After Talking It Up to Appease Their Donors, Democrats Abandoning Assault Weapons Ban?

I saw that an NRA official believed that they consider such an effort unlikely.

Now the NYT (safe link to NRO) reports the same prognosis.

According to the New York Times, the administration’s prospects of pushing an assault-weapons ban through Congress are slim and, as a result, the White House “is focusing on other measures it deems more politically achievable.” The story suggests that the White House doesn’t want to spend political capital on “a losing cause at the expense of other measures with more chances of success.” Though the administration will recommend the passage of such a ban, it’ll be a hollow recommendation. The White House is already defining success downward, “emphasizing other new gun rules that could conceivably win bipartisan support and reduce gun deaths,” which would include universal background checks and research into the causes of gun violence.

Now, the White House is in full damage-control mode, telling the Washington Post that “the report is false.” According to a White House spokesman, “the president has been clear that Congress should reinstate the assault-weapons ban and that avoiding this issue just because it’s been politically difficult in the past is not an option.”

Does that mean the last month of agitating and counter-agitating have been a waste of time? Was it always obvious from the jump that Democrats were talking to appease their liberal, urban members, but would refrain from acting rather than betraying their rural, less-liberal members?

Or was it clarifying to have the debate?

posted by Ace at 05:33 PM

| Access Comments