« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The NRA is Helping Preserve the Anti Gun Democrat Majority

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  October 5th, 2010 at 08:07 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Believe it or not, the only ones who might help Nancy Pelosi save her House majority are those who run legislative affairs at the NRA.  So called Blue Dog Democrats across the nation are campaigning as red meat conservatives in their home districts, while running deceptive ads about their Republican opponents.  They campaign as if they have nothing to do with the Democrat Party that they propelled to power and which passed all of the nefarious legislation that they purport to oppose.  The sick irony is that the more successful these liars are in distancing themselves from Pelosi, the more likely it will be that Pelosi will remain Speaker.  Here is my previous report on the need to expose the blue dogs.  Also, check out the Club for Growth’s excellent report on the lie of the conservative Democrat.

Fortunately, as long as the conservative rhetoric is coming from the Democrat candidates themselves, the voters aren’t buying it.  However, when the NRA parachutes in and endorses that Democrat for reelection over their 2nd amendment champion Republican opponents, people might give credence to their claims of being born again conservatives.  The sad thing is that the NRA is endorsing Democrats in the very districts that we must win in order to obtain 39 seats.  Here is a list of some of the Democrats who the NRA is endorsing that could cost us the majority:


AL-2: Bobby Bright
AR-4: Mike Ross
Ca-18: Dennis Cardoza
CO-3: John Salazar
CO-4: Betsy Markey
FL-2: Allen Boyd
Ga-2: Sanford Bishop
Ga-8: Jim Marshall
Ga-12: John Barrow
IA-3: Leonard Boswell
IL-11: Debbie Halvorson
IL-12: Jerry Costello
IN-Senate-Brad Ellsworth
IN-2: Joe Donnely
IN-8: Trent Van Haaften
IN-9: Baron Hill
KY-6: Ben Chandler
MD-1: Frank Kratovil
MI-1: Gary McDowell
MN-1: Tim Walz
MS-1: Travis Childers
MS-4: Gene Taylor
MO-4: Ike Skelton
NC-7: Mike McIntyre
NC-8: Larry Kissell
NC-11: Heath Shuler
ND-At Large: Earl Pomeroy
NM-1: Martin Heinrich
NM-2: Harry Teague
NM-3: Ben Lujan
NY-20: Scott Murphy
NY-23: Bill Owens
NY-24: Mike Acruri
OH-Gov. Ted Strickland
OH-6: Charlie Wilson
OH-16: John Boccieri
OH-18: Zack Space
OK-2: Dan Boren
OR-5: Kurt Schrader
PA-4: Jason Altmire
PA-10: Chris Carney
PA-11: Paul Kanjorski
PA-12: Mark Critz
PA-17: Tim Holden
SD-At Large: Stephanie Sandlin
TN-4: Lincoln Davis
TN-8: Roy Herron
TX-17: Chet Edwards
UT-2: Jim Matheson
VA-2: Glenn Nye
VA-5: Tom Perriello
VA-9: Rick Boucher
WI-3: Ron Kind
WI-8: Steve Kagen
WV-Senate: Joe Manchin
WV-3: Nick Rahall

There are a total of 53 Democrats in competitive/semi competitive districts that the NRA has endorsed.  There is simply no pathway to the majority without winning most of these seats.  Let me pose the following question.  What would be a more effective advertisement in these districts, an endorsement from the Sierra Club or from the NRA?  I think that it is quite clear that the NRA is one of the most effective organizations that are helping to preserve the Democrats majority.

It is important to note that the NRA is also staying out of some of the most vital Senate races like the Nevada Senate race because they are too scared of angering the Democrats.  In addition, they have endorsed Joe Manchin in West Virginia and Brad Ellsworth in Indiana.

The damning question for the hacks at the NRA is this.  If your endorsements really achieve their desired results and save those red district Democrats from defeat, then how can the GOP take back the House?  Do you really think that a Pelosi led congress would be more pro second amendment than the Republican led congress?

The NRA political hacks keep repeating ad nauseum that they endorse pro second amendment candidates, not conservative ones.  But here is the problem.  They are endorsing those who belong to a party that is anti gun at its core, and who are only pandering to the gun lobby to get elected in their right leaning districts.  Worse yet, they are endorsing these frauds over staunch pro gun legislators like Andy Harris (MD-1) and Kristi Noem (SD-At Large).  They make it seem as if they are endorsing pro gun Democrats over anti gun Republicans!

Do they not see through the election year pandering of the blue dogs?  Are they unaware of their Republican challengers, many of them having stellar pro gun records in state legislatures?  Can they really say with a straight face that dingy Harry is just as pro gun as Sharon Angle?  Do they understand that even if the blue dog is sincerely pro gun, it is totally worthless because he will be preserving the anti gun majority who control the leadership positions, chairmanships, and Rules Committee?  Surely, these veteran politicos are aware of the political dynamic of the 2010 elections and the legislative process.  They simply care about their own self preservation and political clout on the Hill, even at the expense of the second amendment.

The NRA knows that electing a Republican majority would be the best way to preserve the second amendment and protect gun rights.  But the end game for the NRA is not the protection of gun rights; it is the preservation of the NRA.  They have wagered that by playing ball with the Democrats, the NRA will project a more bi-partisan image and thus obtain some clout with the real power brokers.  They will be able to obtain such favors as exceptions from the unconstitutional Disclose Act.

I understand exactly what these political hacks are thinking.  It is kind of the same approach that AIPAC has taken when advocating for specific foreign policy positions.  They fear that if they support the Republican’s authentic pro-Israel stances (like moving the embassy to Jerusalem or cutting off all aid to the PLO terrorists), the Democrats cannot and will not support it.  The end result would be that AIPAC would lose clout with the Democrats and be marginalized in terms of their record of success and effectiveness.  They will therefore oppose measures that help Israel (and by extension, America) in order to promote and preserve their own influence on Capitol Hill.  The NRA is no different.

This is exactly what is motivating the NRA to endorse incumbent Democrats who sport a marginally pro gun record.  They get to brag about a bi-partisan influence, while incentivizing Democrats to cut them deals.  What they don’t realize is that these Democrats are part of a radical left majority that despises gun rights.  The Democrat leadership will give these blue dogs a hall pass to vote against them on gun issues, but there is a major catch.  Leadership will fail to bring up any meaningful gun legislation during their tenure as majority party in congress. Think about it, how many substantive roll call votes have been taken on gun issues during the 111th congress?  Three?  Four?  So now, these blue dogs get to promote their “three gun votes to know where” and the NRA will support them over a Republican who has fought for gun rights in a substantive and proactive way during their entire career.

Even though the NRA gets most of their support from conservative Republicans and its success has invariably been linked to the conservative movement, they are now divorcing themselves from us.  Well, we should reciprocate the favor and pledge not one dime for these frauds.  Gun Owners of America is the real pro second amendment organization in this country!  They will protect the second amendment along with every amendment by electing a conservative majority.
Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com IronDioPriest

    That is why they will endorse a pro-gun Democrat incumbent when a pro-gun Republican is running against them.

    They build lobbying channels with legislators, and once the channels are built, they want to keep them open.

    Nevermind that the Republicans in these districts are every bit as pro-gun as the Democrats they challenge. Nevermind that the Democrat incumbents seek to undermine other fundamental rights like free speech, free commerce, free association, representative taxation, free worship, etc.

    They could have pro-gun AND pro-liberty if they were willing to make the effort at building new channels of access with new legislators, which I have to think would be begging to be built. Instead, they choose pro-gun and easy political access. They’re back-scratchers.

    The NRA is a single-issue advocacy group that has grown so large and self-important that it is more concerned with maintaining access to power for the benefit of its single cause, than ensuring that America holds a future where the NRA and the 2nd Amendment are even allowed to exist.

    • Tbone

      “The NRA is a single-issue advocacy group that has grown so large and self-important that it is more concerned with maintaining access to power for the benefit of its single cause, than ensuring that America holds a future where the NRA and the 2nd Amendment are even allowed to exist.”

      • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com IronDioPriest

        .. then it follows that the NRA is working AGAINST US in that regard, no? They are actively thwarting our efforts to do “our job”.

        Counting votes IS a zero-sum game, as is the makeup of the legislature.

  • expatuae

    The most left wing Congress in 30 years does not propose one substantive gun control measure proposed. That is what the NRA has accomplished.

    I appreciate that my gun rights aren’t tied entirely to one party. Elections ebb and flow. The NRA remains. What happens if the Republicans screw up again? We get another corrupt Delay/ K street Republican Congress and we are 1 election back to Dem control.

    The principle of gun ownership and the right to self-defense is bigger than a political party or a single election.

    • expatuae

      Endorsing the 2006-2008 class of supposed blue dogs based on the very few votes that were taken in Congress, that is if those reps don’t have a long history of supporting gun issues at the state level, seems unwarranted.

      It’s dishonorable to abandon your friends in a fight, even if you sympathize with their opponent. Question of which of these blue dogs is a real friend and which is a poser is a legitimate issue.

      There are some gun rights posers on that list for sure.

    • acat

      and that the NRA is pouring money into candidates who are, rightly, going down.

      Not “rightly” for Repub reasons, but “rightly” for reasons that the challengers have *better positions on gun-related issues*.

      All the NRA have to do is to say “We believe both candidates have excellent positions” or even “Candidate X has a proven record that we like, we find Candidate Y’s stated position to be outstanding, but we cannot endorse either at this time” and stay on the sidelines.

      Mew

    • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

      How many candidates (Owens is one) SAID they would do one thing, like, say, vote against particular aspects of health care, but voted the exact opposite way, because it happened to be tied in with stuff they liked?

      Personal liberty is not a huge priority for Democrats at large… it’s foolish to think these individuals actually care about gun rights based upon the reality of the Second Amendment. Most of those idiots are for the rights of “sportsmen,” with no concept of the necessity of an armed citizenry. That’s a problem.

      Believing the word of a politician is always risky. Believing the word of a politician who belongs to a party that traditionally trashes personal liberty and responsibility, particularly as relates to individual protections, is just stupid.

      • http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ cdhost

        – Personal liberty is not a huge priority for Democrats at large

        Baloney. Economic liberty may not be a huge priority for Dems but personal liberty? Take the ACLU for example. How many of those fights are the Republicans on their side?

        • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

          the right to eat what we want? Not so much.
          the right to NOT have health insurance? nnnnnnope.
          the right to do what you want with your property? nuh-uh.

          The ACLU is right, when it is, by accident. They’ve never been about INDIVIDUAL rights, but about raising a social ruckus. And in general, I find that what the ACLU — indeed the Democrats in general — would brand as rights are, often, not. Again, it’s not about personal liberty, but about votes. They raise a fuss, claim “rights” that don’t exist, defend these nonexistent rights because it gets them press coverage, and wins them a few extra overzealous meatheads to hand out literature and spout pointless crap on the internet.

          PERSONAL LIBERTY doesn’t require that society be legally required to accept my lifestyle, for example. It only requires that I be allowed to carry out that lifestyle as I see fit. In fact, where the libs most often claim to champion personal liberty, what they are doing in fact is LIMITING the personal liberty of those who may happen to disagree with the choices of a particular voting segment.

          • http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ cdhost

            –the right to eat what we want? Not so much.

            I haven’t seen them ban foods outside the normal FDA stuff. Heck Dems are the ones busy legalizing pot.

            – the right to NOT have health insurance? nnnnnnope.

            Once hospitals lost the right not to admit people who couldn’t pay into emergency rooms this right went away. The problem is the emergency room law.

            Or really the problem is that we don’t have a cheap public health system designed around the poor which provides basic services and a middle / upper class insurance system which provides option and choice . That was the proposal I always thought should be the Republican counter proposal. Get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, the individual mandate all at once.

            – the right to do what you want with your property? nuh-uh.

            You mean like zoning and stuff? That seems like a bipartisan nuisance to me. i see just as many republicans as dems trying to control that.

            As for the ACLU I like the whole bill of rights.
            The ACLU is very good on: 1,4,5,6, 8
            Reps are good on: 2, 9, 10
            Dems are good on 7
            And 3 isn’t much of a problem.

          • aesthete

            It is truly terrible on the 2nd Amendment, but it’s pretty good on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th. Republicans and Democrats have both been awful on the whole package at various points, but conservatives are better on most of the Bill of Rights when it comes down to it than progressives, especially when you factor in the fact that conservatives don’t read the Bill of Rights as the only things government can’t do (which is how progressives typically read it).

          • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

            NOW you’re separating them from the ACLU, and saying they’re pretty much good one ONE issue.

            For the rest: you clearly haven’t been paying attention to bans on certain fats, proposed bans in certain states on other things, higher taxes on “unhealthy” foods — which, let’s face it, is about regulating behavior. Higher cigarette taxes — again, regulating behavior.

            Dems also aren’t busy doing ANYTHING about legalizing pot. Show me a serious proposal during the last year — y’know, with supermajorities in Congress AND a liberal President. There isn’t one. So no. They haven’t been busy legalizing pot.

            As for property, I’m referring in part to zoning, but more to what you’re allowed to do or not do in the course of your own business, with your own money or resources, etc.

          • aesthete

            Social conservatives can pretend all day long that they’re going to ban pornography, censor media, etc (and I’m not even sure how many SoCons truly care about that sort of stuff as opposed to privatizing schools/banning abortion), but it’s not going to happen, not now, and not ever. The only thing that social conservatives have gotten traction on with respect to restrictions on the actions of citizens at the federal level has been the War on Drugs: and Democrats/progressives certainly aren’t any better on that issue. Regulation of trans-fats, smoking bans, and most of the other anti-personal freedom aspects of the progressive agenda are not only gaining traction, but have passed in many areas or are dangerously close to becoming issues at the state and federal levels.

          • aesthete

            Remember how Obama was supposed to be the Prez who was cool with the druggies? Whatever happened to that? Could it be that *gasp* progressives and Democrats don’t give a rip about personal liberty in any meaningful way unless it happens to rub Republicans the wrong way?

          • http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ cdhost

            As far as sexual censorship there were several successful obscenity prosecutions under Bush that had a chilling effect on speech.

            During the 1990s I was fighting the censorship of math. It was theoretically illegal to do some kinds of math in software (encryption) without going through export controls. That was the law and it was repealed by Clinton. Now admittedly, that was censorship for national security not sex, but it was a prohibition on speech none the less. Software should never have been allowed to be classified as a munition.

          • http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ cdhost

            Look at the bill just passed in California and signed into law. They are also thinking of putting initiatives on the ballot in the NW and NE for 2012. In congress they aren’t doing much.

            As far as fatty food bans I haven’t really seen much of that. Can you send me a link to a proposal? I’ve heard about some labeling laws in states like NY.

            As for property then I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean safety regulations?

    • littlehouse18

      ex

    • littlehouse18

      come to exercising 2nd Amendment rights in the end. If the NRA won’t support the other causes of Liberty through supporting conservatives in the election process, they make an undesirable showdown more likely at some point. So much for their single issue.

      (On the other hand, the Lefties/Socialists/Communists may never relinquish power peacefully anyway once they’ve tasted it so fully. Still, I cling to hope (and my Bible).)

  • http://twitter.com/mikeparanzino mikeparanzino

    If the NRA has found Democrats whose records are better than their GOP opponents, then they should endorse those Dems. Also, if they have a longstanding policy of giving the edge in a tie situation to the incumbent, then that’s legitimate too.

    But the NRA is foolish and is endangering the second amendment in two important respects. First, the votes for Speaker and Majority Leader should be given extra weight in their scoring, because who controls the body decides so much right there. Every Blue Dog who voted for Pelosi for Speaker thus should have major strikes against them out of the gate.

    Second, the NRA seems clueless that all the Congressional access in the world means nothing if 5 unelected lawyers eviscerate the Second Amendment, as 4 votes already would. There are 4 Supreme Court Justices ready to nullify the second amendment. So the NRA should also be giving extra weight to all confirmation votes for federal judges (especially SCOTUS votes, obviously). His votes on Federal Judges and Justices alone prove Harry Reid’s willingness to see the second amendment nullified.

  • ihateliberals

    with we the people. the NRA is trying to put the very people that would like to take our gun rights away into office. It doesn’t matter whether or not the Democrat is a NRA member or not. He/She will be in position to vote against us. When the backroom deals are made we could lose everything. I have just logged on to inform the NRA that i will not be renewing in November. Don’t forget to take out the trash on November 2nd! I no longer support AARP either. They are not looking out for my but rather their own political agenda.

    • nativeconservative

      The NRA came out early for Taxin’ Teddy Strickland and believe me he is touting it against John Kasich. Then the Buckeye form of the NRA came out and endorsed him as well.

      Zack Space has an ad on how his opponent is ‘anti-gun’ which isn’t true.

      None of them talk about how ‘in’ for health care and cap n trade they were. Most Ohioans see through them.

      Ohio’s republicans requested more absentee ballots than ever in history. So hopefully the ‘vote early vote often’ will backfire on them.

      The NRA may go the way of AARP.

    • lorig77

      I just e-mailed NRA to cancel my membership. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Agree about AARP too!

    • aesthete

      “in touch”. It has been involved in trying to push for more subsidization of seniors’ health care costs since the early 60s.

  • dajeeps

    If it has a “D” next to it, don’t vote for it. It works because what the candidates say during a campaign is nearly meaningless. In the end, it is the party’s agenda that matters the most. While the Republican “Pledge” is far from perfect, it is far and away superior to the Democrat agenda of destroy freedom wherever they find it.

    So what if so and so Dem is pro-gun freedom. The rest of the party is not and he/she will be no more than a dog barking the woods full of commies and will get nowhere with it.

  • gunslingr45

    Live in Indiana and I will be writing and blasting them again.
    Brad Ewwww is more like it, He is Obumber’s and Pig Loski’s pet pork pig.

  • d4114j

    TALKS.

  • http://www.nonstopca.blogspot.com nonstopca

    WHAT the Hell has happened to the NRA…….Supporting Dems.??? At one time, I trusted ne NRA…. I DO NOT ANYMORE……..

  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com IronDioPriest

    For those arguing that the NRA is doing what it is supposed to do as a single-issue advocacy group, by remaining bi-partisan, and only focused on its narrow scope of interest, consider these points.

    -All (or at least a vast majority) of the Republicans challenging these NRA endorsed DemComms are Pro-2nd Amendment as well. The DemComms are being endorsed for their incumbency, not for their superior position on 2A.

    -The NRA endorsed DemComms claim support of 2A, while working with the DemComms to undermine the legitimacy of the document in which 2A resides – the Constitution.

    -If we take the position that supporting 2A is the NRA’s job, and that supporting the rest of constitution is our job, fine. But then it follows logically that when the NRA supports DemComms, the NRA is our opponent in our efforts to support the constitution.

    I have been a long-time member of the NRA. Even after others began openly questioning their alliances and political machinations, I remained a staunch supporter, calculating that there is no 2A advocacy group that is better positioned or more powerful.

    But this election cycle has changed my mind. I have discontinued my membership, and I am watching to see how the NRA responds to the very real threats to America’s survival posed by the DemComms. In the meantime, Go GOA!!!

    • eburke

      and mailed it back to them this morning after they endorsed Tim Walz, Socialist-MN-1 even though his opponent, Randy Demmer, was scored as an A for his votes in the MN legislature.

      For all the sanctimonious NRA shills on here like soljerblue, as I put in my letter(s) to the NRA over the last months, they don’t even score *the* most important vote(s) that a member casts in the first few days of the session – the one for Speaker of the House and the various committee chairman. How the hell do you give an A to someone who voted to install the most anti-gun Speaker in the history of the House. Like she doesn’t control the entire freaking agenda.

      Second, what good does it good to vote in favor of 2A rights while simultaneously voting to gut the other 9 Amendments to the Bill of Rights.

      Don’t tell me that witholding the mother’s milk of any business – revenue – doesn’t get people’s attention ’cause it sure as hell does, especially when they know the reasons why.

  • Tbone

    It’s starting to sound like a bunch of ex-smokers. LOL while putting on my body armor.

    • acat

      The NRA is not a branch of the RNC, nor should it be.

      Like the RNC, though, quitting the NRA is a short-sighted protest – the more effective one (as ColdWarrior has demonstrated over and over and over) is to re-take the organisation.

      Mew

    • soljerblue

      the Pack Up My Ammo & Go Home club. :-) )

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      “I support the NRA endorsing Democrats because I’m too stupid to understand modern politics” would be more appropriate.

  • soljerblue

    While I disagree with the NRA’s position in regards to a number of races this year, and have said so in several communications to their Political Victory Fund, I also take issue with Mr. Horowitz’s blanket condemnation of NRA as aiding and abetting the anti-gun left.

    Mr. Horowitz, I speak as a Life/Endowment Member who will continue to support NRA under most circumstances, and when I have an issue with the leadership I will air it directly with them, not here on Red State or any other public blog.

    Mr. Horowitz — what you fail to make clear in your post, and perhaps do not understand, is that NRA is a single issue organization. Of course that has its weak points, but its strongest point is that the organization then speaks for ALL gun owners everywhere in the US, many of whom — horrors! — are pro-Second Amendment Democrats! You, I expect, would have NRA dis a sizeable portion of its membership so they could support the candidates you prefer.

    Mr. Horowitz — please take the trouble to go to the NRA-PVF web site and examine the endorsements one by one. You will note that in many, many cases there has been NO endorsement of incumbents, but that each — along with the “challenger” in a given race — has been given a grade. Often those grades are equal, and in some cases the challenger is graded higher.
    One suspects that the NRA — rather than wimping out — is leaving it up to its members and supporters in that particular race to make an informed decision based on the Second Amendment issue.

    As for Gun Owners of America, or whatever — this organization and the several out there like it depend on disgruntled people to keep them in money and sending out emails to solicit more. There is no other organization, with the possible exception of the Second Amendment Foundation, that has done more to support the Second Amendment than the NRA. You can make all the criticisms you wish of the NRA, some even valid. But you can collect every other gun owners’ group out there and all together they wouldn’t amount to a fraction of the NRA’s political, legal and financial clout.

    As an example — when and where has the GOA had a presence at the UN lobbying against the proposed small arms treaty that bans guns in all member nations? NRA has been and continues to be front and center on that issue.

    Say what you like, Mr. Horowitz, but the NRA will continue to stand effectively for the Second Amendment with vastly more “clout” than you or any other so-called pro-gun group.

  • realskinny

    I dropped my NRA membership this Summer when it became clear they had an Affirmative Action plan for Democrats.

    It makes sense to maintain bipartisanship to remain viable with Dems. If they never support Dems, why would any Dem support Firearm Freedom? But this has clearly gone too far. They have begun endorsing Dems who just hint at supporting the 2nd Amendment over Reps with longer and better histories of support.

    Moreover, few Democrats if any, support the Constitution. Where will the NRA stand when the Constitution has been stripped of all meaning and is being used for toilet paper in congressional restrooms….When all of their natural conservative allies have been silenced as censorship rules the land. Do they seriously believe Democrats, who defend no other individual freedom, will still defend the right to bear arms? That the Marxist farmers will not de-horn the herd?

    I blame most of this on Marian Hammer, an activist Democrat from Florida, who seems to have forged some type of alliance during her time as President of the NRA. Her baleful influence can be seen in her machinations this election cycle in Florida.

    • Tbone

      Why were you a member in the first place?

      • realskinny

        In some elections they have been the only group to which I have donated because they defended not only the 2nd but also the 1st Amendments. I’ve had no problem with their support of Dems as I assumed the Dems had better records on guns. Over the last two elections, this seems to have changed. They seem to value their relationship with the Dem party more than a strict adherence to gun rights. I expect you disagree.

        In recent years they have taken steps to strengthen ties to the hunting community. This is all to the good but they have also lent their support to laws raising the age at which someone can legally possess and handle a firearm to 18. As one who began hunting squirrels with a .22 alone at the age of 11, I believe this to be very harmful to the preservation of a hunting culture in the country. I’ve never gotten a reply to any communication with the NRA.

  • tacoslayer

    The NRA jumped the shark a long time ago.

    Not. One. Dime.

  • thirdparty2012

    This is why I don’t support the NRA with money.

    I’ve never trusted them because they’re too willing to compromise.

    I also find it hard to believe those Democrats are more pro-second amendment than the GOP opposition.

    Support the GOA and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

  • soljerblue

    “There is no winning in dealing with the devil. The NRA should know this but does not.”

    The NRA very well knows it is dealing with the devil. In fact, they deal with the devil from a basis of strength. Political, financial, and legal. It has been shown in the past in both state and federal elections that NRA endorsements can and do sway elections.

    I believe it is the candidates who want the NRA’s endorsement who have to “deal with the devil”, and not as you suggest otherwise.

    I wonder how many of the conservatives posting here have ever even been annual members of the NRA, actually shoot on a regular basis, either competitively(I do), hunt(I do), coach young people(I do), or have ever given money to the NRA for one or more of its functions(I have).

    If you don’t like the organization, either fight to change it or leave. We’ll get along very well without you and at some point you’ll find you’ve made a mistake.

  • Pingback: Remember 2010: 53 Anti-gun NRA backed Democrats | Dump the NRA

  • JadedByPolitics

    it is also a SMACK upside the head to the Media Wing of the Democrat Party and the board of the NRA and every other “go along to get along” organizations! This election is about WE The People and Political Class and at the end of the day WE WILL WIN!

  • http://www.voteforteri2010.com teridavisnewman

    I’ve had a concealed carry permit for almost 17 years and just renewed it for another 7 years. Jerry Costello does NOT have one and never did. He’s not pro-gun but he likes to pretend that he is, just as he pretends he’s pro life but donates tens of thousands of dollars to pro-choice candidates as disclosed in his financial documents, Here is a brief sample of the candidates Rep. Costello has donated money to, all of which are rated 100% pro-choice by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), source, http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm:
    Michael Capuano, MA-8, $2,000, voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion (Apr 2000)
    Peter DeFazio, OR-4, $2,000, voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion (Apr 2000)
    Debbie Schultz, FL-20, $1,000, voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions (Apr 2005)
    Dina Titus, NV-3, $2,000, Endorsed by EMILY?s List, dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women (Sep 2010)
    Phil Hare, IL-17, $3,000, Abortions always legal, except some partial birth abortions (Nov 2006)
    Gabby Giffords, AZ-8, $2,000, Endorsed by EMILY?s List, dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women (Sep 2010)
    As for being pro-gun, he has also donated heavily to the
    Democratic Congressional Committee $100,000 to be exact.
    Don’t tell me this professional liar is pro-gun because he isn’t.

  • chbroussard

    I canceled my 35-year membership in the NRA several weeks ago when the rumblings started that they were going to endorse Harry Reid. Even if they didn’t, just the possibility of doing it was enough for me.

    While I realize that the NRA is basically a single issue organization, I think we are long passed the time when we can base our votes on a single issue. We have to remember how these bluedogs that were supposedly “against” the health care bill in the end caved and voted for it. I would expect that they would do the same when it comes to Second Amendment rights.

    We have the power to put the NRA out of business and I recommend that we do so…..immediately.

  • Tbone

    A significant proportion of the NRA membership are “Bluedog” Democrats. For the NRA to be a successful lobbying organization, it, like ALL lobbying organizations, has to be able to work BOTH sides of the aisle. It has to reward those who vote in favor of its positions regardless of party affiliation.

    Why do you think we have not had a full liberal, anti-gun agenda introduced in this heavily Democrat controlled Congress this last two years? If the NRA was nothing more than an echo chamber for Republicans or the social conservative agenda, it would not have had the influence with those 53 Democrats you listed to prevent an anti-gun agenda.

    This is called smart politics. Based upon this diary, smart is a term with which I doubt you have had much association.

  • RedBeard

    I’ve been a member of the NRA for 53 years, life member for 30, and will not abandon the organization as some suggest. And I disagree with dhorowitz3 on withholding funds.

    On the other hand, I firmly believe the NRA is dead wrong in this matter, and I will be communicating that to the organization via mail, phone, and via my next vote for directors. This business is terribly short-sighted, and misses the larger picture, that the Dem monolith itself is the greatest threat to gun rights.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    This is not the time.

    I suppose during the 2008 election cycle, one could opine the NRA was trying to protect what little is left of our 2nd Amendment rights. Understandable, but not fully in synch with some of their other electoral tom-foolery over the past two years, which smacks of people with political orientations letting DC denizens dictate their agenda.

    But this is NOT 2008. Nor is it the time for feeble, fainthearted, tepid, political gymnastics. The NRA should man-up and show some guts.

    We have made considerable, righteous arguments about how our party should stand on principles and not compromise for the latest, trendy political sine qua non. Yet we want to give the NRA a pass on this logic in order to allegedly preserve constitutionally articulated liberties? Not a chance.

  • Robert Allen Leeper
  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    They don’t exist in the real world.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The NRA is not our friend.

    You’d think a person with a nonzero IQ could figure that out.

  • napensnake

    There are indeed true “blue dog” Democrats. Unfortunately, too many of them in Congress put “Democrat” first. It seems the point here is that a pro-gun Republican is more likely to stay pro-gun because of support within the party than a blue-dog Democrat because of a general animosity toward guns in that party.

  • acat

    when an organization I generally support (although not to your level) appears to be working against its’ own longer-term interest.

    I get the point Tbone makes – it pays to work both sides of the aisle – but .. for the NRA to support any Dem, unless the Repub opponent is a charter member of the Brady Fund or something, is … remarkably short-sighted.

    If the NRA can’t smell the blood in the water, can’t see the conservative wave, there’s something very wrong at NRA HQ.

    Your vote, and many, many other votes for directors who have better sense is appreciated.

    Mew

  • Tbone

    I am sure upon deeper reflection he will see the wisdom of my position and agree that, uncharacteristically, he reacted with instinct rather than reason and if not already regretting this that the probability of future regret is almost assured.

    I, of course, will welcome his change of heart and request he refrain from personal supplications to assuage his shame of remorse for his hasty and erroneous conclusions setforth above.

  • AnnaD

    I just mailed a request to cancel my membership. I wrote that I understood their position but this year, that position was not valid, and that there would be no 2nd Amendment to protect if Obama-Pelosi-Reid get another 2 years.

    I closed with the following line: Maybe someday I?ll come back to you, but for now, you are like a bad boyfriend or husband, and I need a separation and some time away.

  • BA Cyclone

    The NRA endorsed Boswell in CD-3, when the R challenger is VERY competitive and has shown leads in several polls. GOA rates Boswell as D-

    Further, NRA endorsed our incumbent governor, who is DOWN NINETEEN POINTS in the latest polling. It’s about a safe R governor pickup this cycle as they come. Supposedly just because Culver signed a recent shall-issue permit law (sufficiently watered down to pass thru our D legislature), that is supposed to make it all OK.

    Culver wouldn’t even complete a survey from Iowa Gun Owners.

    Iowa Dems put this bill through the state legislature to get NRA endorsements for the fall, and the NRA is following suit like a little puppy.

  • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

    By what logic is it OK to support a senator because they voted against a couple of gun-a-month laws, yet helps put in place SCOTUS Justices who would limit, ban, or confiscate guns every chance they get ?

    ——

    They have not answered as of yet and a response is not expected.

  • Tbone

    I want the NRA to be able to say to to any survivors of this 53 that “we supported you when we could have kicked you”.

    What I never want the NRA to say to it’s membership,”Well gang, the idiot, porker Republicans blew their majority AGAIN and we don’t have any Democrat friends that we we can count on because even though they voted our way, like fools we supported their Republican opponents.”

    I always want the NRA to have enough votes regardless whether it’s our bunch of crooks, porkers, liars, cheats and elitists running the show or the Dems.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

    If the NRA is a single issue organization shouldn’t its endorsement mean “this dude/dudette supports the right of self defense” and be given to all candidates who meet that bar? Why are they only supporting one candidate?

  • http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ cdhost

    The NRA is not part of the Republican party nor does it claim to be. That’s the point. They aren’t compromising with Democrats they openly include Democrats. They aren’t partisan.

  • nepanyrush

    Carney (D-10) is running a big pro-Gun, conservative area. He voted for Obamacare and supports Pelosi 90% of the time.Yet, he runs as a pro-gun conservative in this area, and the NRA’s strong support of him carries a lot of weight here.

    So, we have two pro-Gun candidates, the Democrat and the Republican, but the Democrat is also pro-Pelosi. Why does the NRA support the Democrat when the Republican is equally pro-Gun? It does not make sense. It just make Carney look as if he is overall conservative when he is not at all.

  • Tbone

    let me know and I’ll pass it along to the NRA. Until then, I expect them to be brutally pragmatic in making sure that THEY have a majority in Congress regardless of party affiliation.

  • outbackjon

    Here in NY-20, the NRA endorsed the incumbent Democrat, despite both candidates receiving their highest rating. Scott Murphy’s (D) record shows him voting with Pelosi any chance he gets. Which I am certain means that if there is a vote on anything firearms related, he’ll vote with the liberals. Why, oh why has the NRA made an endorsement like this?

  • Tbone

    There in lies the opportunity to maintain a majority of gun right votes regardless of party affiliation.

  • The_Gadfly

    MD-1 is the one Republican leaning district in the State (MD-6 is solidly Republican). It was lost last year because Wayne “Cry Baby” Gilchrest endorsed the Democrat after he got his sorry derriere kicked in the primary. Gilchrest is now thankfully forgotten and not an influence in the election. Here in the People’s Republic of Maryland, that’s about as good as it gets for a Republican chance to pickup a House seat.

    Kenny’s friend almost has the definitive question. The definitive question is: How does it advance the NRA agenda to support a nominally pro-gun representative who is going to vote for solidly anti-gun Congressional leadership that will proceed to ram through anti-gun in the dead of night?

  • CowboyUp4419

    Why are you mad at a single-issue organization for acting like a single-issue organization? We as voters might be past the point we base our votes on single issues but that shouldn’t mean anything to an organization like the NRA whose one and only goal has always been to elect people who they believe will help preserve the Second Amendment. The NRA has done nothing wrong; if them doing exactly what they’ve said they were all about is unpalatable to you or anyone else because you thought they were more interested in electing conservative Republicans than people who supported gun owners rights then fine, you don’t have to give them your money, but it’s a little silly to complain when a single-issue organization behaves like a single-issue organization.

  • mkozikowski

    I dropped my membership earlier this year when the NRA voted against the First Amendment in favor of the Second.

    These dopes don’t even realize that it takes all of the Amendments to ensure any of them. If we start picking and choosing, then they all fall. I would guess that of the first to fall will be the Second. Otherwise We the People would be able to defend the others.

  • soljerblue

    NOT!

    “We have the power to put the NRA out of business and I recommend that we do so?..immediately.”

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    And all the other crap she voted for/will vote for makes it even worse. She’s no more a Bluedog democrat than Nancy Pelosi is. Hence, my comment.

    Cory Gardner will vote for Gun rights, much more so than Markey, and will vote the right way on all the other issues too.

    There was no reason to endorse Markey in CO-4, other than to “throw a bone” to the Dems to make it look like the NRA is non-partisan. They’re a worthless, useless organization that needs to go the same way as the AARP. Neither one will ever get a dime from me.

  • mboyle1988

    All Democrats are socialists trying to destroy America. Every last one of them. Believing anything else is just believing propaganda.

  • RedBeard
  • edintexas

    Because the one is an incumbent, and historically the incumbent will have the greater chance of winning re-election. So if they support the challenger, and the challenger loses (statistically probable in a “normal” year), they have just ticked off the winner of the election.

    While this year is certainly shaping up to be totally aberrant, and the NRA should be taking that into consideration, I’m not convinced they have (or anyone else has) the capability to discern who will really win the particular races (at least at the point where they have to make their decision in time for publishing).

    As usual, the larger bureaucratic entity doesn’t have the flexibility to quickly change their SOP to respond to changes to the “norm”.

  • eburke

    ‘conservative’ on is Gun Rights (he got an A). Other than that he is a union lackey Socialist. Randy Demmer not only got an A from the NRA for his votes as a MN legislator, he’s supports the rest of the BIll of Rights as well.

    So, as many have said already, the NRA should have just graded both of them as A’s and remained neutral, as they did in NV.

    So….I’m done!

  • Tbone

    to do otherwise would be stupid.

    “Markey co-sponsored the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity amendment, which would extend federal protection of state right-to-carry licenses and permits across the country and co-sponsored legislation that would reform the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, said Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist.

    Markey also voted to allow carry license or permit holders to carry and transport firearms for self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges, Cox said.”

    Read more: NRA casts in for Frazier, Markey, Salazar – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16104972#ixzz11VOlp1tp

  • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

    I am actually from Maryland and was seeing stars when I saw this endorsement. As I pointed out in this article, I can understand the NRA rationale in a race where the D is more pro gun than the R. But Kratovil?? Andy Harris has led (the few) Republicans in the state legislature on gun issues for years. Has Frank Kratovil been a leader on guns? Or has he just received a hall pass from Pelosi to silently vote pro gun on a handful of meaningless procedural votes. Anyone who thinks that Frank Kratovil will advance gun rights more than Andy Harris is simply brain dead.

  • hunter

    Any Republican is better than any democrat in regards to gun rights.
    Democrats enforce discipline over conscience. Any democrat will end up supporting anti-gun legislation at the end of the day. Any democrat nomination to the bench will recieve all democrat votes, and we have a President who is dedicated to destroying gun rights.
    Whatever insider game the NRA thinks they are playing by endorsing democrats, they are only proving that they are insiders being duped.

  • hunter

    And simply decline to endorse.
    Until the the dem party is back to mainstream America, it should not receive any support.

  • nepanyrush

    I understand your logic and now have a better sense of why the NRA made the decision on their endorsement. On the other hand, Carney is very vulnerable in this conservative district. If the NRA would have endorsed his opponent, then the Republicans would likely take the seat. A lot of people here trust the NRA endorsement. As it is, I think Carney — who got into office only because of a sex scandal related to the previous Republican Congressman, Sherwood — could squeak by in this largely Republican district.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    these snakes in Congress will bite us the minute tables turn again. I would rather cut its head off before that happens.

    Right now politicians are facing a very dangerous electorate who is turning more “conservative” by the moment and are VERY worried about the liberties this Congress has usurped. I wonder if the NRA got this memo?

    Accordingly, the manipulating bastards (A.K.A as Congressmen or Senators) will yield to the electorates demands because;
    A- They want to get reelected and continue living off government cheese into perpetuity
    B- They are fair weather friends and need to at least act as if they care about the electorate to accomplish “A”

    So why support someone who probably;
    1- Won’t vote against you, in fear of the electorate, even if they get elected without your support and end up surrounded by a Republican majority
    2- Pisses off a great deal of your members who are beginning to think NRA stands for No Real Axioms.

    Personally, I think it is a bad strategy and a waste of my dues.

  • pigfish

    While I can understand the principle of your thoughts, I have to disagree with the pragmatics of them. This “lobbing” or “cavorting with the enemy” has brought the Republican party to it knees and to the point where the country is today. It is the “lets compromise” crowd, the moderates that got us where we are today; the precipice of socialism.

    Being disenfranchised with the Republicans is an old wound to me. For decades now, the run of the mill Republican has been falsely labeled conservative. Going back to playing nice is the reckless behavior that got us here. It is late in the game now… and the NRA is somehow thinking that you can still play nice with those in politics, regardless of political affiliation, that have it on their agenda to do away with the 2nd Amendment. The Democratic Party!

    The myth here, perhaps better put, the oxymoron is “conservative Democrat.” They are non existent. The past two years have gone a long way to make us “whacky” conspiracy theorist types; meaning there is a socialist agenda and conspiracy from the left to bring European socialism here to this country, a reality.

    While I cannot and do not support progressive Republicans, it must be recognized that all the Democrats are bad!!! None are conservative today. You need proof, just look at their voting records the past two years. When guns get on the table again, and they will, your “Blue Dog” will get whipped into line to make the bill happen or will be given pardon to abstain only if there are enough votes to pass a bill without him, allowing him to save face for an upcoming election.

    There is no winning in dealing with the devil. The NRA should know this but does not. They are simply now two years behind the eight-ball and back to playing Republican appeasement politics. Playing nice and playing the field got us here. And boys and girls, socialism is harder to shake than VD!

  • natlanthem

    The NRA has been co-opted, as all single issue activists groups, by those with liberal bents. How else can you explain ANY support of democrats in this cycle, when it is quite clear a) democrats will vote party line and b) the party line is to eliminate the fundamental right to self-protection which is sorely needed because this weekend proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this protection will be necessary against c) a socialist/marxist/communist system driven by that democratic majority.

    The NRA is no longer pro-gun. They are pro-NRA.

    And unlike Christine O’Donnell, they are “not me”.

  • chbroussard

    Right now, 2nd Amendment rights are not blatantly in the crosshairs of these progressive socialists. But don’t think for a moment that they’re not trying to tick off items on their agenda one at a time. Government takeover of healthcare–check; government intervention in private industry (GM)–check; ignoring border security so thousands of illegals can continue to come into this country–check.

    If these progressives stay in power, the day will come when the 2nd Amendment will rise to the top of their agenda. And the NRA will have had a hand in helping reelect these people. Disarming the public is one of the mainstays of socialism. The question is not if…it’s when. And when they do decide to full force come after our weapons, who will be there to stop them. These Democrats that the NRA supported?? I hardly think so.

    Some of the posts below from people actually living in these districts make my case far better than I can.

  • gunsrus

    I gave up on this as a political test some time ago when it became obvious the gun control issue had been decided and the only reason it was still getting on the agenda was RHINO-types posers who wanted to vote against it. If you want a real conservative acid test try transportation instead. When I watched the Jackals snarling about Auto Exec’s not taking “Public” transportation to congressional hearings illustrates this well. Anyone who can do the math would easily conclude that private jet was cost effective if you took the compensation into account.
    The Lib, closet or otherwise. hates private ownership of anything, be it your car or jet or gun. The are fine with Guns in the hands of government and would probably arm school teachers if they could figure out how to keep them from shooting themselves.

  • http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ cdhost

    nice to see some sanity and common sense.

  • natlanthem

    In elections where both candidates are equally supportive of gun rights in the view of the NRA, then either remain silent in the election or support both candidates equally. Or better yet, spend the money in the district praising both candidates for wisely supporting gun rights.

    NRA is getting suckered.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Cory supports it.

    But hey, if you want to keep sticking up for an organization that is working against us this November, feel free.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It’s a corrupt, self-seeking organization that is contrary to conservative goals, and should be treated as such.

  • Tbone

    You reward those who do what you want. Why do you keep thinking the NRA is, or should be, a partisan organization?

  • soljerblue

    in a number of state and congressional races — and, in case you didn’t notice –in the Nevada Senate race — NO endorsement for Harry Reid. No endorsement at all. Let the NRA members in Nevada use their brains to select the candidate who’ll support 2A best. It’s called having faith in the good sense of your members.

  • Tbone

    if by that you mean a friend to the Republican Party. In fact, if at some point in an alternate universe the majority of Dems supported Second Amendment Rights compared to Republicans, then, if that were my single issue. I would expect the NRA to support a majority of Dems.

    I do think a person with a nonzero IQ should figure that out, though I read these threads and it appears not to be the case, because I assume that the anti-NRA posters, certainly in the majority, sport no less than two digit IQ points.

  • soljerblue

    I have far from a “nonzero IQ”. I have a graduate degree. I have an IQ which I’d be happy to stack up against yours any time. I was a journalist for over 40 years until retirement. And the NRA — with or without criticism — will always have my support for the vast majority of its program. When you’re through venting, name one other pro-gun organization with the political, financial, or legal clout of the NRA.

    Just sayin’

  • Tbone

    Michael Bloomberg.

    But thanks for sharing.

  • Doc Holliday

    I get your anger, but there are SOME liberal Republicans out there, and they are not good on gun rights. There are also some Dems that are very pro gun. I agree that electing Dems is generally bad for any freedoms, but I can’t go as far as you because I have seen Republican gun grabbers and would never vote for them.

  • chbroussard
  • Tbone

    LOL.

  • RedBeard

    …old Uncle Charlie from Des Moines, a good man and a teetotaler for most of his life, who somehow got thoroughly liquored up and woke up three weeks later in Madam Fifi’s House of Whoopee in Empty Oil Drum, Oklahoma, with two brand new tattoos and wearing nothing but pink Fruit of the Looms.

    It’s fine to be angry at Uncle Charlie for being a foolish old man, but he’s still family, and I hope we can drill some sense into his head.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    And I also mean the friend of most of us here.

    And either you’re just too much of an idiot to comprehend that,or you’re just trolling.

    Either way, quit while you’re behind. You’re burning what credibility you had rather quickly here.

  • janis

    And the other one may, or may not, be Bloomberg.

  • AnnaD

    And it is still hard to tell which is the dominant stripe (e.g., his support of the 9-11 Victory Mosque). So I agree, this year anyway, any Repub is better than a Dem.

  • http://www.2010blog.net jsanzone

    No?

  • acat

    Again, if they’re endorsing Dems in seats that Dems are visibly losing, like it or not, something stinks like that deer roast that got left on the counter in the cabin all winter that one year…

    Mew

  • acat

    and I’d say the same about the NRA… and any other single-issue groups whose stated goals parallel conservative goals.

    Mew

  • jeanms

    Is it maybe because some of the candidates are too far right that they don’t want to tarnish their brand ? Think about it

  • Tbone

    needs of a single issue organization and a political party or, more aptly, the conservative agenda, I would say that there is room right next to me in the idiot section.

    Answer me this: If not all Republicans believe in gun rights, why should the NRA believe in all Republicans?

  • RedBeard

    At least he isn’t digging the Panama Canal in the basement, like Uncle Teddy in “Arsenic and Old Lace.”

  • Tbone

    to its agenda. Its agenda happens to have have supporters in both parties. I assume you can understand this, a pragmatic person should accept it but by no means does anyone have to like it.

    As a Republican I certainly don’t like it but it is politically pragmatic to my interest in the Second Amendment.

  • chbroussard

    that a couple of years ago he switched from Republican to Independent. So he just goes with whatever way the wind happens to be blowing on a particular day.l

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    The only thing Republican about Bloomburg is the (R) he used to put after his name.

    /threadjack

  • Tbone

    Soooo?

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    People are of many minds regarding the Muslim Center in NYC. Even among Conservatives. Bloomberg was a RINO for many reasons, but IMO, this issue by itself in no way makes somebody less than Conservative.

  • acat

    They ought to stay on the sidelines, if that’s the case.

    That they’re off the bench, on the field, and getting in the way of their fellow players says … something.

    Whether it’s saying incompetence or something worse I don’t know.

    Mew

  • Tbone

    and re-invest them in places which you can support without reservation.

    While gun rights is the single political issue for the NRA, the NRA offers a vast array of programs for gun owners. By example, every cop in America is trained by an NRA certified instructor. Virtually every kid in America and a high percentage of adults can’t obtain a hunting license without completing an NRA Hunter Safety course.

    In fact, less than 20% of NRA members list political action as their primary reason for belonging to the NRA. Consequently, far more dues income is received from members who are Democrats who participate in these other programs than from those who belong for political reasons.

  • Tbone

    What will ya have?

  • acat

    And that’s where the problem is, Tbone.

    They’re completely missing – whether through incompetence or worse – that this year is going to sink a lot of Dems.

    This isn’t about Republican vs. Democrat, it’s about fiscal sanity on the part of a PAC – why are they spending their members’ money trying to save marginally-allied Dems when they could just do nothing and see how it plays out?

    Money spent on a losers’ campaign buys very little influence, eh?

    Mew

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Then why didn’t the NRA support Harry Reid? After all, Cox said this;

    Next, NRA-PVF has an incumbent-friendly policy that requires our support for pro-gun lawmakers seeking re-election. Again, this is regardless of political party. Whether in Congress or the state legislatures, it is critical that we stand with our friends who have stood with us.

    So did Harry Reid vote against the NRA or is this selective political judgment?

    Overall, I agree they should support legislators who have helped advance the NRA agenda, irrespective of party. But into that, they must consistently inject a little common sense; as I believe they did with Reid.

    Like it or not, their endorsement means something to a very active part of the voting public. If they are seen as swaying votes in a close election, where the candidate who wins may be good on gun rights but across the board destructive to a conservative agenda, the NRA will shoot themselves in the foot.

    Oh, and I also agree one should separate their political activities from the other great work they do. But if they keep up the political shenanigans, keep hiring a bunch of white shirt political sissies to lobby for them and don’t begin to better articulate their policies (which better get closer to contemporary America) then they are going to lose funding by pissing people off. That is not good for anybody supporting gun rights.

  • rsexteriors

    about two weeks ago when I found out they endorsed Chris Carney (PA10).

    What good is the NRA if they are going to endorse people like Carney. The NRA says “Well he says he is pro gun” to which I respond “He said he was not going to vote for the health care bill right up to about a week before the vote and then when he was TOLD to vote for it he did”. He, and the rest of them will vote against gun ownership when told to do it by their puppet master.

    What a STUPID STUPID thing to do NRA.

  • Tbone

    However, 17 Republican Senators and 54 Republican Representatives voted in favor of the Brady Bill.

    8 Dem Senators and 119 Dem Representatives voted against it.

    How should the NRA have scored these two groups?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If you don’t understand why the Democrats are bad for America, and therefore why the NRA is against the American way of life when it backs Democrats, you need to read RedState more.

  • Tbone

    It can a buy a lot of credibility with the Democrat winners. It’s hard to convince someone you will support them if they vote your way when they see you have turned on those you made that promise to before.

    You wife may believe you won’t cheat on her, your mistress, not so much.

  • http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ cdhost

    Because if they didn’t do that sort of thing they would just be part of the Republican party and Democrats could ignore their concerns. They would lose their influence with Democrats. So that in future elections when Republicans lost the NRA would also lose.

    Regardless of how 2010 comes out the NRA has objectives that go beyond the next year or two.

  • Tbone

    I would appreciate an answer: If not all Republicans believe in gun rights, why should the NRA believe in all Republicans?

    Also, what position should the NRA take on abortion rights?

    How about gay marriage?

    What other parts of the “American way of life” should the NRA lobby for?

    Do all Republicans believe in shooting and eating Bambi and family? Should the NRA support a Republican who may support gun ownership but be anti-hunting? Hunting is part of the American way of life, isn’t it?

  • Doc Holliday

    Red Stater’s bashed the NRA? All these top rated diaries said leave the NRA and some said go to Gun Owners of America. Then lo and behold, we had a top rated diary attacking the GOA for being involved in some left wing conspiracy. It is like Red State doesn’t really like 2A groups.

    Having said the above, I am very angry at the Chris Cox led NRA -ILA. There is no question the NRA has been blinded by the left and is as establishment as they come. I understand what the NRA is trying to do, they are trying to stay viable ALL THE TIME, and they think pleasing Democrats is the way to do that.

    Of course the NRA could say it this way, they would say they are trying to keep 2A rights viable at all times and not endangered by the whims of the electorate. I mean, let’s face it, we are out of power and pissed, yet Obama and Pelosi have not been able to do much to hurt 2A rights.

    I guess my opinion on this is a bit back and forth. The reason is that I believe the NRA SHOULD support pro 2A candidates against anti gunners, regardless of party affiliation. Their job is to protect gun rights, our job is to help Republicans win.

    On the other hand, the NRA should openly state that electing ANY Dem is a potential threat to 2A rights because their party’s leadership is anti-freedom. I think the NRA should put an asterisk by EVERY congressional Dem they support because that person’s election will help Pelosi and her anti-gun agenda. And any elected Dem helps the anti-gun Obama administration.

    I also think the NRA made some really stupid endorsements. Why on earth support Manchin over Raese? This is a very dangerous play, and will give a lot of WV Dems the excuse to vote for the lefty. This could really hurt Manchin.

    There are many other examples where the NRA just goes for the incumbent, it really sucks. But I proffer one idea. Just think, what if the NRA became the “moderate gun group”? Just think what the left would think about that one? The lefties from the 1980s would blow a gasket! Let’s face it, this entire discussion shows gun rights are more popular now than they have been in a long, long time.

    I still think it is wrong to cancel your NRA membership. The NRA does a lot to teach responsible gun ownership and gun safety to kids. They train civilians and police; they do a lot of good things.

    As I have said before when this came up I would advise keeping the NRA membership but calling them and telling them you will give NOTHING to their legislative fund. Then I would join the GOA, and local and state gun rights groups. The local groups often are more effective and have more impact on your rights where you live. If the GOA membership increases by 20,000 it will make a big difference and the NRA will notice.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    are anti-hunting?

    Anti-gun?

    Anti-2nd Amendment?

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    Obama was a Muslim Marxist before he became a Christian Marxist.

  • acat

    This is not a normal year.

    Mew

  • acat

    pro-hunting, pro-firearms-ownership, pro-2nd-amendment .. all those things the NRA are supposed to be for … voted for Pelosi for speaker?

    Elections have consequences. Goes for the NRA, just like for Joe Sixpack… and I’ll remember what the current leadership of the NRA does.

    Mew

  • Tbone

    See, I can answer with a question too.

    But, as for your questions, it doesn’t matter because the NRA supports incumbents who voted in a manner acceptable to the NRA.

    That’s the commitment the NRA makes to officeholders and it keeps its commitments to maintain its credibility. Novel approach, huh?

  • Tbone

    because I’m sure she evened the score with those who didn’t. ;-)

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    nt

  • Tbone
  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    Like any good (Karl) Marxist, Obama is totally devoid of humor. And his pathetic attempts at humor end up being like dropping bowling balls onto toes.

  • acat

    Of course not, right?

    And all the NRA had to say was “We are not making an endorsement in this race” for cases where the repub is repugnant or “We endorse both candidates” for cases where the dem is reasonably gun-rights.

    Elections have consequences, and voting for Pelosi ought to as well.

    Mew

  • Tbone

    “Elections have consequences, and voting for Pelosi ought to as well.”

    A lot of those listed are going to lose, the NRA not withstanding.

  • acat

    Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy applies, Tbone.

    I hear what you’re saying. Most years I’d agree with you. This is the wrong year for the strategery the NRA are employing – the dance with the Reid nomination, endorsing Dems who are obviously going to lose to Repubs who are pro-2nd-amendment just because the Dems are incumbents – the NRA is showing what happens when the bureaucrats get into positions of control, just like the GOP leadership are.

    Mew

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    You asked, “Do all Republicans believe in shooting and eating Bambi and family? Should the NRA support a Republican who may support gun ownership but be anti-hunting? Hunting is part of the American way of life, isn?t it?”

    Either you had a point, or you didn’t. If you didn’t, just say so.

    The point, throughout, has been that Republicans are better for the NRA, because they are better on liberty issues in general, and Democrats are, generally, anti-gun. They caucus anti-gun, they support judges who are anti-gun.

    Your above response suggested that some Republicans aren’t pro-gun. Which ones aren’t? If they all ARE, then the arguments still stand: they are BETTER for the NRA, because they will not support anti-gun judges, they will NOT caucus with an anti-gun party.

  • acat

    But that’s because I don’t see how voting for Pelosi can be squared with a 2nd amendment supporter.

    In short, any Dem who claims to be pro-hunting, pro-2nd-amendment, pro-firearms-ownership but voted for Pelosi is lying.

    And for the NRA to be waffling in this of all years is shameful.

    Mew

  • acat

    but not every Dem is a socialist. Some are marxists. Some are fools.

    We might be able to do something with the fools.

    Mew

  • acat

    scoring on only one data point is going to generate some pretty skewed results when compared to a reality of many data points.

    The key points the NRA ought to be looking at are what goes into the bills, and who is able to shape the bills, not how the final vote goes.

    Mew

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    That would be the same year that Harry Reid introduced an immigration bill requiring a border fence and vigorous enforcement of the existing immigration laws.

    So, can we expect you to be support Harry because of his brave stand on immigration?

    As usual, you’ve plucked an outlier and drawn a conclusion based on your opinion while flatly ignoring facts.

  • Tbone

    “endorsing Dems who are obviously going to lose to Repubs who are pro-2nd-amendment just because the Dems are incumbents -”

    Read reeaaaal sloooowly.

    1. The NRA promises to support politicians who vote its way.

    2. To maintain credibility, it then has to do that.

    3. If it didn’t do that just because it THOUGHT that an incumbent was going to lose, and the incumbent didn’t lose, that’s really bad for the relationship going forward.

    4. If it didn’t do that just because it THOUGHT that an incumbent was going to lose, even if the incumbent lost, it would lose credibility with all the other incumbents that won. BOTH Repubs and Dems.

    5. If you make a promise, you keep it even if its not expedient, perhaps distasteful or somewhat inconvenient. It sure makes your word worth more the next time.

  • acat

    “The only winning move is not to play”. W.O.P.R.

    Mew

  • Doc Holliday

    If the leadership changes, things will likely get better. Charleton Heston would never stand for some of these NRA antics. The problem is Chris Cox and Wayne Lapierre. There was a time I thought highly of Wayne, that time has long since passed.

  • nativeconservative

    The NRA came out early for Taxin’ Teddy Strickland and believe me he is touting it against John Kasich. Then the Buckeye form of the NRA came out and endorsed him as well.

    Zack Space has an ad on how his opponent is ‘anti-gun’ which isn’t true.

    None of them talk about how ‘in’ for health care and cap n trade they were. Most Ohioans see through them.

    Ohio’s republicans requested more absentee ballots than ever in history. So hopefully the ‘vote early vote often’ will backfire on them.

    The NRA may go the way of AARP.

  • gunsrus

    I don’t believe the NRA ever endorsed a candidate. That was a historic event. The National Rifle Association is chartered to promote the sport of firearms. . . . (period)
    It is not a political organization although has created through the ILA a very effective lobby. This should be a blueprint for conservatives.

  • realvoice2010

    If the NRA is so single issue oriented that it will support anyone that supports the second amendment, then it might support someone who has ties to muslim extremists for president-only because the extremist “supports” the second amendment. I’ve always admired the fact that the second amendment has been defended, but not by an organization who only does for their own wealth and power.

  • edintexas

    Where were y’all when Neal Knox was campaigning to change the Board of Directors through his recommendations for the BoD elections?

    What have you been doing with your annual ballots (assuming all those pi**ing and moaning about the NRA have been voting members for years, or even members for the 5 years of Annual membership necessary to become a voting member) in the years since Neal sent out recommendations? Who knows what you would have written if you had been around in the days before Neal, Harlon Carter and the Cincinnati revolt. Then the competition shooters ruled the roost and involvement in politics was close to being non-existent – as long at it didn’t involve the shooting sports directly, the NRA generally had no problem with it.

    Oh yeah, quit. That’s going to make them change to what you want the organization to do.

    Considering that, I have to say that I think only a Lib would be so lacking in logic to think that not belonging to a particular organization would cause the organization to change course sooner than working to change from inside. Y’all are supposed to be Conservatives – use the brain God gave you.

  • robert1407

    I thought about joining the NRA to help preserve the right to bear arms, but the leaders of NRA has lost their way. One burning question I have is the support of Reid. Reid showed his true colors when he bribed two Senators to pass the Obama care, which covers many power takes overs, written by no one knows and all done in secret, plus no one has read. As far as I know it is still against the law to bribe Officials So why hasn’t Reid been impeached. Why is the NRA supporting criminals? I have ask this question over and over again and replies are still silent. NRA members need to get involved and throw their crooked leaders out with Reid.

  • soljerblue

    You’re trying to explain practical politics — on issues, not candidates — to some here for whom purity is the whole point. Up to and including going down in flames.

  • http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ cdhost

    – . If they are seen as swaying votes in a close election, where the candidate who wins may be good on gun rights but across the board destructive to a conservative agenda, the NRA will shoot themselves in the foot.

    The NRA has no obligation nor claim to support a conservative agenda. They are single issue lobbyists. They care about gun rights whether those rights advance or harm a conservative agenda.

  • http://www.leverettepost.blogspot sirjason

    I was a ‘life member’ of the NRA until…today! WTF is going on with these morons?

  • The_Gadfly

    Had to vote for “Cry Baby” for the first few years I moved down here. More recently I got to vote for Connie MoreRino. These days I just get to vote for whoever is running against Van Moron, I mean Hollen aka Nanny Pelosi’s minature attack poodle.

    Thankfully there was a short span of years when I got to vote for Roscoe up in MD-6. Not sure I’d still be sane without that break. … Okay, mostly sane.

  • remnant60

    making strides on taking back the GOP so should fellow NRA members work within the NRA to transform it to what we want.

    I can’t quit the NRA even though I agree that they’ve been doing some really stupid dance moves lately…as a licensed firearms instructor I have to keep my rating every 3 years or so by giving them $$$. But that’s all they’re gonna get from me besides the letter telling them why.

    Upthread someone made the comment that (paraphrasing) “You can’t expect an organization to change when you’re not part of it.”

    Doc, I really like your proposed changes to the weighting of candidates!

  • soljerblue

    except for this:

    “If the GOA membership increases by 20,000 it will make a big difference and the NRA will notice.”

    I just don’t think an organization of 4-million dues-paying members is going to pay less attention to them than to a splinter group of 20,000.

  • powertothepeople

    with the whole do not act like a lib thing. But let me point something out and it may cause you to see why so many are doing what they are doing.

    Company A for years keeps its actions in line with the majority of its membership. Due to this, membership grows and Company A is able to broaden its agenda and power.

    Said company begins to shift away from what the majority see as a proper course. Rank and file start complaining to the company, write letters, make phone calls, etc…….

    Now to the next scenario,

    Same exact lines except membership do not get results from the complain campaign. Members start to drop their membership, stop paying dues, change to competing company. Membership is company drops 10% and revenue drops the same or more since many would buy additional items from the company other than a membership.

    Company feels the loss and either makes the decision to get back to its original roots and support those who stand for the causes members feel is right or they ignore the loss and over time lose more until finally they do what is right or go under. No company is too big to fail, not even the NRA.

    Which do you think works the best, stopping at complaints even when they are ignored or taking away revenue from the company that it needs to further itself?

    Members most likely did sit on their laurels when they should not have and that allowed fringe leaders to take a hold in the company. In that you are correct. Are you are correct that the first course of action is filing complaints. But when that has been ignored for the most part like it has in the NRA, the choice on what to do gets narrowed down to staying with the organization regardless of its actions in hopes it will change or taking your support and money to a company that feels the same way you do. Some have chosen one way or the other, but the ones who left have forced the hand of the NRA leadership on some things and as more leave and show they will not put up with what is happening, more things will change.

    So in closing, if you do not understand that a mass exodus and a loss of revenue causes most responsible companies to change course, maybe you should use the brain God gave you. It is simple business 101. Already the NRA has changed course on some of the issues that have caused dissent. If people continue on the course of fighting back, they will change more. No company wants to lose a dollar in revenue much less more.

  • soljerblue

    all those NRA bashers who claim they’ve quit — where were you when some of us were working within the organization to correct the stuff y’all are complaining about?

    Picking up your marbles and going home?

    I don’t question your commitment to the 2A. What I question is the wisdom of dissing the only organization with enough clout to adequately defend it.

  • soljerblue

    simply Bravo Sierra

  • acat
  • Tbone

    No.

  • Tbone

    of the last 30+ years. It was fought over a period of years and without pro-gun Democrats support would have turned out far more onerous than it did. As such. it is an excellent example of the necessity of the NRA being able to work both sides of the aisle.

    Answer me this: If the NRA didn’t have influence with a good number of Democrats, do you think that onerous anti-gun legislation would have been passed by this most liberal and Democrat dominated Congress of the past two years?

  • Doc Holliday

    but let me be clear about what I am saying. I as saying that the GOA is much smaller than the NRA and if the GOA gets 20,000 new members, the NRA will see that GOA is growing much faster than it is. They will realize that they have turned off a lot of people and they will know why.

    All this without having to quit the NRA!

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    And the very idea that any person or group – single issue groups especially – that exists to support liberty, life or Constitutional issues like gun rights thinks for one minute that the Democratic Party is in any way, shape or form thier friend is absolutely dumb as a box of rocks. No, make that a box of rock. Two rocks have significantlly more IQ than any group who believes that.

    Individual Democrats will ONLY “vote their consience” when the Party has enough other votes to cover them. If 2A issues were a really high priority with Obama/Reid/Pelosi they would have introduced legislation and they would have had the votes.

    Anybody dumb enough to believe otherwise, please review the history of “pro-life” Democrats and pay specific attention to the language coming from the actual pro-life groups who’ve supported them over the years. ObamaCare was the wake up call for pro-life groups. It should have been the wake up call for 2A groups as well. If they are stupid and gullible enough to actually believe that Democrats will support 2A issues if the choice comes down to the Constitution or the Party, God help us. Because the Democrats won’t. And groups like the NRA won’t either.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    pro-life.

  • Tbone

    Why not? Anyone who thinks the anti-gun groups haven’t been pushing anti-gun legislation the last 2 years is dumb as a loose rock.(That’s one that can-t afford a box.)

    So, why hasn’t any anti-gun legislation come up?

  • chbroussard

    by those of you that were “working within the organization to correct the stuff ya’ll are complaining about?” I’m not trying to be contrary here. I’d just like to know if you’ve had any success regarding the complaints made in these posts.

    And by the way, I’m not picking up my marbles and going home. I’m just picking up my bullets and moving to a different firing range.

  • acat

    If I didn’t know better, I’d wonder if I wandered into a Dem town hall meeting.

    Mew

  • Tbone

    How have you missed it?

    See #s 2 & 3 above.

    What is so hard to understand about the concept of keeping one’s word if one is to have any credibility when one gives one’s word?

  • chbroussard
  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    or just plain stupid. Or, of course, both.

    “Pushing anti-gun legislation” is mental masturbation on your part. Anybody who even remotely pays attention to the legislative process would understand that the only legislation that matters is the legislation that the leadership wants acted on. They’ve got their priorities and 2A is currently low on the list. They spent their capital on ObamaCare, TARP, Dodd, etc.

    But I didn’t expect you’d note the obvious.

  • acat

    You keep beating these two dead horses – keeping their word, and gaining leverage, but you’re looking at only one piece of the puzzle.

    Let’s take gaining leverage first. What I’m seeing, though, is that the NRA choice to endorse a slate of candidates who are lying about their actual positions, and in some cases are going down to defeat, gains damn little leverage while costing organizational respect with nominal fellow travelers, and costing the NRA leadership leverage with their (dwindling) membership. It’s a losing proposition long-term for the NRA as they are less trusted on their key issues. A shakeup in leadership may help, but .. not necessarily.

    As for keeping their word, when did they give their word? As I think about it, that would be the actual “making an endorsement”, no? Did they promise to endorse earlier? Did they say “Yeah, you run, we’ll help you out” ? Because, if they did, then .. like I’ve also said before .. they’re playing by 2008 rules in a 2010 arena.

    All they had to do was to say “We do not endorse anybody”, just like they finally did in Reid vs. Angle. Of course, it took a clue-by-four upside their collective head…

    Mew

  • Tbone

    sound like gibberish to you. Bless your heart.

  • Tbone

    because they know they don’t have the votes to pass anti-gun legislation. The reason they don’t have the votes is because of the NRA.

    Now, at least you are no longer ignorant of that fact. This is an important first step for you. I will be waiting for you at the end of your 1,000 miles.

  • acat

    When you’re wrong, instead of admitting it, you resort to insults.

    Have you considered running for congress? You’d fit right in….

    Mew

  • Tbone

    into voting for me. :-)

  • acat

    just steal those of ten of my dead relatives.

    Mew

    p.s. and the NRA may even endorse you…