It looks like the Republican Governors Association thinks that pushing gun control is going to be a worthwhile attack on John Hickenlooper out in Colorado.
There’s quite a bit of fair criticism that it appears as though Republicans often tend to only turn to our issue when they can attack Democrats for it rather than doing very much in the way of positive work to advance the cause. I suspect the truth in that statement, like any issue dealing with politics, varies wildly depending on your state and region. However, I can at least say this about our GOP governor in Pennsylvania – he’s the reason that controversial gun control is not an issue in this year’s state elections, and I think that’s under appreciated by many gun owners.
The nationwide sweep of shall issue laws, from Florida in 1987 to Wisconsin in 2011, 36 by my count, subtracting West Virginia and Illinois, which were done under court order, strongly suggests there is a national vs. state party difference for Republicans.
Not that all those states necessarily did it on a partisan basis, but I assume we can assume it was done with Republican state party support, and in all the cases I know the specifics of it was done all or almost entirely by Republicans with strong Democratic party opposition. Those would be Virginia, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
On the other hand, I’d expect e.g. New Mexico and Oregon to have been done with bipartisan support and Democratic leadership. And note, for example, the latest Bloomberg defeat by a black, Democratic Party sheriff (also note the wonderful illustration with the pinstriped opponent of the donkey having popguns :-).
This is much more a Ruling vs. Country Class than partisan conflict, with current Democrats having much higher identification with and membership in the Ruling Class, and too many Republicans, especially at the national level, at least aspiring to membership.
See the most recent Pelosi episode where she called Pennsylvania Republican Tom Marino an “insignificant person” on the floor of the House. He’s been a Congressman for only 4 years, was educated at Lycoming College and the Dickinson School of Law, etc. etc. Compared to the dynastic, deci-millionaire Pelosi, you can see how many would view him as “insignificant”.
I’ll take an opportunist (will vote pro for political reasons) over a passive anti (will vote anti but won’t push legislation) over an active anti (pushes legislation).
To not vote for a opportunist, who can *win* in a given jurisdiction, over an ideologically-pure candidate who can’t, resulting in letting in a passive, or worse, active, anti, is politically dumb.
The goal is a net incremental gain in votes: our ideologically pure candidates, even though not a majority, can then push the legislation we want through.
The same goes for executives with veto authority; if he can win, elect the guy who will “reluctantly sign” or allow to become law “respecting the will of the people through their representatives” rather than have an ideologically-pure candidate lose to someone who will reflexively veto.