Replies

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Paul supporters explain what Rand Paul meant by saying: that laws that dispportitionately incarcerates blacks most be repealed.

Yeah, laws that suppositely discriminates against blacks because more of them are incarcerated than whites must be repealed, that’s St. Rand Paul’s idea.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.