search
top

Ollie North Has Graduated from Angry Dana School With Flying Colors

New video from NRA defending Kavanaugh:

The commenters at Instapundit love it, which should show you I don’t really know crap about populist propigandizin’. But I’ll still throw in my $0.02.

At least it’s related to the gun issue, since getting Kavanaugh on the court will make or break the 2nd Amendment. This is the most important battle we’re going to have with our opposition. It might not be the most intense (I expect that will be the fight to replace Ginsburg or Breyer) but this will give us a much stronger 5th vote on gun cases. I don’t want to roll the dice with another pick of Trump’s. I’ve been saying to Bitter all week: “Can we hold a vote now? Why do they keep falling for these delaying tactics. Just hold the damned vote.” Also, this should be the last confirmation hearing ever. They are three ring circuses. This is one area I’m OK agreeing to now, because I don’t really feel like I’d be giving anything up not holding them for Dem nominees either. It’ll be better for everyone.

Anyway, my issue with this latest ad is that you could replace Ollie with Dana and the writing and delivery still work. I’ve heard Ollie North speak off the cuff. I know he’s capable of humor. I’d go even farther and suggest he’s actually a good and engaging speaker. It’s like NRA’s PR firm has two or three chords they know how to play, and somehow they’ve made a band out of it. Can they message around an individual’s strengths, weaknesses and quirkiness? If they could pull that off, it’ll humanize the person delivering the lines. It’ll make the message stronger.

Maybe the issue is you hear the songs for the first time and you like them. It’s only when you listen to the whole album you realize the band only knows three chords. But maybe that’s enough?

37 Responses to “Ollie North Has Graduated from Angry Dana School With Flying Colors”

  1. Beatbox says:

    NOT HELPING

  2. Flubnut says:

    Hey, blues music only has 3 chords, and it’s an entire genre of music. Can’t be all bad.

    But I’d be curious to know where all these NRATV spots are running, because I only see them via gun blogs. I’m not the target audience for this message.

  3. Bill Twist says:

    So, basically AC/DC?

    It’s OK to be a one trick pony. But you’ve got to make sure it’s a really good trick.

  4. countertop says:

    I had the same thought. But really, I was more concerned that the ad seemed to drone on and was far too long to be effective. These long form ads are horrible. It needs to be 30 seconds, or even less.

    But for making that suggestion, that it merely should be shorter I was called by the Good Professors deranged commentators both a shithead and a 79 comment Soros paid troll who obviously activated yesterday.

    That’s a new one for me.

    • Alpheus says:

      I saw that and had to roll my eyes.

      Really, you complain that it’s too long, and you all of the sudden are a Soros-paid troll?

  5. Sigivald says:

    Yeah, I think it’s Not A Good Idea.

    It’s too Culture War, not 2A-focused enough, even if “we need a Republican in before maybe the Democrats can prevent it to help the 2A” is legitimate, sort of.

    Let’s not make the NRA into “GOP-mini-Me”, please.

    • Bitter says:

      Let’s not make the NRA into “GOP-mini-Me”, please.

      I fear we’re too late for that.

      • countertop says:

        Way too late. And that’s a shame because the power of the NRA used to be that it was beyond mere politics and played well with both sides as long as the politician in question was good on guns.

        • aerodawg says:

          So my question is, is that due to movement by the NRA or the persistent leftward movement of the Democratic party? I’m 35 and I remember there USED to be blue dog Democrats that were usually on our side but they’ve long been relegated to the ash heap of history. How do you work with a party of which any member that aligns with your values can’t win a primary?

        • RAH says:

          NRA is gun rights focused Democrats are gun ban focused They do not mix at this time So You have party that is strong on gun rights and a party strong on gun bans Pick a side .

      • Sigivald says:

        Yeah, I know.

        Might not be too late for a plausible walk-back, though.

        I mean, if they realized it was a good idea.

        (As always, “we’re why we can’t have nice things”.)

  6. Ian Argent says:

    I have emails from Mr North in my inbox every week. What’s the point of this that those don’t serve?

    Also, there ARE NOT ANY COMMENTS AT INSTAPUNDIT!

    • Bitter says:

      Am I missing a joke with the all caps claim when there are 123 comments?

      • Richard says:

        There have been persistent complaints over there about Discus not function with some systems.

      • Ian Argent says:

        Picture that in front of the famous picture of Baghdad Bob. I’m heavily in denial.

        • Sigivald says:

          That is wisdom. I usually regret wading into the mire there.

          Insta was better when it was just Reynolds, not PJM red-meat everywhere.

          • Sebastian says:

            I like Steve Green. But I liked him at VodkaPundit just fine. I agree, but I suspect Glenn brought on co-contributors to take some of the pressure off. Having done this for a decade, I can understand that.

            • Ian Argent says:

              I don’t blame him either. But I would demonstrably read WaPo comments before reading Instapundit comments.

              So, yeah.

          • countertop says:

            Agree 100%.

            I wish there was a way to get just the Glenn Reynolds feed. I find myself looking at the by-line before the headline.

            Stephen Green is ok. I find myself regretting any time wasted on Ed Driscoll’s postings.

  7. Richard says:

    It is a base war and the goal is to motivate the base to call and email. So you excite the base which the NRA excels at.

  8. Joe says:

    Regarding the State of The 2nd Amendment in regards to Brett Kavanaugh, THE biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment is by far and large, The #MeToo Movement.

    The #MeToo Movement wants to see the destruction of the 2nd Amendment as much as the Gun-Banners want to. The Leftist Progressive Cultural Revolutionaries see America as an unjust, Patriarchal Society that Feminism must burn down.

    The NRA is fighting in the Culture Wars because it has no choice……None of us have a choice.

  9. National Observer says:

    “This is the most important battle we’re going to have with our opposition.”

    Here are a few questions that occur to me, all inspired by the enveloping question, why is that true?

    A. Aren’t all subsequent candidates likely to be picked by the same Federalist Society that chose Kavanaugh?

    B. Not saying that Kavanaugh isn’t acceptably good on Second Amendment issues, but is he the best candidate on our issues, from the Federalist Society list?

    C. If there is a better candidate on Second Amendment issues, on the Federalist Society list, shouldn’t we be expressing a preference for that candidate? (Assuming everyone here really is “single issue”.)

    D. Considering the level of support given Donald Trump by the NRA and gun owners, and the promptness with which it was provided him, did he pick the best candidate for the Second Amendment, to nominate? If not, why did he favor another issue? Are we being favored, or hoping for the best while getting other people’s sloppy seconds?

    Seems to me that while this is an important battle, it might be a little bit short of being the most important battle Second Amendment advocates could have had; unless Brett Kavanaugh can be shown to have been the best available Second Amendment advocate.

    (Sorry, I’m just jaded by a lifetime of “most important battles of our lifetime.” Until the next election, appointment, nomination, or whatever.)

    • Sebastian says:

      If we’re lucky they will be Federalist Society picks, and not some vanity pick by Trump (recalling Harriet Meyer under Bush). Kavanaugh is one of the better picks of the choices that have a realistic chance of getting confirmed. The best? No. I’d be a better choice. I think Scalia’s opinion got it wrong on machine guns!

      • MarkPA says:

        Scalia’s opinion in Heller was mistaken in several points. HOWEVER, we do NOT understand the opinion-writing process. And so, we criticize Scalia for writing what he had to write to get and keep the bare 5 votes he needed for Heller.

        The process of writing the majority opinion and any dissents is a protracted negotiation. The justice writing for the majority drafts #1 and circulates it. There is discussion and modification toward draft #2. Then the dissents are drafted and the majority writer needs to answer the dissents in draft #3, etc. All the while, the majority writer needs to keep his majority on-board.

        Keeping the majority on-board means pandering to everyone who composes the majority.

        There are 2 parts to an opinion: the “holding”; and, the “dicta”. The holding counts; the dicta doesn’t count for much that can’t be corrected in a subsequent decision. It’s not always easy to distinguish a holding from dicta. One way to spot a piece of dicta is when it reads something like: “Our holding does not mean that X is true”. We may be deeply offended that the implication is that the opinion says “X is false”. But this is a mistake on our part. “Our holding does not mean that X is true” doesn’t mean that X is false. It only means that the holding implies nothing whatsoever about the validity of X.

        So, until someone brings a case concerning carrying a gun in a government building or school, we know NOTHING about the constitutionality of laws regulating carry in those venues.

        It’s perfectly clear that the holding in Heller concerned: the District of Columbia; homes; handguns. It’s perfectly clear that Heller’s handgun was not a Glock-18. There is no mention of the NFA nor the Hughes Amendment in Heller. And so, the mention of machine-guns in Heller is dicta. It means no more than whatever it is that a subsequent SCOTUS wants to make of it. Moreover, it does NOT constrain a District or Circuit court from finding the Hughes Amendment or NFA unconstitutional. Judges at lower levels are free to thumb-their-noses at this dicta. (Not that I’m predicting that they will do so; merely that it’s possible.)

        The state of the dicta concerning the definition of arms is now in a confused state. Heller dicta suggests that the rule should be “in common use”; i.e., that the “right” to an “arm” can’t be infringed if it is “in common use”. Nevertheless, there is nothing in Heller that disavows the dicta from Miller that an “arm” is protected if it contributes to the efficiency of the militia. The dicta says that machine guns are not in common use but it also says that they are military weapons. These dicta remain unreconciled.

        As I see it, it remains for a subsequent decision to reconcile Miller to Heller on this common-use vs. contributing-to-the-efficiency-of-the-militia criteria. For “common-use” to trump “contributing” a decision would have to explain how common-use makes more sense than contributing. That, I argue, would be really tough to do. Moreover, there is an academic article explaining how common-use is a problematic criteria.

        We have far more strategic fish-to-fry before tackling the foolishness of the NFA’s provisions. First, we need to broaden the acceptance of the role of self-defense in the population. Second, we need to make carry feasible for ordinary citizens willing to jump through some hoops. Third, we need to erode the myth of gun-free-zones. If we can’t do these things then we can’t get anyone to listen to us when we explain that the difference between a “Destructive Device” and blasting supplies is nothing more than a container. Blasting supplies are very lightly regulated while each DD needs a $200 stamp.

    • countertop says:

      So here is the thing – must your position on the 2nd amendment be the same as your position on abortion?

      I do not think it must be, and as such it seems to me that it would be easy to find a candidate who will stand up for our RKBA but also appease Democrats desires with regard to abortion.

      If they were attacking that candidate the way they are attacking Kavanaugh, then I would say this ad is warranted. however, they aren’t. These attacks have everything to do with abortion and nothing to do with gun rights.

      As such, I just wonder if this is the fight the NRA should be falling on its sword over.

      • Sebastian says:

        Is a pro Roe Court pick a realistic choice for a Republican president with a Republican Senate? I have issues with NRA inserting itself into other issues, like diversity in train cartoons, that have nothing to do with guns. I cut them a break on working within a coalition. I would agree that NRA ought to fight for a pro-2A Dem Court pick who favors Roe. I don’t agree they shouldn’t fight for a pro-2A GOP pick who is being attacked on other issues. Though, I’d like that message more focused on his 2A views than on those other issues.

        Kavanaugh was berated a bit by Feinstein for finding assault weapons were protected. So I don’t completely agree that he hasn’t been hit on the gun issue at all. But yeah, I suspect the real worry is he votes to overturn Roe. My prediction though is that Roe stands, even with a majority originalist Court.

      • Andy B. says:

        “So here is the thing – must your position on the 2nd amendment be the same as your position on abortion?”

        Back with another old story:

        Some years ago I was in frequent contact with a statewide gun rights group in another state. In a state election, they endorsed a pro-life candidate with no record on gun rights, or any legislative record at all, over a pro-choice incumbent with a proven pro-gun record.

        Their excuse was, that because their membership was heavily pro-life, they would be offended if the organization supported a pro-choice candidate, and they would lose too many members. I thought that even if that was true, it was a pretty mercenary reason. But, I knew it wasn’t true, and that in fact the group’s leadership was pro-life, so would take the word of an unproven pro-life candidate over the record of a proven pro-gun incumbent. Nevertheless they billed their group as “single issue” and “hard core” on guns.

        I think that legislators are aware of those sorts of things, and know how to play them.

    • Joe says:

      I think Amul Thapur, Thomas Hardiman, and Amey Coney Barrett would’ve been better SCOTUS Picks than Kavanaugh. I think those 3 are better on 2nd Amendment issues, but Kavanaugh showed us he’ll be great for the 2nd Amendment.

      Trump should save Thapur and Barrett as picks to replace Breyer and/or Ginsburgh when they croak.

      • Sebastian says:

        My theory is that he’s holding onto Barrett in case Ginsburg croaks. As nasty as this confirmation battle has gotten, it would pale in comparison to whatever a male candidate would face trying to replace Ginsburg. Though, as we’ve argued before, Breyer is the most likely one to die based on family history. Ginsburg comes from a long-lived family.

        • HappyWarrior6 says:

          Until this evening I actually would have considered Barrett to be the “shadow nominee”. I see her as the next pick, and the big reason to get people to the polls in 2020. McConnell had already tallied the votes and the rest is (as Sebastian says) “Kabuki Theater”. The only question, which is now answered for me, is whether or not Mitch himself wanted Kavanaugh in place by next week or if he was going to pull a last minute substitution play by non-intervention and let him drown. Looks like the latter won’t happen.

      • countertop says:

        I always thought he was saving Barrett to replace Ginsburg with. A woman replacing a woman. Tough to attack her as being anti woman (though they will).

  10. HappyWarrior6 says:

    I can see the abortion question getting relegated to the states again, which is where it belongs (from a federalist/originalist perspective alone). To a pro-lifer like me, the abortion debate is pretty much like debating allowing slavery or not, though, so I would want to see it gone anyway. That could happen a few different ways.

    It’s tough to speak to many other issues without considering the right to live/be considered a person under the law first and foremost.

    That all being said, since the pro-life groups haven’t spoken on guns, I don’t see why the NRA needs to speak on abortion or gays.

    • Richard says:

      The pro-life groups may not have spoken on guns, but the pro-abortion people, especially their megadonors and political leaders, certainly have. They are enemies and always will be. They cannot be appeased.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top