The unapologetic NRA — and what it means

By Chris Cillizza , Updated: December 21, 2012

 The Washington Post

For those hoping to get a mea culpa from NRA boss Wayne LaPierre at a Friday press conference in Washington, you came away sorely disappointed.
LaPierre was broadly combative against a media that he insisted purposely papers over violence in video games in favor of scapegoating his organization. He defended the need for gun ownership and proposed that Congress take up legislation that would put an armed security officer in every school by January. He was, in a word, defiant.
The reaction from critics of the NRA was immediate — and unsurprising in its incredulity. “The NRA leadership is wildly out of touch with its own members, responsible gun owners, and the American public who want to close dangerous loopholes and enact common-sense gun safety reform,” said New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg.
But what LaPierre’s press conference did is make clear that those who had begun to call the Newtown shooting a tipping point in the gun control debate may have to rethink that assessment.
While polling suggests that there has been some reversal in the broad trend against more gun laws, the reality is that any measure has to make it through Congress. And LaPierre sent a very firm signal today to all members of the House and Senate: Now is not the time to further tighten gun laws, it’s a time to arm those charged with protecting our children. Such a stance makes any attempt to pass something like the assault weapons ban that much more difficult for President Obama and gun control advocates in the House and Senate.
What could change that calculus?  A sustained movement in public opinion regarding the role of guns — and gun rights — in our society. That’s possible. But, while the NRA’s critics were quick to lambast LaPierre’s press conference as a PR disaster, it could also be true that many supporters of the organization (and gun rights more generally) saw it as a victory, a decision to stand up in the face of an onslaught of what they believe to be unfair scapegoating.
The issue will now be on hold until Vice President Biden’s task force presents its legislative proposal to curb gun violence sometime next month. But, LaPierre sent a very clear signal today that the NRA has no plan to shrink from the coming fight over gun control. And a fight it assuredly now will be.

Put armed police in every school, NRA urges

By David Nakamura and Tom Hamburger, Updated: Friday, December 21, 5:11 PM

The Washington Post  

The National Rifle Association on Friday called for armed police officers at every school in the nation, offering a defiant challenge to President Obama’s push for stricter gun control laws and potentially setting up a fierce legislative battle early next year.
In his first extensive public comments since the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., last week, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre read a lengthy statement that blamed video games, slasher films, the media, inadequate databases on mental illness and lax security for contributing to violence in the culture.
“I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation,” LaPierre said.
He scoffed at those who he predicted would criticize his group’s proposal for the nation’s estimated 135,000 public and private schools.
“Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word ‘gun’ automatically become a bad word?” LaPierre said at a midday news conference attended by hundreds of reporters.
“The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection,” said LaPierre, who did not take questions. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or a minute away?”
The NRA’s statement, coming two days after Obama said he hoped the group would engage in “self-reflection,” helped rekindle a national debate over two starkly different approaches to curbing gun violence.
Obama said this week he supports a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, along with stricter measures to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. The president vowed to pursue new policies in January.
NRA officials said they are seeking to shift the national conversation away from gun regulation and the influence of the firearms industry toward a new proposal that it hopes will resonate with families concerned about school safety.
LaPierre’s appearance in a windowless conference room at the Willard Hotel, where security was tight, set off a flurry of reaction after a tense week in which advocates on both sides of the issue waited for the nation’s most influential gun rights group to weigh in.
LaPierre said that Asa Hutchinson, a former Arkansas congressman who served as a homeland security and drug enforcement official in the George W. Bush administration, would lead an NRA-sponsored effort to examine what it would take to place armed security officers in every school under a National School Shield Program.
Grass-roots mobilization has long been the most important source of strength to the NRA, whose executives discussed their approach with national board members following the Newtown shootings. By Friday afternoon, officials were already reporting positive reaction from members.
“The outpouring of grass-roots support for this effort is immense,” said Cleta Mitchell, a Washington lawyer and NRA board member who said she participated in the discussions of the proposal for more guards in schools after talking to her sister-in-law, a preschool principal.
Liberals “always connect the wrong dots and blame the same people when their idiotic ‘solutions’ don’t solve problems,” Mitchell said. “No one bothers to ask why the Clinton assault weapons ban didn’t prevent Columbine. Same question now: Why didn’t the Connecticut gun laws prevent these killings? It is because gun laws don’t stop bad guys with guns from killing people.”
The NRA reported receiving 500 calls to its headquarters within the first hour after the news conference from local members pledging to help pursue the school safety initiative.
Obama offered no public reaction to LaPierre’s remarks. In a video posted online Friday morning, which officials said was a response to more than 400,000 people who signed online petitions supporting gun control in the past week, the president urged advocates to speak out and lobby Congress.
“If we are to succeed, it’s going to take a sustained effort of mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, law enforcement and responsible gun owners,” Obama said, “organizing, speaking up, calling on their members of Congress as many times as it takes, standing up and saying, ‘Enough’ on behalf of all our kids.”
A White House official said LaPierre’s remarks were “not confidence-inspiring in terms of what constructive role they’ll play.” The official, who requested anonymity to speak frankly, was unaware of any White House contact with the gun rights group over the past week.
Democrats who support stricter gun control have been reluctant to push measures like those Obama advocates, in part because the NRA’s fierce opposition to new rules after an assault weapons ban expired in 2004 has been cited as a factor in several moderate Democrats being voted out of office.
This time might be different. Citing polling data, Democrats contend there is a growing gulf between the NRA’s 4 million members and its leaders in Washington. Members generally support a ban on military-style assault weapons, said Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), a Vietnam War veteran and avid hunter who is spearheading the Democratic response on Capitol Hill.
Several congressional Democrats, as well as big-city mayors, quickly denounced the NRA proposal. New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), co-chairman of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns campaign, said LaPierre was offering “a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe.”
Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, called the NRA’s proposal “irresponsible and dangerous” and accused the group of not seriously addressing gun violence.
“Schools must be safe sanctuaries, not armed fortresses,” she said in a statement.
Critics seized on LaPierre’s denunciation of violent video games — he played a clip from a game called “Kindergarten Killers” in which even students have guns — and noted that an armed guard at Columbine High School in Colorado was unable to prevent the killings there in 1999.
LaPierre was interrupted twice during his statement by anti-gun protesters, including one who held a sign reading: “NRA Killing Our Kids.” After pausing briefly during the second interruption, he shook his head but continued reading his prepared text after the protester was forcibly removed.
Highlighting the complicated politics of the gun control debate, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who has been talked about as a future GOP presidential nominee, said Friday that armed guards would not make classrooms safer. Meanwhile, Rep. Gene Green, a moderate Democrat from Texas who has a top rating from the NRA, said he was pleased that the group had offered suggestions.
NRA officials are scheduled to appear on the Sunday morning televised talk shows to continue making their case in public.


Peter Wallsten, Sean Sullivan and Susan Svrluga contributed to this report.

James Hormel: I question the sincerity of Chuck Hagel’s ‘so-called apology’

By Greg Sargent , Updated: December 21, 2012

The Washington Post 

Chuck Hagel’s nomination for secretary of defense ran into trouble the other day when it emerged that he’d described a nominee to be U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg as “openly aggressively gay,” and called that an “inhibiting factor” to “do an effective job.”
Today, with gay groups mobilizing, Hagel apologized in a statement to Politico, in an apparent bid to keep his nomination alive.
But in an interview this afternoon, the target of the 1998 slur, leading gay philanthropist James Hormel, told me he never received an apology from Hagel himself, questioned the sincerity of the apology, and said the incident should still raise questions about whether Hagel is the right man to oversee the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell.
“I have not received an apology,” Hormel, who is a major figure in Democratic politics, told me. “I thought this so-called apology, which I haven’t received, but which was made public, had the air of being a defensive move on his part.” Hormel added that the apology appeared to have been given “only in service of his attempt to get the nomination.”
In 1998, Hagel told the Omaha World Herald: “Ambassadorial posts are sensitive. They are representing America. They are representing our lifestyles, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be — openly aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel — to do a better job.”
Hagel, as Buzzfeed noted, was also a longtime supporter of don’t ask don’t tell, and even told the New York Times in 1999: “The armed forces aren’t some social experiment.” Gay rights groups have been criticizing the choice. In his apology to Politico, Hagel acknowledge that his comments were “insensitive,” apologized to the LGBT community, and affirmed his commitment to their civil rights.
But Hormel told me that Hagel’s comments — and the nature of his apology — raise questions as to whether he’s the right guy to ensure that “the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell is fully implemented as quickly as possible in ways that will have the least deleterious effect.”
Of Hagel’s comment, Hormel added: “If it were made today, it would be clearly disqualifying.”

EXCLUSIVE: Top Republican Senator will oppose Hagel nomination

By Jennifer Rubin , Updated: December 21, 2012

The Washington Post 

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the Republican whip, told me in a phone interview this morning he would oppose the nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense: “I can’t support a Hagel nomination if it comes,” he said. He is the first senator to expressly state he would oppose Hagel. He told me he thinks there would be substantial opposition to Hagel on both sides of the aisle. “I’ve heard prominent Democrats concerned about his position on Israel. Many Republican have said they did not want to prejudge. But it would be a bad move and one of the reasons I’ve taken the position [to oppose]. ‘Mr. President don’t do that. It would be a bad nomination.’”
Cornyn obviously was well-versed in Hagel’s record. He methodically ticked through a list of concerns he had, pointing to positions Hagel has consistently taken over the years. “There are some points about his record that make him unacceptable.”
He explained, “America is the indispensable power for peace in the world.” He then explained why Hagel would undermine that premise.
“He appears to believe [a nuclear-armed] Iran can be contained. [ Defense Secretary  Leon] Panetta and the president have said a nuclear weapon is a red line. He’s not even consistent with the secretary of defense and the administration.”
He pointed to another statement Hagel made in 2010. “He said he wouldn’t support all options being on the table.” This is also inconsistent with the president’s position. Cornyn asked rhetorically, “How does it help to tell Iran that?”
Cornyn referred to Hagel’s support for a group that favors elimination of all nuclear weapons: “On the issue of nuclear weapons he’s embraced Global Zero. It strikes me as particularly naive … To have a secretary of Defense who believes all nuclear weapons should be eliminated is  . . . well, just over the top.”
Cornyn also cited Hagel’s vote against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization in 2007. And he said, “He favors direct negotiations with Hamas. That is beyond the pale.”
Cornyn also objected to Hagel’s remark in 2009 that “I’m not sure we know what the hell we are doing in Afghanistan.” (Although Cornyn did not cite it specifically, Hagel also remarked in 2011 that the U.S. ”lost our purpose, our objective” in Afghanistan.) Cornyn criticized the failure in Iraq to obtain a status of forces agreement that puts our gains at risk, arguing that Hagel would do the same in Afghanistan. He argued that ”it appears to me his position in Afghanistan after all we’ve invested, all the blood we’ve spilled” would leave the country in disarray and right back where it was before the Sept. 11 attacks.
In addition, Cornyn took strong issue with Hagel on defense sequestration. “He basically believes the Defense Department can sustain the sort of Draconian cuts contained in sequestration — something Leon Panetta has said would be debilitating.”
Cornyn was adamant: “It is not just an isolated problem …  It is a consistent position in support of American weakness.” Cornyn is not only a prominent senator and  a member of the Armed Service Committee that would have to confirm the next secretary of defense, but he is also the GOP whip. Thus it is unlikely that a Hagel nomination could obtain 60 votes for cloture and confirmation. Moreover, now that such a prominent figure has spoken out, other senators are likely to follow.