Associated Press
Illinois state Sen. Toi Hutchinson (D)
We've been keeping a close eye on this month's congressional special election in Chicago -- the race to fill the vacancy left by former Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D) -- for a few reasons. For one thing, it's the first congressional race since the 2012 election. For another, it's also the first since the massacre in Newtown, Conn.
But more to the point, it's also proving to be the first race in recent memory in which candidates are facing considerable pushback over their ties to the National Rifle Association. Indeed, over the weekend, this one issue helped push a leading Democratic candidate out of the race.
State Sen. Toi Hutchinson dropped out of the 2nd District special Democratic primary Sunday and endorsed ex-state Rep. Robin Kelly in the contest to replace Jesse Jackson Jr. in Congress.
The move, announced in a morning news release, shakes up the Democratic field just nine days before the Feb. 26 primary election.
As Rachel noted on the show on Friday, a super PAC run by New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I) has taken an active interest in the special election, hitting Chicago's airwaves with ads targeting Hutchinson and former U.S. Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D) for having earned "A" ratings from the National Rifle Association.
The RNA's grade, Rachel noted, "is a scarlet letter" in the heavily-Democratic district, so much so that it helped push Hutchinson out of the race altogether.
If there were any doubts that the post-Newtown environment has changed, ask yourself: when was the last time a congressional candidate was forced to quit after taking heat over a positive NRA rating?
Robin Kelly, meanwhile, is eager to tout her "F" rating from the right-wing organization. Though the Democratic primary remains quite crowded, the race increasing appears to be a showdown between Kelly, who enjoys backing from Bloomberg and progressive groups like the CREDO super PAC, and Halvorson, who is scrambling to convince voters she disagrees with the NRA on a series of key issues, her previous boasts about her "A" rating notwithstanding.
The Democratic primary is a week from tomorrow, the winner of which is very likely to win the seat. Given the national implications, it's a race worth watching -- we haven't seen one like this in a long while, but it may prove to be a sign of things to come.
Leave a Comment:
While sane gun laws and regulations certainly need tweeking, this government has yet to protect anyone but our endangered-species of billionaires (down to only 1% of the total population!!!) and the growing police state.
With so much police-state legislation and blank-check war spending, it's necessary to keep a sharp eye on the government when it comes to our eroding rights and diminishing liberties.
Since we ARE the government, maybe you should pay more attention to yourself.
This really isn't impressive or particularly interesting. We're talking pro-gun people from gun-rights districts who are now failing to connect in anti-gun districts. It's pretty much the same old game of how what works in one area/race might harm you in another (e.g. Kirstin Gillibrand going left when running for Senate instead of the House, or Joe Manchin shifting right when running for his W. Va Senate seat). If this pro-gun Dem came to Virginia or Florida, she'd be fine. The anti-gun one in either place would be the one moderating in most districts around here.
This is not a local, but a national and international issue. The majority of the American people want better gun safety laws and fewer guns on the streets. The NRA is a vocal private minority that makes a lot of noise, spreads a lot of fear, and spends a lot of money.
There is no "NRA Party" here, although you might think so, and they are not elected to represent us. They should have no more say about our laws than anyone else.
When you consider that their membership IS a distinct minority of our population of some 350 million citizens, that puts the issue into better perspective.
Toi and Debbie Halverson have lost ground because of their A rating from the NRA. Kelly keeps gaining ground including endorsements from the Chicago Tribune and Jan Schakowsky. The candidates know that a too crowded field would give the edge to Halverson. There are legitimate reasons for the candidates to be dropping out. Of course, Debbie Halverson will cry foul. It's the only way she can win.
This shouldn't be a surprise. This seat represents a part of Chicago, does it not?
believe it or not , go to the southern part of that district and you will find all kinds of reagan and bush voters , Toi and Debbie Halversondid not get the NRA , A. rating for no reason at all , go to southern Illinois and you will think you are in Tennesee
Alva: You claim to be a progressive person on every issue but guns. Why then do you participate in Chicago-hate like complete wingnuts do? It's also racist to claim and participate in the use of "Chicago" as an Obama or gun reference. Chicago is a big city filled with a diverse population, not a teed-up Obama-hate vehicle.
Lebowsky,
I think it's pretty clear that Chicago and Illinois has it's fair share of problems. Many of those problems are due to societal decay. In this regard, Chicago isn't all that different than places like Camden or New Orleans.
But what makes Chicago and Illinois unique is the number of political leaders they have sent to prison. 4 out of the last 7 governors are jail birds. And now this. It seems that corruption is about as common in Chicago as poverty.
This has been one of the biggest failures of progressives. We have allowed industrial towns rot. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore. While conservative economic policies caused the deindustrialization of the United States, progressives failed to prevent this whole sale destruction, or even to reverse it.
Lebowsky, I am a progressive, on every issue. You just don't realize that when it comes to guns, you support a conservative position. Being pro-gun is a progressive value. A tool that allows the weak to protect themselves from the strong is a progressive value.
@David 2391504: I see myself as a part of my government: a) because I pay taxes, b) because I vote, and c) because I am currently a government employee. Were the government to become fascistic, etc. I would stand up and fight. Right now, the three reasons above are reasons I trust my government. Do you?
What happens when you have an armed citizenry that thinks it can and should take arms against a sea of troubles and get revenge for wrongs, perceived or real against an agent of the government: Chistopher Donger (sp?) the ex-cop in California who decided that the ALPD had unjustly fired him. He is now dead and so are some police officers.
What happens when the rule of law is weak or breaks down so that people who have been successful and made money have to constantly worry about break-ins and have to live in gated communities and keep a loaded revolver and a machine gun by their beds: Oscar what ever his name is, the "blade runner" the Olympic gold medalist in South Africa who now faces life in prison for shooting his beautiful girl friend.
This is what happens when guns are relied on instead of good government. In a democracy it is the people who must assure that we have good government. If we lose our freedom, it will not be because we did not have enough guns. It will be because we elected bad leaders who were in the pay of powerful and selfish interests.
Dear Dave,
"Real History" is not defined as propaganda films by wingnuts. If you think the "armed population" is what's stopping the government from taking action against the population, you need to put down the Kool-Aid. If (and I'm not expecting it), the US military was ordered out for whatever reason (eg, widespread civil insurrection), there would be no contest. The histories of the Detroit Riots make this very clear. When the 82nd airborne moved in, people were shot and the riots stopped. (Note: I'm not defending any specific action, just telling what happened.)
What is more relevant is the question of what would happen if a President ordered the military to take widespread action against civilians without a strong reason. Would the military follow orders? If they did so initially, would they willingly continue with the action? Whether there is an "armed civilian militia" or not would have little affect on this. It would be the political question of whether the military would respond for more than a temporary emergency that would decide our fate.
To be honest, I'm more worried about the local militia where I live deciding they need to "take action" against the government, starting in my little town. A bunch of Sunday bozos toting around guns to "make a statement" and "clean out the crypto-fascist communists led by that Kenyan". But I'm not worried enough yet to lose any sleep.
I bet ya more pro athletes pop-a-cap in an homeboy than a NRA member.
Sheer genius, Mayor. Make an A rating from the NRA a political detriment instead of a plus. Genius!
Help us out, MSNBC. How about posting a list of the NRA A-rated politicians so we can vote them all out?
Everybody who's concerned about gun safety in this country, also support Mayors Against Illegal Guns. They're doing important work!
"Gentlemen, gentlemen, rest your sphincters."
"Well put, Hedy."
"That's Hedley."
"What are you worried about? This is 1865(?). You can sue her!"
Mel Brooks & Harvey Korman in Blazing Saddles (BTW Hedy Lamarr did sue Mel Brooks). Now ,if you'll excuse, I gotta go punch a horse. Translation: calm down, everybody and let cooler heads prevail.
More guns = more firearm injuries and deaths, it is a very simple equasion. Japan and Korea outlaw handguns, ergo very few wounded. Only cops and military personnel carry sidearms and occasionally shoot each other. Citizenry is safe.
Latin America is at the other extreme, many folks openly carrying. The result? A bloody mess. Citizenry is not safe. The NYTimes published a revealing report from Central America last month; check it out here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?hpw&_r=0