Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[2022 elections]]>

Beto Not The Biggest Threat To TX Gun Owners

by Leave a Comment

In fact, I don’t think Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke poses much of a threat at all to gun owners in the Lone Star State, even if he does declare himself a candidate for governor. But as we detail on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, there is a potential candidate who has the potential to upend Texas politics, and his views are not alright, alright, alright with most Second Amendment activists.

Yep, Matthew McConaughey is rumored to be weighing a run for governor himself next year, and a new poll of Texas voters suggests he’d be the front-runner if he officially declares.

In the most recent poll from the Dallas Morning News and the University of Texas at Tyler, a still undecided Matthew McConaughey is polling better against Gov. Greg Abbott than O’Rourke.

McConaughey, who has been flirting with a gubernatorial run for almost a year now, has polled well against Abbott in the past. In this poll, 44 percent of respondents said they would vote for McConaughey over Abbott in a hypothetical matchup, compared to 35 percent who would vote for Abbott.

Comparatively, 37 percent of respondents said they would vote for O’Rourke. But Abbott would win with 42 percent of the vote, according to this particular poll.

Now, part of McConaughey’s popularity undoubtably comes from the fact that most voters don’t know much about his political positions. If he were an actual candidate, he’d be facing a lot more scrutiny on various issues, and that would include his stance on gun control. I’m guessing that many Texans aren’t aware that McConaughey is a lot closer to Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s “hell yes I’m going to take your AR-15” than he is to the Gonzales Flag’s “Come and Take It”. Take this report from 2018:

A month after speaking at the March for Our Lives in his hometown of Austin, Texas, Matthew McConaughey says he supports some gun control but fears the youth-led movement could be “hijacked” by those hoping to eliminate all guns in the United States.

McConaughey spoke about his support for the marchers on Monday in Las Vegas, where he was promoting his upcoming film, White Boy Rick, at the CinemaCon theater-owners convention.

He called gun violence “an epidemic in our country.”

“I’ve got a lot of friends who are gun owners. I’ve got a lot of friends who are NRA (National Rifle Association). I grew up hunting. We had responsible gun ownership, but I was taught the right way to respect that tool,” he said. “At the same time, their petition that they were speaking about is a very good one. And I also fear that their campaign — they have to watch that they don’t get hijacked. Meaning, a lot of the crowd was for no guns at all. That was not the march for life. March for Our Lives was for rightful, just, responsible gun ownership — but against assault rifles, against unlimited magazines and for following up on the regulations.”

The 48-year-old Oscar winner said he hoped to find room for agreement between anti-gun activists and the NRA.

“The two sides (have) got to talk. Because we both agree that there’s an epidemic. We both agree something has got to change. So I was for what they were marching for, and I wanted to speak to my hometown on the capital of my state Texas’ steps. And also talk to the many men and women who I grew up with, I know that had the guns, that owned the guns, and say hey, do we really, where can we reach across the aisle here? Find a compromise for the betterment of all of us?”

Well, you won’t find common ground by trying to criminalize the possession of the most commonly-sold rifle in the United States or the 100+ million “large capacity” magazines in the hands of legal gun owners. And contrary to what McConaughey said about March for Our Lives three years ago, the organization isn’t for “responsible” gun ownership. In fact, it has made its position clear: gun licensing and registration, bans on commonly-owned firearms, a 30% reduction in the number of privately owned guns within the next few years (accomplished, or so they claim, through gun “buybacks”), and other attempts to criminalize the exercise of a civil right.

McConaughey’s candidacy would largely mirror Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s support for gun bans, but it would be wrapped in a much more appealing package. The actor is a genuinely likable guy, unlike O’Rourke, and I think McConaughey is savvy enough that he wouldn’t proclaim his support for a ban on AR-15s by telling Texans he was coming for their guns.

I’m really not worried about Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke delivering Texas to the gun control lobby next year, but Matthew McConaughey is a different story, and one that could have a very unhappy ending as far as Second Amendment supporters are concerned.

A Closer Look at ‘Recall’ Tea Leaves and Other Data Reveals Big 2022 Warning Signs for Democrats

by Leave a Comment

Though the effort to relieve California Dictator Gov. Gavin Newsom of his duties a little early did not go the way recall proponents wanted it to, all hope is not lost on the electoral front for Republicans because though Newsom will remain in office at least until the 2022 gubernatorial election, there are warning signs among the results from the recall (which are still coming in) that do no bode well for Democrats in the state and nationally going into the 2022 midterms.

Longtime polling analyst Dave Wasserman looked at the tea leaves among the incoming numbers for various competitive House districts in the state, and said the “Yes” numbers in some of them pointed to “an environment in which Republicans take back the House and Senate in 2022”:

In a follow-up tweet, he emphasized putting “off-year races in context,” noting that the “same ~5 pt swing right from the 2020 Biden/Trump margin would easily win Rs the House & Senate in 2022”:

Beyond Wasserman’s analysis was polling/election numbers cruncher Nate Cohn, who pointed to the fact that Newsom’s Latino support was nothing to write home about:

This dovetails with what we’ve seen in states like Texas, where Democrats are seeing a steady, persistent drop in support among Latino voters. In a column published today at the Washington Post, Mexican journalist León Krauze fretted about what Newsom’s tepid support among Latino males would mean for him in next year’s gubernatorial election:

If exit poll numbers hold, Newsom will have seen an eight percentage point drop in support among Latino men. The shift might not seem sizable, but it carries a clear warning: Latino men have been moving steadily to the right. Their growing support of Donald Trump in Texas in 2021 and their recent drift away from Newsom fits a larger trend. Newsom may have survived to serve out his term, but California’s next gubernatorial election is just around the corner. Next year, Larry Elder, the controversial talk-show host who would have become governor had Newsom lost the recall, could be on the ballot. Despite Elder’s Trumpist rhetoric on immigration and race, and his public sympathy for the likes of Stephen Miller, 58 percent of Latino men voted for him on Tuesday, more than any other demographic.

Adding to the 2022 woes for Democrats is the issue of redistricting, where the advantage clearly resides with Republican-controlled state legislatures:

And finally, let’s not forget how President Joe Biden’s approval numbers have absolutely cratered over the last few weeks, with the tumbling showing no end in sight. He dipped down below 40% for the first time in an Economist/YouGov poll last week, and that poll was heavily weighted towards Democrats. That same poll also showed a majority of Americans were not happy with the direction the country was headed, which generally means catastrophic midterms are ahead for the President’s party assuming those views stay consistent or get worse as Election Day nears.

Of course, a lot could happen between now and then, but the writing is on the wall for Democrats. And while Republicans shouldn’t get too cocky, they should be encouraged by the implosion currently taking place in the Democratic party, and take full advantage of it from here to Election Day 2022 – and beyond.

Flashback: Republicans Preview Delicious 2022 Midterms Strategy After Cori Bush Hands Them Another Gift

Is Biden Preparing To Take Aim At Senate Filibuster?

by Leave a Comment

So says Rolling Stone, which reports that the president has told Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that he’s ready to start lobbying moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin to support “reforming” the filibuster in order to pass the “For The People Act”; a sweeping bill that, in the words of the Wall St. Journal, would “grease the Democratic voting machine nationwide and restrict political opposition.”

According to Rolling Stone, Biden has gone so far as to tell Schumer, “Chuck, you tell me when you need me to start making phone calls.”

Publicly, there are two centrist Democrats who have stated their opposition to changing or abolishing the filibuster, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Activist groups and fellow Democratic senators say Manchin and Sinema are the likely 49th and 50th votes both on any voting-rights legislation and especially any filibuster reforms. Sources say both senators are likely targets for when Biden launches his final push to pass a compromise version of the For the People Act.

“I think there’s a clear recognition the president will have a role to play in bringing this over the finish line, and if in order to do that, we need [filibuster] rules reform, then so be it,” says Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.), who helped write the original version of the For the People Act. “I think Joe Biden with his long history and experience in the Senate can see that.”

The president might be willing to pick up the phone, but is Joe Manchin willing to listen? After all, Biden called Sen. Angus King of Maine to personally lobby him to support David Chipman’s nomination to the ATF, and we all know how that turned out. I don’t think Biden has much of a bully pulpit at the moment, what with his approval rating underwater and Democrats growing increasingly worried about a red wave election in 2022. And then there’s Manchin himself, who had this to say on CNN less than two months ago.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Sunday said he “can’t imagine” supporting a carve-out to filibuster rules to help pass voting rights legislation.

Manchin was asked a direct question about whether he could imagine supporting such a carve-out during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“I can’t imagine a carve-out,” Manchin responded.

He noted that in 2013, a Democratic majority backed a carve-out to the filibuster so that Cabinet appointees for former President Obama could be confirmed. That led to more carve-outs, including for the Supreme Court.

“I was here in 2013 when it was called a carve-out. We’re just going to do the Cabinet for the president, and then it went into, we’re going to do the judges who are lifetime appointments for circuit and district,” he said.

“They were even going to do Supreme Court, but they didn’t at that time. The Democrats were in control. 2017, Mitch McConnell’s in control, comes right back in and guess what? That carve-out worked to really carve us up pretty bad. Then you got the Supreme Court, OK, so there’s no stopping it,” Manchin said.

Remember, the Senate has already tried to vote on HR 1 this year, and it didn’t go well for them, failing on a 50-50 party-line vote back in June. Now Democrats want to revive the measure, but it’s unclear that there’s been any change in Manchin’s point of view. The Brookings Institute’s Norm Eisen and the American Enterprise Institute’s Norm Ornstein have a new piece at the Washington Post offering seven supposed reasons why they believe Democrats will end up changing the filibuster rules, but their analysis is short on actual evidence and long on wishcasting.

Second, Manchin is not as immovable an obstacle as he appears. In March, Manchin suggested that he would be open to using the reconciliation process to pass voting rights legislation if all efforts at bipartisanship failed. Our report explains how that intricate maneuver could work — and, as importantly, Manchin’s statement shows he is contemplating voting rights legislation by a simple majority. He has since expressed openness to other reforms of the kind we also outline in our paper, such as lowering the cloture threshold and shifting the onus onto the Senate minority to maintain the filibuster. When asked about lowering the vote total needed for cloture, he said: “I’m open to looking at it. I’m just not open to getting rid of the filibuster, that’s all.”

Manchin has also offered a compromise proposal in response to H.R. 1 and has reportedly spent considerable time negotiating details. A deal is said to be near, and he is actively seeking GOP support. It seems improbable that he would be spending all that time on the legislation if he were not at least willing to consider reforming the filibuster to push his plan into law. According to reports, he is getting what he wants. When that happens, he is a compromiser, as he has proved over and over again throughout his long career.

I have no doubt that Manchin would like to see a voting bill approved by the Senate, but I don’t think he’s willing to change the filibuster rules in order to pass a bill on a 51-50 vote with Kamala Harris providing the tie-breaker. As Ezra Klein argued back in June, one of the consistencies in Manchin’s statements is that he’s after bipartisanship, and Manchin has been working on a voting bill of his own and trying to attract Republican support for the legislation. If Manchin ends up going along with any sort of change to the filibuster, I’d think that it would be to advance his own proposal instead of the Pelosi-backed “For The People Act.”

If Manchin does end up doing a partial flip-flop on the filibuster (say, lowering the number of votes needed for cloture from 60 to 55) in order to get his bill through the Senate, you know that the Left would immediately demand a full nuking of the rule. Why should he be the only Democrat to benefit from a changing of the rules, after all? And if Manchin gives in, then not only would his elections bill be immediately supplanted by the For The People Act in order to ensure permanent one-party rule. Once that’s been accomplished, they’d quickly move forward on the rest of their agenda, including packing the Supreme Court and imposing a sweeping gun ban on the American people.

Personally, I’m skeptical of the idea that Manchin would engage in fundamentally changing the filibuster, even if it means his voting bill goes down to defeat, but he’s certainly made enough open-ended statements that Democrats can take comfort (and Republicans can have concerns) with the idea of him suddenly deciding that maybe a little carveout would be okay in order to get most of what Democrats are demanding. I do believe that Democrats are terrified about losing the House and potentially the Senate in the midterms, and are growing increasingly desperate to cement their majorities. Desperate people do desperate things, and those decisions often come with disastrous consequences.

Maybe I’m engaging in a little wishcasting of my own with my skeptical take on Manchin ultimately endorsing some change to the filibuster, because I think a federal elections bill that passes along purely partisan lines would be a terrible mistake of historic proportions. With Joe Biden in the White House for the next three years, we’re going to have enough of those without Congress contributing to the problem.

FL Lawmaker Raffling Off Rifle As Anti-Chipman Protest

by Leave a Comment

Well, an anti-Chipman protest and a fundraiser for his congressional campaign. Florida State Rep. Anthony Sabatini is running as an “America First” candidate in Florida’s 7th Congressional District, a seat currently held by Democrat Stephanie Murphy, but his current target is Joe Biden’s pick for ATF Director; former ATF agent and current gun control activist David Chipman. Visit Sabatini’s campaign website and you’ll see a pop-up message encouraging supporters to enter the raffle for a new AR-15.

Now, plenty of candidates have offered similar raffles in the past, but Florida Politics columnist Jacob Ogles wonders if Sabatini’s raffle violates state law, given Florida’s current ban on gun sales to those under the age of 21.

An official rules page on Sabatini’s site values the prize gun, an Andro Corp Model ACI-15 caliber 5.56mm with Reflex sight, at approximately $1,000. That’s a significant award just in terms of monetary value.

Still, the Federal Elections Commission said there’s not a major problem with raffles. It isn’t uncommon for campaigns to sell merchandise or tie donations to a chance to go on a trip with a candidate. “As far as raffles, there’s nothing in FEC rules that prohibits it,” said Miles Martin, a spokesperson for the FEC.

That said, there are other laws at play when it comes to firearms transactions in the state of Florida. Thanks to a law signed by former Gov. Rick Scott in the wake of the Parkland school shooting, gun purchases in Florida must be made by individuals 21 and older.

But the Sabatini raffle allows anyone 18 and older to enter.

That may because the rules seem to simply lift template rules to comply with raffles. That incidentally includes making tickets available even without a purchase of a ticket or donation to the campaign, an option often made available so contests don’t run afoul of gambling prohibitions. Contests often also are limited to adults.

Of note, the prize can be won by anyone living in the U.S. or Puerto Rico, so Florida law doesn’t necessary impact the winner. But there are no guardrails seemingly stopping someone from entering the raffle.

I’m pretty sure Sabatini’s rifle raffle comports with state law because the fine print states:

 All federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the eligibility of entrants apply. Void where prohibited by law. The Promotion is open to citizens and permanent residents (green card holders) of the United States who are legal residents of one of the fifty states, Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia and are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority as determined by state law.

In addition, the rules state that “in the event the selected Winner fails to respond within the given time period or is ineligible to accept the Prize, another winner will be selected.” So yes, to answer Ogles question, Sabatini’s rifle raffle is in line with Florida’s law. It should also be noted that Florida’s ban on gun sales to under-21s is currently the subject of a legal challenge, and the Fourth Circuit recently declared that such a ban is flat out unconstitutional.

Ogles’s reporting sounds like he was trying to some raise red flags about Sabatini’s rifle giveaway, but the only thing he really accomplished was to give it more publicity. I hadn’t heard about the rifle raffle until I read Ogles’ column but thanks to his story, I’m sure plenty of Second Amendment supporters in Florida (and around the country, for that matter) will be entering the raffle for their chance to win an AR-15.

Everytown Wants An Army Of Gun Control Activists To Run For Office

by Leave a Comment

Michael Bloomberg spent more than $500-million in his abortive attempt to run for president last year and didn’t get much of a return on his investment, but he’s hoping that a much smaller influx of cash can put dozens of gun control activists in office in the 2022 elections. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Bloomberg’s gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety is spending $3-million to recruit and train some of its volunteers to become candidates as well as anti-gun activists.

According to the Times, a number of pro-gun control politicians will be lending their support to the effort, including former Republican congressman David Jolly of Florida and Rep. Lucy McBath of Georgia.

Ms. McBath, who was first elected in 2018, said in an interview on Monday that as an advocate with Moms Demand Action she had learned about organizing people, giving speeches and talking about policy with different audiences. But, she said, “I had no idea how to run a campaign.”

“I’d never run for office before,” said Ms. McBath, who got involved with Moms Demand Action after her son, Jordan Davis, was fatally shot. “I got a little bit of help from people around me and went to a boot-camp training over a weekend, but I wish I had this kind of structure in place, an ongoing structure I could tie into the entire time.”

McBath is the biggest success story that the gun control lobby has had in terms of electing one of their own to Congress. She narrowly won election in 2018 against Republican candidate Karen Handel, and in 2020 the pair faced off again with McBath winning by a much larger margin, in large part because of a huge influx of independent campaign expenditures on the part of Everytown for Gun Safety. There are, however, a number of well-known Republicans who’ve already announced their plans to run against her next year; including Jake Evans, the former chairman of the state’s ethics commission, and former state representative Meagan Hanson. The GOP-controlled legislature will also be in charge of redistricting, and the 6th Congressional District could become more fertile ground for a pro-Second Amendment campaigner as a result.

Democrats are going to be facing electoral headwinds next November, since historically the party in the White House loses seats in the mid-term elections, but running dozens of candidates who can count on the financial largess of an anti-gun billionaire isn’t the worst electoral strategy out there. Of course, as Bloomberg’s own campaign demonstrated, money isn’t everything in politics. Even a well-funded candidate can go down to defeat if they’re unlikeable and/or out of touch with the electorate, and I’d argue that the gun control ideology is not only out of step with most Republican voters, but the far-Left of the Democratic Party as well.

The gun control lobby has spent the past year trying to play both sides of the Democratic divide over policing; claiming that “police violence is gun violence” while continuing to push for the creation of non-violent, possessory crimes that will be enforced by armed agents of the state. The media has largely allowed the gun control movement to assert its inherently contradictory positions without any pushback, but I doubt that the Democratic primary opponents of these “gunsense” candidates will be nice enough to do the same.

Given the disproportionate impact that Everytown’s gun control laws have on Black and Hispanic Americans, support for more restrictive laws may not prove as popular as advocates believe. The Supreme Court will also be weighing in on New York’s subjective and restrictive “may issue” carry permits during next year’s campaigning, forcing Everytown’s candidates to side with the handful of states that still claim the authority to deprive the average citizen of their right to keep and bear arms unless they can demonstrate some sort of “good cause” or “justifiable need” to do so.

The gun control lobby has also come down squarely on the side of nuking the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court full of anti-gun justices, a position held by only 30-percent of Democrats, according to one recent poll. That puts Everytown’s candidates in a tough spot; either endorse an unpopular position or publicly rebuke the gun control lobby that’s providing the lion’s share of the candidate’s support and resources.

The Everytown candidates will start with a cash advantage but a messaging deficit, which makes it critically important for Republicans to nominate candidates who can both rationally articulate their opposition to gun control and their support for the right to keep and bear arms in terms that resonate with the average voter. If they’re successful, then groups like Everytown will end up regretting their attempt to turn the 2022 elections a referendum on gun control. If not, gun owners and Second Amendment supporters could face a House and Senate with enough votes to impose sweeping gun bans by the narrowest of margins.