Posted on 08/31/2008 7:44:27 AM PDT by 1curiousmind
Enter Sarah Palin, a lifetime member of the NRA and now the Republican nominee for Vice President. She is well known in conservative circles for her staunch support of gun rights. Certainly selecting her is reassuring to the NRA.
While I'm not suggesting that the NRA's endorsement of a Presidential candidate was the only factor in McCain picking Palin, the mere possibility that they might have endorsed Barr very well could be a much bigger factor than the mainstream media and the Republican Party will ever admit.
Could it be that he's courting the NRA to make sure that they don't end up not endorsing anyone for President? That too is a possibility. This author can not say exactly what they were thinking. These are questions that only the McCain campaign can answer. Hopefully they will be asked and answered honestly.
I think Barr is irrelevant to McCain. I think Palin brings far more Hillary voters to the table just because she is a woman.
Anecdotally, I know of a couple of former committed Barr voters who will now only vote for him if the race is too far gone one way or the other in their states for thier votes to matter. If it is close, they’ll vote McCain/Palin.
Palin was the factor in both cases.
If you’re smart enough to be an NRA member,then you’re smart enough not to piss your vote away to a hopeless candidate like Barr.
Barr? Is he still running? I’m sure he’ll get as many votes as McKinney. He never had a chance, he’s only a protest candidate for the Republican anti McCain faction. He’ll draw a few votes but it won’t make a dent. Even without Palin, I probably would have pulled the lever for McCain over Obama.
In the spirit of *REACHING ACROSS THE AISLE* - now would be a good time for McCain & Bob Barr to put aside their differences as a certain way to prevent a Poseur & Plugs Presidency.
Come on youse two - buck up and brave up for the USA!
So the NRA might think the ACLU is good on gun rights?
Interesting anecdotal evidence. I don’t see how 4-6% of the popular vote is “irrelevant” to either McCain or Obama.
Although I liked alot of what Barr had to say when he was interviewed on Glenn Beck, I was also worried that he could really hurt McCain’s chances.
I doubt the NRA was giving Barr a second thought. We have an election to win and we all have to work to defeat obama by electing McCain.
Of course Obama is a factor. But, you have to remember that McCain has had problems on the right, and my friends are still smarting from a number of McCain stunts.
As I am. Still, there is no way I would vote for the cooked-up candidate, Barry Soetoro, aka “Barak Obama”.
Bob Barr Who?
Its time for us to start thing more strategically, an less tactically.
A NRA endorsement for Barr that helped result in an Obama victory would have disastrous effects on the 2nd Amendment; and on the NRA membership rolls. Don’t you think the NRA leadership is savvy enough to know that?
It didn’t take 1-2 election cycles to get ourselves into the sorry mess we are now in, and it’ll take more that 1-2 cycles to get our way out.
We need to deal with the big picture here, and quit second guessing each and every POSSIBLE tactical move any one person or group might consider.
Post of the day. Thank you, sir.
Irrespective of the NRA factor, the selection of Palin undercuts Barr’s support in several areas.
Should we stop listening to him also?
THE A.C.L.U. HAS SUPPORTED YOUR LEGAL FIGHT TO KEEP THE MEDICAL RECORDS IN YOUR DRUG CASE PRIVATE. THIS IS NOT A GROUP YOU'RE A FAN OF. DO YOU WELCOME ITS SUPPORT?
"In a situation like this, I think it's safe to say I welcome its support, and I don't find it hypocritical at all, because I am not anti-A.C.L.U. If the A.C.L.U. wants to go after, say, Nativity scenes or this sort of thing, I may take issue, but there are other areas where I've supported things it has done."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994348,00.html
I am a person. The ACLU has done many things I approve of and of course many things I don’t approve of.
The NRA is a single issue group. As I would not expect the national right to life coalition to support a candidate particularly a third party presidential candidate who was associated with Planned Parenthood nor would I expect the NRA to support a candidate particularly a third party candidate who was associated with the ACLU.
But then maybe I am wrong in my impression the ACLU does not consider the right to bear arms a civil liberty?
the only split bar was doing was the potheads who accidentally vote for him over ronpaul.
If John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his VP running mate forestalls any steam that Bob Barr might pick up from an endorsement by NRA, that is merely fortuitous, but by no means a major reason, in any event. It just happened, a turnip that fell off the truck.
Bob Barr COULD be a spoiler. But Sarah Palin rallies a lot of support, both in enthusiasm and cash, to the McCain ticket. The race is alive in a way that could not be predicted even a week ago. There stands a chance that Ralph Nader could be a much LARGER spoiler, for the Democrats, than Barr is likely to be for the Republicans, now.
In reality I was seriously considering Barr over McCain.
The addition of Palin to the ticket pretty much sealed a vote for McCain. Had McCain chosen Lieberman instead, there was no question I was completely abandoning the GOP for Barr. Because for the most part the GOP has abandoned it’s so called base of voters.
I used to be a member of the NRA myself. But got tired of the weekly calls for money and other time consuming issues. While those issues are very important to myself and many Americans, there are the issues of making a living and family that have to come first. An NRA endorsement is a great sales pitch. But it is only one of the deciding factors. Unfortunately we have to look at other important issues to see the overall effective leadership rating of an elected official. I rate my firearms very highly, but also know there will always be a push to diminish my 2nd Amendment right, as well as my 1st Amendment and my 4th Amendment right. So it is all inclusive and not just the single issue fanatics dwell upon.
Unfortunately for Barr, the two party monopoly has stacked the cards against any 3rd party with their ridiculous exclusions of the 3rd party candidates in the debate process. The two partys are afraid to have to address the real solutions to the real problems displayed in our current political monopoly. If we want change in our politics, we will have to do better electing more Libertarians to congress to replace the 9% approval rating with people who can get the job done.
Palin demonstrates that ability to do what is right. but that alone will not accomplish congressional reform. True reform has to come with the replacement of the good ol boys 9% club.
Sorry, but a vote for Barr is as good as a vote for Obama in this election. Palin was a good choice for McCain on many levels. Balance, indeed.
I know Palin is THE deciding factor for me. McCain may be a horrid POTUS, but setting up a conservative for 2012 alone is worth the price of the clothespin. If this ticket succeeds, (1) an Obama presidency is thwarted, and (2) Giuliani and Huckabee's hopes for 2012 are all but dashed. I do not have high hopes for the next 4 years no matter who wins...honestly, not even with Palin as veep. Sorry, I do not trust McCain given his recent history, and ultimately it is the POTUS (not the veep) who leads the march. The future beyond 4 years is what motivates me.
McCain was invited to speak at the NRA convention. I didn’t see Bob Barr there.
Barr is an embarrassment. His run is all about ego and adds nothing to the political process, and could cause nObama’s election. I consider his third party farce akin to treason if that happens.
He would have much more positive impact as an advocate of conservative values after nObama is defeated, vocally arguing against the administration when McCain wanders off the path.
He was a speaker at the convention this year but I don’t recall he mentioned anything about gun owner’s rights at all. I read the transcript and I can’t remember him even using the words “National Rifle Association” or “NRA”. As I recall the entire speech was about the surge.
If I also recall John McCain’s NRA rating in his last election was “C+”, maybe a little better than average. If you go back to the 2000 campaign he said some pretty negative things about the NRA and their influence in the Republican party but this was in his “bitter” phase and the NRA may have already endorsed Bush.
All that said, the NRA is not run by kooks or idiots. Endorsing Barr would alienate both of the candidates who have a chance to win. C+ or not, they were going to endorse McCain.
I think you’re halfway to the mark. It’s not simply about the NRA’s endorsement about Barr but the fact that Barr represents a protest vote for conservatives disgruntled at McCain on a gamut of issues.
Now McCain solidified his conservative credentials on a broad series of issues.
This definitely minimizes Bob Barr’s impact in the general.
Palin is not bitter. She exercises her Second Amendment rights. She believes in God and practices her religion. She is cheerful and has no antipathy toward those who are unlike her (so long as they are not breaking the law.) She is not anti-trade as long as it is free trade regulated by free markets not by government bureaucrats. And she is definitely not frustrated even though many people would have been by all but being kicked out of the Republican Party in Alaska for fighting corruption inside the party as well as outside. By doing so she saved the/her party.
Don't be fooled. McCain's choice of Palin is aimed at Obummer and Joe "the Lush" Biden.
Count me in that group smarting from the McCain stunts.
Still, I’m not interested in shooting myself in the foot just to say “I told you so.”
No, they don't. After the Heller decision, for example, they put a very plain, pointed statement on the front page of their website saying they still held the collective rights interpretation and believed Heller was wrong.
Indeed. You're out of your gourd.
-ccm
Even a McCain, soft on gun rights is better than an Obama who will do everything to diminish gun rights. It’s not that Palin is pro-gun, it is that she is a true and unapologetic conservative. You can’t be a true conservative if you aren’t solid on gun rights.
I hate to admit it, but I was going to vote for Barr untill Friday.
I didn’t really care for Barr himself, but his running mate Wayne Root was someone I was really pulling for.
Even though I still like Waynes message, Palin is the new direction this country needs.
No, too small of a problem.
Isn't he that old guy who hosts “The Price is Right”
“Indeed. You’re out of your gourd.”
___________________
Well, apparently not. Check the other comments and you’ll see that there are some FReepers for whom the addition of Palin was the deciding factor to vote for McCain and not Barr. So IMHO, that indicates there are others like them...all good news for his chances in November.
I don’t think that she was chosen for that reason...but it was one of those “icing on the cake” kind of things.
I support what you said about voting for Barr. I too was considering strongly that option. The addition of Palin did solidify my position to vote for McCain over Barr. Had McCain chosen a Lieberman, or even a Huckabee, I would have had no remorse in rejecting the GOP and voting for Barr.
As I stated earlier in this thread, that the only way we can institute change in America is to start with the removal of the 9% club that makes up congress. Then replacing those do nothing politicians with true Libertarians who believe in the empowerment of people instead of government. Real change can not or will not come from the POTUS unless they are on notice that they can be outed just as easily as they are voted in.
Listening to the people who say that voting your conscience elects the worst of candidates makes me sick. We are supposed to be electing leaders, not political parties. Play to the party line gets more of the same. I have never been ashamed of anyone I have voted for in the past because the decision was mine to make. Using scare tactics and intimidation to coerce voting a particular way comes from the communist play book. Last time I looked, we still have freedom to choose our vote carefully. In the end, we get what we get. Some will be pleased. Some will be pissed. And many more don’t care because they have been brainwashed into believing their vote don’t matter.
If your vote don’t matter, why would people attack your decision to vote for a President who polls at 5%? Sounds like our vote DOES make a difference after all!
Many conservatives would like to fire as powerful a shot as possible across the bow of McCain and the GOP without sinking them. If conservatives can get fired up about trying to boost Barr's numbers in states like Illinois or Alaska where their vote can't possibly tip the presidential race(*) and will thus make sure they get to the polls and VOTE for the other offices, that would seem better than having them apathetically maybe vote for McCain or maybe not bother (thus not voting for other offices either).
(*)If McCain would be within a vote of winning Illinois or losing Alaska, the election elsewhere is going to be sufficiently lopsided that Illinois' and Alaska's votes aren't going to matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.