Late to the party, and dead wrong, to boot

Well, whaddya know? The NRA has decided against dead silence as the best approach to the existential threat to private gun ownership that would be posed by an Eric Holder Attorney Generalship. Better late than never?

Decide for yourself:

In contrast to that case, Mr Holder was among those in the Clinton administration who strongly resisted a national expansion of Project Exile, a successful anti-crime program in Richmond, Virginia that used true “zero-tolerance” federal prosecution of convicted felons, drug dealers and armed robbers to achieve a remarkable reduction in that city’s murder and violent crime rates. Despite the program’s success in Richmond, Philadelphia, and other cities in which it has been implemented, Mr. Holder dismissed NRA’s and congressional efforts to implement it nationwide as a “cookie-cutter approach.”

In other words, the NRA is opposed (quietly and politely) to Holder not only for his zeal for so-called “gun control,” but for his opposition to their brand of “gun control”–and who cares about the utter lack of any Constitutional justification for any federal gun laws, even without the Second Amendment?

Something I’m curious about is what those who previously argued that the NRA was absolutely correct in not entering the fray think of the NRA’s involvement (tepid–and downright counterproductive–as it is) now. Is that also absolutely correct?