The muted response on Capitol Hill to the Virginia Tech massacre shows an evolving willingness among some Democrats to recognise political realities, writes Peter Wallstenin Washington
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska strode across an open field, a rifle draped over his shoulder. Brian Schweitzer, running for governor of Montana, wore camouflage as he peered through the viewfinder perched atop his gun.
Those images, featured in television advertisements promoting the candidacies of two Democrats, help explain why the Democratic-controlled Congress is not rushing to pass stricter gun laws in the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech that left 33 people dead and spurred renewed calls in some circles for further restrictions on the sale of firearms.
Democrats have traditionally backed gun restrictions. President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban in 1994, a bill passed by a Democratic Congress. Following the deaths of 15 people at Colorado's Columbine high school in 1999, he and Democratic lawmakers pushed for more gun laws, but they were stymied by the Republicans who then held congressional majorities.
But now, Democrats nurse thin majorities in the House and Senate - majorities they attained last year in part because they recruited candidates who oppose more gun laws and who won on traditionally Republican turf. Many in the party are embracing the culture of hunting that is a way of life in rural America.
The muted response on Capitol Hill to the Virginia Tech massacre underscores an evolving willingness among some Democrats from the party's urban and coastal strongholds to recognise the political realities facing colleagues who need rural votes to win office. It also illustrates a growing belief within the party that Democrats are unlikely to keep power without a strategy to appeal to voters in the typically conservative heartland.
Many strategists believe the 1994 assault weapons ban cost the party its congressional majorities later that year in the midterm election. In 2000 Democrat Al Gore's loss in the presidential race was blamed in part on the gun issue. In 2001 a successful gubernatorial campaign by a Democrat who embraced gun rights persuaded many party leaders of the political value in courting hunters.
The party's 2004 presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, tried to score points with gun enthusiasts by donning camouflage and hoisting a 12-gauge double-barrelled shotgun for a day of duck hunting in the battleground state of Ohio.
"If we're going to be a majority party, it has to be a coalition of people that don't agree on every issue," said Karl Struble, a Democratic strategist who has produced pro-gun-rights advertisements for several candidates.
"There are an awful lot of Democrats in the middle part of the country that do not believe there ought to be intrusive laws about the rights to own guns."
The powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), traditionally aligned with Republicans, backed more than 60 Democrats in congressional races in 2006, while remaining neutral in other key races.
"Democrats woke up and realised what Republicans have known for a long time, which is that the [ gun rights] culture is here and it's not going anywhere," said Democrat strategist Steve Jarding.
In Montana in 2004 a television advertisement showed Schweitzer aiming a rifle as he touted his NRA membership. Polls have shown Schweitzer enjoying strong approval ratings, and his standing paved the way for greater Democratic gains in the state.
The Democrats' new hesitancy on engaging over guns was clear almost immediately after Monday's killings. On Tuesday, Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada warned against a "rush to judgment" in pursuing tighter gun laws.
Reid, whose voting record has received high marks from the NRA, spoke by telephone on Thursday with Virginia governor Tim Kaine, another Democrat who has courted hunters and the NRA, and the two agreed it was too early to talk about legislation, according to Reid's office.
One presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, on Thursday told a radio interviewer he supported changing laws to better ensure that mentally ill people cannot buy guns. However, he was quick to add: "I'm respectful of people who want to hunt or sportsmen, somebody who might want to have a gun in the house to protect their home."
The reticence of most Democratic congressional leaders to push for new gun laws has sparked frustration among many gun control advocates and perturbed some of the Democratic lawmakers. Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican member of the House of Representatives Carolyn McCarthy are among those who have said the Virginia Tech shootings underscore the need for tougher gun regulation. "Everyone's afraid of the NRA," said McCarthy's spokesman, George Burke. "It's a pro-gun House and a pro-gun Senate. That's just the reality of it."
Since the 1990 election, the NRA has given almost $16 million (€11.8 million) to federal candidates and parties and spent another $32 million on campaigns for or against certain candidates - efforts that overwhelmingly supported Republicans, according to the non-partisan Centre for Responsive Politics.
Beyond campaign contributions, the NRA draws its power from its four million members - a grassroots network that can be enlisted to support specific candidates.
An NRA spokesman declined to comment, saying it would be inappropriate to discuss politics in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings. But the group's support for growing numbers of Democrats in recent campaigns - and the party's reluctance to call aggressively for new laws - suggest the NRA has maintained its influence in the Democratic-controlled Congress. - ( Los Angeles Times-Washington Post service)