Brady Campaign Endorsements for Tuesday

**Tom Servo** · November 1, 2010, 04:31 PM

There's no need to check under the bed for Sarah Brady tonight, as her organization isn't making much of a showing. The Brady Campaign issued their Congressional endorsements for the 2010 mid-terms, and the list is pretty thin.

This could have something to do with the fact that the group's budget for 2010 is only $5,661. That's five thousand, six hundred, sixty-one dollars.

They've issued no endorsement in Nevada (or twenty other states), which is odd, considering their rancor towards Harry Reid.

The Violence Policy Center isn't spending any money this year (on anything, really), and though the Joyce Foundation is sending money to various groups under the ostensible heading of "gun violence," none of it is going towards political endorsements.

This may be the most dismal election cycle for the issue of gun control I've ever seen.

jmortimer · November 1, 2010, 04:56 PM

There must be some mistake as they only endorsed democrats. What do they know that I don't know? I must be missing something.

carguychris · November 1, 2010, 04:59 PM

Tom, I think it would be more informative to say that they had $5,661 left to spend as of October 13th. They had spent $8,665 as of 10/13, perhaps a better indication of their total budget.

OTOH the numbers are stunningly low, especially considering that the link indicates that they spent close to $1.8 million in 2000.

They had given a measly $2,750 to federal candidates from 1/1 to 10/13. I know people who have spent twice this much on a bicycle.

highvel · November 1, 2010, 08:02 PM

Maybe truth and statistics are finally getting through to the people that used to support them?
Nice thought eh, wish it were real!

kraigwy · November 1, 2010, 09:03 PM

I feel slighted, they didnt tell me who to vote for in Wyoming.

csmsss · November 1, 2010, 09:38 PM

The only candidate they could muster up in TX was the certifiably insane Sheila Jackson Lee.

Gary L. Griffiths · November 2, 2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

There's no need to check under the bed for Sarah Brady tonight,

Boy, there's an image that beats a cold shower!

MTT TL · November 2, 2010, 09:22 AM

I thought we didn't do political?

stargazer65 · November 2, 2010, 09:44 AM

Only straight political discussions and partisan politics are not allowed. This falls more into the arena of discussing how politically orientated organizations are working to affect law and civil rights. I think it's appropriate if it stays on that track.

Al Norris · November 2, 2010, 10:13 AM

stargazor gets it.

**Tom Servo** · November 2, 2010, 11:34 AM

If this was just about the mid-terms, I wouldn't have posted it. The point is that the Brady Campaign is a pale shadow of what it once was. They were once a true threat to the 2nd Amendment not too long ago, and there was a time when they directly influenced national firearms policy. Now, they can't afford a used Honda.

At one point, I'd have been watching their endorsements and making calls to legislators on the matter. In 1996, we'd have had a thread listing every politician getting an endorsement from the Bradys, and there would be calls for action in each state and district those politicians served.

Now, I just shrug. Same goes for many other such groups.

There has been no mention whatsoever of gun control this election cycle. None. Furthermore, many politicians (including one local one who once supported the AWB) are now falling over their own feet to prove to the electorate that they fully support 2nd Amendment, and always have.

We've seen almost a full reversal on that since the 1990s.

**Mike Irwin** · November 2, 2010, 12:13 PM

Maybe not gun control on a national level, but it has been mentioned in Virginia's 11th house district.

The incumbent is Gerry Connolly. I've known Gerry for almost 15 years, and like the guy. He was anti-gun as a county commissioner, but slowly over the years really moderated his positions.

In a discussion before the election two years ago he and I had an exchange about where he was going to stand on guns on the national level. Based on his comments to me then, I gave him my vote.

In the last two years, he's supported just about every anti-gun position he can - including sending a letter to the attorney general (IIRC) urging immediate closure of the "gun show loophole," voting against extending CCW rights to national parks, and others.

Obviously, he lied.

Obviously I believed him.

And, obviously, he's not getting my vote.

NWPilgrim · November 2, 2010, 01:23 PM

This is great news. $5K is probably just enough to keep their web page up but no salaries or speakers, or candidate support. BTW, how did you ferret this info out?

WOW! I just checked their web page, How lame. Most of the menus (About, Facts, Media, Donate) don't works!! You get a messy PAGE NOT FOUND! error page. Hahahaha

I wonder if the Brady contributors were too busy last year shopping for AR15s, Glocks, mags and ammo. And building their own bunkers.

Now they don't have any discretionary cash left for their anti-gun campaign. After all, they are not anti-gun, they just don't want the unwashed masses to have guns.

jmortimer · November 2, 2010, 02:49 PM

Brady Bunch is like" NOW" - they are small groups who get big play in the media. If most people knew how tiny they are no one would pay attention.

Brian Pfleuger · November 2, 2010, 03:18 PM

The Brady Campaign only ever got notoriety because of the association with the attempted assassination of Reagan. Had it not been for that correlation, no one would have ever heard of the group, even if the same injury had occurred to Mr. Brady in the same way. His shooting would have been just another "drive-by", or "walk-by".

In any case, the farther we get from familiarity with the event from which they grew, combined with the general "pro-gun" atmosphere, the less and less meaningful they will be. At this point, they may cease to exist in the very near future.... and Good Riddance.

**Mike Irwin** · November 3, 2010, 08:27 AM

Actually, when the Brady Campaign was Handgun Control Incorporated it had a very big presence and was very active politically. Prior to it becoming HCI in 1980, it was the National Council to Control Handguns, founded in the early 1970s.

Through the 1970s and into the 1980s HCI got a LOT of press, a lot of money, and impacted a lot of political topics and races.

The Bradys didn't become the recognizable face of HCI until the middle to late 1980s.

It wasn't until 2001 that HCI changed its name to the Brady Campaign. IIRC part of the reason was that they left their web name expire and a pro-gun rights organization grabbed it.

Here's an interesting tidbit from the Brady Campaign page on Wikipedia:

"In January 2010 the Better Business Bureau published its Charity Review on the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stating that it failed to meet six (of twenty) standards for charity accountability. This report will expire in 2012."

carguychris · November 3, 2010, 09:41 AM

IMHO one of the main reasons for the decline of the Brady Campaign is the success of the "shall-issue" CHL movement. First, it's popular with the general populace of just about every state where it's been tried, despite the dissatisfaction of a few diehard pro-RKBA folks ("I shouldn't need any permit, anywhere, anytime" types). It gives people who carry handguns an aura of respectability. Second, the bloodbath the Bradys predicted has not materialized- quite the opposite. Study after study has shown that CHL holders are less inclined towards violent crime than the population as a whole, and the crime rate continues to fall despite the economic downturn.

Thoughts?

**Mike Irwin** · November 3, 2010, 10:03 AM

That's pretty much my assessment, too. There has been a state-level reaction against more gun control, and that has trickled up to the National level.

The 2000 presidential election spelled out in very clear terms just how strongly voters were beginning to react against gun control at a national level, and the national parties actually got it.

With that kind of movement against state and national gun control, and the ever clearer realization that gun control doesn't do anything remotely like what the anti-gun proponents claim it will, it's only logical that support for the Brady Campaign would wane.

roy reali · November 7, 2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

They've issued no endorsement in Nevada (or twenty other states), which is odd, considering their rancor towards Harry Reid.

While I am no fan of Senator Harry Reid, I must admit he has a good record towards guns and hunters. He has to in Nevada.

**Shane Tuttle** · November 7, 2010, 09:28 AM

And all it's going to take is one, single rich anti to provide a jumpstart to their organization. People like George Soros.

They may not be a viable threat now. But I'm not for one second going to let my guard down....

**Tom Servo** · November 7, 2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

While I am no fan of Senator Harry Reid, I must admit he has a good record towards guns and hunters. He has to in Nevada.

That was pretty much the NRA's attitude towards him, and I agree. Sadly for him, neither side was willing to endorse him.

Bartholomew Roberts · November 8, 2010, 10:02 AM

Well, let nobody doubt that the Brady Campaign produces results, according to Howard Nemerov, the House has 259 members who are rated A or AQ (A-rated; but no prior legislative history).

This means that the House has a solid, pro-RKBA majority. Hopefully, that can be put to good use by addressing the ATF reform legislation.

November 1, 2010, 04:31 PM	#1
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	Brady Campaign Endorsements for Tuesday There's no need to check under the bed for Sarah Brady tonight, as her organization isn't making much of a showing. The Brady Campaign issued their Congressional endorsements for the 2010 mid-terms, and the list is pretty thin. This could have something to do with the fact that the group's budget for 2010 is only $5,661. That's five thousand, six hundred, sixty-one dollars. They've issued no endorsement in Nevada (or twenty other states), which is odd, considering their rancor towards Harry Reid. The Violence Policy Center isn't spending any money this year (on anything, really), and though the Joyce Foundation is sending money to various groups under the ostensible heading of "gun violence," none of it is going towards political endorsements. This may be the most dismal election cycle for the issue of gun control I've ever seen. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

November 1, 2010, 04:59 PM	#3
carguychris Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2007 Location: Richardson, TX Posts: 7,523	Tom, I think it would be more informative to say that they had $5,661 left to spend as of October 13th. They had spent $8,665 as of 10/13, perhaps a better indication of their total budget. OTOH the numbers are stunningly low, especially considering that the link indicates that they spent close to $1.8 million in 2000. They had given a measly $2,750 to federal candidates from 1/1 to 10/13. I know people who have spent twice this much on a bicycle. __________________ "Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

November 1, 2010, 08:02 PM	#4
highvel Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2010 Location: Powhatan VA Posts: 633	Maybe truth and statistics are finally getting through to the people that used to support them? Nice thought eh, wish it were real! __________________ Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.--Mark Twain "I have opinions of my own 'strong opinions' but I don't always agree with them."--George Bush

November 1, 2010, 09:03 PM	#5
kraigwy Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 11,061	I feel slighted, they didnt tell me who to vote for in Wyoming. __________________ Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

November 2, 2010, 09:22 AM	#8
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	I thought we didn't do political? __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

November 1, 2010, 04:56 PM	#2
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	There must be some mistake as they only endorsed democrats. What do they know that I don't know? I must be missing something.

November 1, 2010, 09:38 PM	#6
csmsss Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Orange, TX Posts: 3,078	The only candidate they could muster up in TX was the certifiably insane Sheila Jackson Lee.

November 2, 2010, 09:44 AM	#9
stargazer65 Senior Member Join Date: April 6, 2009 Location: Connecticut Posts: 761	Only straight political discussions and partisan politics are not allowed. This falls more into the arena of discussing how politically orientated organizations are working to affect law and civil rights. I think it's appropriate if it stays on that track. __________________ "I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards

November 2, 2010, 10:13 AM	#10
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	stargazor gets it.

November 2, 2010, 11:34 AM	#11
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	If this was just about the mid-terms, I wouldn't have posted it. The point is that the Brady Campaign is a pale shadow of what it once was. They were once a true threat to the 2nd Amendment not too long ago, and there was a time when they directly influenced national firearms policy. Now, they can't afford a used Honda. At one point, I'd have been watching their endorsements and making calls to legislators on the matter. In 1996, we'd have had a thread listing every politician getting an endorsement from the Bradys, and there would be calls for action in each state and district those politicians served. Now, I just shrug. Same goes for many other such groups. There has been no mention whatsoever of gun control this election cycle. None. Furthermore, many politicians (including one local one who once supported the AWB) are now falling over their own feet to prove to the electorate that they fully support 2nd Amendment, and always have. We've seen almost a full reversal on that since the 1990s. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

November 2, 2010, 12:13 PM	#12
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,380	Maybe not gun control on a national level, but it has been mentioned in Virginia's 11th house district. The incumbent is Gerry Connolly. I've known Gerry for almost 15 years, and like the guy. He was anti-gun as a county commissioner, but slowly over the years really moderated his positions. In a discussion before the election two years ago he and I had an exchange about where he was going to stand on guns on the national level. Based on his comments to me then, I gave him my vote. In the last two years, he's supported just about every anti-gun position he can - including sending a letter to the attorney general (IIRC) urging immediate closure of the "gun show loophole," voting against extending CCW rights to national parks, and others. Obviously, he lied. Obviously I believed him. And, obviously, he's not getting my vote. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

November 2, 2010, 01:23 PM	#13
NWPilgrim Senior Member Join Date: September 29, 2008 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,346	This is great news. $5K is probably just enough to keep their web page up but no salaries or speakers, or candidate support. BTW, how did you ferret this info out? WOW! I just checked their web page, How lame. Most of the menus (About, Facts, Media, Donate) don't works!! You get a messy PAGE NOT FOUND! error page. Hahahaha I wonder if the Brady contributors were too busy last year shopping for AR15s, Glocks, mags and ammo. And building their own bunkers. Now they don't have any discretionary cash left for their anti-gun campaign. After all, they are not anti-gun, they just don't want the unwashed masses to have guns. __________________ "The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." - James Madison

November 2, 2010, 02:49 PM	#14
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	Brady Bunch is like" NOW" - they are small groups who get big play in the media. If most people knew how tiny they are no one would pay attention.

November 2, 2010, 03:18 PM	#15
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	The Brady Campaign only ever got notoriety because of the association with the attempted assassination of Reagan. Had it not been for that correlation, no one would have ever heard of the group, even if the same injury had occurred to Mr. Brady in the same way. His shooting would have been just another "drive-by", or "walk-by". In any case, the farther we get from familiarity with the event from which they grew, combined with the general "pro-gun" atmosphere, the less and less meaningful they will be. At this point, they may cease to exist in the very near future.... and Good Riddance. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

November 3, 2010, 08:27 AM	#16
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,380	Actually, when the Brady Campaign was Handgun Control Incorporated it had a very big presence and was very active politically. Prior to it becoming HCI in 1980, it was the National Council to Control Handguns, founded in the early 1970s. Through the 1970s and into the 1980s HCI got a LOT of press, a lot of money, and impacted a lot of political topics and races. The Bradys didn't become the recognizable face of HCI until the middle to late 1980s. It wasn't until 2001 that HCI changed its name to the Brady Campaign. IIRC part of the reason was that they left their web name expire and a pro-gun rights organization grabbed it. Here's an interesting tidbit from the Brady Campaign page on Wikipedia: "In January 2010 the Better Business Bureau published its Charity Review on the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stating that it failed to meet six (of twenty) standards for charity accountability. This report will expire in 2012." __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

November 3, 2010, 09:41 AM	#17
carguychris Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2007 Location: Richardson, TX Posts: 7,523	IMHO one of the main reasons for the decline of the Brady Campaign is the success of the "shall-issue" CHL movement. First, it's popular with the general populace of just about every state where it's been tried, despite the dissatisfaction of a few diehard pro-RKBA folks ("I shouldn't need any permit, anywhere, anytime" types). It gives people who carry handguns an aura of respectability. Second, the bloodbath the Bradys predicted has not materialized- quite the opposite. Study after study has shown that CHL holders are less inclined towards violent crime than the population as a whole, and the crime rate continues to fall despite the economic downturn. Thoughts? __________________ "Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

November 3, 2010, 10:03 AM	#18
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,380	That's pretty much my assessment, too. There has been a state-level reaction against more gun control, and that has trickled up to the National level. The 2000 presidential election spelled out in very clear terms just how strongly voters were beginning to react against gun control at a national level, and the national parties actually got it. With that kind of movement against state and national gun control, and the ever clearer realization that gun control doesn't do anything remotely like what the anti-gun proponents claim it will, it's only logical that support for the Brady Campaign would wane. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

November 7, 2010, 09:28 AM	#20
Shane Tuttle Staff Join Date: November 28, 2005 Location: Montana Posts: 9,443	And all it's going to take is one, single rich anti to provide a jumpstart to their organization. People like George Soros. They may not be a viable threat now. But I'm not for one second going to let my guard down.... __________________ If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting

November 8, 2010, 10:02 AM	#22
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Well, let nobody doubt that the Brady Campaign produces results, according to Howard Nemerov, the House has 259 members who are rated A or AQ (A-rated; but no prior legislative history). This means that the House has a solid, pro-RKBA majority. Hopefully, that can be put to good use by addressing the ATF reform legislation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search