nitrogen wrote:Look at it this way: What does Obama get if he goes with the NRA on something?
Absolutely nothing but more grief.
That's simply not true. He could take two courses of action that would have a significant impact on how the NRA responds. He could simply do nothing; i.e. not support any anti-gun bills, not say "if you pass them, I'll sign them," not support them behind the scenes. He could also privately discourage the filing of anti-gun bills. If he takes those actions and let's us know, then we probably won't be going directly after him, but we will continue to oppose other anti-gunners. I say probably, as he has already betrayed many of his supporters, he is part of the chronically corrupt Chicago/Illinois political establishment, he has publicly taken anti-gun stands even as a Presidential candidate, and he has insulted and figuratively spit in gun owners' eyes with the "religion and guns" comment.
The other option he has to ease the pressure on the gun issue is to come out and flatly say he was wrong, he won't sign any anti-gun bills that may hit his desk and take other action that proves he is sincere. He'll never do that.
nitrogen wrote:What does Obama get if he goes against the NRA on something?
Absolutely nothing but more grief.
You bet more grief, as well as a history lesson -- 1994, 1996, and 2000.
nitrogen wrote:The NRA already played out their hand. "We already made up our mind about you. We hate you based on your previous record. Nothing you can do will ever change that."
Again not true. We haven't "played out" anything; we have a lot more "grief" we can apply to the problem. As I said, he can change our opinion of him, but we aren't going to buy his lies. (Wright, Ayers, Heller, "religion & guns," etc.) What we won't do is sit back and wait for him to continue a long history of supporting anti-gun legislation. To do that would be irresponsible.
nitrogen wrote:How would you react if you were the CEO of a large company, and a contigant of workers started chatter like, "John is the most anti-worker CEO we've ever had! At his last company, he cut worker compensation 30%! WE HAVE GOT TO STOP HIM! HE'S ATTACKING THE WORKERS" before you even started your job?
You can't seriously be arguing that his long history of supporting anti-gun measures is irrelevant. NRA/TSRA Questionnaires are good (Obama didn't fill one out), but an actual voting record is a far more accurate tool for predicting how an elected official will vote. While it is true that people can change their positions on issues, such a change is more believable when they candidate has actually taken some action to prove their change of heart. However, when you combine a candidate's voting record with anti-gun statements and positions taken during the current campaign, it would be foolhardy to accept their claim at face value.
nitrogen wrote:That's my fear; that the NRA is marginalizing itself right out of the gate.
Not at all. The same could have been said for President Clinton, but the NRA was hardly marginalized. We grew in terms of members, money and strength and were largely responsible for the Republicans taking the House and Senate. We absolutely cost Gore and Kerry the Presidency. Even Bill Clinton admits in his book and during interviews that the NRA cost Gore the election. The NRA cost Gore his home State of Tennessee! I don't know if that's every happened before.
Obama has proven himself to be as anti-gun as Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, McCarthy and Pelosi and he has not said or done one thing to indicate a change of heart. To sit back and take a "wait and see" approach would be to repeat Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's folly and this we will not do.
Chas.
.