***, NRA endorsed a D for congress in my district


PDA






orangelo
October 19, 2006, 08:53 PM
After about 10 pages of dire warnings about giving control of congress and especially speaker of the house, chairman of ways and means, and judiciary committees to gun grabbers, they go on the ratings page to endorse a 'Rat???

In Tom Delay's old district both the R and D candidates have A ratings but they highlighted the donkey.

Won't voting for even an A rated democrat give more power to the likes of kennedy, schumer, pelosi, boxer, feinstein, kerry, and the other scum?

Get your messages straight NRA.

If you enjoyed reading about "***, NRA endorsed a D for congress in my district" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Helmetcase
October 19, 2006, 08:54 PM
From talking personally to the NRA powers that be around here, I gather they're actively trying to avoid the NRA = GOP only image. Especially since that's not really true any more...

If donkeys come out pro gun...and we punish them for doing it, good luck getting others to do the same. The reality you're going to have to accept is that once in a while, like say from the Kennedy Administration to the Clinton one, yeah, once in a while Dems are going to be in power just like the Repubs are now. Fomenting pro gun sentiment in the blue party, given the inevitability of them coming to power here and there, makes sense.

Putting all our eggs in the GOP basket is a BAD idea. If nothing else, competition from the Dems makes the GOP guys be even MORE pro gun than they might otherwise be.

Nitrogen
October 19, 2006, 08:57 PM
Think about your argument for a second:

Will a democrat that's PRO-RKBA vote for an ANTI-RKBA bill?

Just because they are democrats doesnt make them evil. Sure, Fienstien and Kennedy and their ilk need to go, but I'm pretty sure that democrats won't let their leadership [what leadership!?] steamroller them into voting for an anti-rkba bill that they don't believe in.

It's just this sense of individualism that has kept the democratic party out of power since '94.

I wouldn't sweat it.

orangelo
October 19, 2006, 09:01 PM
There is more to Congress than just raw vote numbers. The majority party gets to select chairmen of the major committees. A (pro-gun) bill could go into a committee and disappear never to be heard of again.

Without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate that gas bag kennedy could stand there and bloviate all week to kill any progun bill or Originalist SCOTUS candidate that comes along.

Even if an individual representative isn't anti-gun he could still help put grabbers like Conyers onto important committees.

hso
October 19, 2006, 09:12 PM
The essential goal is to get members of both elected that understand that their continued "service" is dependent upon the support of gunowners.

Turning the Democrats over to the antigun folks guarantees that we'll eventually loose again when the inevitable swing back to Democrat control comes.

Finch
October 19, 2006, 10:40 PM
The only thing I fear is the typical "vote along your party" mentality that is far top common among are elected critters. Sure, when a Democrat fills out his cute NRA survey, he may claim and even feel that gun rights are important, but when the pressure from the rest of the party comes down on him, caving is expected.

I thinks it's great that more Dems are publicly supporting gun rights, but it's the votes the matter. Just make sure they are not apart of the Soros/Hillary clan.

Joe Demko
October 19, 2006, 10:53 PM
The essential goal is to get members of both elected that understand that their continued "service" is dependent upon the support of gunowners.

Quite so. The R Party has been allowed to caost far too long on the "where else are they gonna go?" principle when it comes to gun owners. Other than guns, to which they pay little more than lip service, the R Party as it presently stands represents very little with which I agree. The D Party is no better. When both parties are completely clear that they have no guaranteed blocks of voters based on a single isolated issue, we'll all be the better for it.

Lone_Gunman
October 19, 2006, 11:01 PM
Sure, when a Democrat fills out his cute NRA survey, he may claim and even feel that gun rights are important, but when the pressure from the rest of the party comes down on him, caving is expected.


I don't think the NRA will "endorse" a candidate unless they have a proven pro-gun record. They will give you a rating (A,B,C,D,F) based on how you answer their survey, but an endorsement is another matter.

In my congressional district, the Democratic and Republican candidates are "A" Rated, but they Democrat got the endorsement because he has a proven record.

FTF
October 19, 2006, 11:25 PM
I'm pretty sure they are on the right track... as long as you are voting along the single issue lines like me.

I disagree with Democrats on many fundamental issues, but as a single issue voter, I would pick a Democrap with an A rating (and not just based on the survey) over a Republican with a C or D any day of the week. The more we encourage to turn the better, IMHO. I'm done blindly trusting the GOP.

gunsmith
October 20, 2006, 04:01 AM
fer instance, Bill Richardson D NM is far, far better then John McCain or guilianni

it's RIFLE not REPUBLICAN association.

Frog48
October 20, 2006, 04:16 AM
Alot of Dems in Texas are throwbacks to the days of the "Dixiecrats" and "Yellow Dogs". Alot of southern Democrats are more conservative than northern Republicans.

Edit: "Yellow Dogs" prefer to be called "Blue Dogs" nowadays.

Norton
October 20, 2006, 05:18 AM
I have no problems with the NRA endorsing Dems. For those of us in places like MD, having pro-2nd legislators is a necessity.

I have a bigger problem with the fact that the NRA allows the personal grudges of their local representatives to affect the ratings and endorsements. In MD, the NRA gave a "C" rating on the website to the GOA's #1 pro-gun legislator and failed to endorse him in spite of his steadfast support for all RKBA efforts for the entire time that he's been in office.

What they fail to mention is that this same legislator defeated the NRA rep's father for office 4 years ago and this same rep has been attacking him the entire time :banghead:

Kaylee
October 20, 2006, 07:40 AM
So long as he's better than his opposition on the issue -- great! I'm glad some Ds are looking for the endorsement now. Great sign of progress.

Now what the NRA endorses vs. what I'll vote is different. I'll take someone who's acceptable on guns but also acceptable on taxes, jihad, etc over a guy who's A++ on guns but otherwise nutsy. We have a couple of those endorsed Dems in TN to -- gotta take a look and see what all they say.

mec
October 20, 2006, 07:49 AM
we have a bullet proof democrat representative here- Chet Edwards. He always gives lip service to 2A. When the assault weapons ban squeeked by Chet had been advised by the Party that he could vote against it if it had a majority. ( He did vote against the Brady thing that passed a few months before. When the time ran out, it was one or two votes short and Speaker Foley held the gavel. It was a signal to Chet and possibly one other to come to the aid of his party and he voted for the awb.

NRA rated him either an F or a D- for a while but I notice that he is now up to a B.

BobTheTomato
October 20, 2006, 07:53 AM
I think the thing to do is no matter who is elected (assuming they get a good NRA grade) is write them and say, "I voted for you due to your NRA rating. I hope you maintain a high rating with them so I can continue to support you." Encourage others to do so. If they know voters are looking at the NRA endorsements they will want to maintain that good grade.

RealGun
October 20, 2006, 09:12 AM
Yeah well, there are ZERO pro-gun Democratic Senators (GOA graded B or better), and don't forget it. If you think one of them is going to stand separate just on the RKBA issue, dream on. The House is far more promising with at least 13 well rated Democrats already, but consider how small a percentage that really is.

ilbob
October 20, 2006, 09:25 AM
If a pro-gun democrat is really pro-gun, then by all means feel free to vote for him or her.

we need pro-gun democrats in both houses. Just a few pro-gun democratic senators would make a huge difference.

But if what we get are people that vote the party line instead of their supposed pro-gun positions, than vote for a mediocre republican every time.

One thing you will notice about the deomcratic party. They are much better able to enforce party discipline then the republicans are. Republican legislators are much more likely to vote against the party leadership.

Sistema1927
October 20, 2006, 09:40 AM
fer instance, Bill Richardson D NM is far, far better then John McCain or guilianni

Don't let Bill snow you. He is a soul mate of the Clintons, and a consummate politician. While I certainly don't like RINOs like McCain and Guilianni, this is one Democrat to fear.

ilbob
October 20, 2006, 09:52 AM
One of the problems with the whole rating system is that neither the NRA nor the GOA ever says just how they come up with the scores.

They very clearly grade on a curve that varies widely from state to state, and favors incumbents over challengers. Many candidates rated A in states like Illinois would get a B or C in free states. And incumbents appear to get about a one or two letter grade advantage over challengers. It also appears to give a lot of deference to committee chairmen.

If you enjoyed reading about "***, NRA endorsed a D for congress in my district" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!