Even Cornyn worried; "keeping Dems below 60-real hard" (Congress, Reagan)

[golfgod]

Despite all the happy talk among Republicans, and particularly those in the Senate, John Cornyn R/TX admits that keeping the Dems below 60 is going to be "real hard". No joke John!

Although he wouldn't commit that he's given up on Coleman coming back in MN he talked as if the Ds were already at 59, and was not looking forward to better days in 2010. Despite Reid-NV and Dodd-CT being a couple of vulnerable Ds, the Rs already have 4 of their members who've announced retirement and he's also worried that Kay Hutchinson-TX might quit early to run for governor; "what I'm concerned about is that she'll retire early, maybe by early 2010 and we'll have a free for all and elect a Democrat in TX".

In addition to the four announced R retirements; Martinez-FL, Kit Bond-MO, Voinovich-OH and Brownback-KS, he's also got the problem of Jim Bunning-KY who is looking really weak but doesn't want to drop out of the race, setting up a bitter primary challenge. Add to that the fact that Judd Gregg-NH is possibly vulnerable and Cornyn has his work cut out for him.

On the bright side he does have some possiblilities in states where recent appointees have to run for their seats next year. That would be CO, IL, NY and DE. His problem is that he either doesn't have strong candidates or too many candidates setting up a primary bloodbath.

When the head of his party's Senatorial Campaign Committee is not sounding confident things may not be looking up for the Rs.

Could it be "hello 60" for the Democrats?

golfgod

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by golfgod

Despite all the happy talk among Republicans, and particularly those in the Senate, John Cornyn R/TX admits that keeping the Dems below 60 is going to be "real hard". No joke John!

Although he wouldn't commit that he's given up on Coleman coming back in MN he talked as if the Ds were already at 59, and was not looking forward to better days in 2010. Despite Reid-NV and Dodd-CT being a couple of vulnerable Ds, the Rs already have 4 of their members who've announced retirement and he's also worried that Kay Hutchinson-TX might quit early to run for governor; "what I'm concerned about is that she'll retire early, maybe by early 2010 and we'll have a free for all and elect a Democrat in TX".

In addition to the four announced R retirements; Martinez-FL, Kit Bond-MO, Voinovich-OH and Brownback-KS, he's also got the problem of Jim Bunning-KY who is looking really weak but doesn't want to drop out of the race, setting up a bitter primary challenge. Add to that the fact that Judd Gregg-NH is possibly vulnerable and Cornyn has his work cut out for him.

On the bright side he does have some possiblilities in states where recent appointees have to run for their seats next year. That would be CO, IL, NY and DE. His problem is that he either doesn't have strong candidates or too many candidates setting up a primary bloodbath.

When the head of his party's Senatorial Campaign Committee is not sounding confident things may not be looking up for the Rs.

Could it be "hello 60" for the Democrats?

golfgod

The Republicans are making the same mistake the Democrats made when Reagan was elected. Rather than just stand back and let him make some mistakes they redoubled their attacks, personal and political. So what happened? They suffered huge losses in the midterm election. That's where the GOP is headed now.

[Jadex]

Originally Posted by fatchance2005

The Republicans are making the same mistake the Democrats made when Reagan was elected. Rather than just stand back and let him make some mistakes they redoubled their attacks, personal and political. So what happened? They suffered huge losses in the midterm election. That's where the GOP is headed now.

Different day different time. We could refer to The Clinton years when he 1st took office and democrats had majority and he ruled so far from the left that it cost democrats

But this is a different day and time and many including democrats are upset with both parties but mainly the democrat party.

[GregW]

I would be glad for 60 but prefer 70+ to insure against Democratic defectors.

[SilverOne]

When Obama starts enforcing the Inter-Arms Treaty, (need federal license to reload ammo) and micro imprinting the casings, serial # on guns. It could lead to a big loss in 2010 due to the 17 million new gun owners in the last year.

Are you licensed to reload that ammo?
Are you licensed to reload that ammo?

President Obama, who supported the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., before it was tossed by the Supreme Court, since his election has watched various proposals to ban "assault" weapons, require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases that caused some retailers to name him their salesman of the year. Now he apparently is going after citzens who reload their ammunition.

It was during an official visit earlier this month to Mexico that he affirmed his support for a proposed international treaty that addresses "firearms trafficking."

According to a blogger who follows the issue, the treaty was adopted by President Clinton years ago but never ratified by the U.S. Senate, a goal Obama now has adopted.

The answer is finally here to the real reason why guns and church must mix!

The writer, B.A. Lawson, says, "If you reload your own ammo you may find yourself engaged in 'Illicit Manufacturing' of ammunition under an arms control treaty that President Obama started pushing last week in Mexico."

"Virtually everyone who supports the 2nd Amendment or has an interest in firearms has heard the numerous recent reports of ammunition shortages. The shortages have extended to reloading supplies that many folks rely on to keep their shooting costs down or to assemble exotic or hard to find ammunition. Many shooters have considered reloading their own ammo as insurance against limited supplies should legislation be enacted that would make ammo more scarce or dramatically more expensive," the blogger continued.

"Those thoughts may be in vain if the current administration is successful in getting the 'INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS' treaty passed."

The treaty defines "illicit manufacturing" as "the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials."

It then gives authority for that activity only with "a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place."

"The section … clearly identifies ammo reloaders that are not licensed by the government as 'Illicit Manufacturers' of ammunition. Now that we have reloaders properly labeled, lets move down to Article IV to see what we should do with them," the commentary said.

He then quotes Article IV, which states, "State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials."

"This is pretty straightforward. If you reload ammunition without a license after the treaty is signed you will be a criminal," Lawson wrote.

The National Rifle Association said the treaty "does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict 'lawful ownership and use' of firearms. Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S."

The treaty is available online.

At the SnowflakesinHell blog, the writer said there's no mistaking the language.

Even accessories "which can be attached to a firearm" are targeted.

"It would presumably also ban home manufacture of these items without a government license. Do you own trigger jobs? Reload your own ammunition? Not any more, not without a government license!"

The Examiner.com said such international gun restrictions are unacceptable.

John Velleco, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, notes the benefits for Obama of having such rules in treaties, not legislation.

"If ratified and the U.S. is found not to be in compliance with any provisions of the treaty – such as a provision that would outlaw reloading ammunition without a government license – President Obama would be empowered to implement regulations without congressional approval," he wrote.

"If the kind of 'change' that Obama wants is for the United States to take its marching orders from third world countries regarding our gun rights, we're in big trouble!"