NRA endorsement of Harry Reid?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Balrog

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
3,211
I have heard a rumor that NRA has endorsed Harry Reid for this election cycle. Does anyone know if it is true?

I am not trying to start a political discussion, just a simple yes or no question.
 
The NRA is a single issue organization. That issue being gun rights.

The NRA does not care about any other issues.

Senator Harry Reid has been pro-gun rights on serveral issues on the Federal level, so he is given a favorable rating by the NRA.

The NRA does not care what a politican's stance is on other issues (pro-choice/abortion, healthcare, etc.), they only care about what the politican's stance is on the gun rights/control issue and how that politican can help/hurt that issue. So, if you want guidance on other issues, do not look to the NRA.
 
Last edited:
Besides being good on gun issues, it is a smart strategic choice. Can't get much gun control done without the cooperation of the Senate Majority Leader. If Reid gets fired, I doubt the next Senate Majority Leader would be an improvement.
 
Why does the NRA endorse anyone if both candidates are the same on gun issues?

For example, why endorse McCain over Hayworth in the AZ Republican primary? Both have pro-gun records.
 
"Why does the NRA endorse anyone if both candidates are the same on gun issues?"

If both candidates are rated equally pro-gun the NRA has a long time policy of supporting the incumbent. Opposing Reid and other long time supporters of gun rights, regardless of their other politics, would be a disaster for the NRA's good reputation for standing with their friends in congress.
 
Zundfolge said:
I dunno ... I think Mitch McConnell would be better
Click to expand...

:D Maybe; but if I were the NRA I would keep betting on Harry until I was sure that was a done deal.

Balrog said:
Why does the NRA endorse anyone if both candidates are the same on gun issues?

For example, why endorse McCain over Hayworth in the AZ Republican primary? Both have pro-gun records.
Click to expand...

Well for one, seniority. By sheer virtue of having been around longer, McCain has better committee assignments and more power than a freshman Senator is going to have. Having ran several national campaigns and having the political apparatus and campaign chest leftovers doesn't hurt McCain's ability to do more either.

Look at Reid for a great example. Let's say there was a pro-gun Democrat who totally eclipsed Reid on gun rights. If the NRA backed him and he won, then they've replaced a solid Second Amendment supporter who was the Senate Majority Leader and wielded significant power with an even more diehard freshman Senator who wields little power. If the NRA backed the new guy and he lost (as many challengers to incumbents do), then the NRA has rewarded pro-RKBA support with a slap in the face and happened to slap one of the few guys who can stop anti-RKBA legislation from going forward in the current legislature.
 
Reid was able to secure tax dollars to build a nice new shooting sports complex in Vegas. He is not pro-gun, he is pro-Harry and like every other incumbent will do/say whatever he thinks his voters want to hear in order to get re-elected. Since he helped on that one point, the NRA will back the incumbent.
 
It's whatever is most important to you. Unless his opponent is anti-gun, I'd be inclined to give Reid the boot. As pointed out already, a heavy hitter in the gun department is what's important to the NRA.
 
Why does the NRA endorse anyone if both candidates are the same on gun issues?

For example, why endorse McCain over Hayworth in the AZ Republican primary? Both have pro-gun records.
Click to expand...

Another answer to this question would be "likelihood of winning." If the candidates are of roughly equivalent pro-gun stance and the endorsed candidate wins, then the NRA has that much higher percentage of "endorsed" candidates that win and thus the NRA looks better and stronger. Of course, since incumbents are currently reelected 93% of the time (an abomination to the Republic IMHO), then endorsing the incumbent, as others have suggested, amounts to the same thing.
 
Reid was able to secure tax dollars to build a nice new shooting sports complex in Vegas.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It was not built with tax dollars. The Federal funding was provided under the Southern Nevada Public Land Act.

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/..._shooting.html


The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) became law in October 1998. It allows the Bureau of Land Management to sell public land within a specific boundary around Las Vegas, Nevada. The revenue derived from land sales is split between the State of Nevada General Education Fund (5%), the Southern Nevada Water Authority (10%), and a special account available to the Secretary of the Interior for:

* Parks, Trails, and Natural Areas
* Capital Improvements
* Conservation Initiatives
* Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans (MSHCP)
* Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisitions
* Lake Tahoe Restoration Act Projects
Click to expand...

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/snplma.html













He is not pro-gun,
Click to expand...

Wrong again. In 2004 Reid voted against the extension of the AWB. The extension of the AWB passed the US senate with 10 votes from the other party.
 
Last edited:
If Reid loses but the Dems keep the Senate, guess who could be the next senate majority leader?

Schumer or Durbin.

Can you say, "out of the frying pan and into the fire"?
 
I think changing the hierarchy at the NRA is more difficult than unseating a sleezeball, wife-beating, bribe-taking, drunken, whore-chasing, traitorous politician. That's not to say the members of the NRA board are sleezeball, wife-beating, bribe-taking, drunken, whore-chasing, traitorous whatevers. There is just no good way to elect new and effective board members.

Maybe if we moved the NRA - lock, stock, and barrel - to somewhere in the middle of the country - many miles from the DC area - things might be different.

Woody
 
Reed looks at the constitution as an outdated document. Anyone who thinks it can be routinely overlooked can not be trusted to stand for anything in it, including the 2nd amendment.

I don't care what his occasional politics on gun control have been, he and the Dems have been voting against freedoms and liberties for too long. They are creating a cradle to grave, nanny country...

If the NRA endorses him I will lose a lot of respect and reconsider my annual donation. Just give it all to the Texas Rifle Assoc.

My .2 cents... I don't want to stir anything up. If my post is going to cause a problem, PM me and I will take it down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top