A picture promoting the NRA presidential coin set from the group's online store. (Photo: NRAStore.com)

In 1995, President George H.W. Bush gave up his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association via an angry open letter in which he expressed his outrage over a fundraising pitch made by current NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre that described federal agents as "jack-booted government thugs" wearing "Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms." Though President Bush said he was "deeply" offended and asked the organization to "remove my name from your membership list," seventeen years later, the NRA is still promoting his past association with the group in its online gift shop.

One of the "premium" items in the NRA store is the "NRA Presidential Series Collectible Coin Set." The full set of eight coins sells for $89.95 and features portraits of what the site describes as "all eight NRA-affiliated Presidents" and a "bonus" coin with the NRA logo. President Bush is depicted on the coins along with John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Ulysses S. Grant, William Howard Taft and Richard Nixon. Interestingly, three of the presidents in the NRA's commemorative coin series, Reagan, Roosevelt and Kennedy, were victims of gun violence during their careers (in JFK's case the wound was, of course, fatal).

The Observer reached out to the NRA to ask why they were still including President Bush as an "NRA-affiliated President" in their coin set despite his break with the organization. As of this writing, we have not received a response. We also spoke to Jim McGrath the spokesman for President Bush. Mr. McGrath said he was unaware of the coin set, but would not be able to get back to us with a response until at least next week as President Bush is currently in intensive care at a Houston hospital.

President of the NRA at today's conference (Washington Post)

Today, the president of the National Rifle Association of America, Wayne LaPierre, made his organization's highly-anticipated statement regarding the shooting at Newtown, Connecticut. Anyone who was hoping for anything less than usual b.s. about how the school system needs more guns should probably stop reading right here. Also, the NRA wants us to note, that it is our culture's glorification of Splatterdays (what?), Mortal Kombat and Natural Born Killers--specifically--that causes mass shootings, not military-style assault weapons that we can buy online.

From Mr. LaPierre's statement:

And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal. There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like “Bullet Storm,” “Grand Theft Auto,” “Mortal Combat,” and “Splatterhouse.”

And here’s one, it’s called “Kindergarten Killers.” It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research staff can find it, and all of yours couldn’t? Or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it? Add another hurricane, add another natural disaster. I mean we have blood-soaked films out there, like “American Psycho,” “Natural Born Killers.” They’re aired like propaganda loops on Splatterdays and every single day.

That would be a very good point, Mr. LaPierre, and if you were anyone other than the guy telling us that everyone needs a semiautomatic machine gun with 20 magazines, we might listen. Unfortunately, Kindergarten Killers has not prompted anyone to go on a rampage, since, as you say, no one has ever seen that film outside of your office. Also, Patrick Batemen didn't really use guns, and Natural Born Killers came out 18 years ago. I'd also advise you to Google "Mortal Kombat death statics" and compare it to "gun death statistics." It's quite enlightening.

Not to worry though, because it looks like the travesty at Newtown has only caused an increase in gun sales. Thanks, Kindergarten Killers.

Illo: Peter Arkle.

The other day, driving to the local home center for some mulch and fertilizer, I absolutely solved the problem of gun proliferation in America once and for all. This was the morning after the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colo., and so I guess the subject was on my mind. When the traffic light turned green, I stepped on the gas and was nearly broadsided by a speeding Cockasaurus, running the red light going the other way.

For all the benefits of living in the countryside—nature, sunrises, the singing of birds—the greatest drawback is the dreaded Cockasaurus. I’m certain you’ve run into a few of them yourself; the roads lately are filled with them—Chevys, Fords, GMCs, pickups mostly, with oversized off-road tires, raised suspensions and open exhausts, driven by abject failures who attempt to soothe the degradation of their every waking moment by feeling “bigger” than everyone else on the road. The Cockasaurus, like many of nature’s creatures, has some common markings: vaguely-racist anti-Obama decals, one praising Jesus Christ, a hilarious picture of Calvin urinating on something and, more often than not, a bumper sticker proudly declaring the driver’s love for guns: I Heart Guns, or I Heart Assault Rifles, or My Other Auto is a 9MM, or If You Can Read This, You’re in Range! This particular Cockasaurus, the one that nearly ended my life, sported the following message etched beneath a black silhouette of an automatic rifle in a sort of Comic Sans typeface:

Gun control means using two hands!

I should state at the outset, before absolutely solving the problem of gun proliferation in America, that I have nothing against guns. Nobody distrusts the human animal more than I, so you don’t have to convince me of the need for personal protection. This is a somber reality, however: man’s inhumanity to man and our concomitant need to defend ourselves from one another is a wretched, depressing fact of life, not one to be celebrated or enjoyed. And that’s my problem with gun people: they seem rather thrilled to be having guns. To be Gun Owners. To have more guns, bigger guns, guns in their cars, guns in their homes, guns in their pants. It isn’t about the unfortunate reality that men prey upon other men—it’s about … something else. But what?

I leaned on my horn as the Cockasaurus went by, and in response, his engine grunted, his tires thrust forward and his tailpipe ejaculated a thick load of exhaust.

That’s when I realized—this swaggering, Dirty Harry–esque gun ownership isn’t about safety or protection or hunting or freedom or the Second Amendment. It’s about cock. More specifically, it’s about little cock.

Gun control means using two hands? That’s about cock.

I don’t retreat, I just reload? Cock.

They can have my gun when they pry it out of some liberal’s cold puckered ass?

Way cock.

And so it occurred to me, driving behind this particular Cockasaurus the morning after 12 people were killed and 58 injured in a movie theater in Colorado, that maybe the answer wasn’t more gun laws, but some other law. Because that’s what I’d been reading all morning: that while most everyone agreed we needed new gun laws, they also agreed it was politically impossible to get any new gun laws passed.

So here’s my idea: if we can’t federally mandate new gun laws, I say we pass a federal law that all American males over 18, without prejudice or exception, be required to shave the base of their cocks. Shaving the base of one’s cock is a time-honored, porno-tested method of making one’s penis appear larger than it really is. Will this rid the country of guns? No. And it shouldn’t. But I am convinced it will rid gun-owners of the need for ever bigger, more powerful “weapons,” and their insistence on shoving those compensatory bigger guns down our gagging, metaphoric throats.

Listen, I’m no Pollyanna; as bipartisan a concept as I believe this is, I know that it’s an election year, and passing my Cock-Shaving Bill isn’t politically feasible just yet, but I’d like to at least get the idea out there, perhaps start an online petition. The bumper stickers write themselves:

You can have my gun when I stop using it to overcompensate for my inadequate penis.

Guns don’t kill people; I have a small dick.

Don’t disarm the dicks; shave them.

It’s a start. Come up with your own. Get organized.

The Cockasaurus pulled into the home center and parked, and the driver jumped out. He pulled his jeans up over his beer belly and waddled over to look at one of the mowers on display outside the door.

The biggest mower there.

The biggest mower I had ever seen.

It was bigger than my car.

“Morning,” he said to me as I walked by.

It was nearly 1,000 dollars more than any other mower there, and for a moment, just for a moment, I felt bad for him.

How much money will he waste, I wondered, before he just shells out for a Mach Three razor? How many people have to die before this man shaves his cock?

“Morning,” I replied.

editorial@observer.com

What?

But why the NRA? With their 41 million subscribers, this single-issue group has one of the highest email subscriber/opening email ratio. (They are like the Midwest MoveOn.Org, if MoveOn.org was actually powerful.)

The Observer called the number listed  to see what this program was about, because honestly, what could the NRA--which again, is single-issue group-- and environmentalism have to do with each other?  We were connected to  Andy Bates, the vice president of The Wireless Alliance. According their website, The Wireless Alliance is a cell phone recycling company that works with "wireless retail stores, e-waste recyclers, schools, universities, state and local government, large corporations and non-profit organizations to collect and recycle cellular equipment."

Mr. Bates told us that WA announced a partnership with the NRA during the gun convention in St. Louis this April. This morning was the first email "blast" that went out to clubs and organizations, and so far 31 associations--mostly gun stores, shooting ranges, and manufactures--have responded, asking for the recycling boxes.

When we noted the weirdness of this team-up, Mr. Bates told us that the Wireless Association was owned by BPI Telecom, an Irish telecommunications service that heads up Outdoor Affinity Telecom. OAT is a wireless service that "provides savings on telecommunication services to supporters of the outdoor industry," according to its website.

Also:  "Outdoor Affinity Telecom is proud to make a donation back to outdoor industry organizations on behalf of members who take advantage of these savings."

The partners listed of OAT include the NRA, along with several other shooting organizations, all of which are owned by the NRA or Outdoors Affinity. In addition, Mr. Bates noted that BPI is a major corporate sponsor of the National Rifle Association.

Sure, it's sort of a "snake eating its own tail and then blowing off said tail with a gun" kind of scenario, but if the Wireless Alliance has found a way to actually connect with individuals of this very large organization and have them help the Earth, then...why not? Right?

“I think it’s happening already, I really do,” Ms. Gillibrand said in an interview on Feb. 14 as she ate a celery stick dipped in blue cheese at the end of a long day of meeting and greeting at the New York State Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators convention in Albany. “The more I am traveling around the state, the more people get to know me, the more we build this relationship of trust that I’m going to be there for them just as I was there for my district.”

To call Kirsten Gillibrand’s introductory travels around the state a “listening tour” wouldn’t quite capture it. Yes, part of the mandate since her appointment last month by David Paterson has been to hear and address complaints from officials representing high-crime urban communities (she has an NRA-approved position on gun rights) and from black and Latino officials concerned about her restrictive stance on immigration.

But she is also laying down a marker. She is telling the state that it had better get used to her.

She is a fact of life.

“For those who are considering running, they will see that I am performing well,” she said, referring unmistakably to Democratic Representatives Carolyn McCarthy and Carolyn Maloney, each of whom has made noises about running against Ms. Gillibrand in 2010.

“Ultimately,” she said, “I don’t think there will be a primary.”
While New York’s new junior senator does not lack for brute political strength—tireless campaigning, monster fund-raising, unanimous backing from the state’s top-tier establishment—she can still be a bit of a blunt instrument.

On Jan. 30 at the St. Regis Hotel, Ms. Gillibrand met with about 30 influential liberal columnists and consultants over a spread of cookies and soda for an off-the-record talk about key policy issues.

According to several attendees, Ms. Gillibrand introduced herself by saying her experience as a lawyer prepared her for Congress because she had learned to read bills closely. She then answered a series of general questions with lengthy responses.
Then Dorothy Samuels, a member of the Times editorial board, launched into a particularly aggressive, rapid-fire line of questioning about Ms. Gillibrand’s position in support of a bill lifting all gun regulations in Washington, D.C. and her support of the so-called Tiahrt Amendment, which critics say inhibits access by law enforcement officials to gun data. At one point, Ms. Samuels asked, sarcastically, if Ms. Gillibrand’s years as an associate at a law firm representing Philip Morris taught her how to read the Tiahrt Amendment before she signed on because, as Michael Bloomberg argues, it prevents the authorities from getting information to pursue gun traffickers.

“Well, that’s not how I read the amendment,” Ms. Gillbrand responded.

One attendee said that Ms. Samuels went over some line, but several other attendees considered Ms. Gillibrand’s response to have been worse: vague, naïve, dismissive. At a certain point, when Ms. Gillibrand seemed to ramble during an economic question, an aide handed her a note. She stopped in the middle of the answer and read the note, which instructed her to move on, out loud.

She moved on.

“We were kind of shocked,” said one attendee. “She was unprepared and a little minor-league that day.”

Ms. Gillibrand remembers it differently.

“My view on the D.C. gun ban, which I told her, was that you could not be a gun owner in Washington, D.C., and I didn’t think that was fair,” said Ms. Gillibrand. “Because any law-abiding citizen should be able to own a gun, particularly if they want to hunt or for home protection, and I thought that was very, very different from laws to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.”

She added, “Dottie asked, ‘How can you say you are going to end gun violence if you say that you are going to support the brief to end the D.C. gun ban.’ And we didn’t have time because literally it was the last question and we had already been given that we were late by 10 minutes so I couldn’t go into the full discussion, with her, which I would have.’”

Asked if she considered herself to have been dismissive of Ms. Samuels, who she acknowledged she didn’t know was a member of the Times editorial board, Ms. Gillibrand responded, with a chuckle, “Not at all. I think she was dismissive of my answer.”

An editorial headlined “Listening to Ms. Gillibrand” in the following morning’s New York Times concluded: “New Yorkers should expect much more.”

Maybe New Yorkers will get it, but in unexpected areas. While the press narrative has focused on guns and immigration—the issues on which Ms. Gillibrand continues to “evolve” (to use Chuck Schumer’s word)—she shows signs of assertiveness on other topics.

Take relations with Israel, a subject on which New York’s senators have traditionally assumed leadership stature as four-square supporters of whatever elected government happens to be in power.

In the Feb. 14 interview, Ms. Gillibrand said that the next prime minister of Israel—based on the recent close election that has yet to result in the formation of a governing coalition in the Knesset—would “probably” be the Likud Party’s Benjamin Netanyahu, a hawk who regards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as naïve and unworkable.

“You never know: as the leader, Mr. Netanyahu may find that when he works with America, he may broaden his view,” said Ms. Gillibrand. “He may decide that in the best interest of peace is a two-state solution. That may well indeed be the path to peace.”

Asked if she would advocate that position in the Senate, Ms. Gillibrand said, “I will certainly offer what I think is the best policy, regardless of what Netanyahu says is what he wants to do. I will always be an advocate for the solutions that I think will be most effective.”

And as for the United States applying diplomatic pressure on its ally, Ms. Gillibrand wasn’t entirely against the idea.

“I think the president will use all the means and all the tools in his toolbox to reach a solution for peace in the Middle East,” she said, adding, “And if he offers positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement, that will be a strategic decision for the administration and our secretary of state.”

Asked if she would generally be a standard-bearer for New York liberalism in the Senate, now that she represents the entire state, Ms. Gillibrand said, “I think we’ll see. I tend to look at each issue independently, each issue on the merits, and I rarely will decide my views based on whatever label will be given it.”

She continued, “I think on financial issues, I will have a view based on my experience, having been a securities lawyer, having come from upstate New York, where we tend to be more in favor of fiscal conservatism, pay as you go. On the financial issues, that may be areas where I might bring different views to the debate.”

On Saturday afternoon, a handful of supporters of Ms. Gillibrand, several wearing suits and mud-caked boots, came to the drab offices of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1321, just down the road from the Hudson Valley Paper Company and Miss Albany Diner.

Union officials looked for toothpicks to poke into cheese cubes and pepperoni slices and brought out a tray of cookies studded with M&Ms. One man in a work shirt and baseball cap walked into the office and said, “I haven’t seen my girl in a while.” A middle-aged couple showed off their “Senator Gillibrand” buttons while the mayor of Albany, Gerald Jennings, complained that the Web site of The Times Union had published the wrong address for the event, in which Ms. Gillibrand would endorse Democratic businessman Scott Murphy, a red-haired political neophyte, as her successor in the 20th Congressional District.

Ms. Gillibrand arrived, dressed in a funereal black jacket with large black lapel buttons, white pearls, a black skirt with a frilled hem and shiny black flats. (After a morning political event, she had paid respects to the family of one of her former staffers whose mother had died.)

“How are you? Nice to see you,” Ms. Gillibrand repeated over and over as she shook the circle of extended hands around her. “I appreciate you coming out today.”
She took a cookie from the tray.

“I’m just going to steal this cookie because I might not get another chance,” she said before heading to the press conference.

Ms. Gillibrand, who went to Dartmouth and spent years working in a white-shoe corporate law firm in Manhattan, affects a homespun air. Upstate, she talks about the lessons her grandmother, Polly Noonan, a Democratic power broker, taught her, and of the importance of family.

Standing in front of the union’s seal, festooned with American and Canadian flags, she told the 50 or so local supporters, “I am so happy to be home,” and waved a special hello to her local reporters. She talked about the stimulus bill that had just passed in the Congress; demonstrated a fluency in energy technology grants; and called dairy farmers “the best businessmen I know.” When she ceded the podium to Mr. Murphy, she stood with hands folded in front of her and squinted and grinned as if there were sun in her eyes. It’s an expression she wears often when listening onstage. It’s her answer to the Hillary head nod.

When state Democratic Party chair June O’Neill asked if there were Democrats in the house, the whole room cheered, but when she asked if there were any converted Republicans in the house, Ms. Gillibrand alone said, “Absolutely.” She whispered “perfect” to Mr. Murphy when he finished his maiden political remarks, and came to his rescue when, in a question-and–answer session, her press aide asked if a reporter’s query about drug policy was intended for “Scott Johnson.”

“Murphy,” corrected Ms. Gillibrand.

After the press conference she greeted the people in the room, including Elizabeth Benjamin, an excellent, no-nonsense Daily News reporter who had asked about guns during the press conference. 

“How ya been?” said Ms. Gillibrand said to Ms Benjamin. “I love seeing you.”

According to Ms. Gillibrand’s base, she is doing everything right.

“The first people she met with are the first people she might have had a problem with,” said Bob “Rabbit” Riley, a Congressional liaison for the National Association of Letter Carriers, referring to the new senator’s downstate constituents who disagreed with her pre-evolved positions on guns and gay marriage and immigration. “Give her a year and a half, and she’ll be untouchable.”

A few minutes later, Ms. Gillibrand hopped in the passenger seat of the black Toyota 4Runner parked in front of the union’s doors, and traveled to the Crowne Plaza Hotel, which played host to the black and Latino convention over the weekend, and which was ground zero for the people who have a problem with her.

Ms. Gillibrand’s tactic seemed to be twofold. Appeal by listening, nodding and projecting accessibility. Demonstrate power by recruiting, talking about big money and reminding people that you are the senator from New York.   

As soon as she arrived at the hotel, she took a brief private meeting in a booth of the lobby restaurant with a veteran operative she was interviewing for a potential staff position. Then, followed by four female staffers, two of them toting notepads, Ms. Gillibrand walked to the elevator bank, where Charlie King, the executive director of Al Sharpton’s national Action Network, asked her how her day was going.

“It’s been O.K.,” she said, adding, with a punch in the air, “I got to endorse somebody.”

In the cramped elevator, Gloria Davis, a former assemblywoman who resigned after pleading guilty to bribery in 2003, turned to Ms. Gillibrand and said, “I knew your grandmother. I don’t know you at all.” 

“Where are you from,” Ms. Gillibrand responded cheerily, apparently not recognizing Ms. Davis.

“The Bronx,” said the woman.

“I’m headed to the Bronx this weekend!” Ms. Gillibrand said.
Ms. Davis looked unimpressed.

“So do you have any good stories about my grandmother?” said Ms. Gillibrand as the elevator doors slid open. “I love to hear all the dirt.”

“No,” Ms. Davis responded.

Ms. Gillibrand, ever merry, persisted. With her assistant, Tippins Stone, in tow, she asked Ms. Davis for her name, which she did not recognize, and her number. Ms. Davis coldly asked for Ms. Gillibrand’s card instead.

“Tippins,” Ms. Gillibrand said, grabbing her assistant’s green notepad and scribbling down a phone number and email address.

“Don’t give this information to anybody,” she told Ms. Davis. “It’s my private information.”

Outside a reception for New York’s State Senate majority leader, Malcolm Smith, Mr. King, who was acting as the senator’s unofficial liaison, brought forth Inez Dickens, who represents Harlem in the City Council.

Ms. Gillibrand kissed her on the cheek. Ms. Dickens, wearing a waist-length black fur coat, lectured the senator on how she needed to broaden her mindset.

“When you represent one area, you represent it to the best of your ability, I understand that,” said Ms. Dickens. “But when you represent the whole state, you have got to be willing to change your views, especially on guns.”

“It’s my honor to work with the communities,” responded Ms. Gillibrand.

When she finally walked into Mr. Smith’s reception, where many guests swarmed a buffet in the center of the carpeted ballroom, she had a hard time getting much attention. Mr. Smith introduced her to lukewarm applause.

“This is the leader’s reception, and I got the senator who’s going to get us high-speed rail. You’ve got to do better than that,” he said.

Ms. Gillibrand stepped out from behind the podium, and said, “I just want to introduce myself.” She then discussed specific energy and tax proposals before concluding, “I just want to thank you for letting me introduce myself.”

As she slowly made her way out of the room, tearing off scraps of paper with her email to more people, Mr. Smith told The Observer that he was confident that people around the state would soon understand that Ms. Gillibrand wouldn’t face a primary challenge. 

“I don’t believe she gets primaried,” said Mr. Smith. “I’m going to help them realize that.”

At a Bronx Democratic Party reception down the hall, teenagers wore “Bronx Youth Empowerment Program” sweatshirts and sat around the small stage as Ms. Gillibrand said, “I’m going to be the U.S. senator from the Bronx.” She talked about money for food stamps and education in the stimulus bill, emphasized the change in her immigration position after meeting with some Bronx legislators (“end these raids until we have a comprehensive immigration reform”) and tried to connect with the “moms” in the room. She talked about the rights of veterans and relayed the appreciation a Vietnam vet expressed to her after she helped him get disability money. (“Kirsten, every morning when I strap on my leg, I strap on my patriotism.”)

The crowd needed to be hushed from speaking over her a half-dozen times.

Ms. Gillibrand’s last reception of the day was held by 1199 SEIU in another ballroom decorated with a banner on the wall that read “Health Care Cuts By Caucus Member District.”

Ms. Gillibrand and her aides, now nearing the end of that day’s marathon get-to-know-me tour, made her way to the vegetables in the corner of the room. 

“What are the big issues for 1199?” she asked Henry Singleton, a union member and organizer of home-care workers, as she ate a small plate of marinated artichoke hearts with her fingers.

She listened to him talk about hospitals and the necessity of the brutal ad campaign the union had just waged against Governor David Paterson’s budget cuts, one of which included a blind person asking Mr. Paterson, “Why are you doing this to me?”

“Your advocacy is right on,” she said, placing the remaining oily ribbons of artichoke on a cracker. “I’ve seen your commercials. You bring it down to the people. Your commercials are great.”

“I like you already,” said Mr. Singleton.

The head of the NRA is going to attend Rudy Giuliani's fund-raiser.

The state comptroller thinks the governor's spending plan is unsustainable.

Bill Hammond looks at which lawmakers are tilting towards 1199.

The head of the state lobbying commission called the Times to say his mid-day trip to play curling is no more outrageous than going to an AIDS charity walk, or to church.

ReformNY is surprised that fixing Albany is considered fodder for presidential talk.

Albany Reform is the name of the party line that an Republican-backed Assembly candidate on Staten Island hopes to use.

But he may have some residency issues.

Ben wants Rock Hackshaw to be his City Councilman.

Barack Obama had unpaid parking tickets. Scandal quickly averted.

Juror Number 9 offers an exclusive, inside look at the Scooter Libby trial.

And above is my footage from a City Council hearing yesterday.

-- Azi Paybarah

The Assembly holds a public hearing on NYCHA rent increases at 250 Broadway.

Tom Suozzi announces his position on tolls on the Long Island Expressway and an initiative to combat LIE traffic.

In the evening, Big Apple Friends of NRA will host a banquet featuring games, drawings, doorprizes and an open cash bar.

—Nicole Brydson

The Al Sharpton "So Crazy It Just Might Work" Award for great spin goes to Bloomberg political advisor Kevin Sheekey. At least, I'm guessing that it's Sheekey who decided to spin the Mayor's companion Diana Taylor's failure to land the top job at the FDIC as a consequence of Mike's standing up to the NRA. According to this narrative, Bush wanted Taylor for the job, but the gun-nuts in the Senate told the White House they'd block the appointment. She takes a bullet, so to speak, for Mike, gun-control martyr.

The only problem is that nobody involved aside from New York Post headline writers seems to believe the story. (If you read the original piece, which got the wood, you can see the writer hedging pretty hard, and quoting a source who thinks something came up in vetting.) I don't have an explanation -- lots of great theories out there! -- but a conservative source with strong ties both to the White House and the Hill was among those who dismissed the notion that the NRA played a decisive role.

He pointed out something that should have been obvious: This White House doesn't brook a whole lot of opposition to its appointments. For the NRA to scuttle a White House choice would be a serious, messy expenditure of political capital, and one with real consequences for the gun lobby. This President, you may have noticed, takes his prerogatives pretty seriously. It would have been crazy for the NRA to pick this particular fight, unless -- as my source suggests -- it was with a wink and a nod from the White House political operation, who gave the gun lobby credit for an appointment that died either out of lack of enthusiasm from Taylor's patron, Governor Pataki, or for some other reason.

But the spin is brilliant: Mike and Diana took a moral stand, and paid the price.

On the other side of the cycle, the Weld Campaign gets the Tom Suozzi "Don't Know When To Stop Arguing" Award. That's not for its decision to edit the newspaper articles on its Web site. It's for deciding to push back when one of the editees, the Times reporter covering the race, noticed the changes. No, this isn't like sending out excerpts. And no, nobody else does it. The situation cried out for the head of an "overzealous intern," but instead Team Weld played defense. Maybe this stuff works in Boston.