What avenue of attacks are most effective with politicians?

[NineseveN]

This discussion sprung up in an unrelated thread, and rather than anger to off-topic gods, I figured it should be a new topic so the other one can stay on track. You may have to read the other one to get an idea of the general crux of the argument, but I think it’s pretty clear.

Link to other thread: http://www.pafoa.org/forum/general-2...hes-doing.html

Well actually in a Constitutional Republic that is exactly how it works. In a true democracy we could vote on every issue when it comes up. Under our system we vote for "them" who best represents our views, wants and interests. We do have the power of impeachment and on a more local level recalls but in a general sense our elected officials act based on their beliefs. Teddy is Teddy regardless of what the majority in the US wants because the majority of Mass voters agree with him. They knew what they are voting for and he does not disappoint.

Where did I bring up impeachment, the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic or anything you just wrote about? Stick with the issue at hand, whether or not being nice when discussing the elected betters really has any effect.

All can contact them as much as you like (BTW, I do too and interact with them officially and personally) but lets use this as a example: How many letters would be needed to convince Teddy to support less gun control? How many letters would it have taken to have changed Rick Santorum mind on abortion? or McCarthy's mind on the AWB?

Only as much as it would take for them to fear their seat in office. If you think politicians, in general, like their morals and beliefs more than their power, you’re not paying attention.

Wishful thinking is fun - I do it all day long but wishing don't make it true. In the real world a Congressman can pick any side to any issue and he will find enough people to agree and support them with money and letters.

In the real world, someone always wins an election, and someone always loses, which proves that how they stand on the issues matters. If ANY congressperson could pick ANY side and win, then every election would be a tie. You’re simplifying this beyond the boundaries of the discussion.

Again in the real world, the letters don't even get to the reps unless you send them to their local offices. Then a staffer quickly reads it and gives their boss what is called a tally sheet: 3947 letters for, 4543 letters against, etc. Then a machine spits out a form letter signed by autopen thanking you for your concern and repeating the Congressman's position. To prove this point ask a friend who lives in Mass to send Teddy a letter asking for less gun control and post the reply you receive.

Exactly my point (if you read back), it doesn’t matter WHAT we specifically say to them (or more likely, about them), the only effect we can have is a tally on one side of the issue or the other either by our letters and contact or by a vote in an election. A letter that states “Don’t vote for the HB 760 gun control, if you do, you’re a jackass” gets the same net effect as “I oppose HB 760 because blah, blah, blah, blah ad infinitum….”…both count as one vote AGAINST HB 760.

Sorry but I have walked those halls many times and met with enough of them to know that the above statements are more the case than the exception. After every election the elected sits down and studys like there is a test (which there is in a manner) the official exit polls results. These results tell them what we the voters were thinking. Again for proof I point to Sen. Reid saying after the VT shootings that he see no need to more gun control. He came to this conclusion from letters? Nope! From his convictions? Ha, He hates guns owners! He read the exit polls showing that while the Dems are now back in favor their liberal agenda were not.

Exit polls? What election was held after the VT shootings? What are you talking about, an “Exit Poll” is a poll done as people are exiting a polling booth. That’s why they call them, “Exit polls”.

Reid was for gun control, until after the VT shootings (quote him sometime before then urging for the Democrats to hold back on gun control). The reason he came out and said what he did is because of the overwhelming national polls showing little to no support for gun control, the amount of heat from gun owners and our advocates in the media and in contacting elected representatives. If there is little to no contact from constituents, they go on the media trend and whatever polls are available, that’s what their advisors do, they look at all of this stuff and make recommendations.

No my friend, letters and calls are fine but to make a difference, to enact change - real change we need to do it on election day. Sadly, 50% of us don't vote. Ron Paul supports our view but how many of us sent him a $ 100 check? Hell, we can't even get "those that care" on this forum to pony up a few bucks!

If you think that waiting for the election day is the answer, then I’m sorry, but you’re not paying attention. Rarely does a politician get voted out on a single issue, an anti-gun dem that is very strong on the rest of our civil liberties can easily beat a Draconian Republican no matter how pro-gun he is, it’s highly unlikely to win or lose an election on a single issue, UNLESS a grass roots effort (that’s you and me and everyone else) cooks up enough of a fire that the smoke permeates the lawmaker’s very existence in the eyes of their constituents.

I’ll use Murtha as an example, he’s not very well-liked nationally except by strict, one-issue anti-Iraq war folks, but he survived against an opponent that had “Conservative” written all over her despite her best efforts to light a fire under the scandals he’s been involved in. Is that because Murtha’s district is exceedingly Liberal? No, it’s because his supporters and advisors have been able to keep fanning the smoke of how he’s allegedly bringing jobs to Johnstown and the fact that he’s against the Iraq war doesn’t hurt (it appears from polls that most voters are tired of the so-called quagmire). I know from talking to him that he’s not personally pro-RKBA, but he’s received favorable ratings from GOA and other pro-gun advocates because he’s generally voted pro-gun. Why? Because the people of his district are VERY pro-gun, lot’s of hunters and shooters out here. People aren’t fazed by guns. I’ve spoken with CEO’s and top level execs of area companies and when I tell them I hike the trails here, 8 times out of 10, the first thing they ask me is “You carry a gun when you’re out there, right?”. My reply is always “I’m always carrying my gun when I’m out.” I generally get a nod and a smile here in Johnstown. My experiences with similar-level people in Pittsburgh and the suburbs of it is the exact opposite. Pittsburgh just isn’t as much of a gun culture as the rural areas of the state are. If Murtha ran for office in the Pittsburgh district, he’d likely vote anti-gun left and right, because if he didn’t, he’d hear about it from his constituents since he’s a Democrat and expected to be somewhat anti-gun in the first place.

Lastly about the advertisers. Do you really think that us gunners would really have boycotted all of those businesses that employed Zumbo? Yeah, some would but I don't think most would have. Remember we are a country that complains about the loss of US jobs yet we shop at Wal Mart to save .99 on a pair of socks. My point is that the advertisers just thought it would be easier to dump Zumbo in the same way NBC/CBS thought it was easier to dump that idiot Imus. Would NBC ratings have gone down if they didn't? I may be wrong but I think not.

What you fail to see is, it doesn’t matter if they would have boycotted those companies or if the companies believed they would, the point is, angry letters put them in the position to make that choice. If not one gun owner (or even only a handful) had written Remington or Cabela’s, they would have never even considered dropping him. We forced the issue, their reactions were part of the public frenzy that ensued. That’s also how it works with politicians. Again, go back and look at HB 760 and the quotes of the lawmakers on it about how they’ve been getting hammered by constituents calling about the bill. If no one would have said anything, the Pittsburgh sponsors would still be attached to that bill and it would still be a threat. That’s how grass roots works. The fact that people think that voting people out of office is the key boggles my mind. You’re trading one dope for another, and then waiting for the next election to get another dope in, all the while, your liberties are being lost. If you want a politician to act now, you light his phones, e-mails and mailbox up…if they get enough contacts, their opinions may not change, but their actions, at least in that instance may (and have and will).

[awkx]

If you want a politician to act now, you light his phones, e-mails and mailbox up…if they get enough contacts, their opinions may not change, but their actions, at least in that instance may (and have and will).

Exactly! The politicians have no way of knowing how much we care about this issue unless we take the trouble to write to them.

If you think that waiting for the election day is the answer, then I’m sorry, but you’re not paying attention....

Yes, but making sure to vote is also important. If an anti-gun Democrat receives an overwhelming number of angry letters from us and gets voted out of office, the next Democratic candidate is going to know that he'd better be pro-gun if he wants a chance at the election.

...whether or not being nice when discussing the elected betters really has any effect.

I always try to be polite in my letters to elected officials. But when talking to fellow pro-gunners or to the public at large, I think it helps to incite strong emotion against gun control. However, I would still avoid excessive name-calling and profanity.

[NineseveN]

Yes, but making sure to vote is also important. If an anti-gun Democrat receives an overwhelming number of angry letters from us and gets voted out of office, the next Democratic candidate is going to know that he'd better be pro-gun if he wants a chance at the election.

Good point, if we don't follow through, soon our threats will be completely meaningless. I should have made that part of my thoughts more clear, thanks for doing that for me.

[phillyd2]

Seems what we have here is a lack of reading comprehension. While I don't have time to parse every sentence here are some general points.

Who said you brought up impeachment? If they are voices in your head I would suggest another drink. I simply stated that impeachment and on a local level recall was a option to "overturn" elections. Simple sentence that was misunderstood. While your rules are that the issue at hand is X or Y, these self proclaimed rules are not binding on any other.

You may also want to relax with the insults Skippy and pay more attention yourself. Or instead of flying on a mission to answer every sentence it may be better to read one more than once, think about and then reply. Case it point, nobody said "politicians like their morals and beliefs more than their power" (making up shit is not really the best form of debate). The point was that the politicians you get on election date is pretty much what you will get during his term. Again, you could have wrote 10 millions letters to Santorum supporting abortion or 100 million letters to McCarthy against gun control and it will NOT change their minds.

So what is the point? Did I say Don't Write Letters? Did I say Don't Call Your Rep? If these are what the reader took from the writer's words then lets stop now since the reader clearly can not understand simple words especially when the writer brags that he writes letters and visits his Rep.

Back to the point, A politician is like a dog who is only concerned about eating and getting his tummy scratched. Politician want to get reelected. Period. However the main point is that you will never see McCarthy sporting a smile and a AR. They will not fear a letter if its not backed up with votes! (Ah, now we are getting to the point, you see!). Trust me that McCarthy has received more Anti Gun Control letters, phone calls and even telegrams but the end result was that she is just as Anti Guns as before. (Warning, major point ahead) But since she keeps getting reelected then what was the point? Forget scaring them! Forget changing their mind! Forget a understanding! Vote them out of office and elect those that support us in!!!!! However (another point ahead) we see even gun owners here voting Dem because they did not love Rick's view on abortion. OK then. There you go.

"If ANY congressperson could pick ANY side and win, then every election would be a tie" You’re misunderstanding of my point is beyond the boundaries of any logic so I'll not even attempt to reply here except to hope that you are being difficult just for effect.

A closer reading would also allowed to understand the realities (or at least my point) of Exit Polls. I guess I should have said "After every election" oh wait, I did. Reid is still for gun control but the Exit Polls AFTER the last election clearly told the Dem leadership that gun control is not a winning issue for them at this moment in time. No minds were changed but they have read the winds. Believe that they care not a bit of "National Polls" because both sides know that depending on how you ask the question you can get whatever results you want. Exit Polls AFTER the election is what these guys read. Take a look at Speakers Nancy's comments after VT. There are not many more Anti Gunner than her yet she mentioned the issue not at all. Why?

I too love making noise for the sake of making noise. Fun stuff to be sure. Let me summarize my original point for the challenged: Writing Letter = Nice. Calling Reps = Fun. Voting = Change.

The rest is beyond silly so at the very least I hope to have proved I was paying attention. Keep them letters a coming - after all, it makes us feel better!!!

Super Cheers.

[NineseveN]

Seems what we have here is a lack of reading comprehension. While I don't have time to parse every sentence here are some general points.

Who said you brought up impeachment? If they are voices in your head I would suggest another drink. I simply stated that impeachment and on a local level recall was a option to "overturn" elections. Simple sentence that was misunderstood. While your rules are that the issue at hand is X or Y, these self proclaimed rules are not binding on any other.

You may also want to relax with the insults Skippy and pay more attention yourself. Or instead of flying on a mission to answer every sentence it may be better to read one more than once, think about and then reply. Case it point, nobody said "politicians like their morals and beliefs more than their power" (making up shit is not really the best form of debate). The point was that the politicians you get on election date is pretty much what you will get during his term. Again, you could have wrote 10 millions letters to Santorum supporting abortion or 100 million letters to McCarthy against gun control and it will NOT change their minds.

So what is the point? Did I say Don't Write Letters? Did I say Don't Call Your Rep? If these are what the reader took from the writer's words then lets stop now since the reader clearly can not understand simple words especially when the writer brags that he writes letters and visits his Rep.

Back to the point, A politician is like a dog who is only concerned about eating and getting his tummy scratched. Politician want to get reelected. Period. However the main point is that you will never see McCarthy sporting a smile and a AR. They will not fear a letter if its not backed up with votes! (Ah, now we are getting to the point, you see!). Trust me that McCarthy has received more Anti Gun Control letters, phone calls and even telegrams but the end result was that she is just as Anti Guns as before. (Warning, major point ahead) But since she keeps getting reelected then what was the point? Forget scaring them! Forget changing their mind! Forget a understanding! Vote them out of office and elect those that support us in!!!!! However (another point ahead) we see even gun owners here voting Dem because they did not love Rick's view on abortion. OK then. There you go.

"If ANY congressperson could pick ANY side and win, then every election would be a tie" You’re misunderstanding of my point is beyond the boundaries of any logic so I'll not even attempt to reply here except to hope that you are being difficult just for effect.

A closer reading would also allowed to understand the realities (or at least my point) of Exit Polls. I guess I should have said "After every election" oh wait, I did. Reid is still for gun control but the Exit Polls AFTER the last election clearly told the Dem leadership that gun control is not a winning issue for them at this moment in time. No minds were changed but they have read the winds. Believe that they care not a bit of "National Polls" because both sides know that depending on how you ask the question you can get whatever results you want. Exit Polls AFTER the election is what these guys read. Take a look at Speakers Nancy's comments after VT. There are not many more Anti Gunner than her yet she mentioned the issue not at all. Why?

I too love making noise for the sake of making noise. Fun stuff to be sure. Let me summarize my original point for the challenged: Writing Letter = Nice. Calling Reps = Fun. Voting = Change.

The rest is beyond silly so at the very least I hope to have proved I was paying attention. Keep them letters a coming - after all, it makes us feel better!!!

Super Cheers.

Insults? Not once have I insulted you or attacked you. Not once.

I thought perhaps we could keep this polite and discuss the pros and cons of influencing how legislators vote with grass roots contact campaigns VS trying to vote them out of office one a single issue (which won’t happen unless that particular issue is a hot-button issue, which gun control currently isn’t). Apparently, I was mistaken.

[phillyd2]

Apparently, I was mistaken.

Well, live and learn

This concludes today's lesson. We can all now go out and play in the sun.