It Has Succeeded Beyond Their Wildest Dreams

So says Chris Cillizza, regarding the Dems' sit in last night.

"The organic nature of the sit-in -- most Democratic members outside of Reps. John Lewis (Ga.) and Katherine Clark (Mass.) were unaware of it before it launched Wednesday afternoon -- is just the sort of thing that will thrill rank-and-file Democrats. The Democratic party committees will fundraise like crazy off of this event. So will Hillary Clinton, who will highlight it the next time she speaks publicly. Democrats had been privately concerned about the enthusiasm of their party base when compared to Republicans during the primary voting process. A high profile event like this one should help narrow that gap."

"Being in the minority in the House is a miserable existence. Unlike the Senate, there is no filibuster. The minority has to just grin and bear it while the majority rules. The sit-in is a tool that has been used only sparingly in the House (this is just the third time since the 1970s.) Given the success of this one -- and make no mistake, this move has succeeded beyond Democrats' wildest dreams -- there will be many within the Democratic caucus who see this as their single most effective weapon in the fight against Republicans. It is far from clear whether a night like this can be replicated. It is almost certain that members will want to try."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/23/five-things-house-democratss-sit-in-on-guns-will-change-and-one-it-wont/?postshare=4371466682953855&tid=ss_tw

This is not necessarily something that can be replicated all the time. But sometimes there comes the time. There's a time when an idea's time has come.

Last night, the time for a sit in had come. There have just been too many mass shootings one after the other.

Contrast Cillizza's verdict with all the liberal pundits carping that this is using Dick Cheney arguments over the watchlist, etc.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/in-interesting-divide-between-liberal.html

But thats what smart politics is sometimes. You appropriate an obsession of your opponents-Islamic terrorism. You make the case that you have the better way to deal with it.

Many of the same pundits also point out the Dems won't get this passed. But in an event like this, success is measured differently.

Gun control is back on the national radar. Paul Waldman:

"The sit-in Democrats held last night in the House of Representatives may have been, as Paul Ryan said, a publicity stunt. But something has changed on the issue of guns. It’s way too early to know what the practical effects will be, since we’re going to be debating this issue pretty much forever. Nevertheless, after two decades of Democratic fearfulness on guns (or cowardice, if you want to put it more bluntly), we’re entering a new era. It will be one in which we have an actual two-sided debate, discuss real legislation, and maybe even change some of our laws."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/23/on-the-gun-issue-a-new-era-has-begun/

Waldman touches on the pundit-Democrat divide:

"There are some legitimate questions you can raise about this endeavor. As a general matter, protests shutting down a part of Congress are a less than desirable thing; you certainly wouldn’t want them to happen with any regularity. Two of the four bills House Democrats want to vote on, all which failed to pass the Senate, have come in for criticism even from many liberals. Those are the ones that would make it more difficult for those on the terror watch list to buy guns; the problem is that the watch list is itself an absurdly overbroad tool that makes life difficult for thousands of Americans who have done nothing wrong (the other two measures concern universal background checks, which enjoy almost unanimous support from the public but which Republicans refuse to consider)."

"But at this moment, those considerations have become secondary. What matters much more is the dramatic stand Democrats are taking. We’ll remember this sit-in, but it won’t be because of the details of the legislation in question."

Thank you. This has been my point. The details are not that important. The dramatic stand is.