The Brady Campaign is pretty clearly laying the ground work for their push to get the Democrats to abandon the NRA post-election, by saying the 1994 elections were never really about guns, and that the Democrats who do not take NRA money (and who are also, conveniently, in safe, heavily lefty Democratic urban districts) are going to fare better than those who do.
The real lesson for the Democrats is that you can’t expect to win your majority back with pro-gun Blue Dog Democrats, then twist their arms to vote for Pelosi and Obama’s radical agenda, and then expect the gun vote to save you. The gun vote is powerful, but not that powerful. Being pro-gun is still going to win those candidates more than it will cost them, and in some of those districts it’s necessary to get elected at all.
If the whole story was about the Democrats, there would be no problem. Either the Democrats would win with reliably pro-gunners, or they would get wiped out with anti-gunners. The problem is that there are always a few Republicans willing to pull their chestnuts out of the fire, such as the politically late and unlamented Mile Castle. In the worst case, not only does this give the Brady types the numbers to pass gun control legislation, it also gives the impression that gun control is on the rise. Worse, it muddies the waters as to which party can be trusted, and makes it harder to elect pro-gun candidates in the future.
Here’s a prediction: in 2012, the Bradys will claim that the NRA “is showing its true colors” by endorsing far fewer Democrats that this year. The real reason, of course, will be that there will be far fewer Democrat incumbents.
They can lay all the groundwork they want. They just don’t have the influence anymore.
I agree with Carl. We need to keep a close eye on them, but they are very close to being a non influencer.
15,000 versus 4,000,000 million paying members?
I still run into many people who think the NRA is a 35 dollar life membership. Makes me laugh. But they truly think they are a member. I think we have 4 million paying members and 2 to 3 more million that think they are members.(No facts to back that up though)
C’mon, Ken. That’s as easy a prediction as “the sun will come up tomorrow.”
The Bradys will never, ever face up to simple reality — i.e., that the NRA is not infinitely powerful, but nevertheless has sufficient electoral clout to swing close elections, or to help create a wave. Why? Because that would undermine their fantasy narrative that the NRA enjoys tremendous lobbying clout in Congress despite being completely out of step with the electorate and therefore powerless in terms of actually delivering votes.
Actually, that article sound a lot like what Wayne LaPierre puts out every month. Helmke just shifted “Yeses” to No’s”, “Shall to shant”, etc. Wonder if LaPierre can sue Helmke for plagiarism?
“I still run into many people who think the NRA is a 35 dollar life membership.”
And what about those people who are gun owners, but are disappointed–or even downright angered by–NRA’s actions? L. Neil Smith, a true life-time NRA member, questioned NRA’s loyalty to the cause…and as wacky as the GOA is at times, they are another place disappointed NRA members congregate.
I can’t help but wonder: just how many people are there, who are willing to make guns an issue? When we add it all up, I’m sure it’s much larger than NRA membership.