Michigan 7th District


PDA






Barbara
July 19, 2006, 11:37 PM
The NRA-ILA just endorsed Joe Schwarz. This is insane.

He voted against CPL, voted against Vear, told me personally no one in Wayne County needed to carry a gun, and stood in front of our Jackson group 2 years ago and told them he supported the AWB.

His "legacy" as they call it includes the 2 pro-gun votes he's made: Voting for gun ownership in DC (that was a safe bet to lose!) and the manufacturer's protection bill.

I know, politics, etc.. but Tim Walberg is a former state Representative and is 100% solidly proven pro-2nd Amendment.

http://www.walbergforcongress.com/

Schwarz called us "Bubba's with a 9 mm." and said, literally he "didn't give ****" about the votes of gun owners.

If you enjoyed reading about "Michigan 7th District" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Barbara
July 19, 2006, 11:40 PM
Wrong thread. :)

Sheldon J
July 19, 2006, 11:42 PM
And he said he did support the re instatement of the Clinton gun ban, did not feel that CCW was a good idea, but profesed to pro gun what a crock:fire:

Barbara
July 19, 2006, 11:48 PM
That the one two years ago?

I was there..arrive towards the end. I was so mad by the time I left, I was fuming.

Pro-gun legacy. Pfft.

FJC
July 20, 2006, 12:01 PM
Did anyone make NRA-ILA aware of this? Did they give any reasoning behind endorsing him?

Barbara
July 20, 2006, 01:13 PM
They know.

hoghunting
July 20, 2006, 03:24 PM
I had a problem with the NRA-ILA a few years back about giving money to one of our TX reps who voted mostly anti-gun. Their response was that they base their decisions on recommendations and donations according to a questionaire that the candidates fill out. The persons voting record doesn't mean a thing to the NRA-ILA, it's how a survey is answered. Obviously, the NRA has not changed anything to correct this.

Father Knows Best
July 20, 2006, 04:00 PM
I had a problem with the NRA-ILA a few years back about giving money to one of our TX reps who voted mostly anti-gun. Their response was that they base their decisions on recommendations and donations according to a questionaire that the candidates fill out. The persons voting record doesn't mean a thing to the NRA-ILA, it's how a survey is answered.

I don't believe that for one minute. NRA (including ILA) is much smarter than that. They watch actual voting patterns, committee involvement, amendments offered, etc., very closely.

If NRA is supporting a candidate that we don't view as being very pro-gun, they have a reason for it. We may never know the reason, but I can speculate. There are lots of backroom deals made in Washington. There may well be other politicians that the NRA wants to stay close with, and who want this guy re-elected. Those politicians tell the NRA to support this guy, despite his less-than-stellar record, if the NRA wants their continued support. If the NRA believes that not supporting the guy would result in an even worse guy getting elected, what do they have to lose?

ilbob
July 20, 2006, 05:59 PM
yep. politics is not always straightforward, and the NRA plays the game as well as any lobby in town.

I often wonder at the grades they give politicians. there does seem to be a definite bias toward incumbents. I guess they figure better the devil you know....

Barbara
July 20, 2006, 06:29 PM
As long as in incumbent votes pro-gun during their last term, the NRA will usually give them the endorsement. I don't usually slam the NRA but this is a horrible choice. The opponent is a former State Rep who is 100% pro-gun. He and I disagree on some other issues, but as far as guns go, Walberg is the candidate that should be endorsed.

Schwartz. Gack.
http://www.walbergforcongress.com/

Sheldon J
July 20, 2006, 09:38 PM
Barb:
Yep that one it was the one when he was first running for office, he won the primary and the Democrat was not a good alternative either, N the off party had a showballs chance.:barf:

Barbara
July 21, 2006, 12:10 AM
I voted for the Dem that election. At least she was pro-gun.

hoghunting
July 21, 2006, 02:17 AM
I don't believe that for one minute. NRA (including ILA) is much smarter than that. They watch actual voting patterns, committee involvement, amendments offered, etc., very closely.


You might not believe it, but it took 6 calls to different people in ILA before someone would answer my question. That was their response. That is the reason I let my NRA membership die. I still sent them money each year and contribute to the NRA programs with Brownells and Midway because they are the main lobby organization, but I am not interested in a membership.

I went to one of W. LaPierre's book signings before this happened and he was telling all of us to call him if we see a problem with the NRA. I tried doing that at least a dozen times and his people will not let you speak to him. They will take a message, but either he does not respond or he never receives the message.

If you still don't believe this, then call ILA and see what response you get!

Father Knows Best
July 21, 2006, 09:50 AM
Just because you can't get someone to tell you what they're thinking doesn't mean they don't have a good reason. They have very good reasons for not discussing the rationale behind a lot of their political strategy -- it will be used against them. That applies in lots of other contexts, too.

As for not being able to speak to Wayne, well, the NRA has hundreds of thousands of members, many of whom are quite passionate about the subject and have lots of time on their hands. If he actually took phone calls personally, he wouldn't have time to do anything else (or even eat, sleep or poop, for that matter). Like any other large organization, the NRA has phone banks of staffers who take calls from members and listen to their concerns. Reports are compiled periodically summarizing those calls, and I bet Wayne gets them. I wouldn't be surprised to find out there are thousands of calls per month, summarized in a couple of pages with statistics showing the items of greatest concern to callers.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't think the NRA is perfect. There are things I wish they would do differently. The NRA is still one of the most sophisticated and effective lobbying organizations in America. They know how to play the game, and they play it very effectively. That's a big part of the reason why you hear the left complaining about it all the time. If the NRA wasn't so effective, the left wouldn't complain about it so incessantly.

The game of politics is more like chess than checkers. You and I can stand and watch, and have no idea why the grand master did something that appears patently stupid, like moving his rook into a space where it would be taken by the opponent. The grand master, however, is thinking and planning 20 to 30 moves ahead. He anticipates how his opponent will respond to every move, and executes sophisticated strategies designed to keep his King alive and protected and create opportunity for attack. When he sacrifices a piece, it's because he has determined that it is necessary to satisfy the long term objective. He can't tell you and I what his plan is, however,, because his opponent would overhear the conversation and use it against him.

Ryder
July 21, 2006, 10:05 AM
what do they have to lose?

They lose integrity and members.

hoghunting
July 21, 2006, 12:44 PM
Barbara,
I didn't mean to hijack your thread so I will make a last response.


As for not being able to speak to Wayne, well, the NRA has hundreds of thousands of members, many of whom are quite passionate about the subject and have lots of time on their hands. If he actually took phone calls personally, he wouldn't have time to do anything else

I agree with you, but he should not be telling people to call him if he has no intention of talking to them.

I have a problem with any company or corporation that will tell me that what a person did in the past doesn't matter as long as he/she give the right answers in a questionaire. If they are feeding me a line, then at least get a better line.

Sergeant Bob
July 21, 2006, 03:13 PM
http://www.schwarzforcongress.com/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=0&alias=IRIS&lang=en&ItemID=179&mid=96

Schwarz campaign files FEC complaint against Walberg

Looks like the smear campaign has begun.

SteveS
July 21, 2006, 03:47 PM
I am aware of his anti past, but is it possible he has changed?

Barbara
July 22, 2006, 05:05 PM
I don't think so.

This is an email from David Coy, NRA Director.


Yes - Mr. Schwarz was endorsed in the last day or so by NRA-ILA. Again, an endorsement is different than a grade.

There have been a number of comments and inquiries made of me regarding this. The following, which I sent to another list, responds to most of them.

My personal support for Tim Walberg is unchanged. I stand by my personal (and I emphasize, personal) endorsement of Tim. I speak only for myself.

David Coy

----- Original Message -----
From: David Coy
To: MCGO@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [MCGO] Dave B's reaction ??


I think you mean me, Dave C(oy).

I'm certain that NRA-ILA has considered their decision very carefully. They are highly professional, and they do not do things rashly. They do a fine job (miraculous work, against incredible odds, in many cases). I greatly respect NRA-ILA and all of their personnel. They have my complete confidence. I'm glad we have them, and I shudder to think where our gun rights would be without them.

With this said, my personal support for Tim Walberg is unwavering, and I stand by my personal endorsement of his candidacy.

I know Tim personally. Walberg is an NRA Life Member, an avid hunter and a shooter. It is a part of his lifestyle, and not an affectation or posture assumed merely to get votes. In the video on his website, www.walbergforcongress.com, that is one of his personal shotguns, and he wears his own hunting coat. The golden lab in the video is his hunting dog, who will greet you when you pull into Tim's driveway (as the dog did earlier this week with me when I stopped by Tim's house).

Tim was a staunch supporter of the RTKABA, especially concealed carry, during his 14 years in the Michigan House. He had an A Plus rating from NRA-ILA for all of these years, which, in my experience, is not something NRA-ILA hands out casually.

I still personally believe Tim Walberg will be a superior advocate for RTKABA, upon comparison with Mr. Schwarz. I am mindful of Mr. Schwarz's excellent pro-gun voting record since he went to DC. However, on a personal basis, I can't get past the fact that he voted against concealed carry in the when he was in the Michigan legislature, and I can't forget all of the unkind things Mr. Schwarz said about those of us who want to carry a sidearm for personal defense. In contrast, and in the face of tremendous pressure from Governor Engler and Republican Leadership, Tim never wavered in support of concealed carry. I do not personally believe Mr. Schwarz has the same visceral and intensely personal courage of conviction regarding RTKABA that Tim Walberg does.

I have balloted already, via absentee ballot, as I will be at the Grand American Trapshoot in Sparta, IL, on primary day, Tuesday, August 8. My personal vote was for Tim Walberg.

I specifically note that these are my own personal opinions and representations. I am solely responsible for them. I speak only for myself.

David Coy

Dan from MI
July 22, 2006, 06:19 PM
I should mention that there are very good reasons why SAFR endorsed Walberg and gave Schwarz an unacceptable rating. Both candidates earned what they got.

I'm an NRA EPL member. The decision by PVF shows me that they are either ignorant, have short memories, play political games, or all of the above. :fire:

Tim Walberg for Congress!!!

MishMash
July 24, 2006, 11:04 PM
Go, Tim, Go!

Dan from MI
August 1, 2006, 11:10 PM
bump

Brett Bellmore
August 1, 2006, 11:42 PM
Ever heard, "If you try to kill the king, you'd best succeed."? Or that you shouldn't wound a bear?

The NRA ballances the odds, as they see them, of actually unseating an anti-gun incumbant, against the probality that they'll unsuccessfully oppose him, and in the process turn him from generally anti-gun to a dedicated, blood in his eyes enemy out to do everything possible to hurt us.

Schwartz is anti-gun. But it's not the animating cause of his life. They probably think that if we try to defeat him, and fail, it WILL be. I can't say this is irrational, even if I still think it's a bad policy.

Not the least because it involves lying to us about who is and isn't anti-gun.

Reedo
August 2, 2006, 12:37 PM
I find this post somewhat funny. I go to school with one of the guys who works pretty high up on Schwarz staff. I also go to school in the 7th district and have met the congressman several times. The reason that I find this funny is because I had this same arguement with the guy I know and was fed the same line of bs you guys are talking about. The truth is that Joe Schwarz is one of the most liberal Republican reps around. But regardless I have to agree with the above setiment that the NRA knows what its doing when it comes to playing political games. I work in MI state politics and it would shock most people to see all the behind the scenes dealing and wheeling. That is just part of our political system. So vote for his opponet but understand that by endorsing Schwarz the NRA may have gained ground somewhere else.

Barbara
August 2, 2006, 11:16 PM
Pfft. Schwarz isn't fooling anyone. He's not pro-gun, he's pro-Joe, and having met the man myself on several occasions and heard his opinions on who should and should not own guns.

I also understand the politics involved, very well, but regardless of the NRA's decision in this case, I will not vote for Schwarz, I will not support him in any way, and will actively support his opponent, a man I also know and know to be 100% supportive of the 2nd Amendment.

Barbara
August 2, 2006, 11:19 PM
And trust me, this is not a popular endorsement among NRA officials, either. The directors I know personally both opposed this endorsement.

Reedo
August 3, 2006, 12:15 AM
Oh I definetly believe you when you say that this has not been a popular endorsement nor should it be. I am also very glad to hear that you are a supporter of his opponet, and I hope you are able to help him gain supporters in your area. My post was not meant to make excuses for the NRA or Schwarz, I hope that we can replace Schwarz with someone who will stand firm and fight for 2nd amendment rights.

SteveS
August 3, 2006, 10:36 AM
Who are the Dems going to put of against Schwartz or Wahlberg? Is Schwartz the lesser of two evils?

Barbara
August 3, 2006, 12:56 PM
Sharon Renier. Granola-crunchy liberal organic farmer but 100% pro-gun and won the Democratic primary last time. We endorsed her in the Democratic primary. I expect she'll win this time, as well.

If my choice is Schwarz or Renier, I'm voting for Renier again. She's at least somewhat fiscally conservative and pro-gun, unlike Schwarz.

Fred Strack. Don't know much about him but we rated his survey unacceptable.

Chuck Ream. Acceptable survey.

None of them have a chance against either Schwarz or Walberg in the 7th.

www.safrpac.org is the information we have on any of the candidates, including links to their own websites.

Dan from MI
August 8, 2006, 07:11 PM
BUMP - I voted today.

Although I'm in MI-8, not 7.

Barbara
August 8, 2006, 10:08 PM
Me, too. Voted for Walberg. I think we had a great turnout..the parking lot was full at 5:30.

Barbara
August 8, 2006, 10:57 PM
http://web.wxyz.com/vote2006/electionresults-ushouse.html

As of right now:

U. S. House District 7
Tim Walberg 7,495 62%
Joe Schwarz 4,678 38%
19% reporting

Barbara
August 9, 2006, 08:00 AM
Walberg won! Smeared him!

Woohoo!

Sleeping Dog
August 9, 2006, 08:46 AM
On the radio this morning, there was talk (speculation) about Joe Schwarz being picked up on the Rep ticket running for Lt Governor.

So maybe the Republicans DO recycle the trash.

Anyway, good win for Walberg.

Regards.

Barbara
August 9, 2006, 08:52 AM
I'm not sure..I would be surprised. He was soundly defeated as an incumbent..if Michigan wanted him, he'd be there.

So far as I know, the only connection between the two candidates is that they share a press guy.

Henry Bowman
August 9, 2006, 12:36 PM
Good work, Barbara! Well done.

Dan from MI
August 10, 2006, 10:39 PM
I'm glad SAFR and GOA stepped up and did the right thing in endorsing Walberg. Thumbs up to them

While MCRGO and NRA both played games....and lost. :neener:

Barbara
August 10, 2006, 10:57 PM
Doh! Now Dan is going to know I'm goofing off on THR instead of doing election results like I'm supposed to be! :neener:

Michigander
August 11, 2006, 08:55 AM
Once again, and now forever, I am not renewing my NRA membership!

ilbob
August 11, 2006, 10:26 AM
Once again, and now forever, I am not renewing my NRA membership!

I have some issues with the NRA/ILA and the way it both ranks and endorses politicians. I also have major issues with the way they have suborned most of the state affiliate organizations.

Having said that, the NRA itself is a good organization. They run a multitude of competitive, educational, and training activities the scope of which you can't even begin to imagine. All on a shoestring budget.

If you want to influence how they NRA/ILA behaves, your best bet is as a member. It is like politics. You have zero influence if you are not involved. There are those who refuse to vote for any candidate because they are imperfect and either don't bother to vote or waste it on some guy who at best will get 2 or 3 %.

You want to change things, you do it from the inside out. Don't like the current politicians? Guess what? Whining about it on the Internet won't change anything one whit. If you volunteer for your local political organization(s) you can learn how things work and work to change things more to your liking.

Same thing with the NRA/ILA. I don't expect they will ever be quite the no-nonsense political organization some people think they want. Despite how we might want it to be, politics is not about getting everything we want. it is about getting what we can, and building for a future where we get what we want now in ten years.

If you want to go toe to toe on gun issues, join the GOA. See how effective they are (not).

You want to scare the politicians? Get involved with serious local grass roots organizations. Those are the guys with clout because they can and do turn elections for local and state politicians, including congressmen and US senators. And those are the elections that really count. National organizations mostly fail when they try to put pressure on local and state candidates at the ballot box.

Michigander
August 21, 2006, 11:20 AM
If you want to influence how they NRA/ILA behaves, your best bet is as a member.

No, I do not want to influence how they behave. Not any more.

Brett Bellmore
August 21, 2006, 07:32 PM
If you want to influence how they NRA/ILA behaves, your best bet is as a member.

Yeah, it's your best bet. Just remember that the odds are better in the Powerball lottery. LaPierre and company have pretty much killed off internal democracy within the NRA, in the process of fighting off the challenge from Knox.

If you enjoyed reading about "Michigan 7th District" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!