In the Right

These conservatives are pondering not because they fear Graham -- they don't -- but because Graham's decision to support Sotomayor robs them of the ability to argue that she's so extreme that no reasonably conservative, or even centrist, Senator could support her.

Moreover, they know that Graham is a favorite of cable news and Sunday morning talk show bookers, and they know that in situations like this, those bookers (and their on-air talent bosses) love to feature the Republican who's "grown," who's "being statesmanlike," who's "rising above partisanship," the better to make those conservatives who have failed to "be statesmanlike" look that much more like morons.

But this may be a case where the gunshot wound was self-inflicted.

Let's back up two months.

When Sotomayor was first nominated, the NRA stayed silent -- not because there was any doubt in anyone's mind that she was opposed to the Second Amendment rights the NRA steadfastly defend but because there was a question in the minds of the men and women who run the NRA as to whether or not the organization's influence and power, and perception thereof, would be enhanced or diminished by taking a position on a nominee likely to be confirmed no matter what position the NRA took.

The NRA is one of the 800-pound gorillas of Washington power politics, and one of the ways it maintains that power is by being exceedingly judicious in its use.

Trying and failing, in the view of some, diminishes the perception of power; consequently, those who hold to this belief calculate the likelihood of success in a venture and add that variable to the larger equation in determining whether or not to move forward with the venture.

For them, it is "Do, or do not -- there is no 'try.'"

Some of the people who think like this occupy high ground in the councils of the NRA.

As in other organizations, though, there are also those inside the NRA who believe that there is nothing wrong with trying and failing -- in their view, the attempt puts the organization on record clearly, sends messages about its willingness to engage even in long-shot episodes, flexes the muscles of the grassroots and communications sides of the group, and demonstrates to its members that membership is something worth having.

Then, too, there was another aspect to the NRA's silence -- the natural tension between the political side of the organization on the one hand, and the legislative side of the organization, on the other.

It is the job of the political side of the organization to help create an environment in which pro-Second Amendment legislators can be elected and reelected, and in which anti-Second Amendment legislators can be defeated.

It is the job of the legislative side of the organization to help create an environment in which pro-Second Amendment legislation can be introduced and passed, and in which anti-2nd Amendment legislation can be defeated.

Think of the political side of the organization as General George S. Patton, ready to make war when necessary, and think of the legislative side of the organization as Warren Christopher, looking for a way for diplomacy to succeed.

The political side of the organization wants to engage and defeat on the field of campaign battle legislators it deems as insufficiently supportive of the cause; the legislative side of the organization wants to make deals on behalf of that cause with whomever is in power.

When Republicans run the legislative branch, it's easy -- the interests of the political and legislative sides are coincident.

When Democrats run the legislature, it gets tricky -- the legislative side leans toward cutting deals with the Democrats in power, while the political side gnashes its teeth, curses under its breath, and rends its garments.

The Sotomayor confirmation is one of those exercises which has led to much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.

When the nomination was first announced, the NRA did not rush to announce a position.

In fact, its official silence was taken as a sign of timidity by Paul Helmke, who runs the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violance. His June 24 blog post mocked the NRA.

This silence was especially frustrating to NRA allies, including immediate past NRA President Sandy Froman.

Froman stepped up the pressure with her own June 24 Townhall column urging the NRA to declare outright opposition, and then followed up two weeks later with a joint letter, signed by 26 conservative leaders -- including former and current NRA Board members -- urging the organization to take a stand.

After more than seven weeks of failure to declare clear opposition, the NRA announced on July 16 its opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation.

But that broadside was missing one key line -- the line that indicated that the NRA would include the confirmation vote in its all-important congressional rating.

By failing to include that line, the NRA was signaling to those who know how to read its code that a decision had been made to placate those who insisted on a clear statement of opposition -- but that the organization wasn't really serious about it, and was saving its juice for other, larger purposes.

It took another week of internal arguing -- along with more pressure from outside allies -- for the NRA to follow up with its letter of July 23, in which it declared that "the vote on Judge Sotomayor's confirmation will be considered in future candidate evaluations."

By the time the second statement was released, though, Graham had already announced his support for Sotomayor.

For Graham, at least, the NRA's second, tougher, statement of opposition was literally a day late, and a dollar short.

Could NRA opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation have prevented Graham's declaration of support, if the organization had gone all the way a week ago, and announced the vote would be rated then, instead of choosing to hold back that announcement?

Possibly. But now, that question is moot.