Wednesday, January 14, 2009

"The Most Prudent and Effective Strategy"

Forwarded to me:
----- Original Message -----
From: "ILA-Contact"
To: <________>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:58 AM
Subject: Holder


Dear Mr. _________,

We are vehemently opposed to Holder's nomination and are working with a number of U.S. Senators to try and prevent his appointment. Eric Holder is a radical enemy of the Second Amendment, and we will do what we can to keep him out of office.

Using our influence with the U.S. Senators is the most prudent and effective strategy we can use to stop him. He is not currently under indictment for any crime, so there is nothing legally prohibiting from taking office except the need for U.S. Senate approval. If there were, I can assure you that we use all of our power and influence to use that against him.

I can assure you that we've made it perfectly clear to the Senate that Holder is our enemy, and that voting in favor of his appointment will have serious consequences in future relations with the NRA. I understand that there are a number of rumors on the internet criticizing the NRA, but please understand that we cannot release any more information beyond what I've written here. We are doing everything we can.

Please review this recent letter Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox sent to Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Arlen Specter:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HolderLetter010909.pdf

Cordially,

Angus McClellan
NRA-ILA Grassroots
Yeah, we saw that.

Ar least they're not ending their correspondences with "rest assured" any more.

I'd sure like to see one of those internet rumors pointed out to me. Most of what I've seen have been pretty dead on, albeit they missed the point about Holder not being a strong enough champion for federal gun control edicts.

I guess some will argue this "strategy" is "prudent." Any bets on how "effective" it will be?
at

8 comments:

  1. Anonymous1/14/2009 1:29 PM

    I can't help feel that both the GOA and the NRA are being driven by grass root activists who won't compromise. Horay for the internet!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1/14/2009 5:32 PM

    The problem with working in secret is that the pressure is also secret, can be denied, and excludes constituents who might also add their weight if they knew what was being done.

    Providing plausible deniability to both parties is a very weak reed upon which to hang one's hopes.

    Both parties can do or not do any damn thing they wish keep their activities from the overview of their members and/or constituents. Ergo, the pressure is mostly window dressing because this tactic also provides each side with the possibility of mistating their actions at a later time to those members and constituents, thus providing both with plausible attempted accomplishment. And no way to know the truth for the people who are affected.

    Each party remains free do what they wish with little or no fear of consequence. That does not seem to be an effective strategy to be employed by a serious party to the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1/14/2009 6:30 PM

    Poor NRA. What will they do 50 years from now? I guess they'll just train military and police to shoot us lowly civilians in the back of the head and throw our dead bodies in a ditch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1/14/2009 7:41 PM

    Zach, I'm suprised to hear you say that. The very same thought was in my mind just recently.
    No Joke.
    The NRA seems to be nothing more than a servant of power.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1/14/2009 11:29 PM

    Problem with this is that the nra is power drunk with rubbing shoulders - and we shudder to think what else - with the congressional criminals they demonize in their fund raising letters.

    The nra has become way to complacent and way too entrenched to do anything other than that which benefits them.

    Their day to day actions portray this better than any post.

    Ahhhemmm - so why is Larry Craig still a board member????????

    Just when does it get disgusting enough?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1/15/2009 12:24 AM

    Holder Concerns and bananas

    Perhaps most controversial is Holder’s representation of the banana giant Chiquita Brands International against charges that the company paid millions of dollars to a right-wing Colombian paramilitary group that has killed thousands of civilians, including prominent Colombian labor leaders.

    http://washingtonindependent.com/25595/left-holds-holder-concerns


    Colombia's Justice Ministry has asked the United States to supply information about 20 senior managers of the Chiquita banana company in connection with the payment of protection money to the right wing United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC). Last year, a Chiquita subsidiary, Banadex, admitted paying about 1.2 million euros to the AUC between 1997 and 2004 for the protection of its workers. Similar payments were also made to the FARC and the ELN. Banadex claims it paid the money because the groups threatened to turn death squads loose on its employees and banana plantations.

    http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/6133135/Chiquita-protection-money-scandal-resurfaces

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1/15/2009 9:14 AM

    If I read this right...

    NRA is wringing their hands over the idea that their cozy relationship with the government might be damaged by all this?

    And those in the Senate are supposed to be worried by that?

    Somebody pass the pepto-bismal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John Hardin1/15/2009 12:57 PM

    The "most prudent and effective strategy"? What, plenty of KY?

    ReplyDelete

Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.