Monday, July 20, 2009

NRA Wienermobile drives up to Sotomayor confirmation late and parks as far away from the door as possible.

Brave Sebastian, he of the Snowjob website found here, is once again waving the limp dick of NRA pusillanimity in public and praising political erectile dysfunction as a great thing for American gun owners. Something about axe on stone, or some such silliness. Go to the link above for S-no-balls' take.

The uncomfortable truth of the thing is rather found here in a little-noticed piece in The Hill newspaper.

And you still send money to the NRA, why?


PS: Join GOA or JPFO instead.

"Oh, Billy. I warned you this would happen if you joined the NRA."

NRA shies from all-out fight on Sotomayor By Alexander Bolton

The National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, has come out against Sonia Sotomayor but conservatives question whether it will flex all of its muscle to oppose the Supreme Court nominee.

Leaders of the gun owners’ rights group issued a strong statement against Sotomayor Friday but they have declined to say how much a vote for the nominee would affect lawmakers’ ratings.

“It’s an important vote and will count,” said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. But the NRA has not given an indication of how much weight the vote would carry on its scorecard or whether it would be considered a vital “key vote.”

By contrast, Gun Owners of America, a smaller yet less compromising gun rights group — it bills itself “Washington’s only no-compromise gun lobby” — has informed senators in no uncertain terms that voting for Sotomayor will impact their scorecards significantly.

“We’ve been telling members of the Senate that this will be rated very heavily against them if they vote for her,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “We’ve got to hold people accountable.”

Pratt said the NRA may not want go all out against Sotomayor because her confirmation seems assured.

At least three Senate Republicans have said they would vote for her: Sens. Dick Lugar (Ind.), Mel Martinez (Fla.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine). Democrats control 60 seats in the Senate and leading Republicans have promised not to filibuster Sotomayor’s nomination.

“I don’t think they want to be seen as having lost a battle,” Pratt said of the NRA.

“Their philosophy seems to be nothing ventured, nothing lost,” he said. “Normally, we can-do Americans say ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained.’

“We would prefer they look at it as a fight we may lose but not the end of the war.”

If the NRA were to announce that a vote for Sotomayor would substantially affect lawmakers’ ratings, it would put significant pressure on Republicans and red-state Democrats to vote against her, or at least force them to do a lot of explaining to constituents.

Many lawmakers cherish high ratings by the NRA, which has 4 million dues-paying members and a much larger sphere of influence. If those ratings took a sudden dip, lawmakers would inevitably have to explain themselves on gun rights — a potent issue — come re-election time.

But the group seems reluctant to take a hard stand on a confirmation that would hurt long-time allies who have supported them time and again on legislative issues.

Historically, the NRA has tended to stay away from judicial confirmation fights. Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to rally the group behind its judicial nominees but to little avail.

Curt Levey, executive director of Committee for Justice, a conservative group that opposes Sotomayor, said the NRA should re-evaluate its approach to the judiciary.

“I don’t know that they’ve ever scored a vote on a judicial nominee before and I can see why they might be hesitant,” said Levey. “But now that the Second Amendment is [being shaped] in the courts more than in the legislatures they need to start scoring judicial confirmation votes.”

Sotomayor’s most controversial rulings on gun rights came in two cases. In Maloney v. Cuomo, she ruled the Second Amendment did not apply to state and local governments. In United States v. Sanchez-Villar, she ruled that gun ownership is not a fundamental right.

Democrats have discovered over the past decade the power of gun rights as a political and have virtually conceded the battle. The gun-rights lobby showed its strength again earlier this year when Republicans, despite small minorities in the Senate and House, forced a provision onto credit card legislation allowing visitors to carry loaded and concealed weapons to national parks.

The power of the NRA and Sotomayor’s record on guns gave hope to conservative activists opposed to her. But the NRA was slow to join the fight. The group initially took a wait-and-see approach and only announced its opposition after Sotomayor testified before the Judiciary panel.

“Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution,” Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, and Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, in a July 17 statement.

Levey, of the Committee for Justice, predicted the NRA could sway centrist Democrats against Sotomayor but that it has diminished its potential influence by waiting so long to take a stand.

“People on the Hill say that it’s the one group that red state Democrats are wary of,” he said. “The one thing that could really be a game changer, to get some Democrats vote against her, would be the involvement of the NRA.

“Had they gotten involved a few weeks earlier it would have made more of an impact.”


EgregiousCharles said...

I don't see a big fight over Sotomayor as worthwhile. Obama isn't going to nominate anyone better, and could very likely nominate someone who'd have more influence on the other judges. With Obama nominating and a Democrat-majority House and Senate approving, we're going to lose. All that's worthwhile is to make clear that we don't approve.

Happy D said...

I have a life membership and will not send them more money until they develop a backbone.
but next board of directors election I will wright in Mike Vanderboegh, John Ross, and Boston T. Party so I can feel like I did something.

Anonymous said...

FWIW, it all comes down to this:

For many years, one thing in common the powers that be have is the trait to nominate SCOTUS justices that will further their personal agenda of raping the Constitution when it benefits them.

Even 'conservative' SCOTUS justices have perverted the Constitution's original intent and meaning.

Solution? Simply this (paraphrasing M. Collins: "Our refusal to obey their laws."

MikeH. said...

I believe the person most responsible for the declining strength of the NRA is Wayne LaPierre. It's past time for Wayne to move on and allow some new, dynamic, blood take the helm.

HerbM said...

The NRA is feckless -- the funny picture caption has it just about right.

This does NOT need to be the case -- but we must always remember that the NRA paid leadership is FINANCIALLY motivated to keep the status quo, more or less.

The NRA did everything it could to first scuttle Heller, then take it over, then join with it....

Heller succeeded not just in spite of the NRA, but it direct opposition to it.

ScottJ said...

Mike H.,

LaPierre used to be much stronger.

He took so much flak over uttering the words "jack-booted thugs" that he folded and has been less effective ever since.

However, I'm of the Ben Franklin mindset over pro-gun groups. We must all hang together.

As Mike told me in an e-mail exchange about some flawed thinking I heard expressed by a former local husband and wife talk radio team: "nobody's perfect".

idahobob said...

Look, the NRA has a long history of compromising away the 2nd Amendment.

So why should it now surprise us that they are willing to do nothing (again) with this nomination of Sotomayer?

The 2nd Amendment, does it or does it not state, "shall not be infringed"?

Like Mike says, "join JPFO and/or GOA.

And do not forget, the traitors in Washington, District Of Criminals, are going to do whatever the people that pay them the most money, want them to do.

Do you really think that they pay ANY attention to the bleating of the sheeple?



ParaPacem said...

I lost any use for them (NRA) when they rolled over for Holder. Like Jeff Sessions, they seem to be more interested at getting a pat on the head from the Obama regime, and maybe a back rub from Gibbs, than representing the people who pay them good money to represent them.
The sad thing is that even a prostitute does what she is hired to do. If only OUR representatives had THAT much integrity!

Weaver said...

First thought that comes to mind is why worry about house or senate rankings by the nra, it's time to vote them all out, period! Second thing is why would anybody send money to the nra? If they are not "all in" they are against us. Hell, there are probably dozens of guys and women who would take the lead at nra for half of what limp dick makes, or even free. The time for debate is long over. Replace them all, anyone who is not 100 percent pro constitution. Anything less and we have a long uphill battle with little to look forward to but more taxes and less rights. Everyone here knows what needs to be done. Figure out how to do it in your area and vote them all out.


Anonymous said...

They have not only compromised, they have endorsed every fed bill since the '34 NFA act. And undercut many state groups, recently pushed through a bill in TN that made the law worse than it was. They are politicians whose only concern is money, power, and control, just like the rest. They are, and have been, part of the problem. If you believe their claims of "fighting for you" you aren't paying attention.

Anonymous said...

Damn another Home Run Mike!

I’m and tired of the NRA too, but there’s far more than gun rights at risk with Sotomayor.

Devvy Kidd has an article on Sotomayor that needs to be spread as quickly as possible.


Devvy has proof that Sotomayor has committed fraud. She was part of a big bank fraud case in which she helped cover-up wrong doing.

The case in question is called the DeLano, 06-4780-bk

ScottJ said...

Erik Erickson of Red State is singing the same tune, Mike.

Anonymous said...

While I agree with the point in general, in all fairness I have to point out that:

The NRA did oppose the AW ban; they also didn't support the Lautenberg amendment, but that appears to be due to it's dead of night 1/2 page snuck into an omnibus spending bill nature.

As far as I can tell, they did support (often as a "compromise") EVERY other major Federal gun control law, and that's why I can't support them; arguments about political decisions like how much to oppose Holder are really minor compared to the issue of them being the Nation's Most Effective Gun Control Group.

As for Heller, I give them a pass on that. Their opposition was based on the concern that Sandra Day O'Connor would still be on the bench when it reached the Supremes. If so, it's pretty clear it would have gone 5-4 the other way.

Caleb said...

Way to keep it classy, Mike.

What exactly is GOA going to do about Sotomayor, hold their breath until they pass out? Because that's about all they can do with their "political clout".

Dutchman6 said...

Caleb fulminates:

"What exactly is GOA going to do about Sotomayor, hold their breath until they pass out? Because that's about all they can do with their 'political clout.'"

One point is that you shouldn't give your money to somebody who takes it under false pretenses.

Another point is that we're not talking about what GOA can do with the power they don't have, but rather what the NRA failed to do with the power they DO have, AGAIN.

This will continue until the board discovers its own power and drums LaPierre and Cox, naked but for tar and feathers, out of that Fairfax Taj Mahal.

Interesting that Eric Erickson of Redstate agrees with me. Why is it that anybody who's paying the least attention sees that the emperor has no clothes, except y'all?

Caleb said...

So riddle me this, Batman - what exactly should NRA do about this? They've already decided that they're going to grade the confirmation vote, which will have an impact on the ratings of the Senators next election. What else should they do that is within their power?

Anonymous said...

"...we're going to lose"...

Just because you have almost no chance of victory does that mean you should just roll over and pee all over yourselves? Damn, I thought AMERICANS had the nerve to STAND UP and DO WHAT'S RIGHT - even if we supposedly cannot win. I believe the brits said we could never beat them (circa 1775), Hitler said it (circa 1941), Kruschev said it (circa 1962) and we WON against incredible odds every time. The only time you LOSE is when you give up without a fight because then the enemy wins and it costs them NOTHING. You should make them pay at least SOMETHING to get what they want - lord knows that the anti's never give up without a fight. Get some backbone people, you're gonna need it.

Ride Fast said...

[...] Goofy [...]

Not useful, don't appreciate.

Anonymous said...

Give it up, guys. The NRA ain't gonna change as long as they can continue duping all their members.

"A nation can survive it's fools, and even the ambitious; but it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly wispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of the government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation...A murderer is less to fear." - Marcus Tullius Cicero (42 BC)