Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Lobbyists are like Onions they have layers.

Often times as I observe what is going on out in the ether of our political world things don't add up until a few layers are peeled back. I am often awakened with a "eureka" moment.

I may have just stumbled upon one today. I posted a couple of days ago about the mass hysteria about Obama was going to take people's guns away. Watch what you say re: guns. There has always been a bit of disconnect on this topic for me. As I mentioned I have paid attention to Obama for quite some time and have never gotten the sense that gun control was on his radar.
Nonetheless, many on the right have been foaming at the mouth about this subject.

I came across the following article that was actually published back in November. The gist of the article is something like this. The NRA of course is one of the strongest lobby groups in American Politics is funded largely by the "Gun Industry". The NRA spent amounts huge last summer and last fall warning everyone who would listen that Obama would come after their guns. There flyer's and ads and tv appearances ,however, were essentially made up out of whole clothe. They were not about to let facts get in the way of a good story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/07guns.html

What is clear is that every gun seller — not to mention every advocacy group for gun ownership that depends on dues-paying members — has an incentive to stoke the concern that can prompt a gun sale. Political uncertainty, gun dealers say, is great for business. … “Clinton was the best gun salesman the gun manufacturers ever had,” said Rick Gray, owner of the Accuracy Gun Shop in Las Vegas. “Obama’s going to be right up there with him.”



Gun Industry

The result of all this "campaigning / advertising" the surge in gun and ammo sales began shortly after Obama was nominated and geared up into high speed when became clear Obama was going to win. Netting 30 - 50% increase in sales and an increase in membership = membership dues in the NRA. Hmmm. Could it be the money spend last year and the talking points were as much about stirring up business as it was stirring up votes.

Makes you wonder.

No comments: