Is Paul Ryan right about the sit-in being a publicity stunt?

[fbc]

Hopefully someone can clear this up for me. I want to root for the democrats on this sit-in. I support stricter gun control. But what exactly is the goal?

It seems to me that the democrats want a vote on a gun bill that won't pass if they do get a vote and most likely is unconstitutional and would never hold up anyway.

So, why do they want this vote so badly when they won't win it and the courts won't hold up any law that comes out of it? The only thing I can come up with is that they want the vote so that republicans will vote against a bill requiring background checks for terrorism suspects. They want to use that vote against republicans when they come up for reelection.

So, if that's the case, isn't Paul Ryan right? The democrats aren't actually doing anything here other than trying to pin an embarrassing vote on republicans that they can then use against them in future elections. It's a political move with no real goal to pass anything that will make the American people any safer from gun violence.

I'm all for embarrassing republicans, but it seems like we shouldn't be kidding ourselves into thinking that democrats are actually trying to accomplish anything here. They are playing a political game.

[sufrommich]

1. All protests are publicity stunts,what else would they be? nt

[randome]

4. Um...yeah. Wouldn't have thought it was that hard to figure out.

[rurallib]

2. What's wrong with getting some publicity to highlight a problem?

publicity can help bring people to your side.

If they were doing this in a closet in the dark it wouldn't be doing much good.

[virtualobserver]

3. ask yourself why the Republicans don't want a vote to occur.

[scscholar]

32. Because they believe due process is more important than children!

The sit-in makes the public aware of this. Anyone that cares about children will come over to our side.

[virtualobserver]

40. How is the MSM filtering and framing this?

Overcoming their frame is at least half the battle.

[L. Coyote]

46. Republicans support the Patriot Act that creates the list, not?

So the hypocrisy is palatable if that's the reason. No, thast's the talking point so they don't have to say, "But, the NRA will primary me and I'll lose my cushy job to a Tea Party nut." Amend that a bit for all the Tea Party Nuts already in Congress.

[Arkansas Granny]

5. I suppose you could broadly refer to a sit-ins as a publicity stunt.

They are used to call public attention to issues that have been largely ignored. However, the seriousness of the issue really takes it beyond being a stunt.

[merrily]

6. One person's "publicity stunt" is another's bringing public attention to a good cause in the hopes

that public pressure will cause NRA genuflecting legislators to finally do what a majority of Americans want them to do.

Same action, one description is intentionally minimizing and pejorative of Democrats and the other (my description) is intentionally pejorative of Republicans.

They are playing a political game.

Again, a pejorative word choice for political strategy. Well, they are politicians. Politicians playing political games is normal. Let's hope they win this political game.

BTW, I don't know if your assumption about courts invalidating every gun law is correct.

[Happyhippychick]

7. No, a publicity stunt is when a celebrity goes on a date with someone so that it makes the paper

This is a display of our elected representatives trying to save thousands of lives from unnecessary gunfire.

[fbc]

12. How could this action save lives?

If they win, they get a vote that they will lose.

If by some miracle they win that vote (they wouldn't) they pass a law that will be overturned by the courts because it is obviously unconstitutional.

Maybe proposing legislation that could actually stand up in the courts would be a more honest way to approach this?

[TexasProgresive]

15. Ask yourself why the Rs refuse to allow a vote?

Could it be they don't want to be on record as voting against the bill? That's different then not allowing it to come to a vote. What are they afraid of?

[fbc]

19. Yes, exactly that. Which means this is nothing more than a politcal stunt.

They want fodder for negative political ads. They have no intention of actually accomplishing anything.

[TexasProgresive]

33. Wherever people are concerned there seldom are pure motives, but some are purer than others.

I am sure that it was not just a political stunt to the honorable John Lewis. He bears the scars of his bravery in the past. And if it was what is your point of dismissing this action as a stunt? Motivated by politics is one thing and I hope it motivates action where there has been none for too long.

My own state, Texas has gone from one of the most strict set of laws regarding the carrying of handguns to the broadest. Austrailia responded to a mass shooting with restricting gun ownership-we on the other hand responded to the mass shooting on October 17, 1991 in a Killeen, TX Luby's cafeteria by legalizing CC and now open carry.

I would suggest the Aussies are the smart ones. We Texans go out of our way to prove our stupidity.

[reflection]

34. If the negative political ads cause some of the NRA lackeys to be drummed out of office

then they have accomplished something, right?

[L. Coyote]

48. So youi asked a rhetorical question in the OP and have your own answer already.

That seems like trolling to me.

[LanternWaste]

36. If we apply your premise consistently

If we apply your premise consistently (a lose/lose situation that gains no immediate benefit), Rosa Parks was engaging in a mere "publicity stunt" as well.

Sometimes, simply being the catalyst for a national, collective conversation that has been both consciously and systemically prevented and denied *is* the victory. Often, we measure victories by long-term results rather than short-term cost-benefit analyses.

[TexasBushwhacker]

54. The Republicans have voted to repe the ACA dozens of times

THAT is a publicity stunt!

[dumbcat]

8. Kind of makes one wonder

The only thing I can come up with is that they want the vote so that republicans will vote against a bill requiring background checks for terrorism suspects.

The law already requires background checks for anyone purchasing a gun from a dealer, which already includes terrorism suspects. What they want is that the background check deny the purchase. Without due process.

[TexasProgresive]

16. ^^^^^THIS

[tosh]

9. The bill deserves a vote.

If that, either the vote itself or their refusal to hold a vote, makes the R's look like the asses they are, then there you have it.

[TexasProgresive]

17. And ^^^^^THIS

[spanone]

10. No.

[nolabear]

11. "Stunt" dismisses the importance of any act. It's a plea for help.

It might be an angry, disgusted, stubborn plea but it's in response to being ignored and dismissed in the same way.

[peace13]

13. As Ryan just said in a press briefing....

This bill was shot down twice in committee on party lines. While 90 percent of the American people agree with the bill the R's refuse to bring it to a vote. The House has been held hostage for a very long time. At some point a stand has to be made. I guess time will tell. If nothing changes then I guess it was a stunt. If we get off dead center and get something passed to make things better here then the answer is no.

You could call every protest a publicity stunt. Change rarely happens in a pretty, easy way.

[DawgHouse]

14. No, it's bringing attention to a problem.

A publicity stunt would be like when Lucy, Fred and Ethel wrote fake fan mail about Ricky so the network would give him a movie.

[fbc]

18. It seems like elected democrats are full of fight when there's no risk of winning.

I'm not sure which I prefer... fiery democrats with principle that we get with a republican controlled congress, or milquetoast democrats that emerge whenever they have the power to get things passed.

[Hekate]

38. Bernie, as a young man, marched with Dr King. What was the point of that "stunt"?

[gratuitous]

20. Think about all the "political stunts" Republicans have perpetrated over the years

Or even more recently with all the Tea Bagger nonsense. But you know what? That Tea Bagger nonsense got the Republicans back into the majority in 2010, and they leveraged that into a stronger majority because they were able to redraw state congressional district maps. Even though Republicans won 52% of the votes in 2014, they controlled 57% of the seats in the House. Turnout was a pathetic 36.4% in 2014, so who was motivated to turn out and vote that year? People who were energized by political stunts.

Will the sit-in on June 22, 2016 result in legislation that will pass constitutional muster on June 23, 2016? Of course not. Will it result in a more receptive Congress after the 2016 elections? We'll see about that; ask yourself who is energized and motivated by the sit-in, and who wants the coverage of the sit-in to end an hour ago and never be mentioned again?

[Beaverhausen]

21. Paul Ryan doesn't have the balls to actually vote on the bill so he has to try to deflect

simple as that.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. I agree with you that it probably won't result in anything getting passed with THIS Congress

but, hopefully, Democrats will have drawn some much-needed attention (i.e. "publicity&quot to this issue so that people might re-think their votes in the upcoming election and vote to elect a Congress that might actually do something positive in addressing this issue.


This IS politics after all.

[fbc]

23. If the democrats really want control of congress...

why is Debbie Wasserman Schultz still head of the DNC?

Her record is abysmal. She loses seats. This is not opinion; this is fact based on the evidence of her record.

It seems to me that the democrats would rather channel outrage at republicans in power than actually hold the power themselves and risk votes that might displease their donors.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

29. That seems like a pretty idiotic way to run a party

I don't know how to evaluate DWS relative to previous DNC chairpersons (in terms of what they have some modicum of control over) but I've never heard of a political party that purposely sets itself up to fail just because they supposedly don't want to hold power and be on the hook for their votes (and I certainly would not vote for such a party either). What would be the logical point of a party that WANTS to lose and helps ensure that they do?

[nadine_mn]

24. I think you are missing the bigger picture

Many Dems have been frustrated with the lack of action on the part of our elected officials - this sit-in is more than just about the vote.

1 - it shows how completely ridiculous the GOP is by not even bringing it to a vote - these bills are not extreme changes that would make a huge difference in our gun laws...so why not bring a vote? It shows who the GOP is for and who the Dems represent.

2 - after Sen Murphy's filibuster, this sit-in is bringing attention to the issue of gun violence - keeping it in the news and forcing M$M to at least address it (while waiting for the next Trump speech).

3 - This is a huge election year (ok they all are..ahem 2010 disaster case in point) - voter apathy is real, especially among the Democrats who may feel disenchanted by the presidential nominee and may be reluctant to get out to vote. This sit-in reminds voters that down ticket elections matter too, IMO.

4 - It is making Paul Ryan cry

[fbc]

26. I think you are missing the bigger bigger picture

The democrats don't actually want to control congress. They like being in the minority where there is no risk in passing legislation that might staunch the flow of money.

[nadine_mn]

28. I am not that cynical - but then I am from MN

and we have a history of having some (not all) Democrats that aren't in it for the money.

Your opinion is definitely true regarding some members of Congress, but I think there are some willing to take risks for the people they represent.

[smirkymonkey]

50. +1000

[HuckleB]

25. According to this, the GOP did something similar to support off shore drilling in 2008.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-stage-sit-in-on-house-floor-over-gun-control/

"...The aide further noted that Democrats, back in 2008 when they had control of the House, had turned cameras, lights, and microphones off during one similar GOP attempt to push for a vote allowing offshore drilling.

..."

Publicity stunt? Maybe. But at least it's one that's trying to move things in a positive direction for the population. And any GOPer who wasted time on anti-ACA votes the past few years, hasn't got a leg to stand on in regard to publicity stunts.

[elleng]

27. Yes, it's for publicity, as I wrote @ FB and here.

It's intended to publicize/inform the public what's happening in Congress. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact it's part of their job. Maybe the use of the word 'stunt' bothers people.

[arendt]

30. But 47 DOA votes to repeal Obama care aren't n/t

[pandr32]

31. You answered your own question

While true there is a Republican majority and no gun control vote stands a chance of passing, the Dems manage to force and "pin an embarrassing vote on Republicans that they can use against them in future elections." This is important because it forces Republicans to come down on the side of the NRA or on the majority of people who want some common sense gun reform--with a few exceptions from areas that are mostly gun-nuts--on record!
This is awesome.

[LannyDeVaney]

35. Another publicity stunt

[link:|

[RandySF]

53. +1

[Hekate]

37. From the moment Mahatma Gandhi led his people in front of cameras, "publicity", as you call it...

...has been an incredibly powerful tool in changing public opinion in the arena of civil rights. The whole world was watching when peaceful Indian protestors were clubbed by British soldiers. Brits back home were, in the end, sickened by what they saw and India was set free from British rule.

The whole world was watching when peaceful African American protestors were fire-hosed off the sidewalks and attacked by police dogs. Americans were sickened by what they saw...

Public opinion and public policy were finally changed in both countries.

Those are only two very small examples -- the road was and is long and hard. The political game is in deadly earnest. Deadly earnest.

[Hekate]

39. You do seem very concerned, I'll give you that. I hope the responses to your OP will enlighten you.

[Stinky The Clown]

58. ^THIS^

This board seems to be swarming with similar concerns from others as well.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. Yes, totally, but it's in a good cause.

The sit-in is demanding a vote that would be pretty certain to fail on a bill that would be utterly appalling if passed. In practical terms, it's nothing.

But it *is* showing the country that the reason that gun control isn't happening is because of Republicans in Congress, not because of Congress.

[ananda]

42. Yes!

That's what you get, Ryan, when you play politics with people's lives!

Keep up the political theater, Dems! Soon, there will be enough votes
to pass something that will stick it to the NRA and the sociopaths like
Ryan!

[justiceischeap]

43. If you can't (or won't) see the real, tangible value of what happened last night

I doubt any explanation will get you there.

Last night was the opening salvo in a much needed political battle and discussion. The Democratic Party won this battle soundly. They dominated the news cycle all of yesterday and part of this morning, they won Twitter (last I checked they were still trending).

What, I suspect, they hoped to accomplish last night was to win the debate on gun control and I think they did.

[OldHippieChick]

44. A "stunt" is when you vote to repeal the ACA

52 times.

[Lil Missy]

45. Probably, but so is shutting down the government. n/t

[msanthrope]

47. You Better Believe It!!!! nt

[William769]

49. Of course it's a political game!

It's politics and their politicians!

Do you realize how much free media coverage they got for this on this issue? What would have happened if they just did their regular speeches? How much coverage would that have gotten?

The more awareness that gets out to the general public the better.

I have gotten very good at reading between the lines and I wish you would have written what you actually wanted to say.

[RandySF]

51. This is why we lose so much.

Dems have bad habit of conceding arguments to Republicans. Most protests do not yield desired results right away. But we got media coverage money can't buy and everyone is talking about the bill.

[still_one]

52. I wonder if Paul Ryan refusing to hold a vote is a publicity stunt. Maybe someone can clear this up

for me?

[Raster]

55. Of course it was a publicity stunt... most forms of civil disobidience are publicity stunts...

...You're trying to raise awareness for your cause or coalition, and that is exactly what has happened. This was a "damned-if-you-do" and "damned-if-you-don't" situation for Ryan. Let's be frank-n-fair: Paul Ryan and the GOP are pissed because they ended up NOT in control of the publicity situation. And yes, this was a political game, as is just about everything in Congress.

[cheapdate]

56. Politics is largely a "political game" which is played to win.

The sit-in is a tactic toward the eventual goal of winning.

[krawhitham]

57. Yes

[bonemachine]

59. yes, it's symbolic

And symbols can be powerful. Whether it turns out to be an ineffective stunt or the beginning of Democrats actually growing a goddamn backbone remains to be seen.

[Motown_Johnny]

60. They want it for attack ads against (R)s

In swing districts who would need to vote against legislation to serve their corporate masters.

[rockfordfile]

61. A vote sends a powerful message about where the republicans really stand

Republicans hate America and are just for the NRA gun nut types no matter the cost.

[ismnotwasm]

62. You want to know if Paul Ryan is right?

Or, maybe, do You want to know if Gabby Giffords is really passionate about gun control legislation? Or, perhaps, you want to know if civil right icon and activist John Lewis just wanted to embarrass Republicans--just because? Maybe you want to know if Bobby Rush recalling the loss of his child was a stunt? Or even, you want to know if Debbie Dingell sharing a deeply personal story about what it is like to have a gun pointed at you--not knowing if they will shoot or not--was for publicity? A game? A political one?

I really don't think so.

[DesmondFoster]

63. I don't know

The problem to me with publicity stunts of any kind - they typically just serve to drive virtually everyone deeper in to their own individual ideology.

I don't believe most Americans are on the fence about gun control, they are either for it or against it. And I don't believe anyone gains a political advantage from this. The battles lines are pretty clearly drawn.