Last month, the LA Times had an interesting story about the growing disillusionment with Bush among “gun voters.”
The dilemma Bush faces is that although most gun-rights groups consider him far more friendly to their concerns than Kerry, he may have lost enough of their political support to keep them from becoming an energized and therefore influential voting bloc in a close election.
Bush has not engendered “enthusiasm” among gun-rights voters, said Larry Pratt, the longtime head of the Gun Owners of America, a political and lobbying organization. “Sometimes he’s good and sometimes he’s bad.”
Reinforcing the possibility that Bush has something to worry about here, The Hill noted today that an NRA endorsement for Bush is not exactly in the bag.
Bush supports the renewal of the 10-year [assault-weapons ban] but has not called on the GOP-controlled Congress to act. If he does so, the move would probably cost him the endorsement of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Not long ago, this hardly even seemed like a possibility. In 2000, after all, the NRA produced a video for its supporters explaining that “we’ll have a president … where we work out of their office” if Bush won the election.
Four years later, the NRA seems poised to stay, officially anyway, neutral in the presidential election, as it was in 1992 and 1996.
Oddly enough, it really does seem that the group’s support will come down to a single policy — the outcome of the assault-weapons ban. If it’s renewed with Bush’s support, the NRA will withhold its endorsement. If it dies in the House, the endorsement will be forthcoming.
While the vote would be held in Congress, the onus is clearly on the White House.
Many Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers say Bush will determine whether the ban is extended beyond Sept. 13. An aide to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has said privately that if Bush pushes for it, the ban will probably be reauthorized. But if he doesn’t, the chances of legislation’s passing this year are remote.
In light of this political dynamic, won’t Bush simply reverse course and let the policy die? Maybe, but it’s not that easy. In fact, Republican moderates are pressuring Bush in the other direction.
Centrist Republicans in the House are urging the administration to get involved. In an interview, Rep. Michael Castle (R-Del.) said, “Pressure will build” to renew the ban in the coming months.
Castle said he is working with Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Mike Ferguson (R-N.J.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) to pass a bill that parallels the gun bill passed in 1994.
“The legislation would pass if it came to the floor,” Castle said. “There are a number of Republicans who would support this.”
It’s a tricky problem for the White House and, for that matter, Kerry. The assault-weapons ban enjoys broad support with the public and Bush won’t want to be viewed as a toady of a controversial special interest group. On the other hand, Dems are nervous about the gun issue and the GOP knows it. Bush may be willing to take a chance on letting the law expire, hopeful that Kerry would be too afraid to touch the issue to make it a big part of the campaign.
My guess is that Karl Rove is too concerned about grassroots mobilization to risk the NRA’s endorsement. I’m predicting that Bush drops his support for the policy, Congress lets the ban expire, and the Dems keep their complaints to a minimum.
Maybe if the Million Mom March attracted more than a few thousand people over the weekend, we’d see a different political dynamic. But with the Dems afraid of the issue, minimal public attention, and the GOP at least a little hesitatnt about its ties to the NRA, we have a stalemate that will lead to inaction. In this case, that will probably mean the end of the assault-weapons ban.