Since you asked, recommended reading, gun rights and taking back Congress

JACKSONVILLE — Do you believe the Republicans will take back both houses of Congress in the 2010 elections?

I think it possible but not probable. I have no doubt that we are going to see an elephant stampede in November, but so much so as to wrest power back in both houses? That’s a pretty gargantuan task, and it seems unlikely to me. Incredibly welcome to be sure, but unlikely.

A lot of it depends on what happens with healthcare reform in the next week. As I write this, the vote is scheduled for Sunday. If Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been able to successfully wrangle the votes needed to pass ObamaCare using budget reconciliation, it is going to infuriate a lot of voters — who have made it known time after time after time that they oppose the president’s plan for the sweeping government takeover of the healthcare system.

The public is mad. Unprecedentedly mad. People who have never cared about American politics ever before in their lives are now getting informed and getting active. But the American electorate is notoriously quick to forget, and if the Democrats make their move quickly, much of that voter outrage will dissipate during the remaining months until Election Day. Just how much of their ire will endure is the crucial question.

If the people can continue to be engaged for the next seven months and the Tea Party movement continues to gain traction, if the Democrats take too long to pass reform or fail to pass it entirely, then the GOP is in great position to achieve one or two majorities in Congress this year. But optimism can be a dangerous thing. Better to expect the worst and redouble your efforts in the hopes of avoiding it. I will be perfectly happy if we take back one chamber — absolutely ecstatic if we manage to sweep Congress.

There’s a gun control case before the Supreme Court right now. Where do you stand on the Second Amendment?

The case argued before the Supreme Court earlier this month, McDonald v. City of Chicago, will determine whether the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is incorporated into the 14th Amendment, and thus applies to the states as well as to the federal government. If the high court decides in favor of McDonald, it will immediately invalidate any state laws or ordinances prohibiting the possession of handguns within the home.

I personally see no ambiguity in the Second Amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That’s what it says, and that’s what it means. The city of Chicago essentially has a complete ban on all guns — I’m no Constitutional scholar, but that seems like a heck of a lot of infringement going on in President Obama’s old stomping grounds.

Where do I stand on the right to bear arms? Let me answer by telling you this. Not only will a person who enters my bedroom unannounced have two guns pointed at their chest, but I have intentionally arranged the furniture in such a way as to optimize my chances of neutralizing that person while minimalizing the dangers to my family.

Gun bans have empirically been shown to skyrocket murder rates, and I believe the Supreme Court will make the right decision on this one. To make a determination in favor of Chicago in this case would be an overt act of judicial activism, and with the Supreme Court’s current spread of five conservative justices and four liberals, I just don’t see that happening.

I have agreed with you on many of the political topics that you have discussed in your column, and I would like to read more likeminded columnists. Who would you recommend I start reading?

I would divide the political commentators I patronize into three groups — those that I like, those that I love and those that I expect to disagree with. The first group is comprised of writers who I enjoy and will read if I come across a piece of theirs during the course of my day. The second group is reserved for pundits who have absolutely blown me away with their insight and knowledge over the years, and whose work I will actively track down and refuse to miss out on. The last group I force myself to read because understanding your opponent is vital to counteracting them.

Authors I like include Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner, Andrew Breitbart of Big Government, Mark Steyn, Ken Klukowski, John Stossel, Ben Stein, Michael Goodwin, Cal Thomas, Ellis Henican and a few others. I rarely get to listen to their shows, but I am also a big fan of Dennis Miller and Glenn Beck.

The authors I love are Mike Baker of the People’s Weekly Brief and syndicated columnists Charles Krauthammer and George Will. Baker has the preternatural ability to weave both side-splitting humor and thought-provoking commentary into his weekly column. As an ex-CIA agent with 15 years of experience, there is no one with better first-hand insight into foreign policy issues. Krauthammer and Will are simply conservative geniuses. I can’t say I agree with them entirely on all issues (Krauthammer on abortion and Will on the death penalty) but more often than not, I will think something and then they will say it — although in a much more eloquent and sagacious way.

Pundits I read for the sake of opponent research include Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman of the New York Times, Joe Klein of Time, Ruben Navarrette, Ed Rollins and Ellen Ratner. Krugman, Friedman and Klein usually make me want to tear my own hair out, but the others (particularly Navarrette) actually manage to make sense occasionally.

I hope that was helpful. If you are reading even half of the writers in the first two groups on a weekly basis, you are exposing yourself to a healthy dose of contemporary conservative wisdom. And you can’t help but benefit from that.

If you have a question you would like answered, please send them to pcnightmare@live.com or to my Facebook account.

Opinion

Search Results

Discussion

Column by Kelly Young

Site Map

Contact Us