How Much Opposition to Eric Holder Is Enough?

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

BARACK OBAMA

Erick Erickson of RedState comes out, guns blazing, against the NRA for not using everything in their arsenal (no pun intended) against the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General. While they've written to the Judiciary Committee and informed their members of Holder's anti-gun views, they haven't pursued a few other options: they're not using the Holder confirmation vote in calculating a senator's NRA rating, they're not explicitly instructing their members to call their senators, and they didn't urge the Judiciary Committee to hear testimony from other gun-rights groups. Erick calls the NRA "pitiful sellouts" and concludes "because the NRA likes to play nice with Democrats, they are going to roll over for Barack Obama on the Holder nomination."

Erick and I exchanged a few e-mails on this last night. I'm not saying the NRA absolutely shouldn't have taken the steps he suggests. But I think before dismissing one of the most effective groups in the conservative coalition as a bunch of "pitiful sellouts," we ought to look at the choice through their eyes.

There's a case to do it — when you've got a bad nominee on the ropes, hold nothing back — and a case not to do it — with Orrin Hatch indicating approval, Holder is still probably going to be confirmed, and so you're going all-in for a fight you know you'll probably lose. Perhaps it's better to use your ammunition (again, no pun intended) in a fight when the odds are more in your favor — i.e, when Obama, Holder, Pelosi and Reid try to move actual anti-gun legislation. It's not like the NRA is giving Holder the thumbs-up, and it's not like if the Holder nomination were to go down, Obama's replacement nominee is likely to be any better on gun rights.

The risk of defeat is high, and the rewards for victory are pretty small. And when you pick your hill to die on, you have to recognize that the consequence of failure is that you die.

Beyond differences on strategy and priorities, Erick's characterization is irksome. Do Wayne LaPierre, John Sigler, Chris Cox, et al., really seem like the kinds of folks who change their minds because Reid and Leahy told them to? Do you really think that "pressure" from those two is all it takes to get the NRA leadership to change their minds? Come on.

Having said that, we also ought to remember that the NRA's mission is to a cause, not a political party. Erick says "play nice with Democrats" with a sneer, but that's not a bad thing to a group that is regularly touts itself as willing to work with anyone of any party who backs their agenda — i.e., protecting Second Amendment rights.

Finally, if the NRA scores based on the Holder vote, why not the vote to confirm Cass Sunstein as OIRA Administrator? After all, Sunstein said that hunting should be banned. Why not score the vote on the confirmation of Arne Duncan to be Secretary of Education? After all, he bussed Chicago schoolkids to Springfield for a gun-control rally. Obama is an anti-gun politician. He's going to nominate anti-gun people for high-level positions. This is what the NRA's been saying all along. Does the NRA score each and every one of these votes, losing more and more political capital with each hearing? Or do they recognize that they're going to need their political capital for much bigger fish than Eric Holder?

01/13 09:23 AM Share