Evan Dawson takes a another crack at the issue of Kirsten Gillibrand's position on gun control. As I mentioned earlier, she's getting some heat because she removed support from a measure favored by gun groups.
What's interesting about Evan's piece is the quotes from Ken Mathison, a spokesman for gun advocacy group SCOPE, who sounds like a Daily Show caricature. Here's a taste:
Well, that's like putting a gun to the head of any gun owner in New York state.
And right at this moment, she's in trouble. She's going to lose her next election at this rate. She might as well move to New York City and forget her conservative friends from upstate if she won't retract this statement.
Mathison might have held his breath and stomped his feet, but Evan doesn't include that detail.
New York is a fairly blue state that, overall, seems to be comfortable with gun control. Kirsten Gillibrand is probably going to be re-elected, and even if she has a tough race, it's doubtful that a Republican courting downstate votes will ardently oppose gun control. In that context, SCOPE's threats are just empty rhetoric. Mathison's red-faced tactics might play well with his constituents, but they aren't going to get him any closer to Gillibrand's office.
SCOPE members need to think about what's achievable with Gillibrand, a gun owner who was sympathetic to SCOPE's agenda in the past. SCOPE might not be able to get Gillibrand to vote against the "big stuff", but they might convince her to back off at the margins. They could get her to change positions on a borderline committee vote, or get her to vote against some obscure amendment they oppose. Instead, after one month, they've decided to go medieval on her.
The political landscape is littered with SCOPE-like groups. They find a single issue, develop a mailing list of supporters, and keep them happy by being quoted in the media spouting the harshest possible rhetoric. That might be an effective fundraising tactic, but it sure isn't effective lobbying.