...and hence the problem. It is MUCH HARDER to oppose a president of the same party than it is to oppose a president of the other party. If Romney demanded a ban on these weapons, the Dems would all go along, and he’d likely pick off enough Reps to get it through...in the name of party unity.
Now Obama has to be able to do the same, but it will be harder. A lot of Reps (that would felt it necessary to support Romney) will oppose him, as there’s no political cost to opposing the president, when he’s of the opposite party - so Obama will now have to get virtually every Democrat in the House to support him. Clinton could not come close to doing that in 1994 and I doubt Obama can either. Back then, the Dems had a huge majority in the House, but the ban didn’t pass until Clinton was able to pull enough Reps to his side, by shaming them. The Dems voted 188 to 64 in support of the ban - nowhere close to the 218 votes needed to pass. But 46 Reps voted for it.
The Dems had 258 seats back then (some didn’t or couldn’t vote). They now will have 201 seats - and there are dozens of Dems that simply will not vote for it...so they have the job of trying to pull an even larger number of Republicans to their side. Not going to happen.
(don’t get me wrong, I still voted for Romney...no one, of course, saw this shooting coming)
Thanks, that was some good news in some bad times.
You made some really good points.