 The
Kansas City Star
April 15, 2001 Page B2, column 1
Gun issue a tough call for Holden
By STEVE KRASKE
Most politicians know better than to waffle on hot-button issues such
as abortion and gun control.
Try to placate both sides on either, and you're inviting political
trouble.
So it's worth exploring why Democratic Gov. Bob Holden is doing a
soft shoe on proposals that would legalize the carrying of concealed
weapons in Missouri.
In his 2000 campaign, he opposed the concept with much the same vigor
as his Democratic predecessor, Gov. Mel Carnahan. That helped him win
big in the state's Democratic strongholds in Kansas City and St. Louis,
where concealed weapons are as popular as axle-busting potholes.
These days, though, Holden is intentionally vague. Ask him where he
stands, and he clams up.
Two theories float about to explain Holden's mushiness. Both say a
lot about the political playing field in the state.
The first theory suggests that Holden is working on breaking the
Republican Party's iron grip on rural Missouri. Dropping his
no-way-no-how opposition on concealed weapons is one way to begin that
process, considering that outstate Missouri is dominated by pro-gun
forces.
The problems Democrats face in rural Missouri are similar to those
confronting Democrats nationwide. Look at any 2000 presidential map, and
you will see that Al Gore did well in the cities but lost vast swaths of
rural America, including almost any area with a silo.
The story was much the same in Missouri. Holden, who hails from the
rural, southern part of the state, won narrowly over Republican Jim
Talent. He succeeded even though Talent won 79 counties to Holden's 35.
"There's real concern within the Democratic Party that this
trend will continue," said Joe Carmichael, Missouri's Democratic
chairman.
The problem, says state Auditor Claire McCaskill, is that her fellow
Democrats have allowed Republicans to define them in outstate races.
Democrats are made out to be the party that favors partial-birth
abortion, that wants to take your guns away.
"We just can't remain silent," she said.
The other theory about Holden's new nonstand on concealed weapons
centers on his touchy political predicament at the Capitol. Pro-gun
lawmakers, including many Republicans, appear to be in the majority in
the House and Senate. If Holden were to now draw a line in the sand on
guns, it could jeopardize his ability to pass other bills, including the
highway-construction bill he desperately needs to claim success in his
first session.
"For him to reject a concealed-weapons bill out of hand would
make it very difficult for him to work with the House and Senate on all
other legislation he wants to prevail on," McCaskill said.
Still, Holden is treading on thin ice. Showing flexibility on guns
may give him a short-term bounce in outstate Missouri. But how happy
will rural voters be if he ends up vetoing a concealed-weapons bill?
And his relations with Republican lawmakers these days are in a
downward spiral, so how much good will is he engendering by treading
lightly on the gun issue?
Finally, how much wiggling on guns will Holden's Democratic base
tolerate?
Messing around with guns is dangerous business.
———
Help is on the way: Freshman Rep. Sam Graves of
northwest Missouri was listed in a recent White House memo as one of 18
endangered GOP House members.
To help representatives on the list, political guru Karl
Rove recommended including them at some White House events and maybe
showing them bending the ear of President Bush. The idea is to generate
positive media back home showing the lawmaker at work.
So next time you see Graves at the White House, you may
know why he's there.
To reach Steve Kraske, political
correspondent, call (816) 234-4312 or send e-mail to skraske@kcstar.com.
All content © 2001 The Kansas City Star |
From Brad Alpert <BAlpert@FortBradford.com>
Sunday, 15 Apr 2001 10:24 AM
Sent to Steve Kraske
I enjoyed your Sunday column.
I am not sure how Holden can
truly be perceived as "treading lightly" on the gun
issue when he is on record now as having said that he will veto
any concealed weapons bill that doesn't hinge on a public vote.
And prior to this statement, of course, he had said he wouldn't
sign any bill that didn't contain a needs-based (total discretion
given to the sheriff) criterion.
In fact, he has never said he
would sign a concealed weapons bill; rather, he has laid out rules
for which ones he would veto. And this doesn't strike me as
"treading lightly", rather, it smacks of obfuscation and
evasion on an issue which is very important to enough Missourians
that Gore lost the state.
Best,
Brad Alpert
|
|
From: Arlin H. Adams <ahadams2@earthlink.net>
Sunday, April 15, 2001 1:48 PM
Subject: Governor Holden and Gun Issues
Hi Steve,
Interesting article! Speaking as one of
the folks who supports the move to establish a Right to Carry law
in this state I think that perhaps you missed one possible
alternative in regard to Holden's waffling - he really doesn't
know what to do. You see the last election, indeed the last eight
years proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the democrats are the
party of Sarah Brady and the million mixed-up moms. That's
nationally. The publicity was and is too heavy for Holden to even
have a chance of fighting it directly.
More to the point in Holden's case though
is that there are far more than simply enough supporters to bring
the Right to Carry bill to a vote. You see if Holden chooses to
veto such a bill, the rural democrats will be forced to vote to
override the veto. If they do not, we'll be able to unseat most of
them as they come up for election, and replace them with pro-gun
politicians...many of whom will probably be republicans. Of course
this will also tear the state democratic party in half, and from
their perspective Holden being the governor will take the brunt of
the blame...either way.
So the bottom line is that Holden is left
facing what are from his perspective two equally bad choices:
Either he signs the bill into law, and thus alienates the big city
liberals, thus splitting the Missouri democratic party, or he
vetoes it, forcing a vote on veto override which either also
splits the Missouri democratic party - or worse yet insures that
after the mid-term elections he will be facing republicans in
control of both houses of the legislature.
Now quite frankly, we'd just as soon get
Right to Carry into law this term, but no matter what happens we
will keep trying until we succeed. So in one sense it's really up
to the big city liberals as to how long this takes and just how
politically painful it becomes for their party. We'll be back just
as many times as it takes, and in between we will all be
volunteering for the campaigns of pro-gun candidates. You think
the cities feel isolated now? Give us another four years!
Oh and forget all the 'let's have the
public vote on it again' propaganda. That issue is a nonstarter as
far as our side is concerned. Well, a nonstarter until all 40,000
dead and doubled voters are removed from St Louis area voting
records, along with all similar 'voters' in the Kansas City metro
area as well. As I'm certain you are aware such events will never
occur, because were all of those removed no democrat could get
elected at the state level. Holden would be signing his own
political death warrant just by allowing a competent neutral
authority to conduct such a records purge.
So that's the bottom line: we'll keep
working for change until it is accomplished, and in the meantime
the democratic party will either continue to lose seats, or turn
on itself and become mutually destructive in order to attempt to
remain viable in the rural areas of the state.
Arlin Adams
Otterville, MO
ahadams2@earthlink.net |
|