The Daily - Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2018

Episode Date: February 28, 2018

Republicans have campaigned on gun rights for years. But Democrats running for office have tended to avoid the issue. In the wake of the Florida school shooting, however, will gun control be a dominant topic in this year’s midterm elections? Guest: Jonathan Martin, who covers national politics for The Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, for years, Republicans have campaigned on gun rights, while Democrats running for office have avoided the gun issue altogether. Will this year's midterms finally be about gun control? It's Wednesday, February 28th. Tim Walls, a gun owner. He grew up hunting and spent 24 years in the Army National Guard. Tim Walz is a House Democrat from southwestern Minnesota, a pretty rural district, and he was the sort of classic archetype of a rural Democrat.

I'm Tim Walz. You know, growing up hunting taught me a lot about responsibility and respect, lessons I hope to pass on to my kids. Ran for Congress with pro-gun credentials. Jonathan Martin covers national politics for The Times. Got money from the NRA and earned an A rating from the NRA. And so when you're in that district, this is a resume that really works pretty well. I'm proud to stand with the NRA to protect the rights of sportsmen and gun owners. That's why I approve this message. Tim Walz. He works for us.

Paid for by Walz for Congress. Now, though, he's running for governor. I imagine, Jonathan, that this is the kind of candidate that Democrats are looking for right now in this moment, particularly in red states and purple states. particularly in red states and purple states. Yeah, Democrats who lost the presidency because they fell short in a series of states in the industrial Midwest are now looking for a political comeback, a sort of path back to relevance. And you've got somebody with military credentials, pro-gun credentials. Sounds like a pretty strong statewide candidate for Minnesota, which, by the way, Hillary only narrowly carried 2016. So that all sounds quite good.

So why are we talking about this guy today? Well, because on the way to being the ideal candidate running for governor in a purplish state, Tim Walz has come up against a challenge. has come up against a challenge. Vote them out! Vote them out! Vote them out! Vote them out! One of the credentials that made him so appealing to at least strategists in the Democratic Party, his support for gun rights, is now increasingly unacceptable to activists in the Democratic Party. The people around us failed us.

And if they continue to fail us, then they will no longer be in office because soon we will be given the ability to vote and we will vote them out. And the people around us will vote them out. And in the wake of the horrible shooting in Florida, he is facing real challenges from his left as he runs for the Democratic nomination for governor. nomination for governor. So he quickly has moved to detach himself from any connection to the NRA. He posted something of an apologia on Facebook, talking about how his views have changed on guns. I will not, and I've taken no money in this gubernatorial campaign. I will not take any. I fully expect that the opposite will happen and a lot of NRA

money will be spent against me. He is basically cutting all ties to the NRA and embracing gun control after this shooting because he recognizes that this has created a sort of clear and present danger in his march to the nomination for governor of Minnesota. It should be expected that our legislative leaders should follow where the will of the people is. And if you haven't walked in a coffee shop over the last week and had 15 conversations on how this must end, you're not getting out. And I'm out. I'm hearing. So why is Walz just now doing this? Why would he have ever been campaigning as a gun loving Democrat if it would push away Democratic voters?

Yeah, I think this was the challenge for Democrats in the recent past. The gun issue was not the motivating force for gun control advocates like it was for gun rights activists. And why not? Well, I think that in the universe of the most ardent gun rights activists, that was their top issue. And they voted. I mean, the NRA is a political force in American politics because they have an ability to galvanize their supporters and drive them to the polls in state after state and election after election. And Democrats, even if they were supportive of gun laws, didn't necessarily show up and vote on the issue in the same way. It was not the sort of central force for a lot of Democratic voters in general elections.

Could it also be, Jonathan, that because it is a motivating factor for Republicans, Democrats just haven't had any success with gun control? The Republicans have been winning that fight, so it's not really an issue worth campaigning on or voting on because no one is really expecting the Democrats to get anything done on it. Yeah, it's a great point you make that the party had effectively waived the white flag, especially in the Senate. You know, it's pretty tough for Democrats to retain a Senate majority if they're not winning and holding a lot of rural states. So what are we seeing, Jonathan, from Republicans? if they're not winning and holding a lot of rural states. So what are we seeing, Jonathan, from Republicans?

They've so effectively blocked gun control for so many years now, and mass shootings haven't seemed to affect any of that. If anything, the narrative has been that the mass shootings have strengthened the NRA and therefore the gun lobby and made the possibility of gun control seem even less likely. Yeah, that's right. and made the possibility of gun control seem even less likely. Yeah, that's right. What's different now is that the party is facing deep challenges in the midterms across a lot of suburban house districts and facing challenges in a lot of governor's races in states that have large swaths of cities and suburbs.

You add to that fact a president who is uniquely unpopular in modern American history, and where he's unpopular, Michael, is the issue for the Republicans, right? He's not unpopular in some of the more rural reaches of the country where gun rights are treasured. He's deeply unpopular in cities and suburbs. If you're a Republican and you are trying to figure out a way that you can create some distance between yourself and Donald Trump with suburban voters, then you can criticize him. But you can also create space on policy issues. And where is one obvious policy issue where you can say, look, I'm a different kind of Republican. I support common sense gun restrictions. Can you give us an example of a Republican dealing with this post-Parkland massacre? Yes.

I'm Brian Mast, candidate for Congress here in Florida's 18th congressional district. There are some in Florida and near where the shooting happened, including Brian Mast, who's a combat veteran who lost both of his legs, who is a junior House Republican facing a potentially difficult reelection. I think most people who know me know that the Second Amendment is something that's very important to me. Mast was a supporter of gun rights. And I would encourage our lawmakers who are out there calling for gun confiscation to take a look at some of the horrific events occurring around the world. They all could have been prevented were there people present who were prepared to defend themselves.

He opposed restrictions on guns. Look, I'm almost a lifelong NRA member. I know the pride of owning a weapon, of collecting, of going out there and hunting, you know, shooting with family, doing clays, going out there and putting rounds on to steal with my kids. I do it all the time. But we got to look at keeping our communities safe and protecting our children and protecting our schools. After this massacre, though, he has had a sort of change of heart. My community, my country is not safer with this unfettered access of anybody that's 18 years or older having access to this platform. And is now calling for not just expanded background checks

or raising the age of those who can buy weapons. He actually is calling for the banning of some automatic sales. That's pretty significant from a Republican seeking office. It sure is. And especially somebody who is seeking office in a state where most of the Republicans are pretty supportive of gun rights. You know, you don't see a lot of Florida Republicans deviating from the NRA line. And who is Mast facing pressure from? Well, the pressure Mast is facing is from his constituents because he is looking at a potentially competitive reelection this fall and has a district that straddles the Atlantic coast in Florida. And, you know, this is middle class, upper middle class Floridians, a lot of them who

have moved this district from parts of the Northeast. They just don't support the gun rights orthodoxy that folks in more rural districts and other parts of the South do. So the kind of suburban district you were talking about, where there's some skepticism about the president and gun control might be the sort of thing that would win voters over. That's exactly right. So, you know, this is the kind of district where the president's numbers were already unsteady because of the demographics there. And if you're somebody like Brian Mast, you don't want this gun issue to be the final brick in the wall that walls you off, if you will, from those voters who are Trump skeptics. So is the takeaway of what's happening to Walls and Mast, a Democrat and a Republican,

who are now both walking back their positions on gun rights, is the takeaway that the whole country is now leaning toward gun control? No, that's not necessarily what's happening. I do think that it's clear that if you take any suburb or city across this country, I think you're going to see an increasing openness, if not a demand for action on guns. And I think that that's the same whether that's Broward County, Florida, Philadelphia, Seattle, what have you. And what is also certain is that if you are a Democrat running in a Democratic primary now for statewide office, it doesn't matter anymore what state you're looking to represent. Party activists are going to demand that you support

gun control. It's not going to be a sweeping nationwide phenomenon, but it's going to be a phenomenon that happens in politically crucial regions. So let's talk about how this might actually play out in the elections. Returning to walls, the NRA supporting Democrat, walking that support for the NRA back. How are voters in Minnesota responding to him doing that? Well, so far, he was sort of seen as the likely nominee for Democrats going into their primary, and he is now under fire. State Auditor Rebecca Otto, who finished second to Walz in this month's caucuses, blasted Walz's new stand. Some of his rivals for the nomination are swiftly trying to use it

against him, saying, it's too little, too late. Too little, too late. And I've been leading in this. He's following. The only reason he's changing his mind is for raw political reasons. He took money from the NRA in 2008, 10, 12, 14, 16. You also anger your old allies among gun rights supporters. So, Wallace is now catching heat from the supporters of gun rights who see a one-time ally abandoning them, and they're obviously not going to forget that. So, I think Wallace offers a really interesting test for just how damaging past ties, even ties that are recanted to the NRA, could be in a nominating process. So if Walls is any indication and turning against guns upsets those Trump-leaning moderates and Republicans he was hoping to appeal to, doesn't all of this sort of threaten Democratic candidates like Walls who were building their campaigns around appealing to more moderate and Republican voters? new difficulties in the general election by shedding his ties to the NRA and losing what

had been a political asset that he had among rural voters, the ability to say, I'm a Democrat, but I'm a different kind of Democrat, and I'm the kind of Democrat that you can support for governor. And what about for these Republican candidates like Mast? What's the risk for them of walking back their support for gun rights? Well, they don't want to necessarily rule out additional gun control because they think maybe this time is different. Perhaps this is the moment where we are forced to act on this issue in a more sweeping way. But at the same time, they're also loathe to embrace gun controls because they don't want to be on the wrong side of the NRA if a week from now, like we have in the past, we've kind of moved on to the next big story.

And it's not necessarily clear, Michael, that you gained as many or more political allies by doing this because the people that maybe most appreciate the fact that you've moved on the issue, if you're Brian Mast, still might vote against you because they want to send a message against Trump. Right. Or they may not believe that transformation is sincere. Genuine, exactly. It feels like whether it's Walls or Mast, a Democrat or a Republican, the candidates we're talking about are now calculating that something meaningful has changed in the politics of the gun debate. And they're betting that advocates of gun control are now as animated and likely to vote as a bloc as gun rights voters have been in the past.

Is that the thinking? Yeah, that's the big takeaway from this is, is this finally the big one? Yeah, that's the big takeaway from this is, is this finally the big one? Is this the gun violence moment that has recalibrated the politics of this issue so that there's going to be something close to parity when it comes to people who vote on guns, voting because they support gun control rather than voting on guns because they support candidates that oppose gun control. Right. I guess the question you're asking and that these candidates are asking is, is gun control finally an issue that voters will vote on rather than just gun rights? Yes, that's the issue. Have we now gotten to the moment where it is as safe or perhaps even safer in some parts of the country to run calling for gun control because you know that people are going to show up and vote on the issue of gun control.

Is that now the safer political bet than what we've seen in the past, which is assuming that only the advocates of guns are going to be the ones that show up and vote on the issue? When was the last time that we were in this position? vote on the issue. When was the last time that we were in this position? Somewhere out there, lurking in the darkness, thinking unfathomable, twisted thoughts, is the next Huberti, preparing to slaughter a room full of innocent, unarmed men, women, and children. And when that day comes, as tragically and surely it must, the nation will turn to us, the gun owners, and say, you are an accomplice in this. And that is what we must work to counter. The last time that guns was a major issue in an election was 1994.

Democratic politicians said at one time they were a pro-gun, but allowed themselves to be corrupted by the wicked Clinton administration. When President Clinton had signed the assault weapons ban as part of the crime bill, a lot of Democrats, especially rural parts of the country, lost their seats. Not a single Republican incumbent lost a race for the House, Senate, or governorship in Tuesday's midterm elections. The election results, of course, give control of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in some 40 years. Now, they didn't lose their seats entirely because of the gun

issue. There was a larger discontent with Clinton and the Democratic Party driving that. But certainly in some House seats, it was one of the major issues. So in that case, the lesson for Democrats was not to push gun control. Now the opposite lesson seems to be happening for Republicans. Yeah. And the sort of mere image parts of the country, by the way, too. A lot of the Democrats who lost in 94, especially in the House, were from more rural districts. And now the Republicans who fear a similar political backlash on guns are the ones running in suburban parts of the country. political backlash on guns are the ones running in suburban parts of the country.

So this is a test, essentially, of where moderate America really stands on guns. It's a test of how willing moderate Americans who are unquestionably in the ranks of gun control supporters, how willing they are to vote their passion on guns. supporters, how willing they are to vote their passion on guns. Are those centrist voters finally going to show up in the polling place and make guns one of their top items? That's really the question. Jonathan, thank you very much. Thanks, Mikey. We'll be right back.

interim security clearances to members of the Trump administration. If that proceeds, would you be willing to grant a waiver to Jared Kushner, one of your senior advisors? Well, Jared's done an outstanding job. I think he's been treated very unfairly. He's a high-quality person. The president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has been stripped of his high-level security clearance,

limiting his ability to view highly classified information. So that'll be up to General Kelly. General Kelly respects Jared a lot, and General Kelly will make that call. I won't make that call. I will let the general who's right here make that call. Like many top White House officials, Kushner had been operating on an interim security clearance for months because of delays in completing his FBI background check. Kelly has begun revoking those clearances after another White House aide who was relying on one, Rob Porter, resigned over allegations of domestic abuse. Officials have not said what has held up Kushner's background check, but the FBI closely scrutinizes contact with foreign officials,

and Kushner's meetings with Russian officials have been of interest to Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation. The interim security clearance had allowed Kushner to see the presidential daily brief, the top-secret summary of intelligence given to the president every morning. And the UN reports that North Korea has been secretly shipping supplies to Syria that could be used in the production of chemical weapons. The report comes as the U.S. has repeatedly accused Syria of using chemical weapons on civilians, including in a recent attack in a suburb of Damascus that killed dozens of people. Their deaths was an affront to humanity.

These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated. actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated. U.N. experts warned that the relationship would facilitate both countries in violating international laws, helping Syria maintain its chemical weapons supply, while payments for those supplies would help North Korea fund its nuclear and missile programs. fund its nuclear and missile programs. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.