If Larry Pratt took your post here and reprinted it on GOA letterhead, it would be entirely believable. Is that really the kind of company you want to keep? Is the Brady Campaign becoming the “no compromise” Second Amendment group? Well, GOA probably makes money money and has more dues paying members than the Brady Campaign. Maybe we should let Larry know he might have some competition.
UPDATE: Man, Larry really is going to have his work cut out for him. Now it’s AHSA getting into the game too. Those releases are so similar, you’d almost think they coordinated their message or something.
These people are beyond parody.
I hate to say this, and feel more than a little odd doing so, but I have to agree with the Brady Bunch and AHSA on this.
When the group that describes itself as the “800 lb gorilla” (or whatever the exact weight generally quoted) of the gun rights movement endorses someone who voted to extend the ban on so-called “assault weapons,” principles have clearly been sacrificed for expediency.
If the bar for an NRA endorsement has been lowered to “not as bad as Obama,” Ray Shoenke himself would apparently be worthy of an endorsement, were he running for office.
Kurt… if Hillary had won, and McCain hadn’t picked Palin, I would agree with you. They would have been foolish to endorse McCain. But either McCain or Obama is going to win, and the election is close enough for the endorsement to matter. Obama will be an unmitigated disaster for us with an overwhemingly Democratic Congress. As I’ve said, we’ve never had a good candidate on our issue. Reagan supported passage of the Brady Act, with the waiting periods. Bush Sr.’s treachery on the second amendment are well known. The endorsement was withdrawn and that gave us Clinton. Dole wasn’t good enough for an endorsement and we got Clinton again. George H.W. Bush sailed into office calling for renewal of the assault weapons ban with an endorsement.
But we gained ground during Bush’s term, and under Reagan. Under Reagan we lost with the machine gun issue. But overall, two of his appointees voted the right way in Heller. And both of Bush’s did too, and one of Bush’s father’s appointees did also. It was also Reagan and Bush appointees on the lower courts that allowed Heller to even get off the ground. We managed to make significant progress under some very imperfect candidates, because on the important issues, they were with us.
McCain is far from perfect, but we can work with him and make progress under his administration, because on the important philosophical questions, he’s largely with us. When you get down to details, there are problems, but when the most important issue for gun owners is who the next president puts on the courts, I’ll take the guy that’s largely on our side over the one who I know will put judges on the court who will redact the Second Amendment right out of the Bill of Rights.
Do you really see much chance of the NRA’s endorsement being enough to stop the St. Obama landslide? The economy is in the tank, and (rightly or wrongly) this is seen as the Republicans’ fault, and (again, rightly or wrongly) McCain is seen as a Republican, and St. Obama has all that HopeandChange™ going on.
Gun laws are not going to have any discernible effect on this election, one way or another (so says I). Obama will win big, and then AHSA and the Brady Campaign will triumphantly point out that the NRA’s intense efforts to put McCain in the White House failed utterly, thus “proving” the NRA’s lack of political power.
Kurt:
That’s really the major concern I have with the endorsement. But I don’t think it’s a lost cause yet, as I think Obama is going to overpoll. I think it will be close if McCain can pull it out, but I think we have to do everything we can to avoid defeat.
I don’t doubt that the Bradley Effect will be in play, but I seriously doubt that the number of people polling for Obama simply to avoid being perceived as racist will be enough to save McCain. By the way, I love the fact that it is now “racist” to not vote for a black candidate–here I was thinking that what is racist is allowing race to affect one’s vote–silly me.
Frankly, I think it would have made more sense for them not to endorse anyone, but continue to run ads critical of Obama. Before the endorsement there was already a de-facto endorsement of McCain. By having no official endorsement, but a de-facto endorsement, they basically get to have their cake and eat it too.
Sam, that’s precisely what I hoped they would do, and after getting to within a month of the election without such an outright endorsement, I had begun to think that they would.
Hell–I wouldn’t even have complained about them being silent about the problems with McCain’s “pro-gun” credentials.
Kurt… if Hillary had won, and McCain hadn’t picked Palin, I would agree with you.
It just occurred to me to ask this–why would Clinton be any less objectionable than Obama? She hides her citizen disarmament agenda a little better, I suppose, but I don’t think she’s any less rabid than he is.
That’s mostly based on speculation that Palin would not have bubbled to the top of McCain’s list if Hillary had been the opponent. I think it would have made Romney more likely to be the VP pick, which for gun owners doesn’t do anything to help make the ticket more attractive. Palin was a good pick because it was a signal to the base that McCain thought they were important, and was willing to pick someone who pleased them, but was still an independent minded reformer.
OK–that makes sense.
Even I can’t fault Palin’s stance on guns. Speaking personally, though, VP choices have a pretty small effect on how I vote (although I agree that the choice of VP can shed some light on the priorities and judgment of the presidential candidate).
If McCain were 55, it wouldn’t matter as much. At 72, it matters a lot more :)