Posted on 04/09/2015 8:58:58 PM PDT by Plummz
The NRA’s annual convention is coming up. They invited possible/announced 2016 candidates Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush. Two people they didn’t invite: Chris Christie and Rand Paul.
It is not surprising that the New Jersey moderate was not invited. But the lack of an invitation for Paul stands out. The Daily Beast reports that Paul did request an invitation to the convention, but was denied: However, a source with knowledge of Paul’s dealings with the NRA said the claim that he did not request an invitation to the convention was “not true.” Further, the source said, “Is that really how invitations work?” Paul has an A-rating from the NRA, but the objective grading of his gun-rights credentials has little to do with the politics of the pro-gun lobby, wherein his involvement with extremist groups tied to his father, former congressman and libertarian-icon Ron Paul, has not won him many friends. “Sometimes the NRA doesn’t like it when people are bigger defenders of the issue than they are,” the source suggested. “They also don’t like it that he helps other, stronger groups like the Gun Owners of America and the National Association for Gun Rights.” The Pauls have long been associated with Gun Owners of America. On the top right of their website, they have a Ron Paul quote emblazoned: “The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.” The same is true for the National Association for Gun Rights. Rand Paul has long authored fundraising pleas for the organization. The Wall Street Journal talked to the head of the NAGR, Dudley Brown, about the matter: NAGR President Dudley Brown said Wednesday that Mr. Paul is the only current or likely 2016 candidate affiliated with his organization. Mr. Paul remains a NAGR member, Mr. Brown said, but added that it is unclear if NAGR will continue to use Mr. Paul’s name in fundraising appeals now that he has officially launched a presidential campaign. The Kentucky senator, Mr. Brown said, is an excellent fundraiser for NAGR. “It was no secret that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is more pro-gun than the NRA,” Mr. Brown said. Mr. Brown slammed the NRA as a tool of the Washington insiders Mr. Paul has focused his campaign on opposing. “I’ve been a gun lobbyist for 22 years and there’s never been a point at which we did not have tension,” he said. “We’re younger, we’re hungrier and we care less about the cocktail parties in Washington, D.C.” Whose fault is it that GOA and the NAGR are more principled than the NRA? The NRA has a long history of compromising on the Second Amendment. The NRA also has a history of supporting establishment candidates over conservatives in the primaries. It’s well known that NRA has endorsed Democrats such as Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Ted Strickland. Rand Paul has never attacked the NRA, and the NRA should get over itself. If it wasn’t for the NRA’s own decision making, there would be no need or demand for other, more principled gun rights groups. The idea that the NRA would attack someone for being more principled in defense of the Second Amendment, is, as Rand Paul told Dave Weigel, “petty.” “The interesting thing is that there’s probably no greater advocate for the Second Amendment in Congress than myself,” Paul said today. “To not be invited, probably, will serve more to cast aspersions on their group than it would on me. Because my record’s pretty clear. It probably looks a little bit petty for them not to invite a major candidate because I raised money for other Second Amendment groups.”
This is one I’ll defend Rand Paul on.
I wish I could be a bigger fan of the NRA, but it doesn’t do enough IMO.
The Left loves it so much, it criticizes it all the time to make it look like it really does a lot. It also over estimates it’s clout. It also overstates the number of members as if it’s members hold vast power and screw up everything. Not hardly.
Well to be fair, I believe the NRA does have millions of members by some measures.
Yeah, the NRA needs to get over itself. Supporting Harry Reid and shunning Rand Paul is contrary to any 2A goals.
To be honest, I don’t know how many members they have. It has been my thought that if we actually knew, we might be surprised how few it is, considering our population is now 320 million or so.
This Washington Post article addresses it. I would warn folks not to take anything the Post says as gospel, but it’s probably a good jumping off point when discussing numbers.
I’m not seeking to discredit the NRA with these numbers. I think 4.5 million is a large number of people. Their dues spent right could make a big impact.
Rand Paul hating Cruz supporters to explain this in 3, 2, 1 ....
Perhaps we could have Savanna Guthrie ask Rand about it? ;)
I had to deal with them extensively on a high profile campaign decade ago, and from everything I hear they haven't changed. Imagine a huge corporate behemoth with factions within factions always at war with one another, everyone posturing to get a leg up on the other guy. It's absolutely surreal. You'll meet a group of them at some event and one of them will slip his card in your pocket whispering, "Call me, I'll give you the straight story on all of this, my colleagues here won't always do what's best your candidate." And then another guy will wave you aside and say, "Be careful of that guy over there, he'll try to pull you in under his wing and no good will come of it..." and on and on it goes.
Gun Owners of America? "We're with you all the way man, let us know what we can do for you."
Well, the NRA hosts a lot of firearm-training courses. So people who take concealed-carry or gun-safety classes might be counted as members even for a few years after they’ve completed the certificate.
They could also be counting people on their legislative-action email lists who have never given money or haven’t for years.
NRA is a single issue organization. They do not care anything about the politics a person has in other areas as long as they vote pro gun. I believe that Reid knew he’d need the NRA’s support in 2010 and he kept a lot of gun control stuff from coming up when the Dems controlled the whole Congress and the White House. 2010 was the NRA’s paying him back for that. I don’t like Reid any more than most conservatives do but I think from a single issue 2A prospective, it was probably a wise, pragmatic move.
People are watching this deal, and it can’t possibly help the NRA, who has had some struggles getting everyone to kiss their ring and stay in the wagon. Lots of complaints out there and gun owners are fortunate the NRA is not the only game in town.
Rand is right again, the NRA looks petulant. In some quarters and in some cases the folks are going to like his enemies list.
Just like how can the Rand Paul supporters explain what Rand Paul meant by saying: that laws that dispportitionately incarcerates blacks most be repealed.
Yeah, laws that suppositely discriminates against blacks because more of them are incarcerated than whites must be repealed, that’s St. Rand Paul’s idea.
The NRA endorsed “F” rated Democrat Chet Edwards for years because he saw the light after being redistricted to a more conservative district. Why? Most of these organizations have scorecards and ‘incumbent friendly’ policies. If the incumbent votes friendly on enough of the measured votes, they get the endorsement.
I understand the point, you don’t want to make enemies of people with a proven track record of winning and who can vote against you, at will. Even with less than outright friendly critters like Edwards and Reid, the NRA endorsement is enough of a carrot to moderate their opposition.
It works when your goal is influencing legislation.
Incumbent friendly policies have a downside, though. They serve to entrench the establishment.
Remember the next time you vote at the state and local level that an endorsement from a pro-life or pro-gun organization is many times as much an endorsement on incumbency as anything.
The reason why this ties into this thread is organizations like GOA were formed to be more independent than a legislation-tied organization like the NRA is allowed to be. GOA can and does endorse based on which candidate better protects gun rights, regardless incumbency.
I think both organizations have their place. I doubt the NRA shares my views.
I’ve come to understand that an NRA endorsement is at least as much as an endorsement for incumbency unless the incumbent is already a sworn enemy of gun rights. In GOP primaries, an endorsement of the incumbent says nothing about the views of an opponent. In this way, those endorsements make it that much harder to fight the establishment.
Yes, the NRA certainly is a single issue organization. Their support of libtards like Harry Reid, or in the past, Bill Richardson, was pretty much a deal breaker for me, but they probably are the largest and oldest 2A org out there. I do support GOA. The National Association for Gun Rights has such close ties with both the Paul’s that they seem to be just another Paul PAC. This article is dated, but gets the point across: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/gun-rights-group-with-close-ties-to/
This doesn’t speak exclusively to blacks, but during the Ferguson flap, it was reported that the reason so many blacks were with more warrants that resulted in more arrests, were over past tickets. They could not afford to pay the fines (which supported City Hall) as easily as the whites would pay their tickets. More blacks were out of work and the City used the ticketing racket to run the budget. Blacks paid the higher price in the increased arrest statistics, over basically traffic stops.
Whether that is even true or not, I dunno. If it is, it makes sense.
I like GAO also and I like JPFO. I am not Jewish but I joined because I like their style.
Hey, it seems to me that they spend 80 or 90 % of their dues on postage to me to send money, and renew early...I've really been thinking that I could maybe do more good with GOA or JPFO (I'm not really Jewish) than NRA. Anyone else feel the same way?
Or, in fewer words, politicians are pragmatics, not principled.
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.