what The Other Side is saying about the Election


PDA






longeyes
November 15, 2004, 02:56 PM
Source: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March


No Mandate For Gun Extremism
Tuesday November 9, 11:31 am ET

Gun Lobby Losing Clout In Key States

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Last week's elections may have led to victory for more conservatives,
but on gun issues, an analysis of the results shows a trend towards greater support for sensible gun laws in
some key battleground states that have not shown that support in the past.

The results show that despite the extremist gun lobby's efforts to make a claim of victory, it actually suffered
erosion of support in states where it once commanded clout. The National Rifle Association, post 2004, should
be viewed as becoming more firmly dependent on high-performing Republican states as the source of the
overwhelming majority of its strength.

Senator John Kerry, pilloried by the gun lobby as supposedly the worst threat to gun owners in the nation, won
Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, six states supposedly among the
leaders in NRA membership. The gun lobby also saw total rejection in Illinois and close races in Ohio, Iowa,
Nevada and New Mexico, other places where the extreme gun lobby held more sway in the past. In Colorado's
Senate race, Ken Salazar (principal supporter of the successful 2000 state ballot initiative closing the gun show
loophole), defeated an opponent who called for repealing the Brady law. In New Hampshire's Senate race,
incumbent Republican Judd Gregg was re-elected after voting to renew the assault weapons ban, joining
President George W. Bush in moving to the middle on sensible gun laws.

"For the extreme gun lobby to lose the battleground states that it lost, I have to believe that their post-election
spin is about as wobbly as it can get," said Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
and the Million Mom March. "This is a show of continued marginalizing for the gun lobby, not a show of force."

"The NRA has their preferred candidate in the White House for another four years, but only after the President
abandoned the NRA's rhetoric and sought to associate himself with sensible gun laws like renewing the assault
weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole," said Brady President Michael Barnes. "Even in places like
Colorado and New Hampshire, voters weren't moved by the extreme gun lobby's message, and convincingly
elected senators who supported sensible gun laws. These elections weren't a tie on the gun issue -- supporters
of gun safety saw growth in support in states where the issue has been tougher in the past."

The numbers paint a far different picture than the gun lobby is attempting to portray. NRA-backed candidates
were elected in only half of the 34 U.S. Senate races in 2004. The group did not endorse in 13 Senate races
either because both candidates were for sensible gun laws or because their candidate was sure to lose.

In seven of these states, an NRA "A" rated candidate ran against a candidate with an NRA rating of "F" or "D"
and lost. Further, only one U.S. Senator (Senator Daschle) who supported the renewal of the federal assault
weapons ban last March lost a seat, while the other 13 Senators up for re- election who voted to renew the
federal assault weapons ban won handily.

Candidate John Thune's victory over Senator Daschle came after a campaign focused on Daschle's position as
minority leader rather than the gun issue. No other incumbent Senator lost.

The NRA's supposed high winning percentage in the House was based on a strategy of endorsing incumbents
over challengers. Where it backed challengers over incumbents, the group lost three out of four races. Thus,
their percentage is largely mythical -- endorsing in easy races to increase their winning percentage. The NRA
claims to have won a large majority of House races where they endorsed. What they didn't point out were 66
other House races where they gave a candidate an "A" or "B" rating and did not endorse them despite their
opponent receiving an NRA "F" or "D."

The Bush campaign moved to the left on the gun issue during the campaign. In the third debate, President
Bush said he supported not only the assault weapons ban, but closing the gun show loophole as well. It could
not have been a message the gun lobby was very pleased with -- the NRA did not endorse any other Federal
candidate who took those policy positions.

The analysis shows that "if there's soul searching to do on the gun issue, it's inside the extreme gun lobby, not
among supporters of sensible gun laws," Mrs. Brady said. "That's why President Bush stayed clear of the gun
lobby's rhetoric -- and why the conservatives in Congress had better think twice before trying to roll back
sensible gun laws."

There is little sign the extreme gun lobby is reading the results the way it should. The conservative Gun Owners
of America has already published its legislative wish list, including such priorities as repealing the Brady law,
lifting the ban on machine guns, and doing away with restrictions on guns within a thousand feet of a school.

That's not what Americans voted for. And in time, the gun lobby will discover that.

CONTACT: Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March,
+1-202-898-0792

If you enjoyed reading about "what The Other Side is saying about the Election" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Henry Bowman
November 15, 2004, 03:19 PM
Spinning at about 60,000 RPM!

If it weren't for a few big (high population) cities, many of the blue states would be red (and mostly are on the county map).

Nickotym
November 15, 2004, 03:29 PM
Where can you find the couty maps for red vs blue?

Mikul
November 15, 2004, 03:33 PM
From USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

molonlabe
November 15, 2004, 03:59 PM
I think this is called trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

There is little sign the left is reading the results the way it should.

El Rojo
November 15, 2004, 04:34 PM
Just because guns weren't an issue doesn't mean that suddenly you are doing better Sarah. The main reason guns weren't an issue is because you were scared to make them an issue and lose the whole election outright. Yes, the gun lobby could have hoped for a lot more, but hey, oh well. The nice thing is we got the AWB to sunset and you have got nothing new other than .50 BMG in California. Keep holding onto your sinking ship Mrs. Brady. Just because we didn't win everything doesn't mean you are winning anything. It just means apathy continues in this country and most people aren't big on the gun issue right now. However, we have Congress and the Presidency so you should be scared. I think your little spin article proves it.

LAR-15
November 15, 2004, 04:37 PM
Well the "assault weapons ban" isn't going to be renewed any time soon.

Take that, Sarah! :neener:

Bartholomew Roberts
November 15, 2004, 04:39 PM
That's right Sarah! You are winning big! A few more elections like that and you'll be home free.

In Colorado's Senate race, Ken Salazar (principal supporter of the successful 2000 state ballot initiative closing the gun show loophole), defeated an opponent who called for repealing the Brady law.

What about the other open seat races? You know, the ones like Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida? In all of these races a highly ranked candidate who opposed renewing the ban on semi-autos faced a Brady-supported candidate seeking further gun control. How did those turn out for you?

For that matter, how did the open seat races in Alaska and Oklahoma go? Guess it was kind of hard to spin that since candidates from both parties were pro-RKBA.

Further, only one U.S. Senator (Senator Daschle) who supported the renewal of the federal assault weapons ban last March lost a seat, while the other 13 Senators up for re- election who voted to renew the federal assault weapons ban won handily.

And for comparison, how many Senators who voted to oppose renewal of the ban lost election on the pro-RKBA side? I believe the answer you are looking for is ZERO.

The NRA's supposed high winning percentage in the House was based on a strategy of endorsing incumbents.

That didn't seem to bother you earlier in this missive when you crowed about NRA-backed candidates being elected in only half of Senate races. Most of the NRA failures were against anti-gun incumbents - so those count; but in the House where you failed to unseat pro-gun incumbents, it doesn't count?

A valiant attempt at spin by the antis as they desparately try to form some kind of case to support the idea that gun control doesn't cost politicians jobs during an election. More and more Democrats are realizing that they are backing extremists who cost them votes during elections and don't even bring in money (a whopping $62,700 in contributions in 2004 compared to $876,307 from pro-RKBA groups). In fact, pro-gun groups donated almost twice as much money to Democrats as gun-control groups did to all candidates.

LAR-15
November 15, 2004, 04:41 PM
How anti-gun is Ken Salazar?

rock jock
November 15, 2004, 04:48 PM
I wouldn't doubt that this article is right on the money, but not for the reason the VPC thinks. It is only because the War and other cultural issues like gay marriage were hotter topics. Had those been off the table, gun control would have been front and center.

Gunstar1
November 15, 2004, 04:55 PM
I think this is called trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

There is little sign the left is reading the results the way it should.

They read it the way they want to. The fact that most everyone equated Gore's loss in 2000 to gun control and his extream environmental policies (faze out the internal combustion engine in 10 years, Kyoto, and others) to his loss was not over looked in 2004.

Kerry, dispite a anti-gun voting record equal to that of Kennedy and other obvious anti-gun senators, he still tried to pass himself off as pro-2nd amendment. So what did the democrats learn from the 2000 election?

Change their policies, no that would be too simple.
Relax their policies, again that would be too simple.
They simply found that if you lie enough, some people will believe it. So, you can say that the current Administration is bad and you will "fix things" when you are in office. But God Forbid, Never ever detail how you will "fix things" or if you do, don't give specific information.

Bush is action oriented, whether in a good way or bad.

The past few Democratic nominee's seem to be the answer to the question; who is the most bland person, and would anger the least amount of people? Once people saw Dean shouting at a rally they pretty much dumped him as a candidate.

Hkmp5sd
November 15, 2004, 05:04 PM
Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March
Does that make them the B.C.P.G.V.U.M.M.M. ?

Gunstar1
November 15, 2004, 05:12 PM
I wouldn't doubt that this article is right on the money, but not for the reason the VPC thinks. It is only because the War and other cultural issues like gay marriage were hotter topics. Had those been off the table, gun control would have been front and center.

If you took away the war and gay marriage then you would be left staring straight and Kerry's anti-gun record. Then you would have to show that durring Kerry's "hunting trips" that he displayed poor gun safety and the fact that PETA and other anti-hunting groups endorsed Kerry and did everything they could to downplay his hunting.

Anti-hunting and anti-gun groups both held back attacks against Bush's pro-gun views for fear that when they did, an unfavorable comparison would be made to Kerry.

I don't think it was other issues that covered it up so much that the media and others played up the other issues whenever too much of Kerry's anti-gun stance was getting into the media.

Bartholomew Roberts
November 15, 2004, 05:51 PM
How anti-gun is Ken Salazar?

GOA has him as unrated; but he has stated support for renewal of the semi-auto ban and signed an MMM pledge card as Attorney General during Columbine promising the same.

On the other hand, his brother John Salazar who won election to the House, opposed renewal of the ban and is an Army vet. Could be that his brother just represents a more conservative district and can't speak his mind; but it at least suggests that Ken Salazar might be open to hearing our side.

Old Fud
November 15, 2004, 07:31 PM
It's too soon to party. Let us, instead, pay attention to what our enemies are saying, and then decide if we should be partying at all.

Did Sarah's article have it's facts right?

Did Wisconsin go blue?
Did Wisconsin Vote AGAINST NRA supported candidates in State positions?
Did Wisconsin re-elect that miserable turncoat who single-handedly defeated CCW in this last year's session?

Did the same happen in Minnesota & Michigan?

Did Bush VOLUNTEER his position in favor of bans against assault weapons and closing loopholes?
(You know he did, and you might note he didn't limit that to Gun-show loopholes either.)

Like most of you, I'm delighted we won't have to deal with Kerry, but I am still nervous about the future.
We need to be wary. We need to continue the good fight.
And frankly, I think that news blurb that started this thread says why.

beerslurpy
November 15, 2004, 07:58 PM
Actions talk louder than words.

The only real failures we had this year were:
-failing to elect Pete Coors. Coors is probably one of the most pro gun people in the world. Ken Salazar is not exactly Ted Kennedy, but he isnt Pete Coors either.
-not having a PRO-gun presidential candidate to pick from rather than a choice between an ANTI and a non-ANTI candidate. Stinko.

Our victories include:
-taking 4 senate seats, including the ouster or replacement of several F rated democrats in favor of several A and B rated republicans. Very Solid. Coburn in OK is an even bigger win (on general principles) that Coors would have been. He is pro gun, anti pork and anti big government. Besides the big 4 gun grabbers in the senate, there isnt much else left.
-taking a bunch more house seats for republican pro-gunners
-getting more concealed carry on the state level and for police officers on the federal level
-nearly getting the DC ban repealed
-getting the AWB to sunset and stay that way
-the democrats cant filibuster Bush's textualist court nominees for another 4 years- textualists are the 2nd amendment's friend

Standing Wolf
November 15, 2004, 08:04 PM
Same old sore losers.
Same old snivelling and whining.

Ho, hum.

If you enjoyed reading about "what The Other Side is saying about the Election" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!