Why Rand Paul Won't Be at the NRA Convention This Year, Or Anytime Soon
Greetings from Nashville! Watch the NRO home page for regular updates on all of today's big speeches at the NRA Annual Meeting, and Charlie Cooke and I will be sharing our observations of the unexpected and surprising at this year's convention in the Corner. Charlie has already noticed the New York Daily News completely botching its coverage of the convention, suggesting that the standards for all guns displayed at the convention – non-operational, with the firing pins removed, and any guns purchased during the NRA convention will have to be picked up at a Federal Firearms License dealer – is some sort of hypocritical stance or fear for safety at the event.
As Charlie points out, "a) it's a trade show, not a bazaar; b) the rules governing interstate purchases are extremely complicated; and c) there is simply no way that there would be enough guns available to satisfy the demand." Meanwhile, if you've wondered why Rand Paul won't be speaking from the stage in Nashville, the Wall Street Journal sheds some light: Sen. Rand Paul wasn't invited to speak at this weekend's National Rifle Association annual convention because the Kentucky Republican is caught in the crossfire between competing gun-rights organizations. Top NRA officials are unhappy that Mr. Paul has for years lent his name to fundraising solicitations for the National Association for Gun Rights, a group that fashions itself a more conservative alternative to NRA. Mr. Paul's aides have been told by the NRA he will be unwelcome to participate at NRA events as long as he remains affiliated with NAGR, according to people familiar with the conversation. Actually, it's not just lending his name to fundraising messages; it's very official-looking e-mails calling the NAGR "the fastest-growing and most effective gun rights group in America." 
The WSJ continues: Publicly, the NRA chalked up Mr. Paul's absence from Nashville to scheduling concerns. The convention has a packed three-day schedule of political speeches – at least nine other would-be 2016 presidential candidates are scheduled to appear, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida). Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was on the schedule but cancelled this week. Now, look, my friendly connections with the good folks at the NRA are clear. I've gone and shot at their range. The complaint that the NRA isn't "conservative enough" amounts to asking the group to change its identity and its operating philosophy – one that the NRA is convinced is the secret to its success. As the NRA's executive director Chris Cox put it to me a few years ago: We are a non-partisan organization, and we don't base any grade or any endorsement on a party affiliation. That's how we have continued to succeed, by solely considering how a candidate stands on the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. We send out candidate questionnaires to every candidate, and we look at public statements and the things they say in debates. We focus solely on the right to keep and bear arms, because that's our issue. Now, there are a lot of other issues that voters have to address, particularly in a year like this; they're looking at fiscal issues, they're looking at the health-care issue. We encourage our members to put it in the forefront of their decision-making, and that's proven to be a very effective, a very fair, and credible way for NRA to be positioned to help the rights of our members. … We do not take non–Second Amendment related issues into account. I may feel very strongly about health care, taxes, but that isn't what I'm supposed to bring to this decision. Back in 2009, the NRA didn't include the vote to confirm Eric Holder as attorney general in their scorecards, while some other gun-rights groups did; these smaller, significantly less powerful groups contended the NRA was selling out by not downgrading any senator who confirmed Holder. From the NRA's perspective, a lot of senators with otherwise solid records were going to vote for Holder; a new president almost always gets their first choice for key cabinet positions. Scoring the Holder vote wouldn't have derailed or even slowed down the Holder nomination. The only thing it would have done is downgrade guys like Senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee – guys who have solid-to-sterling voting records on actual gun control legislation. Finally, David Frum, who is often critical of the NRA, responded to one of my pieces on the convention from last year and offered some insightful points on why the organization has enjoyed great success in the past decade when so many other conservative causes have lost ground: Whatever else you say about the NRA, its cause does not obviously improve the standing of the richest members of society. Indeed, gun rights can even be presented as a rare and precious means to equalize the standing of the rich and the middle-class, conferring on the middle class the security that the affluent enjoy inside their gated communities and doorman buildings… Gun advocates depict a government that is increasingly remote and alien from everyday concerns, if not outright hostile and menacing. This is a widespread point of view in post-economic-crisis United States. Most conservative causes promise to bring the government closer to the people by having government do less for the people. For obvious reasons, that's not an easy sell. Gun advocates offer a very different message. They promise to put the means of self-emancipation from a dangerous world right into one's own hands. LaPierre again: "In this uncertain world, surrounded by lies and corruption, there is no greater freedom than the right to survive, to protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns, and handguns we want." At a time when so many people—and especially so many white men—feel devalued and undermined by powerful unseen but inimical forces, gun advocates put the power to deal death at the touch of a button right into their supporters' hands. Nobody feels powerless when he holds a gun. Brace Yourselves: Game of Thrones Is Coming Back Game of Thrones returns to HBO this Sunday. This February piece on Cracked points out that the show is starting to dive into some uncharted territory, because they're now outpacing the written work of author George R.R. Martin: Season 5 of Game of Thrones airs in April. Now, they started filming that season last July, and shooting didn't wrap until December. That's six months of filming for one season, which isn't unusual for Game of Thrones. It's an incredibly complicated show, with hundreds of characters, several sprawling exterior locations, and extensive visual effects. The upcoming season is almost certainly still in post-production and probably will be right up until it airs. That's a year-long production cycle for a single season, half of which is filming. You know what that means? They've already started writing Season 6. There's no way that the producers of the most popular (and expensive) show currently on television can afford to wait around until the very last minute to start planning next season's shoot. Just assuming that this year goes the same as previous years, shooting for Season 6 will probably begin in the summer, either June or July. As we pointed out, this is a show with a huge cast and numerous exterior locations, and virtually every single shot has some kind of visual effect in it, even something as basic as adding castles and [stuff] in the background so it looks like a fantasy realm of dragons and intrigue and not 21st-century rural Ireland. Just from a budget and scheduling standpoint, they have to know what roles need to be cast, what locations they're going to be using, which previous cast members will be returning and where they'll need to be and how long they'll need to be there. HBO simply cannot wait for Martin. The piece also points out the odd fact that Game of Thrones, the television show, is almost certain to end before Game of Thrones, the book series: Martin has taken about six years in between each installment, so if Winds of Winter comes out in 2016 (again, the very earliest that his publisher is expecting to release it), you've still got another six years to wait for the final book to wrap everything up and probably kill most if not all of your favorite characters. It's not unreasonable to assume it will be 2022 before we get to read the final chapter of A Song of Ice and Fire. What I love about Game of Thrones: It's different. It doesn't look like any other show on television. Almost every episode looks like an epic movie: The scale is huge, the sets are huge, the number of key characters is enormous. Every season is just ten episodes, and something important and consequential occurs in just about all of them. It's complicated. Here's where Game of Thrones compares to Twin Peaks; my favorite early-90s surreal comic-horror murder mystery had a good thirty-to-forty characters of significance during its run. A lot of shows effectively "talk down" to their audience by simplifying things and creating worlds where everything of importance is done by the same half-dozen people every week. For example, on Castle, we almost never see Castle and Becket interacting with any cops or police personnel outside of the main cast. As far as viewers can tell, the precinct consists of three detectives, a captain, two medical examiners, and Castle the consultant. To keep costs down, anyone in the background – other detectives, uniformed officers, secretarial staff, etc. – rarely, if ever, speak a line of dialogue. Most cop shows are the same, as are most doctor shows and legal dramas. The limited terms of those shows work well enough, but in real life we interact with lots of people throughout the day – and the world of Game of Thrones presents multiple members of multiple families in an enormously complicated web of rivalries, shifting alliances, secret agendas and vendettas, etc. This is a show that rewards playing close attention – and like most of my cult-hit favorites, you feel as though there's a lot going on off-screen. One side of the violence-and-nudity-and-shocking-deaths coin: This is not a show that plays it safe. George R.R. Martin is sometimes described as fiction's most notorious serial killer. One character declares early on, "In the game of thrones, you either win, or you die." We can argue whether Martin's vision represents a particularly cynical view of humanity – if you trust someone in Game of Thrones, that person will probably stab you in the back when you're most vulnerable – but it certainly is a formula for great drama, suspense, excitement, and a constant sense of danger. Nobody's ever safe – not heroic protagonists, not kids, not pregnant wives. The Inadvertent Pro-Christian Message: Whether Martin intends it or not, I think the show can be seen as cautionary tale of what the Middle Ages would have been – or what the world can be -- without Christianity's emphasis on mercy, sympathy, kindness and love. Martin discusses his fictional religions here, including the worship of the "Lord of Light" that involves burning human sacrifices at the stake. Best opening credits and opening theme on television: Bah-BUM bah bah BAH bum bah bah BAM bum BAAAA BUMMMM, BAAA BAAA BAAA BUMMM… and it changes slightly most weeks! 
What I could do without: The other side of the violence-and-nudity-and-shocking-deaths coin, which makes this show the equivalent of whiskey – strong stuff, not suitable for all palates. If you're uncomfortable with a character whose signature is skinning his foes alive… you may want to keep a finger near the fast-forward button. ADDENDA: "Hi, my name is Nat Brown, and I'm a Fast and Furious fan." "Hi, Nat." This week's pop culture podcast runs the gamut, from fat-shaming to the return of baseball, from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace getting into trouble for a comment about Kelly Clarkson, to the Scientology documentary Going Clear. Probably our most surprising segment was about the overlap between America's gun culture and the world of hip-hop. Naturally, that segment features me reading the lyrics to Eminem's "We As Americans" in the voice of Charlton Heston. (Yes, I tried to emulate Heston's quotations of Ice-T.) Take a look at the lyrics of Eminem's song, and think about how much they overlap with the kinds of things you hear from Second Amendment defenders: There's an intruder in my house He cut my phone-lines can't dial out I scream for police but I doubt They're gonna hear me when I shout They took away my right to bear arms what I'm 'posed to fight with bare palms? yeah right they coming with bombs, I'm coming with flare-guns We as Americans We as a Americans Us as a citizen Gotta protect ourselves Look at how [stuff] has been We better check ourselves Living up in these streets Through worse and through better health Surviving by any means We as Americans Us as a citizen We are Samaritans What do we get us in We better check ourselves Look at how [stuff] has been Take a look where you live This is America And we are Americans | 
Comments
Post a Comment