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican gun control backer.

They’ve also helped Democratic Rep. Ron Barber battle a challenge by Republican Martha McSally for Giffords’ old House seat. Barber, Giffords’ former chief of staff, was wounded in the 2011 mass shooting that injured her.

GOP Front Groups Backing Democrats From The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party-- Take Patrick Murphy Of Florida

So far this cycle the NRA's PAC, the Political Victory Fund, has contributed $399,350 to Republicans running for House seats and $18,950 to Democrats. The Democrats are all from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party:

• John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA)- $4,950
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- $1,000
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- $1,000
• Pete Gallego (Blue Dog/New Dem-TX)- $1,000
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $1,000
• Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV)- $3,500
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog/New Dem-OR)- $1,000
• Filemon Vela (New Dem-TX)- $1,000
• Tim Walz (MN)- $2,000

The NRA has also donated several thousand dollars to right-wing Democrats who can no longer muster any support from grassroots Democratic voters and are finally retiring-- Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC), and Tom Owens (New Dem-NY).

There's been a tremendous outcry from Republicans and their media-backers today over the push-back from Gabby Giffords' PAC. The Republican strategy is to refocus the attention from the incredibly effective anti-NRA ads (see the one they ran against teabagger Frank Guinta in New Hampshire above) into a typical right-wing smear of Giffords herself, a former congresswoman who was shot in the head in a mass shooting by an NRA backer/dangerous gun nut. The Beltway eats it up, of course.

The other Republican Party front group that endorses a few conservative Democrats from the Republican wing of the party is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Last week they endorsed Barrow, Scott Peters and Nick Rahall. Today they endorsed another wretched New Dem, "former" Republican Patrick Murphy, a perfect patsy for Republicans inside the Democratic Party-- and one they are working furiously to build up so that he can run for the U.S. Senate in 2016-- meaning that Republicans will have two candidates (like they do in this year's gubernatorial race) and Democrats will have no real choice.

The Murphy campaign couldn't wait to put out a press release bragging how their anti-working family candidate is only the 4th Democrat endorsed for the Republican-oriented US Chamber of Commerce.

"At no other time in our nation's history has it been more critical that Members of Congress provide leadership that protects and advances the interests of the business community," stated U.S. Chamber President and CEO Thomas Donohue in announcing Murphy's endorsement. "Murphy's record of support on pro-business issues earned this endorsement."

"It is truly an honor to receive the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a highly-respected organization that shares my commitment to creating an environment conducive to job growth through common-sense, pro-business solutions," said Murphy. "As a former small businessman, I have brought my private-sector experience to Congress and put smart policy above partisanship to make sure that America and Americans succeed."

Earlier this year, Murphy was one of only seven Democrats nationwide to be recognized with the Chamber's coveted "Spirit of Enterprise" Award for his support of pro-growth policies. An August report by National Journal also ranked Murphy's voting record among the top five percent most independent in the entire House of Representatives.

"Most independent" inside the Beltway doesn't refer to independent thinkers like Shenna Bellows (D-ME), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or Justin Amash (R-MI); it refers to willingness to back Boehner and his crazy right-wing ideas against core Democratic values and principles. The Chamber's Spirit of Enterprise award was given out to 199 Republicans and 7 Democrats, all corporate whores who back the Keystone XL Pipeline and have voted to delay and wreck the Affordable Care Act. That's what Murphy was bragging about. One extreme right wing Republican, Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI), even returned the award is disgust because of the way the Chamber was sold itself to China. "Crony capitalism," explained Bentivolio's chief of staff, Rob Wasinger, "is alive and well at the Chamber of Commerce… The US Chamber is in the pocket of Communist China and big companies seeking cheap labor in the United States. We think it is morally repugnant for the chamber to pursue, as a matter of public policy, initiatives which exploit the poor and oppressed, just so they can keep labor costs down for their fortune 500 member companies."

Bentivolio himself was quoted explaining that "The Chamber of Commerce is beholden to special interests and has long since forgotten the main street businesses that struggle everyday to make payroll and keep their company afloat. It is with great pride that I reject their award, and call on them to stand on the side of America, instead of on the side of China and corporate interests seeking to exploit people for profit. I am with main street, not Wall Street."

Patrick Murphy didn't reject the award. He keeps putting out press releases bragging about it.

Patrick Murphy: Spoiled rich kid, Republican, pretending to be a Democrat

Bad Day For The Gun Nuts

It was very close-- and dramatic, with at least one senator, Lisa Murkowski, changing her vote at the last second, and another, Heidi Heitkamp, flying in from a North Dakota sickbed while Harry Reid held the vote open-- but the Senate shut down the Republican/NRA filibuster of Todd Jones to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). The GOP and NRA have managed to prevent the appointment of a director for 7 years! "For the past seven years," wrote Gabby Giffords to her followers on Friday, "the gun lobby has cowed Congress into blocking nomination after nomination to the post-- all part of their decades long effort to systematically erode law enforcement's ability to keep our communities safe from gun violence."

ATF has a broad mandate to combat illegal firearms and investigate arson. The Republicans have guaranteed no one would be confirmed, even while Bush was president! Jones, a former US Marine with law enforcement experience as a U.S. Attorney for Minnesota has been Acting Director.

Although Mark Kirk (R-IL) was the only Republican to vote to confirm him, Susan Collins (R-ME), twisted Lisa Murkowski's arm to change her vote on the filibuster and allow an up or down vote. Jones was confirmed 53-42 but it was the cloture vote to shut down the obstructionists' filibuster that mattered most. And for that Kirk, Collins and Murkowski were joined by 3 other Republicans who have decided to stop routinely supporting the extremists' obstructionist filibusters-- Kelly Ayotte (NH), John McCain (AZ) and Lindsey Graham (SC). Cloture passed by the narrowest possible margin, 60-40, leaving radicals and gun-loons like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Chuck Grassley and Miss McConnell fuming and sputtering in frustration.

Nuggets-- Mostly Gun Control

Good news: Ken is out of the hospital and his operation was a complete success. Hopefully, he'll be back in this slot soon. Meanwhile: bit and pieces I missed the last couple of days

Arkansas ConservaDem Mike Ross Is Back

Corrupt Blue Dog Mike Ross is throwing his hat into the ring in Arkansas' gubernatorial race. The Republican in the race is right-wing fanatic Asa Hutchinson and the Democrat running is former Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. Ross hopes to position himself in between, just like his entire sordid career in Congress was, where he had the distinction of voting more frequently with the GOP than with the Democrats-- and doing that more often than almost any other Democrat in history. Why doesn't he run as an independent?

Bipartisan Background Checks Defeated

Maybe if 92% of Americans supported the bill, instead of a mere 91%, it would have passed. But the NRA triumphed over the American people in the Senate yesterday. Democrats Mark Begich AK), Mark Pryor (AR), Heidi Heitkamp (ND) and Max Baucus (MT) joined the NRA voters and abandoned their own constituents. Voters in Arkansas, Alaska and Montana will have a chance to react in 2014. The amendment, which needed 60 to get through the GOP filibuster, only wound up with 54 votes (55 if you include Reid). I might add, that in 2008 Blue America endorsed Mark Begich and helped him raise money. Blue America won't be endorsing him for reelection and will leave him to the corporations and right wing interest groups he's been sucking up to to help him raise money. We'll look closely at any Democrat who decides to primary him (and Pryor and Baucus). The Blue America-backed Senate candidates for 2014 all favor serious gun control.

And Speaking Of Obstructionist Filibusters...

This was 2009 gem dug up by Ed Kilgore a couple days ago: "My personal feeling is that supporting a filibuster against your own party and your own party’s president should be treated as a serious and rare measure on major issues of conscience where the sacrifice of some of the prerogatives of seniority are a small price to pay. So maybe that price really should be paid. But at a minimum, the practice of thinking of cloture votes as identical to substantive votes, and tolerating defections on the former as just the same as the latter, needs to come to an end. There is no sixty-Senate-vote requirement for the enactment of regular legislation in the Constitution or in the Senate rules. We don’t need lockstep Democratic unity on policy initiatives. We just need unity on the simple matter of allowing the Senate to vote." Will there be any consequences? From Senate Majority Leader Reid? From the DSCC? From Obama? No, no, no. But from voters? We'll see, won't we?

DCCC Perfidy... Again

Moments after the 4 Democrats voted with most of the Republicans to kill background checks, the DCCC tweeted "GOP just blocked background checks. Disgusting. We can't let this stand. Stand with us now." They are hoping to make money on the vote-- money they will use to help reelect devoted NRA allies and gun control opponents on their Front Line list, particularly Blue Dogs Jim Matheson and Mike McIntyre, each of whom is expecting $2 million from the DCCC this cycle. If you contribute a dollar to the DCCC most of it will be skimmed off the top for the corrupt hacks who run it the operation from year to year. Most of the rest will go to support Democrats who voted with the GOP on issues like gun control, women's Choice, marriage equality, war, and economic justice.

Last Words On Senate Gun Votes

Gabby Giffords wrote a powerful OpEd for the NY Times immediately after the vote yesterday. She started like this:

Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms-- a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.

Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents-- who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.

And she ends ominously: "Mark my words: if we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s. To do nothing while others are in danger is not the American way."


The most serious bill was Dianne Feinstein's amendment to get military-style assault weapons off the streets. It failed 40-60; the GOP didn't even have to filibuster that one because the NRA controls enough Democrats so it had no chance. Every Republican except Mark Kirk (IL) opposed it; the Democrats who crossed the aisle into NRA-land on that one:

• Max Baucus (MT)
• Mark Begich (AK)
• Michael Bennet (CO)
• Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Kay Hagan (NC)
• Martin Heinrich (NM)
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
• Tim Johnson (SD)
• Angus King (I-ME)
• Mary Landrieu (LA)
• Joe Manchin (WV)
• Mark Pryor (AR)
• John Tester (MT)
• Mark Udall (CO)
• Tom Udall (NM)
• Mark Warner (VA)

Kind of takes your breath away, huh? The anti-democratic, anachronistic Senate should be abolished or turned into an advisory body like the House of Lords. Members should wear powdered wigs.