The Power of the NRA

[Tony]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3135430 ...full article

The guns are not what makes the National Rifle Association formidable in the eyes of politicians. It's the political firepower.

With nearly 4 million members and millions of dollars to donate to political campaigns, many lawmakers and other observers say the NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in Washington. Some, including former President Clinton, attribute President Bush's 2000 victory to the NRA's work in several rural states. The NRA boasts of taking revenge on its political enemies, evicting more than a dozen members from Congress in 1994 after passage of the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

In 2001, Fortune magazine declared the NRA the most powerful lobbying group in Washington. That was the last year it ranked lobbying groups. Fortune called the NRA "pivotal in defeating Al Gore in Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia — all states that usually vote Democratic."

"They put a lot of people and a lot of money into electing to Washington the people who support them and unelecting the people who don't support them," said Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, who covered lobbyists for Fortune and now writes the "K Street Confidential" column for the Washington Post.

I think it was and is a mistake for the democratic opposition to hang on to "gun-control" as an issue. It's politically un-popular and costs elections.


edit: I just wanted to say that this isn't an attack on democrats. A viable opposition(s) is essential for the function of a democratic country.

 

[Iamme]

I am *for* any group such as an NRA. It is very American to have such organizations. I would be afraid to live in a country where organizations such as this do not exist. With the NRA and it's multi-million membership...the people have spoken, loud and clear.

 

[corplinx]

The NRA is so powerful that Carter won and Clinton won. Al Gore got more popular votes. That NRA is soooooo powerful just shoehorning these pro-gun republicans into office.

 

[Tony]

I am *for* any group such as an NRA. It is very American to have such organizations.

I agree, I'd also throw the ACLU in with that.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

edit: I just wanted to say that this isn't an attack on democrats. A viable opposition(s) is essential for the function of a democratic country.

Slight de-rail...

I am very glad to see somebody say something like that. I see far to many people forget that when they rail about how the country would be so much better off without Democrats/Republicans (depending on their own leanings).

 

[crimresearch]

That of course, presumes that the Democrats and Republicans are in fact 'opposites' instead of being littermates, chasing the same power goal.

OK, enough derail...

So why haven't the veterans groups with their large constituency, known for turning out to vote, been able to get what they want from politicians?

 

[aerocontrols]

That of course, presumes that the Democrats and Republicans are in fact 'opposites' instead of being littermates, chasing the same power goal.

I don't want the two parties to be 'opposites'.

On the vast majority of issues, I expect them to agree. Our system is designed to result in two powerful parties that bump up against each other somewhere near the ideology of the average voter.

 

[DaChew]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3135430 ...full article

I think it was and is a mistake for the democratic opposition to hang on to "gun-control" as an issue. It's politically un-popular and costs elections.

I think you're right. Democrats would do a lot better here in Michigan were it not for their stand on gun control. Mind you, Clinton, Gore and Kerry all won Michigan in their Presidential bids. The margin of win has become increasingly slim and IMO much of that is due to the Democrat national stand on gun control. Charles Dingel is a Democrat and a member of the NRA (and has received endorsements from the NRA) for a lot of years. The local sherrif in my county is a Democrat and has fully supported our 'right to carry' law. He wins elections overwhelmingly.

Gun control, with the exception of the Detroit area, is not something that separates Republicans from Democrats in Michigan.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't want the two parties to be 'opposites'.

On the vast majority of issues, I expect them to agree. Our system is designed to result in two powerful parties that bump up against each other somewhere near the ideology of the average voter.

Designed? No...nothing about two powerful parties tampering with checks and balances in the Constitution.

By default?

Well we have the government we deserve, right?

 

[IllegalArgument]

I thought the AARP was the most powerful lobbying group.

 

[aerocontrols]

Designed? No...nothing about two powerful parties tampering with checks and balances in the Constitution.

Yes, designed that way. The Founders disliked the idea of parties (factions) but they recognized they were inevitable and designed a system that would result in two large, moderate parties. At the time, they almost immediately split up into Federalists and Anti-federalists. Those guys are the ones who wrote the document in the first place, and they could have tried to change to a proportional system if they didn't like the results they got. I rather think they got the results they expected, and were all-in-all fairly happy with them.

A far-left party does nothing but siphon votes off from the 'entire' left, thus far-left and far-right parties are kept small, while the two main parties try to capture the middle and appeal to the extremes. The system certainly isn't perfect - it has to appeal to the extremes forces parties to dance in ways moderates don't like, for instance the Democrats fight for gun control or the Republicans oppose school integration. But President Bush doesn't have to appoint Pat Buchanan, leader of the [insert whatever party name he might run here] Party into the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and President Gore doesn't have to appoint Ralph Nader to be Secretary of State.

I like the way our system limits the power of the extremes. (If folks think the US govt. is extreme now, they should imagine how much more extreme we could be if John Ashcroft was running his own party that polled 15%, and Bush needed him in order to maintain control of the government)

Well we have the government we deserve, right?

Generally, yes.

 

[aerocontrols]

I thought the AARP was the most powerful lobbying group.

I've heard AARP, NRA, AIPAC, the Christian Coalition, etc. It depends on how one defines it, I imagine.

I suspect you could make a case that government employees unions are the most powerful lobbying group, if you aggregated all of the various unions.

 

[Iamme]

I thought the AARP was the most powerful lobbying group.

--------------------------------------

Consider *this* for power: Baby boomers soon becoming AARP senior citizens. *Then* tack on the sheer number of baby boomers who are NRA members, on top of it.

The next presidential candidate better not be anti NRA and anti AARP, is all *I* have to say.

 

[crimresearch]

 

[Bikewer]

`

I was actually a member at one time, when I was in my teens. (early 1960s) Fascinated with guns and reloading, the magazine (the American Rifleman) was full of good reviews and had a fine technical staff.
Way back then, they had the goal of achieving a million members, to act as a voting block for gun-related legislation.

This tactic has become wildly successful, at least regarding Federal legislation. As one NPR pundit said, "In Washington, the NRA is God."

 

[Ed]

That of course, presumes that the Democrats and Republicans are in fact 'opposites' instead of being littermates, chasing the same power goal.

OK, enough derail...

So why haven't the veterans groups with their large constituency, known for turning out to vote, been able to get what they want from politicians?

Organization.

The NRA, of which I am a member, is very well organized even to the local level. When silly laws rear their head "Legislative Alerts" are mailed or phone calls are made to members letting them know what is afoot. Their information is pretty comprehensive, though one sided (to be expected but is Mother Theresa didn't like assult weapons she would be blacklisted). I suppose that is the job of a lobbying effort, make things black and white.

I have no doubt that on a local level, at least, when poor turnout is the rule the block of NRA members voting as a block make a difference.

 

[merphie]

I am *for* any group such as an NRA. It is very American to have such organizations. I would be afraid to live in a country where organizations such as this do not exist. With the NRA and it's multi-million membership...the people have spoken, loud and clear.

The only problem is the NRA is pro-religion. They would give me the ability to have a gun, but they want me to pray for thanks.

 

[crimresearch]

Noooooo!! That is just anti-gun rhetoric.

Everyone *knows* that you are supposed to pray for ammunition.

 

[merphie]

Noooooo!! That is just anti-gun rhetoric.

Everyone *knows* that you are supposed to pray for ammunition.

Someone needs to lay off the coffee.

I don't belong anywhere. I don't like the NRA because of their pro religion. I don't like the ACLU because of their Anti-gun stance.

I just can't win.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: The Power of the NRA

edit: I just wanted to say that this isn't an attack on democrats. A viable opposition(s) is essential for the function of a democratic country.

I am *for* any group such as an NRA. It is very American to have such organizations. I would be afraid to live in a country where organizations such as this do not exist. With the NRA and it's multi-million membership...the people have spoken, loud and clear.

I am very glad to see somebody say something like that. I see far to many people forget that when they rail about how the country would be so much better off without Democrats/Republicans (depending on their own leanings).