|
|
|
|
 PreshowReturn to index of stories... |
A killer flood in NH. A killing-spree in Virginia And, a major Abortion Ruling from the high court. How is all this impacting the presidential race? We'll hear from those in the know. That's NOW on NH Outlook, Where NH Talks |
| Hello/Intro Floods Return to index of stories... |
We're coming to you from the Institue of Politics at St Anselm College for a look at the 2008 presidential primary campaign and the Big Stories now shaping public debate. Hello, I'm Beth Carroll. Welcome to NH Outlook. The Massacre at Virginia Tech. and the politics of Abortion have been the talk around the nation this week-- but, here in NH the big story was the spring Noreaster that caused wide-spread flooding. The killer storm destroyed homes, bridges & roadways in southwestern NH and claimed 2 lives, a woman and her 4-year old grandaughter. A state of emergency was declared to free up money so the rebuilding process could begin. After touring storm-ravaged areas. Governor John Lynch gave his assessment on the damage and what lies ahead. |
| Intro Guests Return to index of stories... |
As you might imagine.the Noreaster also cut into some presidential campaining.as closed roads and bridges made traveling the state difficult forcing democrat John Edwards to cancel an event in the southwestern part of the state. On the campaign trail and over the airwaves.Gun control.the politics of Abortion. and fallout over the firing of Don Imus. dominated the national dialogue. Here to talk about the big stories and their impact on the campaign. James Pindell, the political reporter from the Boston Globe, Andy Smith with the UNH Survey Center, and Dean Spillioties, Director of Research at the NH Institute of Politcs at St Anselm College. Welcome. Q We begin with the Massacre at Virginia Tech & the RE-EMERGENCE of Gun Control as the TOPIC of political debate. What have we heard from CANDIDATES in the aftermath of the shootings?? ** Rudy Guiliani.unequivocal call for more federal gun control. states should decide ** Candidates CANCELLED campaign stops ** John McCain supports right to bear arms -- shootings should not lead to restrictions to 2nd amendment ** Romney lifetime member of NRA ** Sen Hillary Clinton: other New Yorker in this race supported proposals for state-issued photo gun licenses ** Sen John Edwards, backed Democrats main gun control measures when in the Senate. ** Sen. Barack Obama, as Illinois State lawmaker he supported ban on semiautomatic weapons and tougher state restrictions on firearms. |
| abortion Return to index of stories... |
Like Gun control.The Politics of Abortion sparks strong emotions. This week, the Supreme Court ruled the Partial Birth Abortion Ban -signed into law in 2003 -- does "not" violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. It marks the first time since Roe v Wade in 1973 -- that justices have approved an abortion restriction that did not contain an exception for the health of the woman. Q It's being called a stunning victory for pro life advocates,a shattering defeat for abortion rights activists. What are the implications of this ? The 2008 Presidential candidates split along party lines in reaction. Democrats had angry words. Republicans generally supportive. Q Polls this has the potential to be huge for fundraising, which is really what the abortion debate has been good for on both sides. “With Democrats running Capitol Hill, Congress is unlikely to pass additional abortion restrictions. Instead, the action likely will shift to the states, where dozens of legislatures have passed antiabortion laws only to see them struck down or ruled unenforceable. Already, more than half the states have enacted bans on partial-birth abortions, |
| Thanks/Goodbye Return to index of stories... |
My thanks to James Pindell, Andy Smith and Dean Spillioties -- for their perspectives. Special thanks to our hosts St Anselm College and Thank you for watching NH Outlook where NH Talks. I"m Beth Carroll. I'll see you around NH. |
| Web Promo Return to index of stories... |
VERSION ONE: Did you know that New Hampshire Outlook is available online on demand at nhptv.org? We've been streaming our broadcasts since the program premiered in September 2000. Whether you want to watch this show again, email it to a friend, search and watch past programs or get more information on thousands of stories and topics, you'll find it all at nhptv.org/outlook. VERSION TWO: Would you like to watch this show again? Maybe you want to email it to a friend? Are you looking for more information about our New Hampshire stories and interviews? You can do all that and more at nhptv.org/outlook. VERSION THREE: Would you like to watch this show again or email it to a friend? You can do all that and more at nhptv.org/outlook. |
| Thompson & Health Return to index of stories... |
the "Law and Order" star and are eager to see him run, believing he would capture the excitement of some Republicans who are not content with the current field of candidates. Some described his presence as commanding, likening Thompson to another actor-turned politician, Ronald Reagan. "He was called presidential, and he was. He was told he was electable, and he is," said Zach Wamp , who organized the session and has repeatedly urged Thompson to run. The Post- Abc News 2 questions related to eliz edwards recurrence of breast cancer. 9 in 10 said fact that someone had been treated for cancer and disease is in remission.would not affect a decision to support or oppose a candidate. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander is calling around to former senior staffers of his presidential campaigns in New Hampshire, telling them they should get to know fellow Tennessean Fred Thompson. Since Thompson, the actor and former senator, said he was thinking about a run for president, national polls have shown him running in second place for the Republican nomination, trailing only former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. *** Thursday, April 19, 2007; A03 Former senator Fred D. Thompson met yesterday with more than 50 Republican House members on Capitol Hill, fielding questions about his views on issues such as abortion and immigration and even his relationship with his first wife, but offering no new insight into whether he would join the field of Republican presidential candidates. Many of the members said they left the meeting impressed with the "Law and Order" star and are eager to see him run, believing he would capture the excitement of some Republicans who are not content with the current field of candidates. "I don't really have a lot to say," Thompson told a group of reporters assembled outside the meeting. "I wanted to come over and see some of my old friends and make some new friends, and tell them what was on my mind." He then ignored dozens of shouted questions from reporters as he entered the back of an SUV and was whisked away by aides. But the Republicans he visited were eager to rave about Thompson after the session. Several said they will support Thompson the moment he enters the campaign if he decides to run. "He's ready, and I want him to run," said Rep. Dan Burton. Some described his presence as commanding, likening Thompson to another actor-turned politician, Ronald Reagan. "He was called presidential, and he was. He was told he was electable, and he is," said Zach Wamp , who organized the session and has repeatedly urged Thompson to run. Thompson, according to the members who were present, did not offer many details about what issues would define his campaign or how he would run. The actor, who served in the Senate from 1994 to 2003, emphasized he is opposed to abortion in most circumstances and would not allow "amnesty" as part of any changes to U.S. immigration laws, although he did not specifically define that term. One lawmaker asked a question that made reference to Thompson's divorce from his first wife in 1985, and he responded that he had talked to his ex-wife only the day before, Wamp said. The strong attendance at the meeting helped underscore how Thompson could potentially transform the GOP race. Only 65 percent of Republicans questioned in a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted last week said they were satisfied with their candidates, compared with 80 percent of Democrats. That sentiment is reflected on Capitol Hill, where scores of lawmakers have not yet endorsed a candidate. While Thompson remains noncommittal, the House members' display of enthusiasm was the latest step in an effort to draft him into the race. In addition to the lawmakers and some bloggers, former Senate majority leaders Howard Baker and Bill Frist, both from Tennessee, have touted Thompson and have urged him to run. Last week, Thompson disclosed that he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer, nearly three years ago but that the cancer is in remission. Some political strategists say he made the announcement in part because he intends to be a candidate. Several of the Republicans said Thompson's lack of an intense, lifelong desire to win the presidency is a commendable quality. "He hasn't been out looking for the job and that makes him attractive," said Rep. Sue Myrick. Even with all this enthusiasm, many uncommitted lawmakers declined to attend the session, and one doubted if Thompson would enter or if he is the best candidate. "Not getting in early raises questions about his passion," said Rep. Mark Souder. "The question is, does he have the drive and determination?" |
| hillary/primary Return to index of stories... |
Hillary and the New Hampshire town meeting Jon Chait of The New Republic , via Kausfiles, argues that on the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton will suffer in comparison to superior orators Barack Obama and John Edwards: The question is: Which candidate is more likely to benefit from endless hours of speechifying, hand-shaking, and town hall meetings? There's no reason to think the answer will be Clinton. While she may be just as smart as--and more experienced than--Edwards and Obama, she is an average orator, while Edwards is a very good one and Obama is a brilliant one. Having seen all three give speeches, it's hard for me to imagine how a prolonged side-by-side comparison will move voters into Clinton's camp. And, as the best-known of the leading candidates, she'll have the hardest time making a strong new impression anyway. Clinton may never match Obama's 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention. But "speechifying" is one thing. Shaking hands and answering questions at town meetings in New Hampshire is quite another. Back in the 2000 primary season, Al Gore delivered few stemwinders. But by the time New Hampshire voters went to the polls, he had gotten the town meeting down pat. As activist Bill Shaheen said, it's not all that difficult: "all you have to do is sit there and listen to their questions and answer them." If Gore could manage that, why can't Clinton, as long as she's willing to do so? February 13, 2007 | Permalink About Subscribe to this blog's feed Add me to your TypePad People list Recent Posts · McCain's stump speech in 20 words · The UNH survey center has released its results on George W. Bush; his approval ratings in NH are at an all time low 29%. 39% of the Republicans disapproved of him. However, 3% of the Democrats approved of him, which leads me to ask, Who Are Those People??? Interestingly, if you look at the backup demographic information, people who moved to NH within the last 6-10 years give him the highest approval, which once again proves that the new residents are not necessarily responsible for recent Democratic performance. The results are posted at www.unh.edu/survey-center/news. · DURHAM, N.H. _ The state's first-in-the-nation primary will keep its importance even if other primaries are scheduled near it, a University of New Hampshire pollster said Wednesday. Andrew Smith, head of the university's Survey Center, said the state's clout can only increase because campaigns won't have a chance for a complete overhaul if they implode in New Hampshire. ''There really is no firewall any more,'' Smith said. ''Whoever wins New Hampshire is likely going to win elsewhere. And if you don't win here, there's no time to fix it.'' He cited then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, who lost New Hampshire to John McCain in 2000. After the 19-point defeat, he reorganized and recast his campaign style. He adapted, won South Carolina's primary and went on to win the nomination. Campaigns now, he said, won't have that buffer. ''You're going to go straight from New Hampshire to the next states,'' he said. ''There won't be three, four weeks to regroup.'' As many as two dozen states have moved or are considering moving their primaries to early February. The so-called frontloading is feared to diminish New Hampshire's influence in picking the nominee, but Smith said the fears are unfounded. Candidates know they have to come to New Hampshire and they have to engage in the retail politicking New Hampshire voters expect, Smith said. ''You can see the local crank grill the candidates over and over again,'' Smith said. ''New Hampshire and Iowa are the only places you see the one-on-one campaigning.'' As for fears New Hampshire could be leapfrogged by other states, Smith said New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner won't allow it. ''If you like your primary, this is the guy you have to put your trust in,'' Smith said. Gardner for 30 years has defended New Hampshire's status, and Smith said 2008 will be no different _ even if it means having the primary in early January. The Democratic National Committee has suggested New Hampshire have its primary on Jan. 22, 2008, but many suspect it could be earlier. |
| NH Polls & Debates Return to index of stories... |
The UNH survey center has released its results on George W. Bush; his approval ratings in NH are at an all time low 29%. 39% of the Republicans disapproved of him. However, 3% of the Democrats approved of him, which leads me to ask, Who Are Those People??? Interestingly, if you look at the backup demographic information, people who moved to NH within the last 6-10 years give him the highest approval, which once again proves that the new residents are not necessarily responsible for recent Democratic performance. The results are posted at www.unh.edu/survey-center/news. · DURHAM, N.H. _ The state's first-in-the-nation primary will keep its importance even if other primaries are scheduled near it, a University of New Hampshire pollster said Wednesday. Andrew Smith, head of the university's Survey Center, said the state's clout can only increase because campaigns won't have a chance for a complete overhaul if they implode in New Hampshire. ''There really is no firewall any more,'' Smith said. ''Whoever wins New Hampshire is likely going to win elsewhere. And if you don't win here, there's no time to fix it.'' He cited then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, who lost New Hampshire to John McCain in 2000. After the 19-point defeat, he reorganized and recast his campaign style. He adapted, won South Carolina's primary and went on to win the nomination. Campaigns now, he said, won't have that buffer. ''You're going to go straight from New Hampshire to the next states,'' he said. ''There won't be three, four weeks to regroup.'' As many as two dozen states have moved or are considering moving their primaries to early February. The so-called frontloading is feared to diminish New Hampshire's influence in picking the nominee, but Smith said the fears are unfounded. Candidates know they have to come to New Hampshire and they have to engage in the retail politicking New Hampshire voters expect, Smith said. ''You can see the local crank grill the candidates over and over again,'' Smith said. ''New Hampshire and Iowa are the only places you see the one-on-one campaigning.'' As for fears New Hampshire could be leapfrogged by other states, Smith said New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner won't allow it. ''If you like your primary, this is the guy you have to put your trust in,'' Smith said. Gardner for 30 years has defended New Hampshire's status, and Smith said 2008 will be no different _ even if it means having the primary in early January. The Democratic National Committee has suggested New Hampshire have its primary on Jan. 22, 2008, but many suspect it could be earlier. ** The dates for the first major presidential debates, in New Hampshire, has been released. The Democratic debate will take place on Sunday, June 3rd and the GOP will be going on Tuesday, June 5th. The debates will be held at the Sullivan arena on the campus of Saint Anselm College in Manchester. The triple threat of CNN, WMUR and The Union Leader are conducting the debates |
| politics Return to index of stories... |
Related Stories - In massacre's wake, Democratic Senate leader urges caution on more gun laws - Gun control debate resumes, on one side anyway WASHINGTON — Ten years ago, when a man with a pistol shot seven tourists on the observation deck at the Empire State Building, New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani responded with an unequivocal call for more federal gun control. "The United States Congress needs to pass uniform licensing for everyone carrying a gun. Congress must do more," said Giuliani, then a leading proponent of gun control. This week, presidential candidate Giuliani reacted to the Virginia Tech massacre in a very different way: with an expression of grief. "My thoughts and prayers continue to be with the survivors and the many friends, colleagues and family members of those who perished," Giuliani said in a statement. Powerful events like the shootings in Blacksburg often turn out to be pivotal tests for the nation's leaders, and can influence voter attitudes in unpredictable ways, according to political analysts. The Virginia Tech rampage is likely to focus attention on one of the most emotional issues in modern politics — gun control — at a key moment in the 2008 presidential campaign. The candidates canceled their scheduled public events Tuesday. Giuliani was to have campaigned in Virginia and Maryland. Most, like Giuliani, expressed sympathy over the events at Virginia Tech. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a Democrat, spoke of the need to address violence in America's culture. Alone among the major Republican contenders, Sen. John McCain coupled a statement of grief with a reaffirmation of his support for the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. "This brutal attack was not caused by, nor should it lead to, restrictions on the Second Amendment," he said. McCain's relatively consistent opposition to gun control may win him conservative votes in the Republican primaries. But it hasn't gained him the support of politically powerful gun groups, such as the National Rifle Assn., which have criticized him bitterly over the years, particularly over his efforts to curb special-interest money in politics. The NRA and other gun-ownership organizations have problems with the other Republican contenders too, to say nothing of the Democratic candidates. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, once known as a gun control advocate, joined the NRA as a "lifetime" member last summer as he was gearing up his Republican presidential run. However, in his 2002 campaign for governor, Romney vowed not to "chip away" at his state's strict regulation of guns, and his shift is often cited as part of a broader move to the right on social questions, including abortion. Giuliani, a prominent gun control advocate for two decades, regularly criticized Florida and other Southern states for making it easier to buy a gun than to get a driver's license. Today, he says states should be left to decide what their gun laws should be. With voters just getting acquainted with the presidential candidates, increased attention to the gun issue could "fill in some of the blanks on some of these candidates," said Nelson Warfield, a Republican campaign consultant. The Democratic presidential contenders, and particularly Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, are widely seen as supportive of stricter federal gun laws. An exception: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who won praise from gun owners for backing a state law that requires the issuance of concealed-weapons permits to adults who pass a background check and take a gun-safety class. Despite their past support for tougher gun regulations, Democratic candidates might not be eager to promote that issue in the '08 election. Vice President Al Gore's 2000 defeat was blamed, in no small part, on his support for more gun control. Last fall, Democrats took notice when Jim Webb was elected to the Senate from Virginia after wooing rural voters as a strong 2nd Amendment supporter and handgun enthusiast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Candidates Abortion Return to index of stories... |
Bush, Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, etc. React to Partial Birth Abortion Ban Ruling WASHINGTON, D.C., April 19, 2007 - The following are the reactions of the United States President and Presidential contenders to yesterday's 5-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court to uphold the 2003 federal ban on partial-birth abortion. President George W. Bush I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial-birth abortion. Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America. The partial-birth abortion ban, which an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed and I signed into law, represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America. The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. Democrat Hilary Clinton This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Republican Rudy Giuliani The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it. Republican Sam Brownback I'm delighted that the Supreme Court is moving forward to see the expression of life in the Constitution. I hope that some day we'll see all life respected at all stages and protected in this land and around the world. I am very pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions. This ban was enacted to put an end to one of the most grotesque forms of abortion, and it is completely in line with the respect for life that is at the very heart of our Constitution. This is a great step forward for our nation's citizens, born and unborn. I applaud the Court for finding that the Constitution 'expresses respect for the dignity of human life,' and hope that this decision signals the Court's willingness to revisit and reverse Roe v. Wade. Republican Mitt Romney Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us. Democrat Barack Obama I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women. Republican John McCain Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life. Democrat John Edwards I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Fundraising Return to index of stories... |
Raising MOney -- test of organizational prowess. which way political winds are blowing. |
| gun control Return to index of stories... |
Today, survivors of the Oklahoma bombing and families of those killed gather again at the site to remember. There will be 168 seconds of silence followed by a reading of the names of the victims. There'll be remarks by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who guided his city through the horrors of Nine-Eleven. This year's Oklahoma observance will also honor the 32 people murdered this week by a suicide-killer at Virginia Tech. McCain/Gun Control By Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer | April 19, 2007 WASHINGTON --Republican presidential candidate John McCain declared Wednesday he believes in "no gun control," making the strongest affirmation of support for gun rights in the GOP field since the Virginia Tech massacre. Article Tools GOP rival Rudy Giuliani, too, voiced his support for the Second Amendment on Wednesday, but not in such absolute terms. Once an advocate of strong federal gun controls, the former New York mayor said "this tragedy does not alter the Second Amendment" while indicating he favors the right of states to pass their own restrictions. Other candidates in both parties have stayed largely silent on the issue in the immediate aftermath of the killings, except to express their sorrow. McCain has opposed many gun controls in the Senate over the years but broke from most of his party -- and his past -- in supporting legislation to require background checks for buyers at gun shows. In one such vote, he relished taking a position at odds with the National Rifle Association. In a speech Wednesday to a crowd of 400, McCain was unequivocal in support of the right to bear arms. "I do not believe we should tamper with the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States," he said. A woman shouted that George Washington's troops used muskets, not automatic weapons. "I hope that we can find better ways of identifying people such as this sick young man so that we can prevent them from not only taking action with guns but with knives or with anything else that will harm their fellow citizens," McCain said. McCain reiterated that later with reporters. "I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved -- which means no gun control," McCain said. The candidates' silence and discomfort may become insupportable once the nation finds its voice in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech murders. Democrats have been deliberately muted for months on an issue that, by their own reckoning, contributed to and perhaps sealed their defeat in the 2000 presidential election. Top Republicans in the race are trying to close ranks with their party's conservative base on a variety of issues, making gun control an unusually sensitive one for them, too, thanks to their liberal views in the past.Continued. With facts still unfolding, the killer was described as a creepy loner who had been accused of stalking two women, wrote violent schoolwork, been sent to mental health counseling for suspected suicidal tendencies, and scared some fellow students out of coming to class -- yet did not have a criminal record that might have stopped him from buying his guns. Giuliani's emphasis on state-by-state solutions to gun control in the GOP primaries contrasts with his past enthusiasm for a federal mandate to register handgun owners -- an even stiffer requirement than registering guns. Giuliani, as New York mayor and former Senate prospect, and Republican Mitt Romney, as Massachusetts governor and as a Senate candidate in the 1990s, supported the federal ban on assault-type weapons, background checks on gun purchases and other restrictions reviled by many gun-rights advocates. The other New Yorker in this race, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also supported proposals for state-issued photo gun licenses, as well as a national registry for handgun sales, in positions laid out for crime-weary New Yorkers in 2000. In this campaign, candidates in both parties who've ever taken a shot at a prey are playing up their hunting credentials. Others are highlighting their allegiance to the constitutional right to bear arms or avoiding the question altogether. Democratic candidate John Edwards, despite recently highlighting his boyhood outings hunting birds, rabbits and deer as well as his respect for gun ownership rights, backed his party's main gun control measures when he was in the Senate. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, as a state lawmaker in the 1990s, supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tougher state restrictions on firearms. Mass shootings have often been the catalyst for legislative action on gun control, with mixed results. And with Democrats controlling Congress partly on the strength of new members from rural parts of the country, few lawmakers were expecting the Virginia Tech assault to revive the most far-reaching gun-control proposals of the past, such as national licensing or registration. In 1999, after the Columbine High School killings in Colorado left 15 dead, lawmakers unsuccessfully introduced dozens of bills to require mandatory child safety locks on new handguns, ban "Saturday night specials," increase the minimum age for gun purchases and require background checks on weapons bought at gun shows. A month after the Columbine shootings, then-Vice President Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to advance a juvenile crime bill that included gun show restrictions. But the bill died in negotiations with the House. The Virginia Tech senior and South Korean native identified as the Blacksburg gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, was a legal permanent resident of the U.S., meaning he could legally buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony. The campus killings were carried out with 9 mm and.22-caliber handguns. ------ Parsing the Polls on Gun Control In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, the issue of gun control is likely to reemerge in the national political debate. But will the Monday's terrible massacre fundamentally reshape American public opinion about guns and gun control? And will gun control now join Iraq, health care, terrorism and the economy as key issues around which voters will make their decisions at the ballot box? Recent and historical polling information suggests the answer to both questions is no. Polling on gun control has remained remarkably consistent for the past decade or so, with external events -- even emotionally powerful ones -- not moving the dial in any appreciable way. Let's Parse the Polls! Scan recent surveys that touch on guns and gun control and you realize quickly that it has not been a matter of political debate in quite some time. Last fall, a question on gun control was included in an October Post/ABC News survey. The sample was asked whether they favored or opposed "stricter gun laws." Sixty-one percent said they favored tighter restrictions while 37 percent opposed more stringent regulations. Not surprisingly, Democrats were generally more supportive of more gun restrictions than Republicans. Seventy-three percent of Democrats favored stricter laws, compared with 52 percent of Republicans who said the same; 56 percent of independents supported tighter strictures. The same trend was seen when voters were differentiated by ideology. Seventy-one percent of liberals backed stricter gun laws, followed by 61 percent of moderates and 55 percent of conservatives. It's interesting to note that the Post/ABC poll was in the field shortly after the the shooting at an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania -- the third fatal school shooting in a week's time. Events like the Amish school shooting or even Columbine incident -- i.e. ones that managed to make gun violence in schools a part of the daily debate for several years -- don't have any long-term impact on Americans' overall beliefs about gun laws. Since 1989, an average of 63 percent have expressed support for stricter gun laws -- regardless of external events. Gallup provides more historical perspective. A survey conducted at almost the same time the Post/ABC poll was in the field last fall found that 53 percent of the sample favored stricter enforcement of current law while 43 percent backed the idea of stricter enforcement of current laws as well as new regulations. For more than a decade, Gallup has also asked a standard question -- "Do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?" The results show that support for tighter gun control has actually weakened over past years. In mid-October 2004, 54 percent of Gallup's sample said they agreed that "the laws covering the sales of firearms" should be "more strict," while 11 percent favored "less strict" laws and 34 percent preferred to uphold the status quo. Compare that with 51 percent who said they favored stricter laws, 11 percent backing less strict regulations and 36 percent supporting the laws as they were currently written in October 2002. In 1999, when Gallup asked the question six times in the wake of Columbine, the number of those in favor of stricter laws ranged between 60 and 66 percent. The "less strict" number fluctuated between five and nine percent while the "kept as now" number ranged from 25 to 31 percent. Going back to March 1993, the tougher laws number was 70 percent in a Gallup survey; in 1990 it was 78 percent. Given the fairly entrenched views about gun control and apparent disconnect between tragedy and public opinion, it seems unlikely that the shootings at Virginia Tech will have a lasting impact on the political debate over guns. While a solid majority of Americans believes that some gun control makes sense, they are generally opposed to banning guns entirely and would simply prefer to see the current laws enforced. The public also tends to blame cultural factors as much or more than the availability of firearms for tragedies like this one. And, the National Rifle Association is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, closely monitoring and fighting any attempts to restrict gun rights. That vigilance has largely kept gun control legislation at bay over the past several years. Pro-gun-control lawmakers may argue that the Virginia Tech killings -- the worst in modern American history -- were so awful that public opinion will almost certainly swing toward tougher gun laws. A decade's worth of polling, however, suggests they are still likely to face an uphill struggle. By Chris Cillizza | April 18, 2007; 9:15 AM ET | Category: Parsing the Polls |
| more abortion Return to index of stories... |
WASHINGTON -- Public opinion on abortion is complex, with views varying by the type of procedure and the impact on the mother's health. An AP-Ipsos poll in early March 2006 found 52 percent of Americans thought abortion should be legal in most or all cases and 43 percent said it should be illegal. Most Americans favor some restrictions on abortion, though not the outright ban on late-term abortions addressed by Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling. Surveys show the public would like a loophole for health of the mother. The high court found that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. AP-MA--Abortion-Candidates,0125 GOP candidates applaud, Democrats deplore abortion rulings WASHINGTON - Republican presidential candidates, who differ on abortion rights, are unanimous in their support of the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Democratic candidates uniformly deplored the 5-to-4 ruling in which the court said the 2003 ban does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. Republican Mitt Romney praised the ruling, saying the high court reaffirmed the value of life in America. The former Massachusetts governor once supported abortion, but is now in opposition. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Senator John McCain both issued statements in favor of the ruling, although Giuliani generally supports abortion rights. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all disagreed with the decision. AP-NY-04-18-07 1752EDT The Supreme Court broke new ground yesterday in upholding federal restrictions on abortion, with President Bush's two appointees joining a court majority that said Congress was exercising its license to "promote respect for life, including the life of the unborn." The court's 5 to 4 decision upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress in 2003 marked the first time justices have agreed that a specific abortion procedure could be banned. It was also the first time since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision of January 1973 that justices approved an abortion restriction that did not contain an exception for the health of the woman. It does, however, provide an exception to save the woman's life. "The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote. He said the ban on the controversial method for ending a midterm pregnancy is valid because other abortion procedures are still available. Kennedy was joined by Bush's appointees -- Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. -- and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Kennedy announced the decision before a hushed chamber, and while his opinion did not overturn Roe or the court's subsequent decisions, yesterday's ruling marked an unmistakable shift. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged as much moments later, when she solemnly read a statement from the bench explaining her dissent. The majority opinion, she told a stone-silent courtroom, "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives." The federal law bans a procedure used in a limited number of midterm abortions, but the court's decision will probably have an immediate effect on U.S. politics and lawmaking. The 2008 presidential candidates split along party lines in their reaction -- Democrats had angry words for the court and Republicans were generally supportive. Activists on both sides of the issue predicted that the decision will encourage antiabortion state legislatures to pass laws not only adding new restrictions but looking to challenge Roe itself. Bush said in a statement that the decision "affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America." He added: "The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life." The decision is especially significant because the court had rejected in 2000 a Nebraska law aimed at banning what opponents call "partial birth" abortion, because it lacked an exception for preserving the health of the woman. That five-member majority included all of yesterday's dissenters, plus then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. With Alito taking her place and approving the federal ban, the majority has shifted. Antiabortion activists now see the makings of a court they have longed for. "It is just a matter of time before the infamous Roe v. Wade... will also be struck down by the court," predicted Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America. "The impact of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement is painfully clear," said Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, adding: "It took just a year for this new court to overturn three decades of established constitutional law." The ruling capped an aggressive campaign on the part of antiabortion activists to outlaw the procedure known as an "intact dilation and evacuation." As many as 90 percent of abortions are performed within the first three months of pregnancy, and in most cases a physician vacuums out the embryonic tissue. Those procedures are not affected by the federal law. Later in pregnancy, some type of surgery is required. Dilation and evacuation is the method most often used, in which the woman is placed under anesthesia, her cervix is dilated and the fetus is removed in pieces. But some physicians say that in certain circumstances, it is better for a woman to undergo intact dilation and evacuation, which they say carries a lower risk of bleeding, infections and permanent injury. It involves partly delivering the fetus and then crushing the skull to make removal easier. It is this procedure that Congress made a crime. Opponents say it is a form of infanticide, because the fetus could be viable at the time. It made doctors who perform such surgery subject to up to two years in prison. The law has never taken effect. Lower courts, after conducting lengthy trials and considering previous Supreme Court decisions, declared it unconstitutional. To write the opinion in his new court's most important abortion decision to date, Roberts chose Kennedy, who has been in the majority in each of the court's 5 to 4 decisions this term. Kennedy was in the majority that reaffirmed the basic rights in Roe in 1992's Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pa. v. Casey. He dissented in 2000's Stenberg v. Car hart, which struck down Nebraska's law. While opponents of the federal ban said it was similar to Nebraska's law, Kennedy went to lengths to show it "departs in material ways." He said that it is specific enough to instruct doctors on exactly which procedures are allowed, and that it applies only when a physician "deliberately and intentionally" performs the banned procedure. The opinion left open the possibility that a doctor or woman could bring a narrowly tailored challenge to the law, a prospect that abortion rights advocates discounted. Kennedy wrote that the procedure is "laden with the power to devalue human life.'' In her stinging dissent, Ginsburg said the court's "hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed." She wrote that the answer to Kennedy's concern that women would regret uninformed decisions to undergo the procedure is to require physicians to give them more information. "Instead, the court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice.... This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution -- ideas that have long since been discredited," Ginsburg wrote. Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, noted that the court is "differently composed" than the last time it considered abortion restrictions. She added: "A decision so at odds with our jurisprudence should not have staying power." The combined cases are Gonzales v. Carhart et al. and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America. WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidates, who differ on abortion rights, were unanimous Wednesday in their praise for the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Democratic candidates uniformly deplored the 5-4 ruling in which the court said the 2003 ban does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. "I'm very happy about the decision given my position on abortion. Partial birth is one of the most odious aspects of abortion," Arizona Sen. John McCain said while campaigning in South Carolina. But McCain said he wasn't ready to focus on overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. In an interview, McCain said he sees no direct connection between Wednesday's ruling and the landmark case. "I think we should take this moment to celebrate the fact that the United States Supreme Court ruled that no longer will this outrageous procedure be allowed in America," McCain said. "The fact is, we need to continue to work to change the culture in America so that they will understand the importance of the rights of the unborn." McCain's record is not clear-cut on abortion: He said once in 1999 that he didn't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but now he advocates its repeal. In a statement issued by his campaign, McCain said, "It is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life." The admonition seemed aimed at former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, other leading contenders for the GOP nomination. Giuliani favors abortion rights and has drawn criticism for supporting public funding of some abortions. But he says he would appoint justices very similar to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, President Bush's appointees. Both were part of the majority in Wednesday's ruling. Giuliani said in a statement that he approves of the high court's action. "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it," he said. Romney opposes abortion rights, although supported the issue previously. He opposes a constitutional amendment banning abortion and says states should decide the issue. "Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency," Romney said in a statement. "This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us." Republican Sam Brownback, a presidential hopeful favored by abortion foes, said the ruling would result "in lives being saved." He also voted for the ban in 2003. Longshot GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said he hopes the decision is the first step toward a broader abortion ban. The Colorado congressman called the procedure at issue a "barbaric practice of infanticide" and termed Roe v. Wade a "moral and intellectual travesty." Among Democrats running for president, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware voted for the ban, while Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Chris Dodd of Connecticut voted against it. John Edwards, who was running for president at the time, missed the votes on the issue. On Wednesday, the former North Carolina senator said he "could not disagree more strongly" with the high court's decision. "The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women," Edwards said. "This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election." Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said the decision is a dramatic departure from precedents safeguarding women's health. "I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women," Obama said. Clinton said Wednesday's ruling "blatantly defies" the high court's decision in 2000 to strike down a state partial-birth abortion law because it failed to provide an exemption for a woman's health. "As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account," she said. "It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." ___ |
| key: environment Return to index of stories... |
NEW HAMPSHIRE OUTLOOK Air Date/Time: 4/22/2007 HOST: Beth Carroll Length: 3:00 NOW on New Hampshire Outlook -- where NH Talks: We're coming to you from the Institue of Politics at St Anselm College for a look at the 2008 presidential primary campaign and the Big Stories now shaping public debate. Hello, I'm Beth Carroll. Welcome to NH Outlook. The Massacre at Virginia Tech and the politics of Abortion have been the talk around the nation this week, but here in NH the big story was the spring Noreaster that caused wide-spread flooding. The killer storm destroyed homes, bridges & roadways in southwestern NH and claimed two lives, a woman and her four-year old grandaughter. A state of emergency was declared to free up money so the rebuilding process could begin. After touring storm-ravaged areas, Governor John Lynch gave his assessment on the damage and what lies ahead. PRODUCER/REPORTER: Beth Carroll NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: John Lynch\ NH Governor, Chris Pope\Homeland Security, Chris Pope\Office of Emergency Management, Jeff Blaney\Dept. of Environmental Services, Jeff Brillhart\Dept. of Transportation |
| key: state politics / government Return to index of stories... |
NEW HAMPSHIRE OUTLOOK Air Date/Time: 4/22/2007 HOST: Beth Carroll Length: 15:00 NOW on New Hampshire Outlook -- where NH Talks: We're coming to you from the Institue of Politics at St Anselm College for a look at the 2008 presidential primary campaign and the Big Stories now shaping public debate. Hello, I'm Beth Carroll. Welcome to NH Outlook. On the campaign trail and over the airwaves -- Gun control, the politics of Abortion and fallout over the firing of Don Imus. Here to talk about the big stories and their impact on the campaign. James Pindell, the political reporter from the Boston Globe, Andy Smith with the UNH Survey Center, and Dean Spillioties, Director of Research at the NH Institute of Politcs at St Anselm College. PRODUCER/REPORTER: Beth Carroll NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: Andy Smith\UNH Survey Center, James Pindell\Boston Globe Political Reporter, Dean Spiliotes\NH Institute of Politics |
| key: national politics / government Return to index of stories... |
NEW HAMPSHIRE OUTLOOK Air Date/Time: 4/22/2007 HOST: Beth Carroll Length: 15:00 NOW on New Hampshire Outlook -- where NH Talks: We're coming to you from the Institue of Politics at St Anselm College for a look at the 2008 presidential primary campaign and the Big Stories now shaping public debate. Hello, I'm Beth Carroll. Welcome to NH Outlook. On the campaign trail and over the airwaves -- Gun control, the politics of Abortion and fallout over the firing of Don Imus. Here to talk about the big stories and their impact on the campaign. James Pindell, the political reporter from the Boston Globe, Andy Smith with the UNH Survey Center, and Dean Spillioties, Director of Research at the NH Institute of Politcs at St Anselm College. PRODUCER/REPORTER: Beth Carroll NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: Andy Smith\UNH Survey Center, James Pindell\Boston Globe Political Reporter, Dean Spiliotes\NH Institute of Politics |
| key: women Return to index of stories... |
NEW HAMPSHIRE OUTLOOK Air Date/Time: 4/22/2007 HOST: Beth Carroll Length: 7:00 NOW on New Hampshire Outlook -- where NH Talks: We're coming to you from the Institue of Politics at St Anselm College for a look at the 2008 presidential primary campaign and the Big Stories now shaping public debate. Hello, I'm Beth Carroll. Welcome to NH Outlook. This week, the Supreme Court ruled the Partial Birth Abortion Ban -- signed into law in 2003 -- does "not" violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. It marks the first time since Roe v Wade in 1973 that justices have approved an abortion restriction that did not contain an exception for the health of the woman, though it does provide exception to save the woman's life. Here to talk about this and more: James Pindell, the political reporter from the Boston Globe, Andy Smith with the UNH Survey Center, and Dean Spillioties, Director of Research at the NH Institute of Politcs at St Anselm College. PRODUCER/REPORTER: Beth Carroll NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: Andy Smith\UNH Survey Center, James Pindell\Boston Globe Political Reporter, Dean Spiliotes\NH Institute of Politics |
| key: religion / ethics Return to index of stories... |
NEW HAMPSHIRE OUTLOOK Air Date/Time: 4/22/2007 HOST: Beth Carroll Length: 7:00 NOW on New Hampshire Outlook -- where NH Talks: We're coming to you from the Institue of Politics at St Anselm College for a look at the 2008 presidential primary campaign and the Big Stories now shaping public debate. Hello, I'm Beth Carroll. Welcome to NH Outlook. On the campaign trail and over the airwaves -- Gun control, the politics of Abortion and fallout over the firing of Don Imus. This week, the Supreme Court ruled the Partial Birth Abortion Ban -- signed into law in 2003 -- does "not" violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. It marks the first time since Roe v Wade in 1973 that justices have approved an abortion restriction that did not contain an exception for the health of the woman, though it does provide exception to save the woman's life. Here to talk about this and more: James Pindell, the political reporter from the Boston Globe, Andy Smith with the UNH Survey Center, and Dean Spillioties, Director of Research at the NH Institute of Politcs at St Anselm College. PRODUCER/REPORTER: Beth Carroll NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: Andy Smith\UNH Survey Center, James Pindell\Boston Globe Political Reporter, Dean Spiliotes\NH Institute of Politics |