I was probably too dismissive in my earlier post about that Washington Monthly piece on hunting. I should have said why I think the piece doesn’t pass the smell test. I don’t think the author was lying about anything. And she clearly knows a lot about the subject. And several readers have written to tell me that the facts in the piece are accurate — which I never really doubted. What doesn’t pass the smell test is the idea that Progressives can turn hunting into a winning issue for them. There are just so many cultural and political variables mitigating against it. The NRA and various hunting-oriented groups have enormous clout in the GOP but are pariahs in the Democratic Party — at least at the national level. Which is basically the heart of my skepticism. I don’t doubt that many Democrats in hunting states are “good” on hunting. But as Larson notes, so are Republicans. This strikes me as one of those issues that’s more like agriculture than, say, gun rights. I just can’t imagine that at the national-ideological-movement level the Democrats could ever become the “pro-hunting” party. The most likely outcome of any attempt by, say, Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean to steal the issue would result in a political bidding war of some kind for the affection of hunters. Since, the GOP remains the pro gun-rights party, I don’t see how they could lose such a contest.