I just get in the door from having cut my lawn when the phone rings. Turns out to be one of those automatic political dialer calls, but one with a difference. This was one that allowed you to take part in a live town hall meeting where you could ask your congressman questions by hitting 1 and the # sign. So,I stay on the line and start listening to the questions and his answers. This was Congressman Mark Steven Kirk, of Illinois' 10th District:
http://www.house.gov/kirk/http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Mark_Kirk.htmHe is a typical RINO, rides on being a big veterans' supporter given his current service in the Naval Reserves and is generally a moderately big government Republican. Of course, he also has a D/F rating by the NRA and has supported things such as semi automatic rifle bans. So, needless to say I had a question or two to ask him.
But, I listened for a while first and I swear that every two out of three questions concerned immigration. I get the impression from his remarks that Kirk has suddenly "Come to Jesus" on this issue, though he was still pushing the tired old fence idea and not really addressing the callers that were pushing for tougher restrictions on businesses that hire illegal aliens. At the very least, I think he may realize (like most of Washington now) that their spin is falling on deaf ears and were not going to just bend over and take it with a whimper like we did the prescription drug bill.
Finally, and without any prescreening whatsoever (this really was a neat setup), I hear a beep and an electronic voice says you're on next, and there I was talking to about 400 people and the good congressman. I know the audience count because every now and then we would take an issue position survey (push 1 for yes, 2 for no) and get the results of the survey. The survey was usually on some piece of legislation he had submitted to show how in touch he was with his constituents. He was listening to us, but he is also pitching his accomplishments.
Anyway, while I was waiting I'd planned out how I was going to politely debate the issues and walk through my arguments, citing many of the same logical, well developed and publicly verifiable facts about percentages used in crime, margin of error solutions etc. that I've posted on this board from time to time. Given the fact that I work as a journalist now with a lot of phone interviewing; spent five years is public relations as a spokesperson handling media interviews and have absolutely no trouble with public speaking regardless of the audience situation I thought I would be fairly smooth. Well, while I wasn't downright rude or nasty, I found it impossible to keep a certain level of agitation out of my presentation.
I started off with a quick monologue explaining that gun owners are generally tired of being blamed for the failures of inner city mayors to control their economic problems, that these gun control solutions generally were nothing more than smoke and mirrors, pursued, likely, because it is far easier to pretend to do something at the expense of legal gun owners than deal with the real problems. I then asked for his opinion on the Second Amendment (knowing full well that he certainly wasn't a friend in practice).
Well, he started into the usual spiel about how he supports the Second Amendment but then worked "sensible" this and "sensible" gun locks yada, yada, yada and started on the whole hunter and sportsmen thing. I guess it was there that my carefully orchestrated intellectual debate somewhat slipped because I had to cut them off and asked him point blank exactly what hunting and sporting use had to do with the Second Amendment? Adding, of course, that they had absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. He acknowledged this, when faced with the fact. It was also the first hint I had that the good congressman was getting out of his groove. He had suddenly been asked the question that no reporter in the state (or likely nationally) had ever asked in front of a live audience.
I then asked him what his opinion was on the banning of semi automatic rifles. He started into a very long-winded wind up with the usual howitzers this and tanks that and I don't remember if he mention nuclear weapons or not. He was starting to reference how the most powerful weapons are regulated when, again, I couldn't help but cut him off. "But Congressman, the things you're talking about are considered ordinance, not arms, and are therefore not covered under the Second Amendment. He was really a bit rattled this time. Not angry, but more like uncertain and afraid about what he should say next that would still be politically prudent. Half the audience may support my view the other half likely didn't but it was clearly no longer a safe and controlled environment. He stumbled and mumbled and rambled some long-winded deal where he basically said that semi automatic rifles were clearly legal without saying whether or not he thought they should be legal.
At about this time, I realized that my carefully laid progression of information had pretty much gone out the window and that I was probably starting to sound to much of the audience an awful lot like some of the cranks I'd listen to earlier asking him to regulate food additives and pushing some esoteric tax restructuring. I didn't want to reinforce the "gun nut" stereotype by becoming overly emotional and antagonistic, feeling I was about to do more harm than good for anyone listening who was on the fence about the issue. I closed by saying that I appreciated the opportunity to express my viewpoint, that I'm a centrist with libertarian leanings who has strong feelings on a lot of issues, but given the state of firearm ownership in Illinois this is the primary issue I'm concerned about them that I vote accordingly. I then said good day.
What was the net result? At best I hope it just helped him realize that while he may have a very strong soccer mom contingent not all of us in his district are looking for some Republican in name only. I honestly don't think that gun control is that critical of a grassroots political issue just about anywhere but major cities with gang problems. The soccer mom may very well be highly motivated to vote over the abortion issue, perhaps over a particular war stance, but it's never struck me that there was any real grassroots support for gun control. Probably, since the vast majority of the US population suffers no real impact from firearm ownership. It really is a non-issue unless you have chosen gang banger as a career path or regularly associate with gang bangers and other thugs. I hope he at least begins to see this as an issue that is not worth fighting for like a lot of Southern and Midwest Democrats have realized.
I think the backlash on the immigration issue and any traction that Ron Paul may gain going into the primaries will certainly tell Republicans, and maybe even Democrats, that were getting mighty tired of the status quo. I was particularly struck by all of the anti-immigration callers I listen to while waiting my turn. They clearly were not buying the bill of amnesty goods, and they were clearly motivated and emotionally engaged with the issue.
In any case, even though I managed to get a little bit more aggravated in the conversation than I wanted to, it felt good to tell my employee what I expected him before I give him my next evaluation in the voting booth.
Charon
