-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein:
In an effort to blunt the impact of [Citizens United], House Democrats developed the DISCLOSE Act, which would use transparency to combat money….
Of course, some organizations don’t like this. And one of them, the National Rifle Association, is powerful enough to do something about it. They’ve demanded an exemption from the bill, and they’ve gotten one. “The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations,” reports John Bresnahan. The NRA is the only organization that meets the criteria.
Though [sic] experiment: If Democrats wrote this bill and created an exemption that only applied to the AFL-CIO, how would that play in the media? And why would it be substantively any different?
Ignoring that Klein later walked back the claim that the exemption would only apply to the NRA, this is pretty confused.
We don’t really need a “though [sic] experiment” for a scenario in which the Democrats write the bill to include a loophole for a huge advocacy group because that is what is happening in real life. The Democrats, not the Republicans, are pushing the DISCLOSE Act. The real thought experiment would be to consider what would happen if the Republicans created some kind of horrible bill that carved out a valuable loophole for the AFL-CIO. And I’ll go ahead and submit that that wouldn’t play well with the base.
Of course Klein was trying, however confusedly, to impugn the Republicans, for failing to condemn the NRA. But he should have checked the headline from his own paper: “Republicans, liberal groups oppose proposed campaign-finance exemption for NRA.” Sorry, the Democrats are uniquely wrong on this one.
ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.10 @ 6:30PM
Joseph,
He wrote a stupid article didn't he?
Heh, we are going to watch Mr. Obama kill one "canary in the coal-mine" tonight aren't we?
Kill the NRA canary, and oopsie!
Occam's Tool| 6.15.10 @ 10:15PM
The NRA and the Republicans are not always friends---the NRA supports James Oberstar, one of the most obnoxious Libtards there is in Congress and my Congressman.
Boston12GS| 6.16.10 @ 3:00AM
The NRA also had a glowing review of Harry Reid in a recent issue of one of their house pubs (American Rifleman, I think). Nevertheless, no one else does so much to protect our 2nd Amendment rights, and Harry is so doomed I'll give them a pass on that one.
Old Dog| 6.16.10 @ 11:05AM
I won't give the NRA a pass.
They support people whose policies and/or politics will, in the end, doom the 2nd. Face it, the NRA is a corporate structure concerned with self preservation. Can you spell Fat Cats.
Heller? Where were they? Did the help Gura or try to get him to drop Heller as way to risky and just go away? They were definitely in for trying to claim some of the glory though when Gura won.
Grover Norquist, NRA board member. Ardent Amnesty lobbyist. How long will our gun rights stand secure when the dems claim that 20 plus million illegal alien vote and turn it into the permanent majority they salivate for? Who is the NRA working for?
The NRA are the tailor made suit limo ridin' good ol' boys watchin' out for us commoners. I've been an NRA member since age eight. I now remain so because my primary range is an NRA membership range. I give my Support to Gun Owners of America. They are not afraid of a good fight. I guess they must have a lot less to lose.
John E Ritenour| 6.16.10 @ 11:31PM
The NRA ain’t [sic] perfect. There are a lot of things I wish they would do differently, i.e. a more aggressive stance towards the BATFE and their egregious civil rights abuses, work harder to overturn the 1986 moratorium on new machine gun registrations, etc. But there are a lot of good things the NRA does as well. Ask yourself this question: where would our 2nd Amendment rights be today without the NRA? Also – the NRA has a widely varied membership – think soccer moms meeting Ted Nugent! Yes I belong to two other pro-2nd amendment groups as well- GOA (Gun Owners of America) and JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership). JPFO is especially strident and in your face in their approach – they have a poster which shows Hitler nee’ Schicklegruber giving a NAZI salute, with the caption…”All in favor of Gun Control raise your right arm!” This works for me – but isn’t everyone proverbial cup of tea. The bottom line – the NRA is an effective lobbying group and we need to support them because at this time there is no one more effective. Regarding their support of Harry Reid – the NRA is a single focus civil rights group – if an individual supports the 2nd amendment – then generally the NRA supports them. I agree Reid is hard to stomach without several rolls of TUMS ® and a few bottles of Pepto – Bismol ® - but he does support the 2nd Amendment.
Mightycline| 6.17.10 @ 9:30AM
The AFL-CIO recieved money for its members when the union was elevated above the bond holders while bond holders were relegated to the junk heap. Now you have a fair comparison. I think Repub's did not support this transfer of money. NOW go on with the trite comparison.