(Thursday, November 12, 1998)-- Well, the election spinsters have been working overtime to explain what happened in last week's election. According to The Washington Post, which ran a glaring headline reading "For Voters, It's Back Toward the Middle," voters rejected the principled conservative stance in favor of a more moderate approach.
But was that really the case? It is true that pro-gunners were instrumental in sweeping anti-gun Democrats out of office in 1994, thus turning control of the Congress over to the Republicans. And it is true that these voters, such a powerhouse four years ago, did not elect more pro-gun congressmen in 1998. So why did tossup races that were supposed to land in the hands of conservatives go to liberal, anti-gun Democrats?
The answer to that question lies not so much with the pro-gun voters, as with the politicians who were begging for their votes. Consider what is, perhaps, the starkest example of a challenger who lost-a challenger who could have easily mobilized pro-gun voters, but who instead took those votes for granted and squandered any opportunity for victory.
Nevada Representative John Ensign was well positioned to defeat incumbent Harry Reid for the U.S. Senate. Reid had accepted money from Handgun Control, Inc., which he earned with his consistent anti-gun voting record.
Clearly, Ensign had the edge in this race. All he had to do was exhibit some pro-gun leadership. But when GOA sent out the candidate questionnaire, Ensign balked.
John Ensign never went on record saying he would take a leadership role on Second Amendment issues. That wasn't supposed to matter because he had a better voting record than Reid on gun issues, and he thought he had the gun vote locked up. Not so.
Ensign lost by a mere 500 votes. The libertarian candidate, who was unequivocal in his pro- gun position, picked up about 8,000 votes, while another 8,000 pulled a lever for "none of the above."
The assistant editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Vin Suprynowicz, noted that it was Ensign's lukewarm support for gun owners that cost him the election. Suprynowicz, no doubt speaking for countless other gun owners, opined that,
Mr. Ensign instead decided to take the "moderate" road, betraying a vital, core constituency [gun owners]. So, like 7,650 other Nevadans, I cast my single precious vote for the "hopeless" candidacy of Libertarian Michael Emerling Cloud. And you know what? I've been feeling better and better about my voting principles ever since.
Clearly, this seat was winnable for Ensign if only he abandoned the misguided notion that gunnies would vote for him just because he was slightly better on the issue than Senator Reid.
Another common mistake that "conservative" candidates made this election cycle was trying to please both sides of the fence on the gun debate. In many states, politicians who "waffled" on gun rights were stung at the polls. Consider just two of the examples where notable gun compromisers went down to defeat:
* Illinois. One time pro-gunner turned Sarah Brady "flunky" Al Salvi (R) was finally sent packing. Salvi ran for U.S. Senate on a pro-gun platform in 1996 when he nearly pulled off an upset. This year he renounced gun owners and was defeated in his bid for Secretary of State in Illinois. Part of the reason was his alienation of the pro-gun vote that Mr. Salvi spurned right after his defeat in 1996.
* South Carolina. Another gun switcher who lost was Governor David Beasley (R). Beasley alienated his conservative gun-owning base early in his career. Then roughly two months before the election, Governor Beasley betrayed gun owners. Beasley signed an executive order (#98-19) committing the State of South Carolina to carry out the Clinton-Reno Brady Law.
When Beasley's pro-Brady Executive Order was found out by gun rights activists, his campaign phone lit up. In response to pro-gun callers, Beasley's staff tried to argue and divert the issue. But Beasley's spin was to no avail. On Election Day pro-gun voters abandoned Beasley because of his "sellout" to President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno.
The problem with the above candidates is not that they are Chuck Schumer clones. Their problem is that they take the pro-gun vote for granted.
Such candidates apparently calculated that gun owners had no where else to turn. But pro- gun voters proved to be not so na‹ve. They were not about to settle for the `lesser of two evils' strategy.
The most important voters in the 1994 election did not bother to go to the polls. According to the Post, "The proportion of voters who described themselves as conservatives and who traditionally can be counted to show up strong on Election Day dropped 6 percentage points compared with 1994."
The spin of liberal pollsters, that voters took a sharp turn toward the middle, was betrayed by the polling results. Conservative candidates did not lose because they were too conservative, but because they were too liberal.
Interestingly, elected officials who took a principled stand on the Second Amendment and were leaders on the issue did well on Election Day.
Most notably, Texas representative Ron Paul, who is a Republican representing a majority Democratic district, had no problem dispensing with his opponent. In a year in which Republicans were being trounced all across the country, Ron Paul actually increased his 1996 margin in a Democratic district.
In Idaho, Representative Helen Chenoweth had been on the most vulnerable incumbent list for many months before the election. Her challenger was quick to point out that Ms. Chenoweth was "too extreme" for the state, offering himself up as a moderate alternative.
Voters rejected his middle-of-the-road position and elected Chenoweth to a third term with a wider margin of victory than two years ago.
In other election related stories, radical anti-gunner and liberal democratic shill Charles Schumer defeated moderate Senator Al D'Amato in New York State.
Schumer was the most ardent anti-gunner in the House of Representatives, and is expected to push his gun control agenda with renewed vigor in the Senate. Senators Lautenberg (of misdemeanor gun-ban fame), Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein may pale in comparison to this extremist anti-gun zealot.
Perhaps the most heart-breaking race occurred in the 19th District of Illinois, where Brent Winters was leading in the polls on the eve of the election. The GOA Political Victory Fund had endorsed Winters because of his very strong support for the Second Amendment.
Winters had pledged, in writing, to introduce legislation to repeal the Clinton ban on hundreds of semi-automatic firearms. He was committed to introducing legislation to repeal the dangerous Brady law, including the instant gun owner registration check. By contrast, his opponent had refused to make any such pro-gun commitments.
And yet despite these differences, Charlton Heston, who campaigned for Winters two years ago, began running media spots for his opponent. The NRA pumped in $25,000 in the final two weeks against Winters. Considering the fact that Winters was running in a Democratic district, any defection from his conservative coalition could prove to be costly. Not surprisingly, when the smoke cleared on November 3, Winters was behind.
Gun Owners of America - Political Victory Fund endorsee Robin Hayes won a House seat in the 8th District of North Carolina.
Congressman-elect Hayes has pledged in writing to sponsor and support pro-gun legislation in the upcoming session in his signed response to the GOA Federal Candidate Survey.
GOA members and supporters can look forward to a new voice for their gun-rights on Capitol Hill this year in Mr. Hayes.
And at the state level, the GOA Political Victory Fund supported pro-gun leaders like Rep. Teresa Forcier (PA), Rep. Ron Hood (OH), Rep. Lisa Lutz (NM), Rep. Riley Seibenhenner (AL), Sen. Carol Martin (OK), Sen. Marilyn Musgrave (CO), and Rep-elect Mark Young (SD). All of these candidates won their elections.
In Oklahoma, where Vermont-style right to carry finally gained the public support of Sen. Frank Shurden (D-8), GOA members picked up four new votes in the House.
GOA members and supporters will be working with these and other key legislators to fight the likely wave of anti-gun bills.
GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt implored gun owners, especially those who stayed home or voted for pro-gun Third Party candidates on Election Day, not to withdraw from the political battle.
"With Schumer unleashed in the senate, and an untested leadership in the House, gun owners' rights are going to under greater attack than ever," Pratt said.
"Considering that the Democratic-held Congress gave us Brady and the semi-auto ban and the Republican-held Congress shoved the Lautenberg and Kohl gun bans down our throats, there's no telling the damage that could be done to the Constitution by this new Congress, which is largely two Parties rolled into one."