The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Feature

Caught in the Crossfire

By from the September 2010 issue

The NRA has its opponents outgunned but suddenly finds itself in a shooting match with fellow conservatives.

(Page 2 of 2)

THE MCCAIN AND STRICKLAND decisions bothered some conservatives, but the biggest bombshell was yet to come: the news that the NRA was seriously considering an endorsement of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid later in the fall. The Nevada Democrat’s seat is one of the GOP’s best pickup opportunities this year. His challenger, Sharron Angle, was a Second Amendment stalwart who won the Republican nomination with heavy grassroots conservative support. An NRA endorsement had the potential to counteract Reid’s party-line liberal image and blow the race wide open.

Reid has a better record on guns than the average Democrat and is certainly less hostile to the Second Amendment than just about anyone in his party’s leadership. But his NRA ratings have fluctuated from year to year, ranging all the way from A+ to F. Reid played a major role in passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, which shielded gun manufacturers from abusive lawsuits. Yet he also voted for the Brady bill and the 1994 crime bill containing the original federal assault weapons ban. Gun Owners of America has catalogued more than 40 anti-gun votes he has cast during his Senate career.

“He’s like Arlen Specter,” Gun Owners’ Pratt says of Reid. “He’s usually with us when we don’t need him.” Another conservative activist fumed, “Are we supposed to be thankful that he hasn’t screwed us lately? That’s only because he hasn’t had a chance to.” Conservative reactions grew even more hostile when it became known that Reid secured a $61 million earmark for the Clark County Shooting Park. At the ribbon cutting for the 2,9000-square foot park, the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre lavished Reid with praise: “I also want to thank you, Senator, for your support every day for the Second Amendment and for the rights of American gun owners.”

NRA spokesmen have also advanced the argument that if Reid goes down, he will be replaced as Senate Democratic leader by either Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) or Dick Durbin (D-IL)-both liberals with far worse records on gun rights than Reid. Pratt argues that even if the NRA declines to endorse Reid, the damage has already been done. “I don’t know if he needs a piece of paper saying, ‘We hereby officially endorse you,’” he says. “They’ve already said more than enough that Reid could send out in targeted mailings to gun owners if he wanted to.”

The rumored Reid endorsement hasn’t played well with the NRA’s rank and file. Some launched a website called NRA Members for Angle, urging the organization to back the Republican challenger instead. A conservative organization commissioned a poll of Nevada NRA members, which found that nearly 70 percent would be “upset” if the group endorsed Reid and 59 percent said they would cancel their memberships.

One source close to the NRA told TAS that 95 percent of endorsement decisions are easy, because one candidate is clearly superior to the others. The problem, says another conservative activist, is the remaining 5 percent: “The right-to-life groups have a three-point test where you’re either going to get the endorsement or you’re not. With Americans for Tax for Reform, you either take the pledge or you don’t. But in this situation, there is a judgment call.”

While some conservatives have the NRA in their crosshairs, many others think the group’s critics are shooting blanks. “There’s this misconception that ‘NRA’ stands for ‘National Republican Association,’” Independence Institute firearms policy expert David Kopel told TAS. “It doesn’t. The NRA is a pro-Second Amendment organization. When they can advance that cause by working with Republicans, they do. When they can advance it by working with Democrats, they do that too.” Consequently, Kopel argues, “They’d be nuts not to consider an endorsement of Harry Reid.”

SO FAR THIS YEAR, the NRA has given 71 percent of its political action committee’s contributions to Republicans. Usually, that percentage is even higher. And there are good reasons for many of the Democratic exceptions. Consider Ted Strickland in Ohio. Although he is a liberal on most other issues, when he was in Congress he represented a rural district and consistently supported gun rights. Similarly, Kasich is a conservative but he represented the kind of suburban district where the conventional wisdom of the time held gun control was popular-so he voted for the Brady bill and supplied the winning margin for the assault weapons ban.

“That was the first significant federal gun ban in the nation’s history,” says Kopel. “So [Strickland vs. Kasich] was a pretty easy choice if you care about gun rights rather than the Republican Party.” And NRA leaders make no secret about their priorities. “We are part of the conservative movement, but the Second Amendment is unique because it transcends politics; it transcends race, gender, socioeconomic, and certainly partisan lines,” Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, told Politico. “I may have strong personal views on a lot of things — whether it’s health care, immigration, the bank bailouts, taking over car companies, all those things — but that’s not my job. My job and my fiduciary responsibility is to get up every day and protect the Second Amendment.”

It’s an approach that has paid dividends. While nearly every other conservative cause has suffered setbacks under the Obama administration, gun-rights supporters have continued to score legislative victories despite Democratic supermajorities. They were able to get the health care bill to include a ban on higher medical insurance premiums for gun-owning households. A bill cracking down on credit card companies was amended to allow people to carry loaded weapons in national parks. The judiciary has been even more congenial, with two Supreme Court decisions since 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment does indeed confer an individual right to own guns. “The last two years have been a disaster for us,” anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) confided to the New York Times. “A lot of members are just afraid of the NRA.”

The NRA has struck this fear into the political class’s hearts by being tough on opponents — and tougher still on erstwhile allies caught curtailing Second Amendment rights. They declined to endorse President George H. W. Bush, an NRA life member, for reelection in 1992 because he signed an executive order banning the import of some semiautomatic firearms and was insufficiently resolute in opposition to the Brady bill. In 1994, they helped defeat longtime supporters Congressman Jack Brooks (D-TX) and House Speaker Tom Foley (D-WA) because of their support for the crime bill containing the assault weapons ban.

“The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you’re out,” Bill Clinton later recalled in his memoirs. “The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.” Robert Spitzer, the SUNY Cortland political science professor who wrote The Politics of Gun Control, told TAS, “Very few advocacy groups would turn on onetime allies like that, but that’s part of what makes the NRA so effective.”

All this makes the NRA’s dalliance with Reid puzzling to those who’ve admired the gun lobby’s hardball politics. “They’re mad at Kasich for the same votes Reid cast,” says one conservative activist, who thinks any Reid endorsement should be contingent on a major legislative concession like the passage of Sen. John Thune’s (R-SD) concealed-carry reciprocity bill or the defeat of the Disclose Act. “A shooting range is nice, but not good enough.”

OTHERS ARGUE THAT THE NRA gets too much credit for recent Second Amendment triumphs. Consider the example of Alan Gura, the lawyer who won D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, two important cases affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms. Gura points out that the NRA, fearing a loss, was slow to back Heller. He also claims they made his job more difficult in McDonald. The Supreme Court granted the NRA’s request to gobble up 10 of Gura’s 30 minutes for oral argument time. The NRA said it was concerned about Gura’s decision to go beyond traditional due process arguments. The libertarian attorney shoots back, “They were so obsessed with getting themselves back into the story and getting credit for the outcome that they actually interfered with my presentation of the case.”

Gura maintains that he was never going to give short shrift to the arguments favored by the NRA but that there was also a need for “substantial argument” based on the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. He contends that this emphasis helped ensure that Justice Clarence Thomas “voted with the originalist side.” “I was right and they were wrong,” Gura says of the NRA. “There were not five votes for due process incorporation.” The Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro agreed, writing at the time, “If the NRA were concerned about the final outcome of the case, it would be unlikely to attack Alan’s strategy or question his preparation (an odd way to be ‘helpful’ to one’s side).”

The NRA has weathered tactical disagreements before, including arguments between pragmatists and hardliners within its own ranks. “For much of its history, the NRA was mainly concerned with hunting and marksmanship,” says Spitzer. “It wasn’t until the 1930s that it really got involved in the politics of gun control and the more ideological faction didn’t take over until the ‘Cincinnati revolution’ in the 1970s.” Although he doesn’t believe it will have much long-term impact, Spitzer says this is the most significant infighting between the NRA and other conservatives he’s seen in years.

“There’s a well-established tradition of taking the NRA for granted,” says Kopel. “But whatever is going on with other issues and organizations, they still have to protect gun rights and their own ability to participate in the next election.” That’s fine, says Viguerie, but the NRA “shouldn’t take conservatives for granted” either. With November fast approaching, it might be a good time for a ceasefire.

Page:   12

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (77) |

Frank Natoli| 9.17.10 @ 6:41AM

The NRA officers wake up every morning, look in the mirror, and with a straight face say "the Second Amendment is safe because of me and the NRA".

With that very self serving belief, anything they see as good for the NRA is by definition good for the Second Amendment. Hence NRA officers can with genuinely good conscience support the DISCLOSE Act. And when Cox responded to my letter of polite but firm criticism of the NRA for supporting the DISCLOSE Act with standard boilerplate stating "some critics of the NRA think a FIRST Amendment issue should take precedence over SECOND Amendment rights", I wrote back with Dietrich Bonhoeffer's words. Cox did not choose to respond to that.

The NRA suffers from the same disease as all large Washington based advocacy groups do, like the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association [AOPA] that I also belong to. They all are terrified of being perceived of being anti one party, so they maintain a religious zealot's narrow view of right and wrong, see the Strickland/Kasich case in Antle's article, all the details of which are exactly correct. But the reality is that effect on the nation is party driven, and all anti gun possession laws do originate with the Democrat Party, just as all environmental legislation that has run up the cost of avgas and made general aviation unaffordable has originated with the Democrat Party. But these large Washington based advocacy groups refuse to face the big picture, and in the process refuse to face the real problem.

And if you don't face the real problem, you can't fix it.

BG| 9.17.10 @ 3:20PM

Absolutely correct!

To believe that only the 2nd ammendment is at risk in these high stake times is simply rank arrogance and stupidity!

The NRA must see and responsibly address the larger picture, or continue to decline in our support.

Reid throws a bone and the NRA, like a good dog, is too happy to obey in re-empowering the cancer of Reid and his other foibles, all of which will in the end throw the Constitution out in its entirety -- for that is what the Radiacal are all about.... That is their end game!

Though the NRA defendsively claims its sole duty is to protect the 2nd ammendment, this kind of parcing of the argument is literally Progressive in its structure, but not in its execution. Radicals want us only to focus on the smaller argument...so as to forget how all the peices fit together. For them, it is a planned distraction. Planned, I say, so that they can undercut and circumvent their real enemy.... the US Constitution itself.

As a pilot, my lift may come from the product of my airfoils and the thrust of my engines, but if I don't mind the necessity and welfare of my tires in the process, I will, I promise you, lose everthing that I thought flying "free" was all about! I will crash and burn.... The NRA is very close in aiding and abetting the enemy... how very liberal of them!

Wake up NRA! or those whose table you will be sitting, will be without "We the People."

Gerald Stephens| 9.17.10 @ 6:14PM

It is time to HUMBLE the groveling bastards. Put your support and dues to work with any one of the other bona fide organizations.

Alan Brooks| 9.18.10 @ 1:11AM

I'm all in favor of gun rights: in case David Duke ever becomes president, one between the eyes at the Inauguration.

Burn Confederate Flags, Not Korans

Jim In Houston| 9.18.10 @ 9:07AM

Be careful what you say...this is an open threat.

Tom| 9.18.10 @ 12:41PM

David Duke? Is that your best Alan?

Why burn either? What purpose is served that cannot be served better in other ways? The only reason to burn either is to garner publicity for self-aggrandizement. Meaningless jestures from meaningless people.

Chalkdust| 9.18.10 @ 11:22PM

Mr. Brooks:
So it's David Duke you see when the lights go out at night.

Alan Brooks| 9.18.10 @ 11:51PM

No thanks; even though Duke is cute I'm not a Log Cabin Republican sort. It is a misnoner anyway; they are Stabbin' Cabin Republicans-- not Log Cabin Republicans.
BTW it wasn't an open threat, anymore than veiled threats of rightwing revolution, tea party, and gun rights (i.e. not all guns are used to hunt FOUR legged critters) are exactly open threats.
But if Gus Hall had become president, what would you have done? sit there and done nothing? Hell no.

Mostly though:
if far rightists can diss N. England or the Left Coast, I can diss Dixie. And I will-- until far rightists lay off their attacks. From now on, tit for tat.

Tim*| 9.19.10 @ 9:48AM

Uh Oh ! It's Brooks , Trash Talkin' The South .

audax| 9.20.10 @ 3:34AM

Alan Brooks is unhinged from reality.

Beboper| 9.21.10 @ 5:00AM

It's incendiary comments like yours that attract the most unwarranted attention and cast the rest of the truly concerned discussion participants in an especially disfavorable light. One could almost imagine someone like you might be an agent of the opposition doing just that purposely. In any case, your ill advised suggestions of criminal conduct are unacceptable and should be cleansed from this board.

Henry Bowman| 10.22.10 @ 5:04PM

"The NRA must see and responsibly address the larger picture… Though the NRA defendsively claims its sole duty is to protect the 2nd ammendment"

The ironic part is, if you read the NRA's original charter, it clearly states that its first goal is to protect THE CONSTITUTION. So LaPierre and Cox don't even understand their own organization.

Kenny| 9.17.10 @ 6:45AM

I left the NRA to join the Gun Owners of America (GOA).

The NRA has grown too fat and too comfortable with the Washington, D.C. crowd.

I hope the NRA is listening to all the negative feedback they're getting. To some extent they must be, as the organization's love affaire with Harry Reid has somewhat cooled -- only somewhat.

Sean| 9.17.10 @ 7:30AM

I encourage everyone to join Gun Owners of America

Nancy in NC| 9.17.10 @ 4:15PM

Like almost everything that gets too big, the NRA has lost its way. We need to forget to pay our dues, and then tell them why.

What good is going to do for me to have 2nd amendment rights, when all the others ones are gone?

Ret. Marine| 9.17.10 @ 6:54AM

The Disclose Act was the last act for me. I have been an on again off again supporter of the NR for may years, even contemplating the Life membership option but began to see the endorsement of McLame as another mark against them and decided not to go along with the idea. I have since received their usual membership renewal form in the mail and sent it back to them with a no thank option. Haven't heard from them since.
The one thing this organization should avail itself to is the protection of the words "shall not be infringed" period, regarding the Second Amendment, all else is mere political playing around the edges of the issue. I have since joined AGA, American Gun-owners Association and receive timely pros's and con's regarding the issues of my interest , that is all I wanted from the NRA from the get go. They have not always endorsed me or my interest, "shall not be infringed" for a very long time and I see it as fitting to go to where the money is spent in the most conservative fashion, leave the least qualified mentality behind. The very fact that many CONgress critters, Senate members, and the view from a large segment of the public is constantly skirting around the fringes of my right to defend myself, family and community is enough to make me rather angry most of the time regarding this issue. How does one defend their rights when others are on the move to impale them from the arrows of the progressive quiver. It won't work, either I am going to have the right to own a hand-gun, a black rifle, or a knife of my choosing and make no bones about my right to defend, or others are going to have to call me a rebel. In the political eyes of the serpents, I have been called everything from a baby-killer ( V- Nam days) to a hate monger ( today visa-vi) the U.N. under the endorsement of the hildabeast (hitlerly-klinton) so too bad, it must suck to be the ones on the receiving end of my disgust. All politics are local and we need to be reminded of it from time to time.

Gerald Stephens| 9.17.10 @ 6:40PM

The REVOLUTION has been unleashed. It will end as the FIRST...when the CONSTITUTION is safely elevated to the fullest measure.

Semper Fidelis, Marine

Dave Wilson| 9.17.10 @ 7:57AM

I am an Ohio resident, NRA member and instructor. I will keep my membership because I love to teach concealed carry classes. I will not give one dime to the NRA political fund because of their endorsement of Strickland. While his personal record on gun issues is acceptable his bedfellows are not. He endorsed and supported Hillary to be President. When she was defeated in the primary he endorsed and supported the current occupant of the oval office. He has helped men like Lee Fisher and Sherrod Brown attain high office with his clout. Last week the vile and despicable Bill Clinton campaigned for him. This tells me all I need to know about Ted Strickland. Shame on the NRA. It is time to wipe the dog crap that is the democrat party from the bottom of our shoes.

Melvin| 9.17.10 @ 8:06AM

The Ruling Elite and to varying degrees the NRA think that many Americans are so ignorant, naive, and so law abiding that we, under a treaty with the UN will just lay down our personal firearms, with the attitude of, "It is law and we must abide by the law."
This goes to show you how little the Ruling Elite really know about the majority of Americans. A law is as good as the peoples willingness and consent to follow it.
We in this Country are fast reaching the point of actual at large public disobedience. It would not anarchy, but there would be wholesale disobedience in regards to a treaty to regulate arms sales that Hillary Clinton recently signed under the auspices of the United Nations.
This is just one of the many areas of discourse that we are having to wake up to everyday.
As many have alluded to, the NRA has caught the virus of, "I want to sit at the round table to." But the NRA Leadership has been blind to the fact that in order to sit at the table, they must surrender the very essence of it's existence.
And surrender they did, with it's deal making with the Democrats with the proposed Disclosure Act, and some very unflattering backpedaling, with the outrage expressed by NRA members.
There are good leaders in waiting in the NRA and as the GOP has experienced lately there must be a purge of those leaders who wish to continue the status quo with the Ruling Elite.
There is one thing the Ruling Elite must take into account. We Americans are not Europeans, most notably England who will quietly and patiently wait in a key to turn our personal firearms that have been in families for generations.
The Nazis underestimated our resolve, the Japanese underestimated our resolve, and the Soviets underestimated the American resolve. So it is of surprise that even our own government underestimates us.
Here is a little something uttered by former NRA President Charlton Heston,

"So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: 'From my cold, dead hands!"

Anthony| 9.17.10 @ 1:54PM

Melvin, It will be one very cold day in hell if the elites think they and the UN are going to use international law to take away our guns.
I hope when they do, they and the UN "peacekeepers" wear those cute baby blue helmets. Our ansestors saw red, we'll see robin egg blue, not matter, it's just a nice pastel to lock and load on.
With luck, maybe our UN loving Sec of State, Madam Hillary will lead the charge, yeah right, we should be so lucky. These cowards will be in the tall grass, giving orders!!

Ret. Marine| 9.17.10 @ 8:31PM

and I'll be in the 1,000 meter range under a spider hole applying my trade.....happy hunting fellow rebel.

Tommy K| 9.17.10 @ 8:15AM

Color me disappointed as well. Here in New Hampshire, the NRA came out for Charlie Bass in the republican primary. Here in NH, Mr Bass is known as a "silk stocking republican". I am not saying he is a bad guy, just that there were 2 more conservative (as in conserve the constitution) candidates.

Ryan| 9.17.10 @ 8:33AM

I am an NRA lifer and general supporter.

Per Chris Cox article in the American Rifleman Sept 2010:

"HR 5175 is a dog of a bill, and not a friendly one. NRA has never supported - and will not support - any version of the bill."

"We don't believe the restrictions in these bills should apply to anyone or any organization..."

The NRA does NOT SUPPORT DISCLOSE.

Yeah, maybe there is a bit of backtracking here, and I think occasionally the NRA gets a bit too focused on the micro at times (particularly with Reid) and misses the bigger picture, but I cannot fault them for what they are trying to accomplish.

Frank Natoli| 9.17.10 @ 9:54AM

If the NRA didn't support DISCLOSE, the boilerplate reply from Chris Cox to all NRA members like me who wrote to him would have been exactly that, short and sweet. Cox could have said "never have, never will".

But instead I got this long winded "explanation" that included the First versus Second Amendment "reasoning" that I mention in my original post above. Now why would Cox have to draw that distinction if the matter was as simple as you suggest it was?

Ryan| 9.17.10 @ 10:07AM

Right or wrong, they see themselves as a purely 2nd-amendment organization. That's continually been the point they are trying to make - that the second amendment is needed to protect the first.

I'm NOT saying I support the decision completely for the language - which, in the same article, Cox points out was put in without their input.

I think he's trying a bit to play on both sides of the fence - to maintain the NRA's power and influence, while at the same time working against the bill as a whole.

Frank Natoli| 9.17.10 @ 10:57AM

I believe they are right to see themselves as purely a Second Amendment organization, but where they went off the rails on DISCLOSE was that they equated protecting the Second Amendment with protecting the NRA, and that is wrong.

And even as a pure Second Amendment organization, the first step in maintaining the Second Amendment is speaking out. Lock and load is not the first step. And speaking out requires a robust First Amendment. Stifling free speech, the fundamental objective of DISCLOSE, works against the Second Amendment, and the NRA official-dom should have recognized that.

If the NRA came back and said "OK, we ef-ed up, we're sorry, it was a mistake", then maybe forgiveness would be a consideration. But they didn't. I have the Cox letter. They stood by their splitting hairs between First and Second Amendments and that just proves they have a fundamental problem.

Houston Rao| 9.17.10 @ 12:48PM

Sure, they are a 2nd amendment organization. But seeking special favor, through an exemption, for themselves was pathetic political horse-trading and power brokering - seeking rights above and beyond those granted to others. This would be akin to another group, say Congress persons, getting additional 2nd amendment rights not available to NRA members. Had they lost their minds???

A NRA Life Member

Ryan| 9.17.10 @ 1:35PM

I think the jury is out on whether or not they "sought it out" - Cox's article in the Rifleman makes it appear that it was done by scared Congresspeople for the NRA without the NRA's prompting.

Sean Parnell | 9.17.10 @ 3:19PM

I think you've accurately described the NRA's position. My group, which has largely taken the lead in fighting against the DISCLOSE Act, was not at all pleased with the NRA's decision to basically sit this fight out once they'd been given their own special protections for First Amendment rights, but it is not accurate to say they support the bill.

And in some regards they helped slow it down and, with luck, ultimately kill this abomination. The special deal cut with the NRA helped to demonstrate to all just how absurd the whole "reform" movement is, and how it's all about favoring certain interests over others and not about limiting "corruption." For years the NRA has been cited as the reason why campaign finance "reform" was necessary! Then they go and cut a deal exempting them from "reform?" Talk about a teachable moment!

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics

Old Soldier| 9.17.10 @ 8:37AM

I'm another one who keeps my NRA membership because I have to, but I don't give a dime extra for politics.

NRA leadership needs to recognize the precarious position they are in. If they become a purely conservative advocacy group, they lose all influence with Democrats. If they get too cozy with Harry Reid types, they will infuriate the vast majority of their members.

What the should do is simply release everyone's ratings regardless of party. Money and endorsements should only go towards races against candidates with failing grades.

Petronius| 9.17.10 @ 9:05AM

When I joined, the NRA was primarily the governing body for competitive shooting under the late General Maxwell Rich. When Jiminy Carter came to DC bringing dungheap Ham, ("we're goin g to get the bastards") Jordan, Wayne was hired to form the ILA under the late Harlon Carter; (no relation). The Assn. has since become a permanent lobbying group, but now we all see that it's no longer about Our Rights so much as Their jobs. Wayne has dismissed our complaints with a cursory, "we are a single issue organization"
(go away and don't bother me) aside. And it's not just about that alone. They learned from the Liberals, that if the issue is settled your support goes away and membership dwindles. Should that ever happen and the prohibitionists make a comeback, opposition would then be minimal. in this respect, Wayne can consider himself a player. But he's gambling with our chips and for Our part, this is no game!
The NRA has long lost credibility on other fronts. Duplicity and cronyism cost us the privilege of selecting shooters for the Olympic Team and governance of those shooting disciplines is now self contained under the aegis of U.S.A. Shooting based in Colorado Springs. And there's the kitschy marketing program: apparel, watches, beer steins, desk sets, bar ware; all made in China. The credit card and discount program is O.K. But they shouldn't be selling health insurance. Arms Care is their only proper policy.
It's natural enough that politicians aren't trustworthy. But now our principal allies in the fight to retain Our Rights as laid down in the Constitution have little regard towards the members they work for. If they do not change their ways, they could face open rebellion and end up like General Rich.

MoeBlotz| 9.17.10 @ 9:15AM

Wayne LaPierre and some of the NRA hierarchy sold out to dingy Harry for a few pounds of pork. Since NRA is so thrilled with stealing $$$$ from hard working Americans' pockets so that Nevadans can keep sharp their shooting skills,I wonder what else dingy Harry can throw at the organisation to buy an endorsement. If Nevada was so hard up for a shooting range,the state legislature should have stolen the funds from their own residents.If NRA is a single issue organisation and does not give a rat's arse about the rest of the Constitution,they do not deserve my membership renewal.

P.Smith| 9.17.10 @ 9:28AM

I was a member of the NRA, for several years, but then I noticed they were supporting losers like Senator Howell Heflin who seemingly supported 2nd Amendment rights, but was really a sorry excuse of a senator when came to other issues dealing with the constitution. For example Heflin voted against the nominations of Clarence Thomas and Robert H. Bork. I determined that there were other organizations far more deserving of my donations…. Gun Owners of America is one.

bob alou| 9.17.10 @ 12:01PM

The NRA also opposed Bork.

Frank Natoli| 9.17.10 @ 3:43PM

If you can believe what you find on the Internet, hah-hah, it would appear that Bork had a view of the Second Amendment that differs quite significantly from that of almost all gun owners, i.e., he thought the Second Amendment only protected state militias and not individual ownership. I can't find his words to that effect on the web, but if true, the NRA was correct in not supporting his nomination.

Jim Dietz| 9.17.10 @ 10:16AM

I am forced to agree that the NRA is not as actively conservative as I would like.

Something to think about though:

Some gun clubs have their insurance through the NRA and the NRA REQUIRES a certain percentage of the members be NRA members. Also the NRA has limited insurance on the members personal firearms. Insurance on firearms is hard to get and very expensive.

This is why I am a life member,not because I agree with everything the NRA does.

JP| 9.17.10 @ 10:25AM

When any organization sets up a large, well staffed office inside the Beltway, that organization over time will become "Progressive". The Beltway has its own agenda, its own clerisy, and it own way of doing things. Why should the NRA being any different?

bob alou| 9.17.10 @ 11:59AM

You bunch of no-nothings. Sure the NRA is a political organization and sometimes has to walk a pretty thin line. However, to suggest that GOA is an viable or an effective alternative in any sense is nonsense. The NRA is not an arm of the republican party, and frankly should not be. You can rail about the endorsement of Strickland in Ohio all you want, but when Kasich was in Congress he supported the Brady bill and had no trouble voting to ban semi-autos. Strickland has been a consistently reliable pro-gun vote his entire career. That's why the NRA endorsed him. Were it not for the NRA most of you wouldn't have a concealed carry option in your state, you would have a permanent federal waiting period, a federal one-gun-a month law, a ban on so-called cop-killer bullets which would have affected all rifle ammo, a permanent semi-auto ban, federal registration and safety class requirements, and MacDonald would still have no hope of ever keeping a handgun in his home for protection. Cry all you want about the fact that politics is politics, but recognize that pro-gun votes --for whatever reason and irrespective of any other issues -- come from both sides of the asile. As for the Chamber criticizing the NRA for anything, what a crock. When the NRA tried to work with the Chamber to get meaningful tort reform in the nineties -- asking to insert a provision in the chanber supported bill that would have made 'criminal misuse of an other wise lawfully manufactured product' a complete defense against liability, they were turned down. When the liability protection act was eventually passed, protecting manufacturers against malicious or frivilous suits, it was with a democratic Senate and the support of the democrats in the House that made the difference. As with any organization that is focused on a limited number of issues, sometimes compromises are made. However, castigating the NRA because it spends its resources and time on what the members expect them to be focused on, is unfair.

Frank Natoli| 9.17.10 @ 3:53PM

All the good points about the NRA that you enumerate are true, and clearly and significantly exceed the bad.

But rather than write "sometimes compromises are made", would you care to explicitly state whether the NRA's failure to object to DISCLOSE was right or wrong?

And your comment about the NRA not becoming an arm of the Republican Party misses an essential point. Parties make policy, not individual representatives or senators. And one party has been unambiguously the cause of all gun control legislation. Just ask the Southern conservatives of that party who had the 1994 assault gun bill rammed down their throats. That was political suicide for them, and caused a shift in the majority of the House for the first time since the year I was born 1952. That party is the problem and ignoring that problem is a fatal mistake.

Dan| 9.17.10 @ 5:10PM

Well said Bob.

Kenny| 9.17.10 @ 12:12PM

Hey Bob Alu, we're not saying that the NRA is totally worthless or that it should disappear.

It's just the GOA is better for freedom -- overall freedom -- than is the NRA.

NRA endorsee Ted Strickland is useless and a clear-and-present threat to Ohio and America. And by the way, today's polls show this lefty is 17% behind in his race for re-election. I love it!

CalMark| 9.17.10 @ 12:37PM

I'm a disillusioned NRA member who won't be renewing. I'm tired of the incessant appeals for money. As another member told me, they don't want us to volunteer hard work and enthusiasm; they just want our money.

The NRA knows that their handling of DISCLOSE was a fiasco. This is shown by NRA defensiveness in their magazine and email responses to members. Unfortunately, they won't admit it, hiding behind "we're a single issue group," blah, blah, blah.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. The NRA would like to pretend that it does.

Anthony| 9.17.10 @ 12:40PM

Thank you, thank you for finally writing this article, as I have been biting at the bit to finally weigh in on what the treasonous, gutless NRA did, with their sell out in the Disclosure Act.
Yes, the Washington mind set has apparently infected the NRA. The Leftists, much to their delight no doubt, were besides themselves, that they were able to pick off the NRA to join their assault on the 1st Amendment, in order to buy a short period of "peace" with the Left.
Like the RINO Rs in Washington, the NRA has apparently placed their balls in their gun safes in order to appease the Left, hoping they have bought a reprieve from the Leftist juggernaut.
Mr. Cox, other than doing a damn fine imitation of Nevill Chamberlain, with "peace in our time" for the NRA, do you really believe, now that you have helped the Left in their assault on the 1st Amendment, that you and the 2nd are safe?
You are sadly mistaken, and I'm shocked that the once formidable , not one inch will we give, NRA has become like the rest of the R whiny establishment.
You have let the left pick you off, divide and conquer is their game, and you played.
If my shooting club didn't insist that we be NRA members to remain, I'd drop you in a heatbeat. But I'm working on making that rule obsolute. Congratulations. Hey, maybe Karl Rove can be your next Executive Director?

Neo-libertarian| 9.17.10 @ 1:09PM

I was once the President of the largest gun club in our state. The reason then, and probably now, your shooting club "insists" that you belong to the NRA is because they are the only ones that will insure your facility. Your comment "But I'm working on making that rule obsolute (sic)" will only result in your "place to shoot" becoming obsolete.

M. N. Gomes| 9.17.10 @ 1:25PM

I am not a gun owner, but strongly support the Second Amendment right of individual citizens to bear arms. I joined the NRA in the 1990s when Wayne LaPierre representing the NRA stood up to Bill Clinton, while the Republicans were cowering. However, times have changed! The NRA playing footsies with Harry Reid has caused me to seriously consider discontinuing my membership.

Jim Feeney| 9.17.10 @ 1:52PM

I have to agree with Bob Alou on this one. It's questionable if any of us would still own guns without being in violation of some Federal law today without the NRA oposition throughout the years.. The NRA did screw up in Nevada with their endorsment of Reid but, consider their position in Ohio which I live in. They called it as it is. Strickland has a good record with his votes and Kasich doesn't. No one has to vote for Strickland just because the NRA endorsed him, I'm not. The question in this case shouldn't be why did they give Strickland their endorsment, It should be why didn't Kasich vote in such a way to deserve it. I will vote for Kasich but I don't mind saying his votes on 2nd Ammendment issues make me have second thoughts on his conservative bona fides.

Neo-libertarian| 9.17.10 @ 3:47PM

I was not aware that Reid was endorsed by the NRA. Are you sure of your statement?

Dave| 9.17.10 @ 4:31PM

The NRA did NOT endorse Harry Reid. But it doesn't surprise me that some think they did. I see a lot of inaccuracies in some of these comments. People need to understand how politics work. Right the the NRA is the best thing gun owners have going for them. Politicians still pay attention to them. You can't say that about any of the other gun rights groups. The NRA is a SINGLE purpose organization. They will support the congress people that support the 2nd amendment. The NRA can't be too conservative or liberal. If it leans too much in one direction or strays off it's 2nd amendment course it will lose it's clout. The NRA did the right thing with the Disclose Act. Cox did write a letter in opposition to the bill to the bills authors. At that time the bills authors approached the NRA with the carve out deal. It's a good thing too. If you donated $10,000.00 a year to the NRA and you were a business owner, and many of your customers were left wing anti-gun people. What would be your chances of staying in business and being able to donate $10,000.00 a year to the NRA AFTER your name and company were made public? I can't believe the ignorance of so many people commenting on this board.

Luis| 9.18.10 @ 6:09PM

If I remember correctly, the NRA did not lobby or seek a special exemption for itself in the DISCLOSE Act. That was done by the Democrats who drafted and wrote the bill. In the aftermath of SCOTUS gutting McCain-Feingold in its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in January of this year, they were running scared.

As most of my fellow Second Amendment afficionados know, McCain-Feingold was promulgated with the intent of muzzling groups like NRA; given the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. Bush signed it (like an idiot), but NRA filed suit. An earlier challenge to McCain-Feingold fizzled (McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission), but Citizens United succeeded.
Dave Kopel's excellent article, "Speech Freed", in the April 2010 issue of 'America's First Freedom", pointed out that Congress prohibited groups like NRA from mentioning a federal candidate's stand on the gun question, 30 days prior to a general election, or 60 days prior to a primary. If NRA did say something like "Sen. Schumer is bad for the 2A", McCain-Feingold would criminalize them for it.

Congress exempted the news media, the TV networks and radio from the issue advocacy restraints, it placed on groups like NRA. In it's ruling in Citizen's United, SCOTUS said, "That is unlawful", and gutted the exemptions as well.

The same judges who voted in favor of Heller in the landmark 2008 case, also voted for Citizens United this year. No surprise that the most strident anti-gun pols and groups voiced their displeasure over SCOTUS' Citizens United verdict, led by Obama and Schumer.

Do I agree with everything NRA does? Nope. I tire from all the newsletters I get, asking for money to "fight the most important gun rights battle in our history"; only to see them redesign their web site every time I click onto it, it seems. But it does wield power and influence, as gun-grabbing pols have learned to their distress. Richard M. Daley isn't running for mayor of Chicago, next year; and I think a large part of the reason why is the McDonald decision. MAIG is now discredited, thanks to McDonald.

Nothing wrong with the NRA acting to safeguard the 2A, whether organizations like AARP and the ACLU like it or not. AARP opposes seniors arming them selves for self-defense, and ACLU has never fought for gunowners rights or the Second Amendment.

Nunya| 9.17.10 @ 2:05PM

I am an Endowment member of the NRA (for those not familiar, it is one step beyond Life member), and have given subtantially to the organization, until now.

Unfortunately, I believe the organization has lost it's way. Supporting the Disclose act, supporting the RINO McCain, and even the CONSIDERATION of supporting Reid make it patently obvious that they are more interested in playing the game of politics and making friends, than anything else. Standing there saying that they're only about the 2nd Amendment is foolish and too narrow a vision. We need the 1st to protect the 2nd, as was stated above--"lock and load" cannot be our first option.

Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 9.17.10 @ 4:24PM

I let my NRA membership expire recently. ANY organization cozying up to Dingy Harry Reid & other Democrats who would love to disarm this nation has serious credibility problems.

sinanju| 9.17.10 @ 5:46PM

I don't know enough about the organization to say whether it got slowly taken over from the inside by leftist careerists or not, like so many foundations and charities.

I do know that during the darkest decades for the 2nd Amendment, namely the late sixties through the late eighties the NRA was the principal monolithic force for the gun-grabbers to contend with. The other countries of the Anglosphere: Canada, Britain, Australia and NZ had no such equivalent and now private firearms ownership and the right to self-defense are only a memory in those places. For this I will always be grateful.

Unfortunately, their legislative model is now out of date. The climate has changed irrevocably. Shall-issue concealed carry is now the rule in this country rather than the exception. Where once "Gun Control" was the cheap and easy way for a pol to act tough on crime, Democrat politicians now warn each other that gun control is political hemlock and a career-ender. For decades, the NRA has been afraid to go to the mat before the Supreme Court for fear of losing big, but that worm has turned. On the contrary, now is the time to go for broke, before Obama gets any more of his fellow leftys on the bench.

The Democrat Party has also irrevocably changed. There are NO "conservative democrats" anymore to speak of. Like "pro-life" democrats, they are an extinct species. When push comes to shove they ALL vote as they are ordered. There is no good reason to support any democrat anywhere. They can all be relied upon to vote against the Constitution when it counts. Supporting a dem against a rep because the dem makes the approved noises about gun ownership is allowing the enemy to divide and conquer us just as, in an earlier era, allowing the gun grabbers to pit hunters and sport shooters against those who owned and carried for self-defense was also a mug's game.

As recent events show, the myriad of other gun-rights groups in America have finally come into their own. It is no longer a one-horse town. The NRA is no longer indispensable. I hope the NRA takes the hint and adapts. So many of the important battles are being fought at the state and local level by state and local organizations, it might be best advised to add muscle only when and where requested. I do not want to watch it become obsessed soley with it's own self-perpetuation.

Mic| 9.17.10 @ 7:09PM

NRA has consistently supported bills that would never have been law like GCA 1968. That law was a carbon copy of the Hitler Code, word-for-word. That only came from Thomas Dodd Chris Dodd's father who presided at the trials in Nurburg. NRA has acted like an anti gun organization ever since it came into existence. The plan in 1977 was to "relocate" to Raton, NM and turn into a country club. People have been mad a long time about this type of disconnect stuff. It's a wonder the Supreme Court ruled the way it has recently too. Remember Neal Knox who got treated like dirt with the NRA’s "vote against" list? That man died with a broken heart after doing incredible good for guns in America. When they dumped Knox the GOA's Prat practically urinated on him saying that "We can't run with a shrill voice and a clenched fist." Implying that only via compromise would NRA achieve its goals. That meeting in 1998 lasted only one hour. A life member, he was not allowed his request for "point of order." NRA had lost big money on sexual settlements and office mismanagement only to agree finally on simple accounting and tracking of expenditures. They've had plenty of problems behind the scenes.

HerbM| 9.18.10 @ 8:33AM

"What irks ... is ...has become too pragmatic in the use of its power: too willing to compromise..."

Pragmatism is generally a good thing, so the above is only partially correct and not focused on the real problem.

When one is too willing to compromise, gets stuck in compromise, and compromises on key philosophical, ethical, and human rights points when that compromise is no longer either necessary or effective then one has reach the level of APPEASEMENT.

Appeasement is a failure of courage and principle, and a failure to use power for the purpose it was rightly intended and given.

The NRA is criticize rightly for such failures to use the power entrusted to it by the millions of members.

And to compromised on an enumerated Right, makes no sense for Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Rights to own and carry firearms, etc.

How about if the government "allows you" and everyone else to pick you own religion, but you only get to pick from 3 which are approved by the government?

How about if you get to speek freely but only after obtaining a specific permit and a seven day waiting period, or only within your own home?

How about if you allowed to avoid self-incrimination, but only if you aren't actually guilty?

JP| 9.18.10 @ 9:11AM

The NRA is going the same route as the AARP. The AARP backed ObamaCare despite strong protests from its paying members. The AARP is firmly in the back pocket of the Dems. The NRA will be so shortly.

mack| 9.18.10 @ 1:50PM

I have had serious disagreement with the NRA over specific second amendment issues - particularly the way the dealt with the Heller case initially. But let's be perfectly clear - there are two different things going on here and they are crucial to understand if you care about the second amendment and the RKBA.

First there are good intentioned 2nd amendment advocates like David Codrea - who are voicing their opinion on non-compromising principles of what they believe to be true and correct. God bless them for doing so. Mr. Codrea and many of his fellows are true patriots and treasured assets of liberty.

Secondly, there are political operatives of the republican party and of conservative movements who are attempting to take control of the NRA. If they have their way the NRA will be just another neutered special interest group beholden to a single political party with no voice or leverage in the other party and little leverage in the party that owns them.

You know, you may not like politics, but you ignore the realities of it at your own peril, and if you support the republican/conservative attempt to take control of the NRA - by demanding that the NRA support only conservative and one hundred percent pure candidates then you are cutting your own throat when it comes to your and my RKBA.

Why hasn't a democratic president who sat on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation (one of the largest funding sources in the country promoting the goal of gun control) with a filibuster proof senate and a large majority in the house been able to pass any significant gun control. Why, because the NRA supports democrats that generally support gun rights. Eric Holder the atty general stated his desire to pass a new AWB - why did he drop his call for that shortly after first voicing it - because the leader of the senate (yes, Harry Reid) let it be known that a new AWB was a dead letter. If the NRA only supported politicians that adhered to a litmus test of conservative positions other than the 2nd amendment then they would have no political clout at all with democrats - who have run the government for the last two years.

Additionally, if the NRA only supported republicans - then the republican party could treat them as dismissively as they or the democrats do the special interests that are only represented by a single party - like the unions are treated by the democrats - (“Sorry you don't like free trade - but what are you going to do about it. vote for a republican“).

The NRA is as effective and as powerful as a lobby group can be precisely because it purposely avoids being owned by one party. To do that it "must" keep it's focus narrowly on the 2nd amendment and the RKBA. It must issue grades based on 2nd amendment votes and the RKBA and then adhere to announced criteria by which it endorses or supports candidates of either party. If it were to not do so, or to suddenly change policies in mid-stream then they would lose all credibility with politicians and thus all political pull. "What do you mean you aren't supporting me - I voted 100 percent on RKBA issues according to your report card and now you say you aren't supporting me because I voted for gay marriage and a tax increase?" If the NRA did that they would have no credibility and no political pull at all within a short time.

I think people need to understand the bigger picture here. GOA is fine - but they do not and will never have the political pull of the NRA. SAF is great and is doing great work in the courts - but they have little political clout. Each like the NRA has it's area of excellence and focus and purpose. The NRA's area of excellence and focus in protecting the 2nd and the RKBA is in politics - the down and dirty world of politics - where principles matter less to politicians than votes or money - so the NRA deals in votes and money - and politicians listen.

So if it makes some "feel" good to bash the NRA for not being "pure" enough or it helps some to "feel" better in their "righteous anger and judgment" to bash the NRA for this or that ideological heresy - then go for it. But that isn't really the game that is being played here - the game is who controls the NRA - conservative members who demand allegiance to one political party and those in the republican party and conservative movement who through organizations like redstate are waging a war to own the NRA . And once they own it what are they going to do with that control - are they going to put the second amendment and the RKBA first or are they going to put supporting a conservative agenda and the republican party and their election first?

Me, I want an organization the puts the 2nd and the RKBA first and that can tell politicians of either party to go pound sand if they don't agree to put the 2nd/RKBA first.

There is a lot at stake here - stop and think - don't let those playing cynical politics in the republican party use your anger or frustration to their advantage. By all means vote for who you want regardless of NRA endorsements or support - but don't demand that the NRA focus on anything but the 2nd/RKBA - else you will help them destroy it for their purposes and their agenda.

bob alou| 9.18.10 @ 7:31PM

Nicely said Mack.

Jim Woodward| 9.19.10 @ 1:02PM

Mack,
Well said. I've been a Life member since 1990. The NRA may not be all things, to all folks on this discussion, but it certainly does far more good than harm.

Ray B| 9.21.10 @ 11:28PM

Ahhhh, felllas; it's moot! Means nothing. Disclose failed because enough folks voted against it. Tactics and circumstances will be different next time.
Life NRA member and registered Democrat.

Neo-libertarian| 9.18.10 @ 7:19PM

Amen

Osamas Pajamas| 9.18.10 @ 10:13PM

I'm in favor of gun control. Disarm the government. Arm the people. And vote Libertarian --- or vote Conservative --- if you prefer a somewhat weaker cup of tea...

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.19.10 @ 12:49PM

Got I little news flash for all you “Second Amendment welfare queens,” I really do not care if you “drop out” or that you have decided that your NRA membership or donations no longer are returning the value you deem “worthy” of your pittance. I mean really, if you wish to ignore the fact that the most powerful influence in politics today is being generated by about one percent of the population and for less than fifty dollars a year there is little hope of rational dialog. You jumping off of our bandwagon will neither help nor hinder the fact that we will continue the mission of upholding the Bill of Rights; nor will it persuade us to dilute our influence by adopting some politically correct, non-RKBA, or SoCon party plank.
So please proceed, shoot yourself in the foot. Act out your delusional fantasy that another wannabe organizational “father” will come along; we will keep the NRA pure and on message in your absence. We will continue to cut the welfare checks providing your rights during your dalliance, we will issue the food stamps of liberty so your children can be nourished by the Bill of Rights and dole out the benefits of providing ranges and facilities to learn the skills needed to preserve our National defense and heritage of hunting and self-defense.
Whine on fools, we will let you live in our Second Amendment homestead while you petition the Baney Franks of the beltway for mortgage relief; shake your empty fist at the Wayne La Pierre’s and the Chris Cox’s who have done more in the last twelve seconds at preserving your rights then the collective sum of your entire adolescent lives.
If it takes cutting a ribbon at a range facility, or if it takes endorsing someone who you abhor for non-RKBA issues, so be it. Reid and Strickland currently have the gavel and have been supportive; acknowledging any contribution to the preservation of our Second Amendment right (many here seem to have lost sight of that) does no harm.
Take note, if you want to take lady liberty to the square dance you will have to occasionally do-se-do with someone else’s partner. However, when the parties over you go home with the date you brought.

mol0nlabe28| 9.19.10 @ 3:30PM

I am tired of seeing LaPierre jetting around, begging for money and then cutting self-serving side deals with Congress and endorsing pathetic candidates.

We need to clean out the executive offices of the NRA like we are doing with Congress.

LaPierre reminds me of Dennis Hastert and Mitch McConnell these days.

Al Koenig| 9.19.10 @ 9:15PM

I did not appreciate the NRA backing Lisa Murkowski in the primary election against the people's choice, conservative Joe Miller. I did not join the NRA for them to back RINOs like Murkowski , who is a Washington insider, against the popular conservative voice of change. The NRA should stay out of primary elections.

Miller will end up doing a lot more for the NRA than Lisa ever would. Wake up!

Beboper| 9.21.10 @ 5:15AM

I didn't realize the NRAILA had picked Murkowski as well. It's becoming increasingly clear the the NRA membership is getting a decidedly diminishing representational return for its membership buck. This is another organizational establishment that seems to have gone DC native.

hyrdr| 9.20.10 @ 4:01AM

Someone should remind Mr Viguerie as well as others that the NRA is not a government elected body and if there is something that needs to be done that the NRA is not doing that they should addrress their represenatives.

hyrdr| 9.20.10 @ 4:22AM

Reading the bunch of comments here it is obvious to me that the left is trying to break up the membership ranks by pretending to be a part of them. How many posters here are here on assignment from some stinking liberal blog???

dusty| 9.21.10 @ 5:43AM

The NRA has weight and respect precisely because it focuses on one issue, and doesn't go hounding off after every conservative issue. Democrats and Republicans belong to the NRA. People who won't vote for a Republican, no matter the reason, will stay home on election day rather than support a candidate from their party who has crossed the NRA. Likewise, being a good Republican on some issues isn't enough for NRA's support; a candidate must support civil rights.

Bob K.| 9.21.10 @ 10:54AM

Your statement illustrates what is wrong with the current NRA leadership.

It was just announced today in the morning news that the NRA endorsed an incumbent liberal Democrat from Northeast Pennsylvania's traditionally Republican 10th district over a very well qualified Republican challenger who was LEADING in the polls!

The Republican challenger,Tom Marino, was formerly the Federal Attorney for the local district. Both candidates had received 100% ratings by the NRA. The 10th district has a majority republican registration and should revert back to republican in this economic atmosphere.

The Democrat, Christopher Carney, a college professor at a local extension of Penn State, has in his 2 terms supported every facet of the Obama administration and is raising big money from the Gas Industry which is engaged in some very controversial drilling which has caused pollution of wells and drinking water IN HIS OWN HOME TOWN of Dimock, PA. and in other areas of his district!

The NRA has just made it more difficult to get a majority in the house of representatives because of this stupid endorsement and I am seriously thinking of not renewing my membership because of it!

danz| 9.21.10 @ 12:58PM

Look, the NRA is like any other big organization. Over time its mission changes from the original goals to preserving the jobs, perquisites and power of the employees and leaders of that organization. It is the imminence of danger that keeps the dollars rolling in. Some organizations tasked with fighting human disease have become more interested in self-preservation than finding a cure or publicizing existing effective treatments. Some of them have become tools of conventional medicine rather than sincere seekers for wellness. Many publicly-held corporations are being run more for the benefit of the executives and boards than for their share holders, customers or employees. This is mission drift due to the leaders becoming disconnected from the goals of the grass routes or donators or shareholders at the bottom of the organization (in pursuit rather of that which serves themselves). When a problem is actually solved, the organization makes itself unnecessary (except for a product-producing business). The same applies to government programs. To curtail mission drift, it is necessary to have a very well thought out governance system so that ultimately the grassroots or stockholders select the leadership of the organization rather directly. In the case of publicly held corporations, there is no direct selection of [any] members of the board of directors, so the management of American companies has in many cases become self-serving rather than foremost with the interests of shareholders in mind.

Joanna | 6.6.11 @ 6:02AM

I agree with most of these comments too.
UTI Treatment

More Articles by W. James Antle, III

More Articles From Feature

Hannah and Her Friends

May 14, 2013 | Matthew Walther

Calvin Coolidge: His Times Are Our Times

April 26, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Black Sea Changes

April 25, 2013 | Matthew Omolesky

The D Team

April 12, 2013 | Matt Purple

Margaret the Magnificent

April 12, 2013 | Maurice Cranston

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/17/caught-in-the-crossfire

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|150 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|84 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|31 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|25 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.