One of the commentators made a remark during Bill O’Reilly’s coverage of the GOP convention yesterday that Clinton Eastwood was brought in to get the gun vote for Mitt Romney. O’Reilly’s (paraphrased) response was that there is no way gunnies would vote for Obama and it was just a matter if they would vote at all.
This is true. I still don’t see any great enthusiasm from the gun community to turn out the vote for Romney, even after the addition of the legitimately pro-gun Paul Ryan to the ticket. NRA’s “All In” campaign isn’t very inspiring either.
The right is upset with House Speaker John Boehner for telling the truth:
“… “Have you ever met anybody who read the party platform?” Boehner said at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. “I’ve not met ever anybody … It ought to be on one sheet of paper … That way Americans could actually read it …” …”
And he’s right. It’s 62 pages long. Other than party groupies who is going to take time to read it? Certainly not the voters. There is a reason political ads are short and to the point.
“… Every four years, grassroots activists from around the country who have won seats as delegates at the Republican National Convention develop the party’s national platform … Some activists work for months just to win the right to attend the convention so they have a chance at influencing a platform that officially defines the principles and policy positions for which the party stands …”
That’s great. The problem here is, like the Libertarian Party’s platform, is that there is no way to enforce it. There is no litmus test or oath of loyalty required to join a political party and there is no mechanism to punish candidates and officeholders who do not follow the party platform. NRA reps. can go on and on about the pro-gun parts of the platform, but it is nothing more than the GOP pandering for the gun vote.
Republicans are clearly pandering for the gun vote this election:
“Delegates to the Republican National Convention on Tuesday will approve the most pro-gun platform ever, staking out support for national concealed carry reciprocity and opposing domestic restrictions on ammunition and United Nations interference in gun sales …”
David Keane mentioned this when he was on NRANews last Friday. While I don’t doubt that some of these feelings are genuine, this has to be an attempt to shore up the lukewarm feelings gun owners have for Mitt Romney.
“… Leading the changes from prior GOP platforms was a sentence backing the use of deadly force for self-defense … “We acknowledge, support and defend law-abiding citizens’ God-given right of self-defense.” Also added was language opposing restrictions on ammo purchases and supporting the right of those with state-issued concealed carry permits to cross state lines. In the section calling on Americans to handle guns safely, the GOP platform adds: “this also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents.” … “We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines, or otherwise revising the ill-considered Clinton gun ban.” …”
This is all well and good, but talk is cheap. Let’s see them back it up by refusing to endorse any candidate who refuses to follow the platform, especially incumbents with poor voting records.. I do not see that happening.
Chris Cox interviews Mitt Romney in the latest NRA magazines. It’s the same thing they did with John McCain back in ’08, trying to make him more palatable to the membership which, given the reaction I saw Romney get at the ’08 and ’10 annual meetings, does not consider him a friend.
The interview must have been carefully scripted by either NRA and/or Romney’s campaign and comes across to me as a lot of hot air. The one good thing out of it is Romney said he would sign the reciprocity bill. They should have just printed that and saved six pages of newsprint for something else.
The Daily News reports:
“… The Dems have made gun control a central issue in races across the state …”
Yep. See examples #1, #2 and #3.
How’s it likely to work out for them? Let’s ask Mayor Mike:
“… Bloomberg’s debate fantasy follows by a few weeks another righteous initiative that went nowhere: his call for a national dialogue on guns and violence, prompted by the Batman movie massacre in Aurora, Col. …”
They just cannot accept the fact the public is not interested in more gun control.
Apparently being dead does not stop people from signing the nominating petitions of incumbent Democrat politicians in Queens.
The latest polls show a virtual tie in CD-27 between incumbent Congresswoman Kathy Hochul and former Erie Co. Exec. Chris Collins.
Aside from being very competitive, it is one of the very few races where a pro-gun Democrat is up against an antigun Republican with Collins being a member of the (now defunct?) MAIG spin-off County Executives Against Illegal Guns.
Picking Paul Ryan looks to have been a good move for Mitt Romney as evidenced by the latest polls in battleground states.
The antis still aren’t attacking Ryan, but the Brady’s are hoping their mouthpiece Jim Lehrer will ask the candidates questions during the first presidential debate on October 3:
“In a petition launched Monday, the gun control group says Lehrer should ask President Barack Obama and Republican presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney about their plans for preventing gun deaths and injuries. … Brady Campaign President Dan Gross said the petition is important because there is “a dramatic disconnect” between what the American public wants and what elected officials are doing about it. “Our goal with this letter campaign is to lead the American people in closing this disconnect and in holding elected officials accountable,” …”
The only disconnect is between Dan and reality. What he refuses to accept is that the American people have been holding elected officials accountable by supporting pro-gun candidates. Even if Lehrer does ask about guns what makes Dan think the answers they give will be any different than the ones both camps have been giving for months?
Paul Ryan’s pro-gun credentials are making the rounds in the media.
From Business Week:
“… Another strong opinion held by the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee, although not one that has received much attention so far, is that he is very, very pro-gun. His passion for hunting and for gun rights could make a critical difference in battleground states …”
Dave Workman adds:
“… Mitt Romney’s choice of Wisconsinite Paul Ryan as his running mate was a bold move on more than one level, and one that should hit the right nerve with American gun owners worried about Romney’s record on gun rights … Adding Ryan to the ticket brings credibility with gun owners; a commodity Republicans need to get gun owners off the couches and away from their keyboards to the voting booths. Where Romney certainly can depend upon Ryan’s savvy with a budget, he should also rely on the congressman’s counsel where gun and hunting rights are concerned …”
I agree with this. What I find interesting, though, is that I have not seen the antis attacking Ryan yet. Considering how much blood-dancing they’ve been doing lately I would have assumed they’d jump on him right from the start.
Mitt Romney chose Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate.
I don’t think the pick does anything to diminish Romney’s campaign and should help make the ticket more palatable to special interests (gun owners) concerned about Romney’s record. Ryan has a pro-gun record in Congress.