Welcome to TheOhioOutdoors
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Login or sign up today!
Login / Join

Will the NRA stop the GOP from taking the House?

Ohiosam

*Supporting Member*
9,714
3,111
136
Mahoning Co.
#1
NRA may stop GOP from taking the House?
By: Matthew Sheffield
Washington Examiner
10/05/10 5:25 PM EDT

Ever since the middle of Bill Clinton’s second term, the highest-profile issue that the American left has been unable to push in any major way has been gun regulations. That’s remarkable considering that during this time, Democrats have held the presidency for about four years and Democrats have had the presidency and the Congress for two.

Credit for some of this has to go to the National Rifle Association which has built up a powerful lobbying force and also been more than happy to endorse candidates who are Democrats but in favor of gun rights.

That position has rankled some conservatives over the years but especially so this year with Republicans hoping to retake the House and depose such liberal stalwarts as Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada). The NRA’s bipartisan stance is potentially harming those hopes as it’s endorsed 39 Democratic candidates in the House as blogger Daniel Horowitz notes:

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.

As you might expect, the NRA has a response to these charges. National Review’s Jim Geraghty interviewed the group’s executive director for Legislative Action, Chris Cox, and asked him about this subject:

The political reality is that we have President Obama, who had at one point 60 Democratic votes in the Senate and a 39-vote margin in the House. If it weren’t for our pro-gun Democrats, we would be having a very different conversation. To not only have no bad legislation pass, we’ve gained ground despite those very real and very challenging numbers, [which] probably makes us one of the few right-of-center groups to have victories during this period. [...]

We are a non-partisan organization, and we don’t base any grade or any endorsement on a party affiliation. That’s how we have continued to succeed, by solely considering how a candidate stands on the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. We send out candidate questionnaires to every candidate, and we look at public statements and the things they say in debates. We focus solely on the right to keep and bear arms, because that’s our issue. Now, there are a lot of other issues that voters have to address, particularly in a year like this; they’re looking at fiscal issues, they’re looking at the health-care issue.

We encourage our members to put it in the forefront of their decision-making, and that’s proven to be a very effective, a very fair, and credible way for NRA to be positioned to help the rights of our members.

Sometimes it can get a little more difficult from a political standpoint because we have a very incumbent-friendly policy. Our commitment is applied regardless of party, whether it’s Congress or the state legislature. It’s important for us to stand with those who stood with us.

Senator Reid has been very helpful on some longstanding, important issues. But President Obama made two Supreme Court picks who are anti–Second Amendment, and the two recent victories for gun owners at the Supreme Court were 5–4 decisions. So it is critical that we have Supreme Court justices that respect the Second Amendment. We were very disappointed not only with Obama’s picks, but with the lawmakers who voted to confirm them. We said at the time those votes would be important to gun owners and would be considered when making these decisions.
We do not take non–Second Amendment related issues into account. I may feel very strongly about health care, taxes, but that isn’t what I’m supposed to bring to this decision. But most of these decisions are pretty easy when you apply the longstanding policies that we have in place.

It would be interesting to see to what degree NRA critics are upset by the bipartisan strategy generally or whether it’s more about specific objections. Does an NRA endorsement actually mean that much? All questions that might be answered next month.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...taking-the-house-104370898.html#ixzz11aykuKEo
 

RRJJ

Removed by Request.
14,062
3
0
#3
I don't care for the NRA, I would rather support Gun Owners of America, however, how can one blame the NRA for their endorsement? They are a single issue organization whose mission is to promote the 2nd Amendment. Why is it their fault that their are those in the GOP, who is typically thought to be the party of 2nd Amendment advocacy, who have been downright anti-2nd Amendment? We should thank the NRA (as much as it pains me) for bringing to light to the voters that the GOP can't be thought of as pro-2nd Amendment. It's also up to the voters to realize that they are a single issue organization and that their endorsement should be taken into consideration when considering the candidate, but should, in no uncertain terms, be the end-all consideration to earn the electorate's vote.

It should be noted, that in this case, the Left seems to have their ears open to the voice of the voters, while there are those on the Right who have been pushing for gun control, or worse, not attempting to RESTORE the 2nd Amendment.
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
32,186
11,130
201
#4
I don't care for the NRA, I would rather support Gun Owners of America, however, how can one blame the NRA for their endorsement? They are a single issue organization whose mission is to promote the 2nd Amendment. Why is it their fault that their are those in the GOP, who is typically thought to be the party of 2nd Amendment advocacy, who have been downright anti-2nd Amendment? We should thank the NRA (as much as it pains me) for bringing to light to the voters that the GOP can't be thought of as pro-2nd Amendment. It's also up to the voters to realize that they are a single issue organization and that their endorsement should be taken into consideration when considering the candidate,but should, in no uncertain terms, be the end-all consideration to earn the electorate's vote.

It should be noted, that in this case, the Left seems to have their ears open to the voice of the voters, while there are those on the Right who have been pushing for gun control, or worse, not attempting to RESTORE the 2nd Amendment.

This would be fine if the sheep at large were smart enough to understand that.. You know as well as I do how stupid people are. Especially with elections. The, NRA And BFA has IMO fucked all of us economically, tax wise, and policy wise.. All just to just get their name out there and show that they did something. All the while hiding under the guise of "We're a single issue PAC".. Look at the Mailers and ads suckland is sending.. Nothing about his shit record on state spending. Nothing about his tax policy.. Nothing about his job destroying ways.. Every one i have gotten has NRA endorsed and BFA endorsed plastered across it. It didn't do crap but give a bad politician a stump to stand on.. If the Nra just had to endorse someone why not Bubba who might only get 20 votes but he doesn't have a history of running a state into the ground and is still PRO 2nd amendment.
 

RRJJ

Removed by Request.
14,062
3
0
#5
That is also my issue with them and we're both right - they refuse to endorse the third party candidate. The Libertarian candidate for Ohio governor, Ken Matesz, should have won the endorsement, however, had Kasich not voted for the CAWB, and then not voted against the repeal of the same ban, he undoubtedly would have won the endorsement as he is a member of a major party - which PACS take into consideration when endorsing; they want to endorse the candidate with the best chance of winning. This, however, should not deflect us from the real point which is that the GOP is full of RINOs and not full of red blooded, hard working, conservative Americans. It's simple to see that the major parties no longer represent the people. Along the way we have elected bums to represent us on Capitol Hill - this trend must be reversed by electing citizen politicians. The status quo must be disrupted if we desire to rescue our beloved America.
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
32,186
11,130
201
#6
that is also my issue with them and we're both right - they refuse to endorse the third party candidate. The libertarian candidate for ohio governor, ken matesz, should have won the endorsement, however, had kasich not voted for the cawb, and then not voted against the repeal of the same ban, he undoubtedly would have won the endorsement as he is a member of a major party - which pacs take into consideration when endorsing; they want to endorse the candidate with the best chance of winning. This, however, should not deflect us from the real point which is that the gop is full of rinos and not full of red blooded, hard working, conservative americans. It's simple to see that the major parties no longer represent the people. Along the way we have elected bums to represent us on capitol hill - this trend must be reversed by electing citizen politicians. The status quo must be disrupted if we desire to rescue our beloved america.
Hear Hear!
 

rrr

Senior Member
5,065
0
0
#7
The NRA is doing what it's designed to do and limiting it's scope to just that. Imagine how well off we'd be if Congress did that.
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
32,186
11,130
201
#8
The NRA is doing what it's designed to do and limiting it's scope to just that. Imagine how well off we'd be if Congress did that.
If that were so, we wouldn't need the NRA to endorse pro tax, pro socialism, pro big government, Anti Big Business retards who happen to be "Pro-gun"
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
32,186
11,130
201
#9
If that were so, we wouldn't need the NRA to endorse pro tax, pro socialism, pro big government, Anti Big Business retards who happen to be "Pro-gun"
Here is the way I see it... The NRA is endorsing a candidate who's policies I agree with less than 10% of the time. Therefore are by default endorsing the other 90% of that candidates policies that i don't agree with.. Our business endeavor is no longer mutual. As a result I will send the NRA only 10% of my yearly Dues and ILA contributions. I will then find a conservative political candidate and send him the other 90%. They can endorse a candidate on a single issue. I will simply pay them for the portion of the endorsement i see due cause for.
 

Ohiosam

*Supporting Member*
9,714
3,111
136
Mahoning Co.
#10
If the NRA doesn't endorse pro gun democrats why should a democrat ever listen to our side of the issue or work for our vote? I support the NRA's general position on this, their job is to protect our 2A rights. Let other groups worry about abortion, trade, education, SS, labor, health care, civil rights, unemployment, stem cell research, gay marriage, fairness on the net, space travel, food and drugs, mosques in NYC, starting new parties, etc. etc. etc.
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
32,186
11,130
201
#11
If the NRA doesn't endorse pro gun democrats why should a democrat ever listen to our side of the issue or work for our vote? I support the NRA's general position on this, their job is to protect our 2A rights. Let other groups worry about abortion, trade, education, SS, labor, health care, civil rights, unemployment, stem cell research, gay marriage, fairness on the net, space travel, food and drugs, mosques in NYC, starting new parties, etc. etc. etc.
The mainstream dems have learned their lesson about going after guns. It's political suicide. the clinton congressional election is still too fresh a red mark on their ass that still stings. It's party suicide today. They wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. The same as most Repubs will never go after abortion. In today's political climate with the most leftist socialist president in history. Going after gun rights is the LAST thing they want to do. As a matter of fact he hasn't lifted a finger to stop some of the greatest victories for the 2nd amendment that there is. Our guns are not in danger right now. However our very American fabric and foundation that made this country great is... Big government, high deficits, growing tax burdens, and government takeover of private industry which is by definition communism. THAT is the greatest threat against America right now. And the NRA is going to endorse someone who whole heatedly believes and participated in that on the simple basis that he's pro gun... That's like me saying I endorse the taliban as a religious group, but not terrorism. Such is the reasons the NRA just needed to keep their dog out of this fight.
 

Ohiosam

*Supporting Member*
9,714
3,111
136
Mahoning Co.
#12
The MAIN reason guns are suicide for Dems was because of the NRA's strength in delivering and taking away votes. Politician's memories are very short, if someone doesn't keep pressure on them with punishment and rewards they will just do what suits them at the moment.

I'm tired of friggin rhinos like Taft, Dewine, Voinovich et al who think because they have an "R" after their name we conservative Ohioans should automatically support them.
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
32,186
11,130
201
#13
The MAIN reason guns are suicide for Dems was because of the NRA's strength in delivering and taking away votes. Politician's memories are very short, if someone doesn't keep pressure on them with punishment and rewards they will just do what suits them at the moment.

I'm tired of friggin rhinos like Taft, Dewine, Voinovich et al who think because they have an "R" after their name we conservative Ohioans should automatically support them.
You are correct about the rhinos. You are also correct about the reason they are scared to touch the issue.

However now is not the time, nor the need. Hence keep their mouth shut and their dog out of this fight. I'm beginning to look at the NRA as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Neither of them want the race issues to go away. It's the only reason they exist, without it they are nothing.. Hence the reason the NRA is pissing in the cheerios now. Stir the pot.. Their classic base has slacked off with donations in this economy and political climate. It's the last worry on their mind amidst this political takeover of America. The NRA might as well whore themselves out there for a candidate and see if they can pick up some money from the other side of the fence.

The BFA folowed suit.. I would too if the NRA realized they fugged up and pissed off their base. They figure local support will offer reassurance to the base.. It doesn't hurt that the BFA also has a representative trying to get on the board at the NRA.

The NRA is feast or famine. Let a gun bill pop up that people get shaken about and their NRA-ILA contributions will go up 300% overnight. Right now though it is of little worry to the majority of Americans. Hence the reason we can find ammo again and AR prices ar at a low. Nope. People care about their job, their health care, their retirement, and their house. THAT. is important. Not that the NRA endorsed some panty waste of a politician because he is pro 2nd amendment.. Like I said the NRA supporting Strickland is like me saying "I endorse the taliban as a religious group, but not terrorism." If I thought that way, 2001 would have been the year i needed to keep that to myself. Well, 2010 is the year the NRA needed to shut their yap.
 

Ohiosam

*Supporting Member*
9,714
3,111
136
Mahoning Co.
#14
If the NRA and BFA endorsements don't matter and it's just a ploy to get more $$ of those on the other side of the aisle you can relax and not get all worked up about it.

The biggest issue I have with supporting folks like Reid (from strictly a 2A view) is that Reid has supported some very anti-gun SCOTUS nominations. I haven't heard a good explanation from the NRA about that.
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
32,186
11,130
201
#15
If the NRA and BFA endorsements don't matter and it's just a ploy to get more $$ of those on the other side of the aisle you can relax and not get all worked up about it.

The biggest issue I have with supporting folks like Reid (from strictly a 2A view) is that Reid has supported some very anti-gun SCOTUS nominations. I haven't heard a good explanation from the NRA about that.
That's what I said in less colorful words. LOL...

jackalope said:
Their classic base has slacked off with donations in this economy and political climate. It's the last worry on their mind amidst this political takeover of America. The NRA might as well whore themselves out there for a candidate and see if they can pick up some money from the other side of the fence.