2012 – Page 153 – Shall Not Be Questioned

More on the New Likely Brady Campaign Goals

John Richardson did some digging into the organization that Dan Gross founded to get an idea of what he bringing to the table. It definitely seems to be money.

…they use entertainment and New York sports figures as their draw. I think Brady is seeking an in to deep pockets and Gross will provide that. Iâ€™m sure he has a great Rolodex.

He also knows how to get taxpayer dollars according to what Jacob found.

I donâ€™t believe heâ€™s been on the receiving end of pork from Albany. He did get $50,000 (through PAX) from the NYC Council in â€™10

Jacob also did some digging through NY state political donation records and it seems to indicate that he is not the same Dan Gross who has given modestly to Democrats the last few years. Instead, the new Brady president has only given to one candidate. He was backing a Democrat though, so he is likely on that side of the political spectrum.

More and more, it looks like the involvement of Dan Gross indicates that the Brady Center will be the big focus and they are likely quietly handing off the political work to Bloomberg. I noticed that the Brady accounts have been promoting Bloomberg’s MAIG Super Bowl commercial in social media, so that could be read as another sign that they are leaving that work up to the billionaire while the Brady Center staffers just try to fundraise to save their jobs. (This also wouldn’t be unheard of since we know that the partnership started a few years ago when both MAIG & Brady were using the same lobbyist who now heads CeaseFirePA.)

The Bloomberg/Menino Gun Control Ad

Notice they don’t let Mumbles talk a whole lot. But I do have to say I’m relatively relieved. This could have been a lot worse for us, especially if they had been willing to spend money on a one minute spot. They spent so much time in their initial comical banter, they were only able to make a laughable statement about supporting the Second Amendment, and then imploring people to visit their web site (which no one will). Given that we now know they only bought spots in the DC market, my opinion in that this ad is meant to get MAIG exposure in front of politicians. After all, if they have the money to buy a Super Bowl ad, they must be big players in this issue. And imagine what they could do if they pumped money into issue ads during a race?

Of course, they already tried that in a media market primed for their message and failed spectacularly. But they surely want DC to know who the big dog is in this issue.

Bloomberg’s Super Bowl Commercial

One of the things I’ve been wondering ever since the news broke about Bloomberg’s big spend on a gun control ad during the Super Bowl is where exactly the ad would air. I saw many reporters simply repeating the line that it would be regional. Since Bloomberg has spent so much money on Pennsylvania, I wondered if this area would be a target. One reporter made a mention of asking about the regions, but did not publish and answer.

Yesterday, the NYT finally answered the question. Bloomberg only funded his gun control ad to run in DC. Yup, that’s right. He won’t take the fight to the states, only to other politicians. I think it represents an important trend with the Mayor to consistently try to overrule the voters by keeping up his relationships with and only target other elites. He doesn’t want to be bothered by us little people who might dare disagree with him and his nanny-state tendencies.

What Does the New Brady President Mean for the Future of the Organization?

The Brady Campaign board decided to hire a president whose entire background is in advertising and non-profit work. He has no political background that I’ve seen, and what little does exist is entirely focused on New York. In other words, they hired someone who seemingly has no real network to get started on the DC political scene.

Now, assuming he’s a Democrat*, that will be an automatic in to gun control political circles that Paul Helmke never had. Unlike Helmke, he should have a background that the gun control caucus from highly urban areas can rally behind. But, since he doesn’t seem to have any direct experience playing the political game, it will be interesting to see how far this kind “in” can really take him politically.

In my mind, this type of hire gives a little more credit to the idea we’ve been talking about for a couple of years now that maybe the Brady Campaign is taking a backseat to the Brady Center. It’s probably easier to raise the (c)3 funds, and this would be a step in the direction of really focusing on the (c)3 work that isn’t just centered around Dennis Hennigan’s legal attempts to re-write the Second Amendment. Dan Gross can focus on happy, feel-good things that will look better to donors who might otherwise be tired of the losses they have faced politically and in the courts for the last three-and-a-half years.

*According to Open Secrets, there is a Daniel Gross from New York who has rather modestly donated to exclusively Democrats since 2007.

The New Brady Campaign President

UPDATE: It looks like the Brady Campaign’s new president is trying to play a game of Down the Rabbit Hole. Silly Dan! Screenshots save evidence of your fumble. (See, I can use the Super Bowl theme, too!)

***
I don’t even know what to say. They hired an advertising guy, and yet this is the mess that the Brady Campaign has been pushing lately. Racism, drug use, child neglect, embrace of the “thug” lifestyle, these are all things they have been promoting with the people they have been recently retweeting. I don’t know if I should feel sorry for the guy or if this is the kind of work he finds acceptable.

The Brady Campaign president, Dan Gross, lives in New York and pushed the ASK program at his previous job. In other words, he’s a big believer in the Bloomberg nannyism to get other people to dig into your personal lives at home. Perhaps the Brady board looked to Bloomberg’s work with MAIG and assumed that if they could just get someone like him, they could come back to the top of the gun control world.

This is rather funny since his first PR-related move as a leader of the Brady Campaign is a stumble. Or, rather, should I call it a fumble?

Um, no.

The first announcement is on their website. On Saturday. (Maybe even Friday since I didn’t look at it yesterday.)

The more cynical may point to this as another Brady lie. I just find it amusing and very much in line of their strategy for not actually reviewing anything before it goes out the door.

Also, I find it interesting that he has opted to make his announcement on a day where no one will care. Things people will talk about on Monday include the Nevada caucuses, the Super Bowl, the inevitable Boston riots, and Newt Gingrich’s lack of a plan. It won’t be the guy no one in DC has heard of taking over an organization that can’t even get their bills through a committee. I have to wonder if this was intentional on the part of the Brady Campaign.

Village Voice Suggests Komen Will Send Cease and Desist

According to a blog over at the Village Voice, and also an update over at the Huffington Post:

Late in the afternoon, a Komen spokeswoman told reporters that breast cancer advocacy group had nothing to do with this so-called “Hope” pistol, and that the non-profit plans on sending a cease and desist order to Discount Gun Sales.

I would advise folks to not jump the gun (no pun intended) unless we receive word from DGS that they have, in fact, been ceased and desisted. As the article notes, Komen has taken money from gun related promotions in the past without issue, as they should. Organizations like Komen should be not be inserting themselves into political causes by not taking money from those kinds of people.

I am also interested in the content of said letter if and when it arrives. I believe Komen would be within their rights to demand DSG change “is proud to team up with the Susan B. Koman [sic] Foundation” which implies some form of partnership. If Komen merely demands that they change that language, they are merely asking that DSG clarify the lack of an actual partnership. I think it’s fine.

However, if Komen demands they remove any reference to their name, they are essentially saying they don’t want money from gun owners. If that’s the case, I will do my level best to make sure everyone within the reach of my voice gets the message. We’ll be more than happy to oblige.

On Ginsburg’s Statement to Egypt

When I heard of Justice Ginsburg’s statement before an Egyptian audience today, I have to admit I just couldn’t work up the amount of outage as many on the right. Many folks fail to consider that a good part of our constitution is strictly mechanical, and represents compromises brought about by folks who were facing the daunting task of bringing 13 separate sovereigns together into some kind of national Republic. Much of the mechanics of the US constitution doesn’t translate into the political cultures of other countries, even if the overarching principles are worth studying (for which I would include to RKBA to be among those principles).

Eugene Volokh also sticks up for Justice Ginsburg:

And it might well be that Egypt might be well-served by a very different approach than the U.S. Constitutions â€” for instance, with regard to relations between the federal government and more local governments, with regard to whether to have a Presidential system or a parliamentary system, with regard to how hard the constitution would be to amend, with regard to how judges are selected and how long they serve, with regard to how the President is selected, with regard to the relationship between the two chambers of the legislature, with regard to whether all executive officials work for the President or whether some are independently elected or selected, with regard to just how to craft the criminal justice system, and so on. (And here I just speak of the big picture questions, and not more specific details.) Remember that even our own statesâ€™ constitutions differ in many respects, especially with regard to separation of powers and the selection and tenure of judges, from the U.S. Constitution. Again, that the constitutional text, coupled with a wide range of extratextual political and legal practices, has worked well for us over 200+ years doesnâ€™t tell us that it would work well for Egypt for the coming years.

I tend to agree, and with the rest of his argument. I certainly have many disagreements with Justice Ginsburg’s interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, but in many ways the US Constitution reflects the unique circumstances of this country’s founding, and continuing political struggles, that is not necessarily reflective of the political struggles in other countries. To be sure, it outlines many guarantees I believe are universal, but most of the constitution revolves around structural components which are arguably suited to our culture, but perhaps not others. It would, for instance, be difficult to imagine the French arguing over the meaning of interstate commerce, to the extent Americans do today, and have done since the founding.

On This Whole “Outing” Thing

Some of the latest controversy erupting in the gun blogosphere, surrounding the New Trajectory proprietor being “outed” by several people on our side. I wrote a post a while back offering my opinion on the whole “outing” thing, and when I thought it was proper to do it, and when it wasn’t. I’d hate to see the debate degenerate, and for us to allow our opponents’ childish behavior on this matter drag us all down into the sewers with them.

For whatever reason, the proprietor of New Trajectory has chosen to do his activism through a pseudonym, and I think we ought to respect that. I’ve never gotten the impression he was doing this to engage in sock puppetry, or to give himself any advantage. If anything, it puts him at a disadvantage. I have always chosen to do my real life activism under my real name, and my online activism under a pseudonym. I think people ought to be able to choose, and have that respected, and we ought to be better people about it than they are.

UPDATE: I take back what I said about Jason Kilgore. I hadn’t realized he was engaged in sock puppetry. Sorry Mary Rosh of the other side, you’re fair game.

UPDATE: More from a reader. My, my Jason… I think Baldr Odinson and Mary Rosh should go bowling. This is an object lesson for those on the other side who want to believe themselves superior. Trust me, you have your kooks and weirdos too.

On Making a Difference

Let’s face it, a lot of folks (even our dear, wonderful readers) like to bitch and moan. They also don’t like to do squat when it comes to their issue of choice. We usually hear that it’s because one person can’t make a difference. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, tell that to a piano teacher who just ended up cited by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a decision that threw out all of our new legislative districts and forces us back to 2001 lines for the rest of the year – maybe.

Oh, and did I mention that this decision that relies on her proposal actually screws things up enough that candidates were already gathering petitions for the old (new) districts and now they may not even be able to run in them?

So, yeah, one person made a difference. Probably a bigger difference than she imagined.

Safe Storage: How Far Could Congress’ Militia Powers Go?

I just had a thought, in thinking about safe storage laws. It’s pretty clear that safe storage laws that impede the right to self-defense would not be constitutional. But could Congress use its militia powers to demand everyone have a safe, and store their firearms in the safe when, say, you aren’t home?

One could argue that it’s necessary and proper to protect the nation’s arsenal of militia-ready weapons. If Congress can use the militia power to demand people keep arms, and show up to muster, why couldn’t it demand people buy a safe and keep their guns in them when they are not home?

I should note that I’m not advocating Congress do this, but it’s hard for me to see a way to defeat such a proposal on constitutional grounds. The only thing that would make such a requirement impractical for the purposes our opponents may want is the actual enforcement is left to the states, who don’t have any mechanisms to enforce this. I think you also may be able to argue that such an exercise of militia powers is a sham, and this either necessary or proper.

Does anyone who knows the case law around the militia power have an comment on this topic?