Nancy shoots blanks out of gate

[BoSoxFanVa]

I think Pelosi will be a strong leader. It would have been very easy for her to align herself with Hoyer from the get-go and then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, she stood by her good friend of 40 years, Murtha and had the guts to do so publicly. She probably knew she was going to lose. Hoyer had the votes already sewn up.

So the way I see it, I think it's a win for the Democratic Party.

Funny how the Republicans see loyalty as a weakness concerning Pelosi. Your leader, Bush, is praised about his loyalty to his cabinet and staff even when they are performing badly. re: Rumsfeld.

I can never figure you guys out.

 

[lawdude]

Chance, I agree with you that Pelosi made a rather significant strategic blunder before she has even officially become Speaker. But I would disagree with the notion that she has "screwed the pooch" and that it is all down hill from this point on. If I was her I would pick myself up and move on and chalk it up to a learning experience. And hopefully she has learned something from this all.

The whole situation is complicated and, in a way, I wonder if this really wasn't a blunder at all. While it certainly looks that way, I have to believe that she knew Murtha didn't have the votes and that she supported him knowing he would lose. Why? I don't know. Maybe she felt she had to support Murtha because he has been a consistent ally or maybe as a symbolic offering to the liberal anti-war wing of the Democratic Party who has come to regard Murtha as a hero for his opposition to the Iraq War. I really don't know. Perhaps, and I stress, perhaps this could be a good thing for her. I think the bigger problem she is going to face is keeping a relatively tight lease on liberal House members and Chairmen who could potentially go apeshit with suponeas, etc. and lead to a backlash in 2008. If she can spin this whole fiasco within the party and if it can somehow help her position herself to control these folks then this could be a positive.

I really don't know but I think that this is largely a symbolic defeat and that she has bigger fish to fry. Also I think that there are a good many people who are going to sell Pelosi short/prematurely announce her death as a leader of the House Democrats on account of her being the first female speaker and her being a "San Fransico Liberal" or quite simply because they are Republicans who are still bitter about losing in 2006. She took a risk, it failed, she is going to look bad for a while but she can simply learn from this and move on to be an effective leader. Good leaders have to take risks sometimes and sometimes those risks pay off, sometimes they don't. While some of the Democrats here are possibly playing her mistake down a little bit too much you are possibly making a big deal out it.

 

[snapcat]

Just to be clear, the next off-topic post in this thread will result in a warning and a forum ban for a time to be determined.

Address your comments toward to topic or start another thread.

I fear that we're approaching a fork in the road with some posters. Disruptive threads continue to be a problem for this forum, and my allegience is first to the healthy future of this forum, over any individual poster.

We may be at that point where a long-term or permanent forum ban is in order for some.

 

[chance1]

Chance, I agree with you that Pelosi made a rather significant strategic blunder before she has even officially become Speaker. But I would disagree with the notion that she has "screwed the pooch" and that it is all down hill from this point on. If I was her I would pick myself up and move on and chalk it up to a learning experience. And hopefully she has learned something from this all.

The whole situation is complicated and, in a way, I wonder if this really wasn't a blunder at all. While it certainly looks that way, I have to believe that she knew Murtha didn't have the votes and that she supported him knowing he would lose. Why? I don't know. Maybe she felt she had to support Murtha because he has been a consistent ally or maybe as a symbolic offering to the liberal anti-war wing of the Democratic Party who has come to regard Murtha as a hero for his opposition to the Iraq War. I really don't know. Perhaps, and I stress, perhaps this could be a good thing for her. I think the bigger problem she is going to face is keeping a relatively tight lease on liberal House members and Chairmen who could potentially go apeshit with suponeas, etc. and lead to a backlash in 2008. If she can spin this whole fiasco within the party and if it can somehow help her position herself to control these folks then this could be a positive.

I really don't know but I think that this is largely a symbolic defeat and that she has bigger fish to fry. Also I think that there are a good many people who are going to sell Pelosi short/prematurely announce her death as a leader of the House Democrats on account of her being the first female speaker and her being a "San Fransico Liberal" or quite simply because they are Republicans who are still bitter about losing in 2006. She took a risk, it failed, she is going to look bad for a while but she can simply learn from this and move on to be an effective leader. Good leaders have to take risks sometimes and sometimes those risks pay off, sometimes they don't. While some of the Democrats here are possibly playing her mistake down a little bit too much you are possibly making a big deal out it.

Perhaps she felt she "owed" Murtha. Not sure why. I have read many stories that she and Hoyer are not buds - don't like each other. Maybe she was sending him a message. Again - don't get it. Seems to me like she should be working on consensus. I do think this is the beginning of many "what side are u on" dialogues.

As for making a big deal out of it, if you read my initial post again I think u may agree that I was fair and really trying to see what some of her fans thought.

Thanks for the post

 

[chance1]

Chance, I really take exception to your innuendo about Jack Murthas ethics. Whether you realize it or not, you are engaging in another form of swiftboating. We all understand that you despise the Democrats .... that's a given. What's not a given is Jack Murtha's guilt in Abscam .... he was absolved of blame and never even charged .... a fact you conveniently fail to mention. What remains is Republican talking points that you've accepted as truth.

What ever happened to respect ..... respect and honor afforded to those who willingly answer the call for service to this country in time of war. Should partisan political viewpoints be a license to besmirch, lie about and ignore the heroism of these men? Has it degraded so much that winning elections are so important that nothing is sacred anymore?

Republicans swiftboated Senators Kerry and Max Cleland ... hell they even swiftboated one of their own in the primaries .... Senator John McCain. Are the current heroes of the Afghanistan and Iraq War doomed to the same fate if they dare to stand in opposition to this President? This President and his not-so-merry band of men dismiss courage in others as easily as they dismiss their own cowardice when it was their turn to step up.

You claim to wish the Dems well ..... frankly, it's going to take more than your words to convince me!

I take issue with Murtha because he is on tape soliciting a bribe - not a good thing. Have u read the transcript? what do u think was going on? OJ got off too - doesn't make him innocent.

Just because Murtha went to war does not make him immune from being called out when he does something wrong - and I'm not talking about his views which I believe are wrong. I respect that he went to war and defended this country - 100%.

I think u are spinning the swiftboat thing - it doesn't apply to Murtha. Kerry should have defended himself better. There sure were a lot of Vets who said Kerry did wrong - talk to them. I'm not sure who was right on that one.

As for defending Dems, I like plenty of them. If u notice, I dig the ones who speak intelligently and respectfully and aren't extreme and divisive. Seems to me, they are the real Dems not the scream from the rooftop dem imposters who do nothing but complain.

"We all understand" - who do u speak for Smelter? that's one

"that u despise the dems" - I guess if you write it enough u think it's true

As for Pelosi, just about every newspaper, blog, you name it says that Nancy came out of the gate bad - period. Is it a huge deal? Nah

It's a huge deal that with the exception of a handful of posters, everyone said "she did great"

 

[smelter]

I take issue with Murtha because he is on tape soliciting a bribe - not a good thing. Have u read the transcript? what do u think was going on? OJ got off too - doesn't make him innocent.

Before I answer this, how about you answering your own misstatement of fact:

1 - Murtha's conviction we can disagree with but for Pelosi to choose him as #2 just because of Iraq . . . . . . . . not a good move.

There was no Murtha conviction. (True or False?)

Just because Murtha went to war does not make him immune from being called out when he does something wrong - and I'm not talking about his views which I believe are wrong. I respect that he went to war and defended this country - 100%.

Again, before I can answer this, you must prove that he in fact did something wrong!

I think u are spinning the swiftboat thing - it doesn't apply to Murtha.

Not according to some insiders. Here is a portion of an article that appeared in the Huffington Post. If this doesn't fit the definition of swiftboating, wtf does?

... the Bush administration recently asked high ranking military leaders to denounce Congressman John Murtha. Congressman Murtha has called for the Bush Administration to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

The Bush Administration first attacked Rep. Murtha for his Iraq views by associating him with the filmmaker Michael Moore and Representative Jean Schmidt likened him to a coward on the floor of the House of Representatives.

When those tactics backfired, Dick Cheney called Murtha "A good man, a marine, a patriot and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion."

Though the White House has backed off publicly, administration officials have nevertheless recently made calls to military leaders to condemn the congressman. So far they have refused.

Rep. Murtha spent 37 years in the Marine Corps earning a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and a Navy Distinguished Service Medal. His service has earned him the respect of the military, and made him a trusted adviser to both Republican and Democratic presidents and leaders of the armed forces.

My question to you Chance ..... do you agree this meets the definition of swiftboating? (Yes or No?)

Kerry should have defended himself better. There sure were a lot of Vets who said Kerry did wrong - talk to them. I'm not sure who was right on that one.

And Vets who were on the same boat with him dispute their claims.

As for defending Dems, I like plenty of them. If u notice, I dig the ones who speak intelligently and respectfully and aren't extreme and divisive. Seems to me, they are the real Dems not the scream from the rooftop dem imposters who do nothing but complain.

Sometimes the only way to get someone's attention is to scream from the rooftop! Are you happy with the mess the Bush Administration has made of Iraq?

Are you happy with how he has tread on the Constitution? 65 percent of the American people are screaming and very few in your party are listening!

"We all understand" - who do u speak for Smelter? that's one

"that u despise the dems" - I guess if you write it enough u think it's true

I'll give you this one. It was wrong of me to say 'We'. Change that to 'I'.

As for Pelosi, just about every newspaper, blog, you name it says that Nancy came out of the gate bad - period. Is it a huge deal? Nah

It's a huge deal that with the exception of a handful of posters, everyone said "she did great"

Nancy Pelosi told Steny that she was going to back her friend Jack Murtha. There was nothing underhanded about her actions. Murtha lost, Steny won ..... those are the facts. This story is being kept alive by Republicans who are still in denial over the election results. It's time to moveon (pun intended)!

 

[Kulindahr]

all i can picture while reading this is zermonie in black leather whipping chance...hot. now, back on topic

No, that's Pelosi whipping Murtha for not winning.....

I'm still seeing columns about this, but now more questioning than pronouncing. Some have done as I did, and ventured to ask what it means. I've seen a few that made me cringe -- Alfie, nothing on JUB of the "toe the line Republican" theme you dislike is as bad as some of the stuff I found; even Rush would blush.

Anyway... Looking at this from the other direction, it seems to me that the die-hard Democrats here would be all over a Speaker for this -- if it was Republicans. A truly open mind would admit that, instead of dragging in other things done by other people. The question is, "Did she indeed shoot blanks?", or as a column I glanced at put it, "Did she put her money on a lame pony?" Jumping on a messenger for bringing a viewpoint doesn't help with that.

To answer the question: I think she put her money on a lame pony. Chance isn't the only one raising questions about ethics; I believe the articles I posted links to did, as have others. Looking at the two choices, I could wish for a moment that her pony had won, then the next moment find myself pleased with the true result.
Which is to say that both Murtha and Hoyer have strengths, and both have weaknesses. Presumably, Pelosi has some degree of intelligence, to have made it to where she is, so presumabnly she has a good idea of their strengths and weaknesses. So why did she choose Murtha? I say it was a mistake -- which would make Chance correct: she shot blanks.

 

[smelter]

Jack Murtha isn't the most articulate person who sits in Congress. His interview with the undercover FBI agent back then and his recent interview with Matthews are certainly proof of that. It comes down to a matter of who you believe. The fact remains that he did not accept the 50 thousand dollar bribe as six others did and he was not charged with breaking the law. The people in his home district must believe he told the truth because they keep sending him back to represent them year after year. Given his distinguished military and Congressional career, I choose to believe his explanation of what transpired.

Here is the portion of the Chris Matthews Hardball interview with Jack Murtha dealing with the Abscam tape:

MATTHEWS: Let’s talk about what’s being said against you. Not just by your opponents, but in the newspapers. Let’s talk about Abscam. Back 26 years ago, I went through the numbers. Five members of the United States Congress, a United States senator, Pete Williams from New Jersey were convicted of accepting money from these undercover FBI agents, posing as Arab guys trying to make an offer to congressmen so he’d cut a deal, put some money in the pockets of these people.

All these people are convicted, you weren’t. Does that mean you’re innocent?

MURTHA: Well, I’ll put this way. I had 24 percent unemployment, I was looking at investment. I told them I wanted an investment in my district, they put $50,000 out on the table. I said I’m not interested in that, I’m interested in investment. The ethics committee cleared me completely, unanimous vote.

MATTHEWS: When they said, when they offered you the envelope of $50,000, did you think that was a bribe?

MURTHA: It wasn’t an envelope, it was a drawer full of cash.

MATTHEWS: Was that a bribe?

MURTHA: No. As far as I was concerned...

MATTHEWS: ... No, what did you see that as? Why did you say I’m not interested?

MURTHA: Well, I said I’m not interested because I just didn’t feel like it was the right thing to do.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

MURTHA: Well, what the hell, I’m not going to take cash from some Arab sheikhs. They weren’t Arab sheikhs, they were FBI agents.

MATTHEWS: But you didn’t know that.

MURTHA: I just said this is not what I’m interested in. I’m interested in you folks investing.

MATTHEWS: I’ve heard you, I’ve seen this tape on YouTube now, everybody has seen it. A million people apparently have seen this tape. You said I’m not interested, and I assume you think it was something you shouldn’t have done, as you just said. It wasn’t the right thing to do, right, sir?

MURTHA: Well certainly, that’s exactly.

MATTHEWS: OK. Well then why did you say at this point, then?

MURTHA: Listen, I wanted to negotiate with them about investment in the district, that’s what I was interested in. It’s the only thing I was interested in.

MATTHEWS: But what do you mean when you said I’m not interested at this point. I’m not interested maybe at some point?

MURTHA: No, no, listen.

MATTHEWS: That’s on the tape.

MURTHA: I know, but what I said was I want to continue to talk to you guys, I want investment in the district. That’s all I was interested in.

MATTHEWS: But did you smell corruption in that conversation?

MURTHA: Sure. I saw these guys were trying to corrupt me and trying to...

MATTHEWS: ... Did you think they were legitimate emissaries for an Arab big shot or did you think they were...

MURTHA: They were the slimiest guys I’ve ever seen.

MATTHEWS: Well why didn’t you walk out of the room the minute you met them?

MURTHA: Well listen, they said they were going to invest in the district.

MATTHEWS: I understand the constituent service part of it. I understand that. But the tricky part of this is to say I’m not interested, which meant you didn’t want to have anything to do with these slime balls, as you saw them, but then you said “at this point.” Was that just a way of finessing your way out of the conversation?

MURTHA: Exactly, exactly. I deal with people like this all the time. I wanted to find a way to move towards a negotiation to investment.

MATTHEWS: Did you know they had already paid two other members off?

MURTHA: I had no idea.

MATTHEWS: Even when they were talking about we’ve give 50, the one guy, 50 to the other guy?

MURTHA: I ignored that completely. I paid no attention to that at all.

MATTHEWS: It didn’t mean anything to you?

MURTHA: It didn’t mean...

MATTHEWS: ... It didn’t mean Thompson and Murphy were involved? OK, you weren’t charged, right?

MURTHA: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: You weren’t reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee, so what do you think your record should be, all these years later, 26 years later, what do you think that should say to people about your attitude as a member of Congress today? What have you learned from that? What should they think about it? And thirdly, is this a legitimate issue in this campaign, as you see it?

MURTHA: Well, I’ve been elected 10 times since that happened. It has come up almost in every contested election, its come up. And I think the public...

MATTHEWS: ... you mean back home?

MURTHA: Back at home. They understand what I was trying to do. They’re the ones that didn’t have the jobs. They’re the ones that wanted investment in the district. They’re the ones that understand better than anybody else, and I think the people up here understand also, that this was something that was set up by the FBI in order to entice people and send them to jail.

MATTHEWS: Well, it worked in a lot of cases. They put five guys, six guys away, including Pete Williams.

MURTHA: They did put six guys away and I said I want investment. That’s what I wanted.

 

[Kulindahr]

It wasn't a bribe, as far as he was concerned? I think that's a sderious character flaw right there! Someone puts a drawere full of cash on the table in front of you, accompanied by a request, well, a sixteen-year-old would recognize a bribe!

To turn Murtha's own words back at him, as far as I'm concerned, asked for investment in his district, with the request from his visitors still on the table, was negotiating a bribe -- just a different sort.

The guy is slick, but after reading that, I think he's (mild) slime.

And if Pelosi is aware of that interview, and backed him for ANY reason, I say she's not to be trusted. What sort of person offers up to the Congress as her choice a man who can't tell a bribe when he sees one? and who effectively goes on negotiating for something different?!
I'm going to treat her as a cat: she gets nine lives. She just burned one before she even got to the Speaker's chair.

 

[JayHawk]

Well now that all the crying back and forth is somewhat done. I would just like to say it is excellent that the moderate dems on the hill let Nancy know she is their voice and not the other way around.

Her decisions are not their decisions and they will hold her to task for picking favorites or not picking the most qualified even if she happens to have a little tiff with whomever the most qualified happens to be.

Hopefully it will set her straight for making future decisions. Doubtful, but alas a hope it still is.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well now that all the crying back and forth is somewhat done. I would just like to say it is excellent that the moderate dems on the hill let Nancy know she is their voice and not the other way around.

Her decisions are not their decisions and they will hold her to task for picking favorites or not picking the most qualified even if she happens to have a little tiff with whomever the most qualified happens to be.

Hopefully it will set her straight for making future decisions. Doubtful, but alas a hope it still is.

Well said!


And Alfie, I'm looking forward to the chance to expose McCain for the hypocritical, lying, anti-First Amendment can man that he is.

I fully expect him to ally with Pelosi, to make himself look good. If she accepts that alliance, I'll knock off antother of those nine lives.

 

[Andreus]

mazda, I really think its a sign that she is willing to compromise

I think she could have gotten her man in if she was willing to strong arm the party, but she knew that it wasn't a priority.

time will tell...

I think she will have the hardest time reining in her own tendencies to the more extreme liberal end, and to a degree we mat see how she plans on approaching the issue.

She may just continue to firmly state her beliefs, but not try to muscle the rest of the party to follow her opinions as if they were law. She has definitely going to have to face compromise, both within her party as well as with a republlican white house that will find the new ability to use the veto pen in the next two years.

 

[JayHawk]

I see that compromise coming also and I hope Bush's record of walking across the aisle when he was Governor and had to work a Dem State legislature will hold true.

The Bush haters will never subside, they will claim it is a lame duck looking to mend fences for his legacy. Yet, I know that such compromise is good for the country.

Your right too. Nancy could very well simply hold true to her positions and then bend with the popular opinion. Such a strategy will keep her popular with her constituency.

 

[JayHawk]

Excuse me, but what "decisions" did she make? What "pick" did Pelosi make? Speaker-elect Pelosi sent a letter to Murtha saying she supported his candidacy for the Majority Leader position, just as other Speaker-elects have done -- it's an endorsement, not a job offer, it's routine and trivial. I'd add that this is a Democratic Party issue -- this isn't a Republican Busy-Body deal, this is an internal political contest. Your side, the few that still have a job come January (minus the other handful going to jail or sex-offender school) decided to elect a KKK wannabe, a deeply troubled segregationist. I think your time would be more wisely spent worrying about affairs in your own house.

Let me give you some free advice: if right wingers want to have a seat at the table, to have a "say" in how the House and Senate operates, you better adopt a civil tone and stop with this ankle-biting. We're in power, come January, not you -- you're the minority now, your side got its ass kicked -- you will suffer as we did for twelve years if you continue to like like unruly Republican't children.

So bitter. Must be hard living in NYC. True though if we want a seat what do we have to do? Hmmm, veto is an option. The senate well it is such a major dem mojority we couldn't possibly stifle something there. Nope your right no seat at the table.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think she will have the hardest time reining in her own tendencies to the more extreme liberal end, and to a degree we mat see how she plans on approaching the issue.

She would do well to abandon her anti-self-defense stance, a totally new phenomenon in American politics since JFK was shot, and return to the stand taken by Hubert Humphrey, who held that the Second Amendment was one of the most important rights of all -- and understood what the word "infringe" meant. If she did that, and made her congresscriutters abide by it, she would pretty effectively shatter the NRA's more-or-less universal support of the Republicans. A lot of NRA members are Democrats, but will never vote for any candidate who is ready to hack away at part of the Bill of Rights.

I'd add that this is a Democratic Party issue -- this isn't a Republican Busy-Body deal, this is an internal political contest.

Don't be such an obvious hypocrite, Alfie! Nothing has been off-limits to your harping and slashing while the Republicans have held their slim majority; don't try to impose such a limit on anyone else.

And don't be so disingeneous. Pelosi is Speaker-elect of the House. She will be two steps away from the Presidency. Everything she does is now a matter for the American people, like it or not.

...you better adopt a civil tone and stop with this ankle-biting.

Sure, oh Kaiser (you keep sounding like a Republican)!
As soon as you apologize for your "ankle-biting" and other slander, etc. or Republicans all this time, I'm sure everyone else will stop being critical of your idols.
Which I think is about as likely as Pelosi apologizing for choosing someone ethically challenged for Majority Leader. But such is life.

veto is an option. The senate well it is such a major dem mojority we couldn't possibly stifle something there.

Heh -- good point. I've pointed that out regularly about the current Congress to people who calim that the Republicans are in absolute control of the government. You don't have control at all until you have that magic 60% required to force a vote, and preferably the 2/3 necessary to ovedrride a vewto (just in case your president gets a little crazy).
But I do hope Bush grows a pair and learns to use the veto if, as Andreus questions, Pelosi doesn't control her "extreme liberal end".

 

[Andreus]

anti self defence? are you talking about the individual rights or the nations rights. you have lost me with lingo speak, i think.

thats new republican lingo speak for preemtive war that i hadn't heard yet.

I'm not that dumb, so lets just call it what it is.

preemptive warfare has been illegal since the UN was chartered. it was the main lesson we learned from the two world wars.

one of the primary goals of the UN is to stop that from occuring, so I really don't know where you are getting your information.

it really is gainst most all of the international treaties and conferences that modern nations are expected to adhere to.

preemptive warfare has absolutely nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

one is an internal right and the other is an external international agreement.

i just cant really understand your arguement. please clarify with references.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's fun to be on the cusp of deporting all those Republican savages -- heady times, indeed.



That right? Well then I just can't WAIT until the Libertarians ("Party of Five at Table Seven") win a majority in the US House and then I get to slash and smear as they go through the inner workings of setting up shop. Oh, wait! That would require them to actually WIN an ELECTION! Never mind.

If you're going to keep smearing the Libertarians whith blatant falsehood, I'm going to start calling the Democrats the National Socialists -- which I think is a tiny bit closer to being true.

 

[Kulindahr]

Andreus, self-defense refers to a right, and only individuals have rights. War of any kind is never a right, and pre-emptive war is substantially wicked, though just maybe a notch below outright agression.

Last I knew, Pelosi quite correctly opposed such war, while she quite wrongly also opposed self-defense.

 

[Andreus]

Andreus, self-defense refers to a right, and only individuals have rights. War of any kind is never a right, and pre-emptive war is substantially wicked, though just maybe a notch below outright agression.

Last I knew, Pelosi quite correctly opposed such war, while she quite wrongly also opposed self-defense.

ahh

I see, sorry for the confusion

you are equating responsible gun control of automatic weapons with anti self defence.

well we both know how i feel about that, and it is in no way simmilar to how you do, so lets not stroll down that path again.

I got the lingo speak you were using crossed up.

I think i need to do some research and see how many people die from failed "armed self deffence" attempts. I have heard that it is quite alot. that put together with accidental deaths due to mishandling weapons should be quite substantial.

give me a few mins to pick around and di gup some statistics that we can look at.

 

[Andreus]

here is a bit that i found quite intriguing...

apparently suicides make up for over fifty percent of gun deaths in america. I had no idea. where does that fit into the whole self defence issue? that was just one of the statistics i just found rather staggering.

Source... Tincher.com

...

Gun-related deaths in the USA



Statistics and causes

The definitive source for US injury death statistics is the Centers For Disease Control National Center for Injury Prevention & Control website which provides statistics on all deaths by injury, not just gun deaths. To get the number of gun deaths for a year just set the Cause of Injury to Firearm. If you only want to know the number of child gun deaths per year then choose the custom age range and input 0 years ( <1 ) as the lowest age and 17 years as the top age. Be sure to select "No Age-Adjusting Requested" if you are only interested in a particular age group.
Note that the CDC child gun death figures are typically half of the figures that the gun control lobby publishes. The difference is in the definition of a child. The gun control lobby counts young adults that are 18 or 19 years old as children, but they do not count 20 year olds as children. You can choose from one of two possible reasons, depending on your level of cynicism: 1. The standard CDC age groups used to go from 0-19, 20-39, etc and the gun control lobby couldn't figure out how to select a custom age group. 2. Counting 18 and 19 year olds as children doubles the number of so-called child gun deaths, and more child gun deaths means more support for gun control.
In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and 3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1609 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group. Historically the 18 through 24 age group is the highest crime-committing group. At age 18 part-time drug dealers leave school and become full-time drug dealers. Despite the propaganda from the gun control lobby, criminals in general and drug dealers in particular are the group of so-called children most likely to be shot by their fellow criminals. You can verify this by reading the local gun death news stories in any city newspaper. School shootings are so rare that every one gets national television coverage, but drug dealers are shot so often that they are barely mentioned in their local newspaper.
Older people's gun deaths are most likely to be suicides. Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA.
The best way to prevent gun deaths is to treat depression and other mental illness, teach children not to sell or use illegal drugs, treat drug addiction, and have police concentrate on enforcing drug laws. However, the gun control lobby says that we should spend billions of dollars on gun registration and gun licensing instead of using the money to treat depression and combat drugs. Click here for some sensible ways to prevent gun violence.
The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 824 by 1999 according to the CDC. Note that it is extremely easy to prevent accidental gun deaths by following Jeff Cooper's Four Rules Of Gun Safety. Click here for a free downloadable brochure that illustrates the four rules.


More resources

First check out the links on my Gun Safety and other firearms information page. You can also find more great gun-related links in My Bookmarks including gun safety, technical information, politics, why the Fifth Amendment allows convicted felons to ignore gun registration laws, the failures of the Brady Bill and other so-called "gun-control" laws, and gun and ammunition suppliers. Just look at the section under General > Guns.