NRA, Unions Fight for Blue-Collar Voters

Oatka

New member
NRA, Unions Fight for Blue-Collar Voters

Election: Conflicted loyalties on gun control issue shape a shadow war that could tip the balance in crucial states.

By RONALD BROWNSTEIN, Times Political Writer

FLINT, Mich.--Half an hour before the doors opened for a National Rifle Assn. get-out-the-vote rally here last week, Rich Hauxwell was standing in a line of more than 1,000 men and women that already stretched back to the parking lot.
Bearded and burly, Hauxwell looked like most of those milling around him except for one thing: a black satin jacket that identified him as an executive of Local 87 of the United Dairy and Bakery Workers Union in Saginaw. Hauxwell's union is backing Vice President Al Gore in the presidential election, but he had come to support Texas Gov. George W. Bush, even though on most issues he doesn't think much of the Republican.
"The gun issue is the issue, definitely," Hauxwell said. "If Gore was elected there would be no 2nd Amendment, cut and dried."
One night later, lifetime NRA member Robert Cromwell was cheering Gore at a Democratic rally in Flint. "Gun rights mean a lot to me," said Cromwell, who works for General Motors and belongs to the United Auto Workers union. "But Gore has a lot of other things going for him: The economy is the main thing. Social Security. Medicare. I considered voting for Bush on the gun issue, but I couldn't do that."
In their conflicted loyalties, Hauxwell and Cromwell are at the front lines of a shadow war that could tip the balance in the states that likely will decide the election. Across the industrial heartland--in states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Wisconsin and Ohio--the most powerful political organizations on the ground tend to be the NRA and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.
In these big-shouldered states, where factory workers still bend metal during the week and tote hunting rifles into the woods on weekends, each group is feverishly laboring to mobilize its members--the NRA for Bush, the AFL-CIO for Gore.
To a striking degree, the AFL-CIO and the NRA are competing not only for the same type of voters--mostly white blue-collar men--but often literally for the same people: socially conservative union members. In labor's own polling, about 40% of union members in states such as Pennsylvania, Missouri and Michigan identify themselves as sympathetic to the NRA.
With Bush and Gore so closely matched in these critical states, the NRA and the AFL-CIO are clawing for every one of those voters--and scratching against each other more directly than ever before. "We are going to take them on for the hearts and minds of our members," promises Mark Gaffney, the president of the AFL-CIO in Michigan.
To which NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre replies, in effect: Bring it on. The NRA, he promises, will compete "for every blue-collar, hard-working freedom-loving worker in the heartland of America."
Few issues in this year's campaign have played out in a more unexpected way than gun control. It was supposed to be a strong card for Gore--who has backed new gun control measures, including background checks for purchases at gun shows and photo-licensing for handgun purchasers--but it's proved much more complex.
Though polls show majority support for most of the gun control measures Gore is offering, surveys often find pluralities agreeing with the NRA and Bush that tougher enforcement of existing law is more important than passing new measures. That helps explain why Bush, despite his opposition to ostensibly popular new gun control measures, generally runs even or ahead of Gore when voters are asked who can best handle the gun issue.
Against that backdrop, Gore appears to have lost confidence in his gun control agenda. In his second debate with Bush, Gore never mentioned his centerpiece proposal--the call for licensing new handgun owners--until Bush criticized it; in the third debate, Gore redirected a question about gun control into a discussion of shrinking government so fast that viewers might have been wondering if he had a gun at his back.
"If Gore could have mumbled through it," LaPierre said, gloating, "he would have."
The politics of these industrial battleground states explains much of Gore's reticence. His campaign has felt secure in states such as California, New York and New Jersey, where gun control unambiguously works for Gore. But in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin, where hunting is a tradition, the issue is at best a wash for Gore--and in some places a clear negative.
"The gun issue helps Gore nationwide," said political scientist Robert J. Spitzer, author of "The Politics of Gun Control." "But it doesn't help him in the electoral college."
And it's in these states at the fulcrum of the election that the NRA and the AFL-CIO are concentrating their efforts. Measured by sheer organizational heft, this competition is a mismatch. The NRA claims 4.1 million members nationwide; the AFL-CIO counts more than 13 million, which doesn't even include the 2.5 million teachers in the National Education Assn. The NRA said it will spend $12 million to $15 million on the election; organized labor is bound to spend many times that.
For its grass-roots mobilization, the NRA relies on volunteer coordinators organized by congressional districts. The unions back their volunteer efforts with a spine of paid staffers, like Todd Cook, a Service Employees International Union aide supervising a computerized calling center that's contacting 700 to 900 Michigan union members an hour from a big purple trailer beached in the parking lot of the state AFL-CIO headquarters in Lansing.
Yet the imbalance isn't as great as it appears, because the NRA has proved effective over the years at influencing sympathetic voters beyond its membership. In the most recent Los Angeles Times Poll, Bush ran about a dozen percentage points better among white men and white women who own guns than those who don't.
That gives the NRA a much larger universe to work with beyond its own membership. Here in Michigan, for instance, the NRA counts just fewer than 200,000 members, compared with about 975,000 active and retired members for the AFL-CIO. But 1 million people in Michigan hold hunting licenses, and the NRA is in the process of contacting all of them--as well as residents who hold permits to carry concealed weapons, subscribers to hunting magazines and owners of pickups.
That particular bit of demographic targeting was amply validated at the NRA rally in Flint last week: The parking lot outside was jammed with muddy pickups. Inside, flannel shirts outnumbered flannel suits by a good 20 to 1. Eventually, so many NRA supporters turned out (at least 5,000) that the group, which had booked itself into a hall in a hockey arena, had to commandeer the hockey rink for the overflow crowd and shuttle its speakers from one room to the other.
At the rally, and at an earlier gathering outside Lansing, LaPierre and NRA President Charlton Heston repeatedly appealed to union members to cross their leadership and support Bush. "Remember only freedom," Heston insisted at one point, "not what some shop steward . . . tells you."
These NRA rallies--which the group also held last week in Pennsylvania and Virginia--are only the most visible component of a multi-front siege of union workers. Last month, the NRA's magazine included a lengthy article that argued that, while gun control was a signal divide between Bush and Gore, "there is no longer much meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to policies that affect union workers."
Late last week, the group also inserted into an hourlong infomercial it runs on cable stations an extended segment of interviews with union members who are backing Bush because of his views on guns. And here in Michigan, NRA activists have been leafleting auto plants with fliers that charge, in bold black letters: "Al Gore wants to ban guns in America."
Union officials remain cautiously optimistic that they can minimize defection on guns, though in private union polling, the issue is a clear divide. In Michigan, a recent union survey found that Gore leads Bush by about a 6-1 margin among union members who say they are unsympathetic to the NRA; the 40% of union members sympathetic to the gun group split about evenly between the rivals.
But Steve Rosenthal, the AFL-CIO's national political director, said that most of those drawn to Bush on the gun issue are among the one-fourth of union members who usually vote Republican anyway. Interviews with more than a dozen union members at the NRA rallies supported that judgment: Almost all expressed conservative views across the board, particularly concerning abortion rights.
Yet the race is close enough here--and in such demographically similar states as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania--that union officials worry that even a slight increase in defection to Bush around guns could sink Gore. As they try to hold wavering members, the unions generally are emphasizing bread-and-butter issues such as workplace safety and Social Security, which they believe trump gun control for most members.
But union activists such as John Swiantek, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, finds himself debating the gun question almost every day as he distributes pro-Gore leaflets at union plants around Michigan. "Most people don't understand the issue," he laments. "When people give the flier back to us, they say it's because, 'I don't want a man who's going to take my gun.' "
Hearing such rumbles, the national AFL-CIO late last week decided the threat from the NRA was substantial enough that it distributed to key states such as Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania a flier declaring: "Al Gore doesn't want to take away your gun, but George Bush does want to take away your union." Meanwhile, here in Michigan, the state AFL-CIO has concluded that it needs to send its own mailing to union members refuting the NRA's charge that a Gore victory would undermine the 2nd Amendment.
"We may be doing all this work to try to change less than 50,000 guys' minds [who might be pulled to Bush just on the gun issue]," said Gaffney, the Michigan labor president. "But what's a percentage point of the vote in Michigan? Thirty thousand voters. Can we afford to ignore it? Not this . . . year."

Times staff writer James Gerstenzang contributed to this story.


------------------
"The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside
the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light." (Romans 13:12)
 
I just don't get it with the union guys. What
threat, perceived or real, does Bush represent to their livelihood? Both Gore and Bush are free-traders and support trade with China. Are there any union members here who can fill me in? I'd like to have some good info for trying to sway union members before it's too late.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
Im a 20 year union member for the I.B.E.W., and i will affirm that i will not vote for that fu*ker Gore!... The repubs have meant non support for the unions since Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controlers...Im not saying what he did was wright or wrong, but ive always supported the Rep. because of their family values and free enterprize.However its getting harder to vote republican now-a-days. This election has brought me more grief and problems from the other union members because of my 2nd adm. stance.
Most of the membership has been sold lock stock and barrel the notion of democrats=good jobs and good economy for ameriKa.....they are as blind as bats...very few even look at the issues, they only re-act to what their union halls tell them and what their stewards tell them....ive never been much of a go-along type of sheep....thats my delima now.....
GOD BLESS The REPUBLIC
 
Hi, I am a union member and I don't get it either! I hate to say it but most of the people I work with are sheeple. They either can't or won't think for themselves. If the union says it's good, then it's good.
You must also remember that unionism in all reality is socialism, which is Al Gore.
 
I don't understand it either, at least from a rational perspective. I think most Unions attempt to brainwash their members to believe that things are still like they were 50 years ago, ie the Democrats are the friends of the workers and the evil Republicans are friends of the management.
Almost all "career" union members are pro-Gore and will not be swayed by facts.
I remember as a child a strike where the workers stayed out for over a year and announced a union victory when they got 3 CENTS an hour raise. Even then the arithmetic was wasted on them. They WON. That was what was important.

------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."

Better days to be,

Ed
 
I just posted this story on the "Fire Ken Bentsen" thread, but it bears retelling here. Today I was at an early voting place handing out literature for Phil Sudan, who is challenging antigunner Ken Bentsen for Congress in Houston.

A friend of mine offered a Sudan leaflet to a native Texan guy, about 55, who got out of a pickup truck. The voter said, "I can't vote for him -- I belong to a labor union!" My friend said, "Lots of union guys are voting for Bush and Sudan." The guy looked genuinely shocked, and said "Not in my union, they're not!"

I was a union member for 16 years, and my perception was that the other union members were increasingly independent in their voting, and that often meant voting Republican. I think that a lot of the difference is generational. When I joined the union many of the older members were guys that had belonged to the union ever since they came home from WWII or Korea. They tended to accept the direction they got from the union without question, just as they had accepted what they were taught in the armed forces or the church without question.

I used to work with a guy who was outraged that his father, a WWII veteran, had voted for Clinton. He'd say, "My father lived through the Bataan Death March, and he voted for that dope smoking draft dodger!" His father would not allow criticism of Clinton in his home. Perhaps his father felt that he had a duty to obey the Union's orders in the voting booth, the same way he obeyed the Army's orders in WWII.
 
At our annual Union meeting (this was aboard the USS Hornet - now a museum ship and the only reason why I went), they urged us to vote for Gore.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha. The visit to the Hornet was fun though but it needs more WW II aircraft.

As far as I'm concerned, a vote for Gore is a vote for death of the Constitution. We can't afford to have the Clinton-Gore machine appoint 3 or 4 justices on the Supreme Court. Mah rats r at stake!
 
Working for a Utility and being in the IBEW, there is alot of apprehension about utility deregulation so the union is using it as a battle cry for voting for Al Gore to protect our jobs.

This is totally laughable. The utilities will be in a competitive marketplace no matter who is in the White House. It has already been set in motion.

I'd rather be looking for another job before I vote for somebody who will ultimately weaken the Bill of Rights.

Try to find a job in a Socialist State once Gore spends the economy into the ground.
 
Phred; Good point. My father-in-law was a WWII vet and a wise man too, but he was bound by union loyalty and would faithfully vote for every Democrat the union endorsed.

------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."

Better days to be,

Ed
 
I was at that Flint rally; I'd wash the blasted pickup truck, but I live on a dirt road, so it's a waste of time!

By the way, I'm non-union; Where'd they get the idea that a muddy pickup truck means you're a union member? Most of the workers in this state are NOT union members, and despise unions. Really, it's mostly just the big three that are unionized, them and the government employees.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
I have a question for all of you Union types....

this is NOT a flame but a question......

Sure, the Union leaders/shop stewards feed you who to vote for and what issue is most important for the union....

but how do they KNOW what you did in the voting booth?????

My family has always been union or at least pro-union.... I am the only one who is not....but even my grandfather who was one of the most hard-line union democrats I have ever known & Kansas City politics are not too much removed from Chicago politics (a lot of dead people in KC & St. Louis seem to know how to vote!!)... still voted his mind & conscience... once he was in that booth....

???
 
Back
Top