Tark Takes the Fifth on the Second

By Ned Barnett

Disclaimer: Of all the people who stand opposite to me on key issues, I respect none so much as I do Sarah Brady. If anyone has a justification for her cause, it's Sarah Brady. Her bright, vibrant and ALIVE husband, James Brady, was gunned down by an insane assassin, taking a bullet meant for President Ronald Reagan. His life was shattered, his future terminated - he lives, but as a shadow of the man who she married - robbed of his future by a hand-gunner's bullet.

Having also suffered at the hands of a bullet (my late wife, Karol, a gifted target shooter, took her own life with her target pistol when the soul-sucking burden of having lost two sons - including our 17-year-old son John David - became more than she could bear), I can empathize with Sarah Brady.

I don't agree with her - one man's insanity should not be the basis of national policy - but I can empathize with her. That doesn't mean I can accept those politicians who support her, or who accept support from her ... and on this the tale turns ...



Back when the story about Danny Tarkanian - Republican aspirant to the nomination to retire Harry Reid acceptance of support from Sarah Brady and her gun-grab organization - first broke in the Washington Times, I asked Danny Tarkanian on his Facebook page for his side of the story. Specifically, I asked if he cared to explain the then-breaking news about his campaign accepting donations - including a Robo-Call - from Sarah Brady's gun-grab organization. He told me that he wasn't going to stoop to debate with Chuck Muth - but I never mentioned Chuck Muth, instead citing Amanda Carpenter, a reporter for the Washington Times, a conservative-but-mainstream daily newspaper.

In effect, he shifted attention from the real issue and onto a straw-horse, Chuck Muth (who, ironically, has contributed to the Tark campaign, apparently before he became disillusioned by the former nepotized Basketball assistant coach and serial candidate).

I've spent two months trying to give Tark the benefit of the doubt - but I keep seeing him duck and twist away from issues - relevant issues - about his campaign, instead spinning a diamond-bright web of distraction.

I've got nothing personal against Danny Tarkanian. I've met him a few times and he seemed to be a decent guy and is clearly a strong family man - and those are characteristics I value in a politician and a human being. His wife Amy is a lovely woman who is also a skilled political operator - I've seen her in action in Republican leadership meetings, and she takes second place to no-one when it comes to political savvy.

However, after decades of Harry Reid, I really, really, REALLY want a candidate who stands on principle, one who offers direct answers to direct questions. I've seen Sharron Angle do that, with but one exception (and everybody deserves one mistake).

I've never seen Bill Parson do anything BUT directly answer direct questions (and Bill never has to think about his answers first - when you know what you stand for and what you believe, you don't have to think about how to best answer a question).

But Danny seems to duck, to bob and weave when he doesn't want to directly answer questions or to man-up and take responsibility for mistakes. And when it comes to Danny, I do object to his stance on the Second Amendment. No constitutional conservative would ever accept support from Sarah Brady - and no candidate with integrity would - after this happened - blame his mother rather than take responsibility himself. Which is what Danny did, first, when confronted by the press with this story. When he realized that blaming mom meant that he was either hiding behind her skirts or looking for a safe person to blame, he has since routinely changed the subject when this came up.

It's instructive to note that when he first faced this issue, he proved his love of the Second Amendment by announcing that he planned to go to Alaska and hunt Bullwinkle with a relative of Sarah Palin's - ducking one Sarah problem by hiding behind another Sarah's skirts. Of course, everyone who understands the Second Amendment knows that it has nothing to do with hunting (which I don't do) or target shooting (which I do every chance I get).

The Second Amendment is all about Lexington and Concord - it's all about the Minutemen standing on that bridge, protecting their private arsenal of rifles and muskets, cannon and shot and gunpowder by facing down the occupation force of "Lobsterbacks" (which is what our colonial forefathers called people we now call "Redcoats") sent to seize their arms and remove the colonists' rights to self-defense. The Second Amendment is all about what Jefferson wrote - the right to bear arms protects the right to personally defend home, hearth, and community from all threats, foreign and domestic. That's something every CCW-permitted gun owner understands, but not, apparently, one of the leading candidates for the U.S. Senate.

Unfortunately, Danny Tarkanian doesn't seem to understand the Second Amendment, or the damage he's done to his own image by accepting financial help from Sarah Brady in his failed 2006 election campaign.

Here is the story - lest it be forgotten in the heat of the campaign - behind Danny Tarkanian's flirtation with Sarah Brady's gun-grab group's support.


Amanda Carpenter wrote in the Washington Times:

A 2006 endorsement and robo-call from the Brady Campaign isn’t the kind of thing Republican Danny Tarkanian wants coming up in his 2010 bid to unseat Nevada’s senior Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat who won an endorsement from the National Rifle Association in his last election.

But Mr. Tarkanian has only one person to blame: his mom.

The Tarkanian campaign initially dismissed questions about the little-noticed 2006 Brady Campaign endorsement Mr. Tarkanian received in his unsuccessful race for secretary of state in 2006. (PDF HERE.) The Brady Campaign also recorded robo-calls urging Nevada voters to support him. (Audio HERE and transcribed below). Tarkanian Campaign Manager James Fisfis suggested it was a dirty campaign tactic meant to discredit Mr. Tarkanian’s support for gun rights because, as he told The Washington Times, “a Brady call in Nevada is not a positive call.” [Ed. note -- PDF and audio links in original article.]

Mr. Tarkanian “is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and has never reached out to the Brady Campaign,” Mr. Fisfis said. He said later that Dan Burdish, a consultant who now works for their Republican primary opponent Sue Lowden, had “freelanced” by making arrangements for the call without Mr. Tarkanian’s knowledge. Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke also confirmed that Mr. Burdish, then an unpaid adviser for Mr. Tarkanian, had worked with them, even asking Mrs. Brady’s mispronunciation of “Nevada” be edited out of the call. But, Mr. Helmke said, “We weren’t doing this on our own — we were asked to do it by somebody who was with the campaign — and they even went so far to edit the robocall.”

When reached by phone, however, Mr. Burdish, now Mrs. Lowden’s political director, said Mr. Tarkanian’s mother had asked him to work with the Brady Campaign on the endorsement. “Lois Tarkanian, who is Danny’s mother, came up with everything,” he said. “Danny, as far as I know, knew nothing about it. . . . Lois contacted me asking if I would help her.”

The Lowden campaign, which is eager to draw attention to this issue, said Nevada voters need more information about the endorsement and Mr. Tarkanian’s involvement.

“Nevada is a very pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment state, and I think voters have every right to pin Danny Tarkanian down on his past campaign coordination with the Brady Campaign and what it means today,” said Lowden Campaign Manager Robert Utihoven.

Team Tarkanian, for their part, intends to keep stressing their support for guns, which may include a moose hunt down the road.

“Danny’s record is public, you can read his Web site and look at his positions, and this whole thing is just unfortunate,” Mr. Fisfis said. He added that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s father, Charles R. Heath, had been campaigning on behalf of Mr. Tarkanian and agreed to take him moose hunting as a way of burnishing Mr. Tarkanian’s commitment to gun rights.

“Our family’s love for moose-hunting is well-known,” said Mr. Heath and his son Charles, who is Mrs. Palin’s brother, in a statement passed to The Washington Times from Mr. Fisfis. “One of the reasons our family campaigned for Danny Tarkanian is his strong commitment to protecting the Constitutional rights of gun owners. If we can drag Danny off the campaign trail we’re going to go hunting together.”

SCRIPT: “Hi, this is Sarah Brady from the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence. We want assault weapons off streets. Ross Miller, who is running for secretary of state, opposes that even though one was used to kill a Las Vegas policeman in February. I’m asking you to vote for Danny Tarkanian for secretary of state. He supports common sense gun laws like the ban on military-style assault weapons. Thanks for your time.

Here are the Washington Times' PDF files including internal campaign correspondence:
http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/docs/2009/Dec/16/Nevada_Tarkanian.pdf

However, in fairness, there is another side. Danny Tarkanian put his name to the following, in which he extols the Second Amendment as it was intended. This should be taken in the context of his 2006 support by Sarah Brady and the kerfuffle that arose when Amanda Carpenter broke the story. Perhaps this is his honest view - perhaps it's a thinly-veiled attempt at damage control. As Fox News says, "We report, you decide" ...

Tarkanian Calls For Vigilance On Second Amendment Rights

Published at Gun Rights Examiner, this article is by Danny Tarkanian.

You don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar to know that the Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t ambiguous – any more than freedom of speech or the right to assemble. The words are written clearly for all to see, in the Bill of Rights. Yet it never ceases to amaze me how enemies of freedom in the guise of societal do-gooders want to pretend that the words don’t exist.

Our military provides for the “Common Defence” against threats outside our borders, but as a part of the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms isn’t just about guns – it is part and parcel of the Framers’ unyielding defense of the right of each individual to protect their life and liberty within their community and in their home. My wife Amy has a gun because I bought it for her. Both Amy and I hope we never have to use it, but it’s there for our protection, guaranteed by our Founding Fathers.

Still, the Second Amendment, like all freedoms we cherish, needs constant tending and defense. It seems like every day, some tragedy is leveraged to justify another gun law. We are fortunate to have right on our side – most of the gun-grabbing legislation eventually falls under the weight of its false logic.

Take the assault weapons ban – unconstitutional prima facie – as an example, a political maneuver by the left-wing to demonize guns and institute federal regulation. All it took was a simple study to reveal that banning assault weapons has no effect on gun violence.

Never forget, whether we are talking about guns or another issue, it’s a slippery slope to passing laws like the assault weapons ban with a false premise to eventually passing laws with no basis at all. That can only lead to one thing, a government by individual fiat – a dictatorship. We must always be vigilant.

And vigilance starts with the courts. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld as an individual right our right to keep and bear arms through its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia. This historic decision has set the stage for a similar case, pending before the court today.

Harry Reid is anything but vigilant and he can’t be trusted with our rights. What good does it do if Harry Reid supports all the so-called “pro-gun legislation” in the Congress, but supports Federal judicial nominees like Sotomayor who are ideologically disposed to strike down those laws? Sounds like double talk to me, but then again, I’m relatively new to politics. As Nevada’s Senator I will only vote to confirm Originalists who abide by the intent of our founding fathers, and decisions like Heller will be safe from the Revisionists.

The Supreme Court is now considering the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. This case has prompted responsible Senators like Sen. Hutchison and Sen. Tester, and several U.S. Congressmen to demand that the court uphold the same fundamental rights that the court confirmed in 2008. When the court issues its decision, remember to notice which Justices support freedom, and how Harry Reid voted in each case.

Let me conclude with a final thought. When we talk about threats to our freedom, many on the left try to portray our worldview as fringe (for the left, freedom IS a fringe idea). We need to stand together in pointing out that their naïve attitude is dangerous. The last several years have seen the threats emerge that we always knew were possible: terrorist attacks on our soil, federal government bailouts, an unaccountable Federal Reserve, encroachments on our rights and government involvement in our most private health care decisions. More than ever, we are being proven right in our core belief that freedom isn’t defended by government – it is – in the end, defended by the individual. And sometimes, at the point of a gun.

God Bless America and may its freedoms endure through continued vigilance.

Danny Tarkanian




You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:

1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog

Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com