NRA Endorsements??????

[Mike_M]

I just received my copy of American Rifleman for November. On the front cover, the endorse Brad Ellsworth for Senate and Baron Hill for District 9. I really question the wisdom of these endorsements. These guys may be marginally pro-gun, but they have voted for the most outrageous government spending plans we have ever seen. This is downright sick.

I am puzzled why they didn't endorse Todd Young who is conservative and pro-gun for Congress.

Politics makes for very odd bedfellows......

 

[indyac]

Depends on how the NRA measures a candidate. If they are focused purely on the pro-gun stance of a candidate you will get these strange endorsements.

I read that the NRA also has a preference for slight pro-gun incumbents vs. heavily pro-gun challengers.

 

[Hornett]

The NRA endorsements are so erratic that I don't even look at them.

 

[dross]

The NRA plays in the arena of politics. Lots of people on this board don't like the way the world of politics actually works, and they want the players to play by rules of pure ideology. People who play effectively in the game of politics will always be found wanting by those who judge them by ideological standards.

The reason you can find no politician who has held office and done anything effective who meets your ideological purity tests is because those politicians might get elected once, get nothing done, and then they're voted out.

First, to maintain its tax status, the NRA must endorse pro-gun candidates regardless of party, and regardless of the craziness and harmfulness of their other positions.

Second, if they endorse a pro-gun Democrat, they can't jump around just because a better Republican candidate comes along. They'd be giving up all their leverage.

Let's say there's a pro-gun Dem, who the NRA lobbies. Let's say there's a key piece of legislation and the Dem is under severe party pressure to vote with the party. They're offering him a coveted committee membership if he'll vote with the party and against guns this one time. The NRA lobbies the guy and offers a carrot and a stick. The stick is that if he doesn't break party ranks and vote pro-gun, the NRA will target him for defeat next election. And they can get people defeated. On the other hand, if he votes pro-gun, the NRA will endorse him next election. So the Dem votes pro-gun.

Now, election time and the Dem is facing a pro-gun Republican who is even more pro-gun than he. Should the NRA jump ship, go back on their deal, and endorse the Rebublican? If they do, they'll never have leverage again.

This is the dirty world of politics, and if you want an effective gun lobby organization, you have to expect them to play by the dirty rules. Otherwise they're just a symbol that makes us all feel good, but has no power.

I can write the responses I'm going to get to this. Politics is the game of getting what you can, not holding out for everything you want.

 

[Hornett]

Let's say there's a pro-gun Dem, who the NRA lobbies. Let's say there's a key piece of legislation and the Dem is under severe party pressure to vote with the party. They're offering him a coveted committee membership if he'll vote with the party and against guns this one time. The NRA lobbies the guy and offers a carrot and a stick. The stick is that if he doesn't break party ranks and vote pro-gun, the NRA will target him for defeat next election. And they can get people defeated. On the other hand, if he votes pro-gun, the NRA will endorse him next election. So the Dem votes pro-gun.

hmmm... Not buying it. Just can't see it happening. hehehe
just messing with ya'

All joking aside, your point is well taken.
And that's the exact reason I don't refer to their endorsements.
The dark side is that once the NRA is beholdin' to enough senators and representatives, they cannot effectively represent their members anymore.
I don't know the answer, but you are right, if they only stayed ideological, they would not be able to affect any change.
I'm still a member of the NRA but now I think of them as a necessary evil.

 

[dross]

I'm still a member of the NRA but now I think of them as a necessary evil.

Just like ALL the players in the political arena. That's the whole point.

 

[rambone]

Gun ownership and individual freedoms will never be safe in the hands of a collectivist like Ellsworth. Endorsing nobody would be preferable to a snake like him. NRA needs to recognize Rebecca Sink-Burris as the best pro-gun candidate. Their endorsement would give her an enormous boost, and she would protect gun rights because its in her heart, not because she's returning a favor to the NRA.

Credibility lost.

 

[dross]

Gun ownership and individual freedoms will never be safe in the hands of a collectivist like Ellsworth. Endorsing nobody would be preferable to a snake like him. NRA needs to recognize Rebecca Sink-Burris as the best pro-gun candidate. Their endorsement would give her an enormous boost, and she would protect gun rights because its in her heart, not because she's returning a favor to the NRA.

Credibility lost.

Do you really think she would win, even with an NRA endorsement?

You are a smart guy, but the prime example of someone who WANTS the world to work differently that it does. There are avenues for that, through persuasion, it's wasted in politics.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Like Dross said, the NRA endorsement is a pay for play.

Typically the NRA won't endorse a candidate until they have voted pro-gun on something. It's their way of rewarding good behavior.

So, you get a guy like ellsworth to game the system by supporting 2A in one hand, and also supporting the idea that guns are a health hazard (via new HC law) in the other. So, he gets campaign money from contributors that are diametrically opposed ideologically.

The NRA view is so narrow, that they're going to miss the forest for the trees, and all of their 2A supporters are going to screw them with an end around that the NRA never saw coming.

 

[dross]

Like Dross said, the NRA endorsement is a pay for play.

Typically the NRA won't endorse a candidate until they have voted pro-gun on something. It's their way of rewarding good behavior.

So, you get a guy like ellsworth to game the system by supporting 2A in one hand, and also supporting the idea that guns are a health hazard (via new HC law) in the other. So, he gets campaign money from contributors that are diametrically opposed ideologically.

The NRA view is so narrow, that they're going to miss the forest for the trees, and all of their 2A supporters are going to screw them with an end around that the NRA never saw coming.

They're pretty savvy, generally. Their lobbyists are former politicians and staffers, but everyone eventually gets screwed, just as they get their victories.

Again, the NRA is what it is. It' isn't some sacred organization of gun owners, it's a political lobby that wins some and loses some, and compromises a lot, just as is required to play the political game.

It's also the most effective pro gun organization that exists, though not the purest ideologically.

 

[ATOMonkey]

True enough, argument capitulated.

 

[Duncan]

Like Dross said, the NRA endorsement is a pay for play.

Typically the NRA won't endorse a candidate until they have voted pro-gun on something. It's their way of rewarding good behavior.

So, you get a guy like ellsworth to game the system by supporting 2A in one hand, and also supporting the idea that guns are a health hazard (via new HC law) in the other. So, he gets campaign money from contributors that are diametrically opposed ideologically.

The NRA view is so narrow, that they're going to miss the forest for the trees, and all of their 2A supporters are going to screw them with an end around that the NRA never saw coming.

Gentlemen please remember that the NRA REFUSES to rate third party candidates .
They will not send out questioners even if asked .
I know because I did call them on Rebecca's behalf .
They cite space constraints .... Bull .
GOA will rate if you ask for questioner .
Go to their site and Rebecca is listed .
The NRA is not interested in the most gun friendly candidate .
Just the most electable one.
Thanks
Duncan

 

[dross]

The NRA is not interested in the most gun friendly candidate .
Just the most electable one.

Yes, because as crazy as it seems, the ones who don't get elected can do exactly NOTHING for gun rights.

 

[ATOMonkey]

While having money in a campaign doesn't hurt, it's often the effect rather than a cause of an electable candidate.

Campaign contributors give money to the candidate they think is most likely to get elected who can carry their particular torch.

The guy that wins often times has the most money, becasue often times, he was the most likely candidate to win.

 

[Duncan]

Yes, because as crazy as it seems, the ones who don't get elected can do exactly NOTHING for gun rights.

And the one that do ... won't
Thanks
Duncan

 

[ATOMonkey]

And the one that do ... won't
Thanks
Duncan

They will if they want that NRA campaign money.