There’s been some coverage of the Brady Campaign turning on the Obama Administration. Namely from The Hill, Politico, and NPR, just to name some. The biggest MSM coverage that I’ve seen is this blurb in USA Today, where it’s mentioned among many other left-leaning groups that graded Obama. but my favorite one is probably this, from a small town Washington State news outlet:
Also clearly, the folks [at the Brady Center] aren’t showing much political savvy of the kind that allows a president to govern.
Case in point — the Massachusetts election Tuesday for the vacant U.S. Senate seat once held by Sen. Ted Kennedy.
The Brady Center’s Paul Helmke, in endorsing Democrat Martha Coakley, said: “This race is a clear choice between a tough, law-and-order leader who wants to fight gun violence in Massachusetts and a state legislator who has, either wittingly or unwittingly, become a poster child for the ‘guns everywhere’ gun lobby.â€
The National Rifle Association was upfront about what it thought of her opponent, Republican Scott Brown.
“Scott Brown is ‘A’ rated by the NRA Political Victory Fund,†the NRA’s Political Victory Fund website says.
Massachusetts voters resoundingly chose Brown, a state senator.
I don’t know if I’d be that harsh. Progressive are abandoning Obama like rats from a sinking ship at this point, and the Bradys are no doubt wanting to join, in the hopes that Obama might decide he needs to win back a few friends, and they might be one of them. Plus, getting cozy with other disillusioned progressives might bring some money in, and that wouldn’t be unwelcome by the Bradys, who have to be getting desperate for money at this point.
It wouldn’t be an unreasonable strategy if Brady had something to offer Obama and the Democrats in return for support, but what do they have? Money? No. Their PAC spent nary a cent in the last election, only 55 thousand dollars, or thereabouts. For contrast, Brady spending in 2004 was three times as much. Spending in the 2000 election was more than thirty times. Votes? The lack of ability for anti-gun groups to deliver votes is fairly undisputed in political circles at this point. So what do they have to offer Obama? Of the holy trinity, only favorable or unfavorable media can really be truly delivered, which is what they decided to try here. But I have to admit, they will need more than a brief blurb in USA Today, and some of the online sources to return to the former glory days of Handgun Control Incorporated. So far I would say this gambit is falling flat.
If I didn’t know better, I would say Helmke is the new Mary Mcfate.
The BC is doing everything to sink Obama and I’m kinda enjoying watching it.
There is a flaw in your analysis. While the money the antis deliver directly through their PAC is small, the some of the people behind the Brady’s, state antigun groups, have access to substantial financial resources and are able to indirectly support their positions through large personal campaign donations, donations to party campaign committees and via fundraising operations for candidates and party committees. Ex. In 2004, antis held a John Kerry fundraiser in NYC at $2500 per person.