A Special Post-Independence Day Mailbag Edition
Hello Hackaroos,
We hope everyone had a Happy Independence Day! For this issue, we asked for your questions and comments and you delivered. We got so many questions, in fact, we’ll have even more for Friday so keep them coming!
Now let’s see if we can deliver with some answers.
Let’s begin…
Leann Zimmerman LaBarre: Stricter gun control is not the answer. Do we condemn cars, knives, etc. because they kill? Bad people will always find a way to get a gun. I believe there should be more steps to walk through to purchase a gun; no one, except police or armed services people should have assault rifles.
MURPHY: You cannot legislate away evil, but you can make it harder for evil doers to obtain weapons far more powerful than humans have been able to wield for centuries. It will not eliminate violence, but it will curb at least some of these awful events. I’m for buybacks and limits on high capacity military style carbines for this reason. Background checks and more powerful licensing steps on firearms are also a needed improvement in most states.
GIBBS: No, we don’t condemn knives or cars, but people rarely have, say, 70 knives on them at a time like a high magazine clip has bullets and to operate a car takes generally two tests to become licensed to drive. The incident in Highland Park proves once again this can happen anywhere. The key here is sensibility. Better background checks, as Murphy suggests, and curtailing assault weapons to the police and military are, to me, no brainers. Politically, as we have said, it will be important for those who supported the recent gun legislation to show being sensible doesn’t cost them their jobs in November.
Robert Sperry: Is there still any appetite for an organized and moderate 3rd party? There was a lot of talk about it post November 2020.
MURPHY: Far easier said than done. The third party dream is attractive until you get to the practical politics of up. What would attract voters to a third party beyond their contempt for the existing two parties? What would bind it together? Is it liberal, conservative? Pro-life? Pro-choice only? In our present politics, third party candidacies are like French Vanilla ice cream… a niche.
GIBBS: There are always lots of rumors about such a thing happening. Even now, you hear of wealthy donors exploring such a route. It takes a lot of money and organization to qualify in many states for the ballot, so the near-term hurdle is significant. To me, a third party would likely just be a faction of the larger party it split from, making it a spoiler rather than a movement.
Jason Horsman: Will there ever be another 60-person majority in the Senate?
MURPHY: Yes, it is possible just unlikely in the near future.
GIBBS: Agree that it’s possible and, to me, more likely that it happens on the GOP side honestly. In the 111th Congress in 2009, Democrats had 60 Dem seats briefly, but that included having 2 Dems from West Virginia, 2 Dems from Montana, 2 Dems from North Dakota, 2 Dems from Arkansas and one Dem from Iowa, South Dakota, Louisiana, Indiana, Nebraska, Missouri, North Carolina and Alaska. I’d submit that a lot of those seats aren’t going to have Democratic Senators in the near future. I also think, however, in the next few years, the Senate will erase this 60-vote threshold as it’s simply unsustainable.
Andrew Kiesow: Will meaningful reform to the Electoral Count Act get done prior to the '22 midterms?
MURPHY: I’m hoping by the next Presidential election. It’s vital we do it and I’m cautiously optimistic.
GIBBS: Yes, I think it will pass late this year, likely in the lame duck session. Dems are reluctant to go there right now because they want a larger debate and action around voting rights and the GOP isn’t going there. Given what we are seeing out of the January 6th Committee hearings, both sides will agree on the need to ensure some stability in the electoral vote count, even if voting rights remains something the two sides don’t agree on.
Melody Dunne: Do you think Trump will announce his entry into the '24 race sooner or will he stall?
MURPHY: The fact the yes men and women around him are leaking to the media that it may soon happen is a sign of the fear inside Trump-land as his political strength declines. Rushing in would be a true sign of weakness. I am far from sure Trump is ready to commit, but I think there is a decent chance he will take the plunge… but I’m only guessing.
GIBBS: Well, there are a number of practical and financial reasons that he will want to wait. The boatload of money he has in his PAC becomes largely unusable for him once he declares his candidacy. Second, the RNC has said they’ll no longer pay his legal bills if he’s a declared primary candidate. Third, he has to start the process of raising money again for his campaign to pay for all of his political and campaign expenses. While that doesn’t sound like a lot, remember that each individual can only contribute a certain amount and we’ve got a long ways to go before the primary voting begins. (If people wondered why Vice President Kamala Harris walked back her promise that she and Biden were "definitely running" and changed that to “if,” it was almost certainly because the lawyers said such an affirmative declaration would require an official statement of candidacy with the Federal Elections Commission, thus necessitating the need to raise money to pay for a campaign and political travel.) My hunch is he makes a declaration quickly in the new year, but not so early that he has to fund an organization right now.
Thanks for writing! We’ll see you on Friday!
Murphy and Gibbs