NRA may endorse Harry Reid..... Sellout #... I am loosing track

[LittleHarryNut]

Report: NRA may endorse Reid. All it took was $61 million....

http://www.frumforum.com/nra-might-endorse-harry-reid

edState.com has been tipped off that the NRA may decide to endorse Harry Reid over Republican challenger Sharron Angle:

Multiple sources tell me the National Rifle Association is planning to endorse liberal Harry Reid against pro-gun champion Sharron Angle.
Two weeks ago, I told you about the carveout the NRA received in exchange for their support for the DISCLOSE ACT deal.
Then this week, RedState broke the story of the “gag order” the NRA issued to members of its Board on the Kagan nomination.
Now, I’m getting credible reports that the NRA is leaning toward endorsing Harry Reid, even though the NRA is finally saying it will score a vote on Kagan — something that was not a sure thing.
Why would they do this? Why would they go out of their way to protect a Senator who has demonstrated a repeated hostility to the Second Amendment in his votes and his leadership?
Well, I thought perhaps the NRA carveout in the DISCLOSE Act might be the answer. But, there is more. It turns out, Reid secured a $61 million earmark for a gun range in Clark County, Nevada.
NRA members were recently treated to a three-page spread in the American Rifleman about a visit to Nevada by Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox to “thank” Reid for the earmark. The article even includes a cliché picture of Reid cutting a ribbon with a gigantic pair of scissors. (Every good porker has his own giant pair of gold earmark scissors.) More here.
Here is a video of the event from Reid’s youtube site.
At 3:25, you can hear LaPierre touting Reid’s record on guns saying, “I also want to thank you, Senator, for your support every day for the Second Amendment and for the rights of American gun owners. “
The American Rifleman article also commends Reid’s Second Amendment record noting, “His dedication to this project is just one of the ways Sen. Reid has demonstrated his support for gun owners and the Second Amendment.”
Well, that’s all very nice. What politician representing a pro-gun red state wouldn’t want Wayne LaPierre to come out for a personal photo op at their earmark ribbon cutting.

 

[MisterMike]

It's not about one's political party, it's about one's actions once elected. If he's the more pro-2A candidate, I'd be happy to hear that the NRA is backing him.

However, his record on gun rights appears to be mixed, at best. If the NRA wants to extract some very specific promises to bolster Second Amendment rights, let them go for it.

 

[ArmedBear]

Sounds like a smart hedge to me -- a tactical move.

Republican NRA members will vote Angle anyway. Independents are motivated by other things right now ("It's the economy, stupid!") and will probably vote Angle if opinion polls mean anything at all. Hard-core Democrats will vote Reid, regardless.

So, if Angle wins, there's a pro-gun Senator from Nevada. If Reid wins, the NRA wants to be sure there's STILL a de facto pro-gun Senator from Nevada.

That's what NRA gets paid for, you know.

RedState's constant NRA-bashing is stupid, and shows what short-sightedness looks like.

That doesn't mean that I think the NRA is always right. It means that, from what I see, RedState, losing its relevance in the Tea Party-inspired political world of 2010, is gunning for attention at the expense of an ally in the fight for RKBA. Like GOA, if someone really cares about RKBA, they're not going to use all their energy and resources just to torpedo an ally over a tactical disagreement.

RedState would probably support an anti-gun Conservative over Reid, as long as said Conservative fit other criteria they like. That's their prerogative. NRA is not obligated to become a replacement for the RNC.

RedState should consider taking out its frustrations on the pathetic GOP establishment, not project all of the GOP/RNC's failures onto other groups, like the NRA, which is NOT a general-purpose conservative PAC, and it's certainly not owned by RedState.

 

[LittleHarryNut]

Angles record and views are MUCH stronger then his. They run the risk of losing much of their membership (the ones who care about more then a hunting rifle) if they do indeed do this.

 

[JohnBT]

Oh dear god, not another bash the NRA post full of BS.

 

[LittleHarryNut]

Oh dear god, not another bash the NRA post full of BS.

how do you know it's BS? are you one to follow blindly Saint Wayne and Saint Chris?

 

[ArmedBear]

Well, we're sure not going to blindly trust someone who signed up yesterday just to bash the NRA, and who can't write a sentence without an error, yet starts a post with "Report:"...

Try cutting and pasting something from a credible source (i.e. other than RedState or GOA), for starters. Perhaps you could add some of your own evidence, opinions, etc. for good measure. Maybe you could even tell us who you are and what your interest is in signing up to post this stuff.

Just a few thoughts...

 

[whyipackmy45]

What good is a gun if you trade your liberty for it.

 

[dogtown tom]

JohnBT Oh dear god, not another bash the NRA post full of BS.

Yes, odd numbered days are for "NRA is eveeel", even numbered days are for "9mm Largo or .455 Webley?" debates.

ArmedBear Well, we're sure not going to blindly trust someone who signed up yesterday just to bash the NRA, and who can't write a sentence without an error...

Is it me or has there been an increase in low post count "members" posting anti NRA blather lately?

And just so my tinfoil helmeted THR brethren are fully informed here it is straight from the NRA:

NRA-PVF Endorsement Policy

Tuesday, May 11, 2010


We are rapidly approaching the time when NRA’s Political Action Committee the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) will begin issuing endorsements in elections across the country.

As in every election year, some of these endorsements sometimes prompt questions concerning the criteria NRA-PVF uses in making these decisions. Following is a brief explanation of that policy.

The NRA-PVF is non-partisan in issuing its candidate grades and endorsements. We do not base our decisions on a candidate’s party affiliation, but rather on his or her record on Second Amendment issues. The NRA is a single issue organization. The only issues on which we evaluate candidates seeking elected office are gun-related issues. While there are many issues a candidate must address with voters, and while voters evaluate a number of non-gun-related issues in factoring which candidate they will support or oppose, NRA-PVF’s sole criteria in issuing grades and endorsements is a candidate’s position on gun-related issues.

With four million NRA members and 80 million gun owners in the country, our constituency is diverse in its views on multiple issues of our day. However, we are all united in our support of the Second Amendment and our opposition to the notion that passing more laws that negatively impact law-abiding gun owners will reduce crime. For us to divide that otherwise united base of support on non-firearm-related issues would be strategically foolish.

NRA has an incumbent-friendly policy that dictates our support for pro-gun incumbents seeking reelection. It is important that we stand with our friends who stand with us in Congress or the state legislature through their actions. Of course, should a pro-gun challenger win his election, and stay true to support for our gun rights, then he will be the beneficiary of this policy when seeking re-election.

For candidates who are not incumbents or who have not previously held elective office and thus lack voting records, we review answers to NRA’s candidate questionnaires, their campaign literature and relevant statements, and rely on intelligence from NRA members and gun owners in the field.

All of this information is then reviewed and a grade of “A” to “F” is issued. Endorsements are not given in every race. Our endorsement is not given lightly; it is something that is reserved for those candidates who meet certain criteria and something that must be earned.

Sometimes we receive inquiries concerning judicial races. NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements in judicial elections. In the rare circumstances where NRA-PVF makes endorsements in state judicial races, there are many complexities that must be taken into account, including the following:


Judges, unlike legislators, often do not have voting records. Therefore, in evaluating judicial candidates, NRA-PVF can only make evaluations based upon past legal opinions and public statements involving firearm-related issues;
Individual states implement different codes of judicial conduct, and have often passed statutes limiting judicial candidates from announcing their views on issues or controversies that may come before the court, and;
These codes or statutes may prevent judicial candidates from filling out NRA-PVF candidate questionnaires. Even if a candidate could fill out a questionnaire, and then got elected to the bench, the questionnaire answers might later force the judge to recuse him- or herself from a firearm-related case.
We certainly welcome input and information from our members on judicial candidates. It is important to remember, however, that NRA-PVF’s involvement in judicial races remains the exception and not the rule.

For a list of candidate grades and endorsements for your state, please refer to your November NRA magazines, or visit www.NRAPVF.org.

 

[DeepSouth]

The NRA is a one issue org. and as much as I dislike Reid, and I think he is - never mind.

I don't think he is an anti-gun politician, and if the NRA doesn't either why would there be a problem with them endorsing him? Because of all of the other issues that are not gun related? If you want to give money to someone that is more than a one issue org, you should be looking at The Heritage Foundation. Not the NRA, fighting gun grabbers is their only concern.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

The NRA does a great job when it comes to lobbying, and working congressmen. Which is exactly what they are going here. Help relatively pro-gun Harry out in a jam, and you have a Senior congressman who owes you a favor. What is so hard to comprehend about that? If they don't support him the best they can hope for is that he loses and a Junior pro-gun congress critter replaces him.

If you want to complain about the NRA complain about Seegars and the other RTKBA cases they highjack, or the undercover trolls they send to this board to stir up trouble: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=509007&highlight=Michael+Thompson&page=3 However, the NRA does do a great job lobbying up on the hill.

 

[alsaqr]

Is it me or has there been an increase in low post count "members" posting anti NRA blather lately?

Seems that way. With all the whining and caterwauling about the NRA maybe the Brady bunch has found a way to divide and conquer. You can track some of these guys: The run to this site, to TFL and the other highroad.

Then you have the guys who claim the NRA EVC runs the NRA BOD. They rant on and say they quit the NRA when they have never been NRA members at all.

Thanks NRA haters: The Brady bunch appreciates your efforts to tear asunder the awful gun lobby.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I wish THR would ban people for this crap. It's as anti gun as anything the Brady's do.

Some here need to seriously rethink their belief in the Second Amendment, and their ability to reason through things.

One moment bashing the NRA for getting involved in First Amendment issues, then turning around and complaining when they stick to a single issue.

Trolls, anti's, or just plain ignorant. In this case the OP is a recent member with few posts, an obvious anti shill.

 

[SuperNaut]

Harry Reid is pro-gun, and has been for his entire career. Why wouldn't the NRA back him? Because some political cipher has an "R" next to her name?

 

[rbernie]

I wish THR would ban people for this crap. It's as anti gun as anything the Brady's do.

If nothing else, responding this agitprop is good practice for dealing with the real world.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If nothing else, responding this agitprop is good practice for dealing with the real world.

Well we are getting lots of practice

Our enemies are very busy. I know you can't ban them all or keep up with them, no complaint about that. It's the long time members that fall for their BS that worry me.

 

[jfh]

Egad, it's five months until the midterm elections, and the GOA / Redstate flunkies are trotting out this stuff already?

I don't get it.

Jim H.

 

[Truthseeker]

One thing to consider. Reid has been mostly pro-gun throughout his career. If he is defeated, the NEXT Senate majority leader would probably be Chuck Schumer of New York, or Dick Durbin of Illinois. Better the evil you know...

 

[ArmedBear]

Exactly.

The NRA wants to support RKBA even when Democrats are in the majority. Imagine that.

The GOP as a party just wants to keep RKBA as a political card to play to try to win an election here or there. Individual members may be pro-gun, but the Republicans are not the NRA, nor should the NRA be a division of the Republican Party.

Furthermore, the NRA generally endorses Libertarian Party candidates across the board -- but is smart enough to know that this won't exactly fill Congress with gun-rights advocates any time soon.

Whatever I think of Harry Reid, and I'm not a member of his fan club, believe me, there's a reason the NRA would endorse him. How, exactly, does that make the NRA a "sellout"?

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Just goes to show one thing IMO...

The NRA is very good at looking ahead.

 

[stickhauler]

Does the NRA even have any record for Reid's challenger to consider? Their site doesn't list an endorsement for US Senator from Nevada yet, and I can't find a mention of a "grade" for her from her previous service in the Nevada legislature.

I looked through the mentioned article on another gun forum, and the listing of votes against the 2nd amendment it says Reid voted with the anti-gun crowd were in a large part votes to table an amendment to a bill. And surprise, the list was compiled by the GOA. No conflict of interest there, huh?

I'm seeing this rash of NRA sellout threads these folks are starting as a poor attempt of the old deal of "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with BS." They ain't that bright, and I have a real good BS detector.

 

[The Undertaker]

The only way to win a battle against politicians is to become as slick and underhanded as the worst of them.

Sure, Reid may have a bad history with gun rights, but if the NRA is able to grab the man by his figurative balls and bend him to its will, we have a winner.

As a certain Chinese leader said in the past, "It doesn't matter if the cat is white or black. As long as it catches mice it is a good cat."

 

[SuperNaut]

Except that Reid doesn't have a bad history with gun rights.

 

[lions]

Except that Reid doesn't have a bad history with gun rights.

But... but... he's a... a Democrat!

We also have to consider that it is preferable to support the senate majority leader than a newcomer, all else being equal. Friends in high places and whatnot.

 

[Art Eatman]

"Then this week, RedState broke the story of the “gag order” the NRA issued to members of its Board on the Kagan nomination."

'Scuse me. Since when does an executive director tell the board members, his employers, what to do? When he wants to take up a new line of work, that's when. Boards of directors holler, "Frog!" and executive directors go to jumping. Tactical advice is another matter: Kagan's a shoo-in, absent incriminating photos involving animals. Any NRA testimony would have been a waste of time and money. What could be said which would change her mind or the minds of the committee?

If "RedState" is this weird as a source, anything else they say is suspect.

A few more politically-oriented comments, okay, and then this thread is gonna be closed.