Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NRA Changes House Race Endorsement - Supports SDs Herseth(D) over Diedrich(R)
KELO ^ | 10/14/04 | AP

Posted on 10/14/2004 11:30:22 AM PDT by anonymous_user

The National Rifle Association has switched its endorsement in the US House race to Democrat Stephanie Herseth.

The gun-rights group had endorsed her Republican challenger, Larry Diedrich, in the June special election. Herseth won that election and faces Diedrich again in next month's general election.

The National Republican Congressional Committee says the NRA bases its endorsements on votes taken by incumbents. Since Herseth voted to lift a ban on most guns in Washington DC, the NRA gave her its endorsement.

(Excerpt) Read more at keloland.com ...


TOPICS: Announcements; Politics/Elections; US: South Dakota
KEYWORDS: diedrich; election; endorsement; herseth; house; nra; sd; southdakota
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-109 next last
Tell the NRA what you think about their endorsement!

https://secure.nraila.org/Contact.aspx

1 posted on 10/14/2004 11:30:25 AM PDT by anonymous_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Ed_NYC; MonroeDNA; widgysoft; Springman; Timesink; dubyaismypresident; Grani; coug97; ...

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

2 posted on 10/14/2004 11:33:06 AM PDT by mhking ("The UN was supposed to be our last, best hope for peace. It failed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonymous_user

Don't think they would like to hear what I have to say! One vote and you can bet she will never vote that way again. Cheap trick by the Dems this summer to vote when they knew something was failing so they could look conservative! Dems have no moral compass when it comes to casting votes -- they will do anything to get elected.


3 posted on 10/14/2004 11:33:55 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Oklahoma is Reagan Country and now Bush Country -- Vote for Dr. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonymous_user
This is why I refuse to donate money to the NRA-ILA. The morons can not seem to understand that a vote for ANY Democrat in the House translates into a vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House. Likewise, supporting ANY Democrat in the Senate is support for Tom Daschle for Senate Majority Leader.
4 posted on 10/14/2004 11:41:08 AM PDT by RebelBanker (Now I understand! "Allah" is Arabic for "Satan.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

Even if she were legitimately pro 2nd amendment rights, she will vote for house leadership that will decimate it.


5 posted on 10/14/2004 11:41:35 AM PDT by keyesguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: anonymous_user

Most intelligent Americans that frequent this site don't need the NRA or anyone else to tell them who to vote for.


6 posted on 10/14/2004 11:53:24 AM PDT by paulcissa (Only YOU can prevent liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
This seals it for me. I was considering to join NRA and changed my opinion.
7 posted on 10/14/2004 12:12:36 PM PDT by alex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: anonymous_user

The NRA is not a Republican organization, it is a Second Amendment organization. Democrats ought to be encouraged to support the Second Amendment; some do, and the RKBA would be far weaker if that wasn't the case.

Virtually every important change in public policy this country has EVER undertaken has been, in some significant part, bi-partisan. Reversing a 30-year-trend of eroding the Second Amendment DEFINITELY will be achieved by politicians of both parties, or not at all.


8 posted on 10/14/2004 12:18:51 PM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alex

Please do not tar the entire NRA with this. The NRA actually does a lot of good things, notably in education and support of Second Amendment rights, shooting sports and so forth.

The NRA-ILA is the political money-moving arm. I am not sure what criteria they use to score elected officials, but they obviously do not think about party affiliation or the implications thereof.


9 posted on 10/14/2004 12:18:59 PM PDT by RebelBanker (Now I understand! "Allah" is Arabic for "Satan.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: only1percent
To: anonymous_user The NRA is not a Republican organization, it is a Second Amendment organization. Democrats ought to be encouraged to support the Second Amendment; some do, and the RKBA would be far weaker if that wasn't the case. Virtually every important change in public policy this country has EVER undertaken has been, in some significant part, bi-partisan. Reversing a 30-year-trend of eroding the Second Amendment DEFINITELY will be achieved by politicians of both parties, or not at all.

Wisdom

10 posted on 10/14/2004 12:52:52 PM PDT by NJ Neocon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: only1percent
Virtually every important change in public policy this country has EVER undertaken has been, in some significant part, bi-partisan

Can you back that up?
Was the civil war and Reconstruction a 1 party or bi-partisan effort?
Was the new deal a 1 or 2 party effort?
Was the weakening of intelligence and defense post Watergate a 1 or 2 party effort?

I'll bet there is little historical correlation between significant changes and whether it was or was not bi-partisan.

11 posted on 10/14/2004 1:06:53 PM PDT by NormalGuy (If not Normal, Spin it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: anonymous_user
Damn good idea.

Unless the pubbies fear losing our 2A votes, we will be taken for granted.

It is the same as the relationship between Blacks and the Dems. Until they start to vote Republican in any numbers, the Dems will just pay them lip service.


12 posted on 10/14/2004 1:18:35 PM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormalGuy

The Civil War was absolutely a bi-partisan effort. There were many Democrats in the North/Union, and that's to say nothing of the fact that the Republican Party of the early 1860s was, itself, effectively a multi-partisan coalition formed only a few years before by Whigs, disaffected Democrats, and a stragglers of a number of othe rmovements.

The Restruction as initially conceived was not bipartisan, but as it was actually settled was completely bipartisan, albeit a distasteful version of the same (essentially, the Democrats agreed to give up on Tilden's claim to the White House if the Republicans agreed to withdraw the Army to its barracks and give the Democrats back control over the South).

The New Deal was bipartisan in its own way. The most obvious argument is that a profoundly Republican-leaning country, measured by the votes of the 1920s, chose to elect a Democrat by a landslide in 1932 and a greater one in 1936, allegiances which began to revert to the mean almost as soon as the New Deal was in the main accomplished. The second is that it was Republican/Conservative concession on key points in the late 1930s which permitted the major New Deal initiatives to actually take effect. Finally, the rejections of Taft and other anti-New Dealers in favor of Dewey and Eisenhower, who were pro-New Dealers, cemented the New Deal as a permanent change.

The weakening of defense post-Watergate was a 4 year aberation, not a change. Cuts took place in the FY75-FY78 budgets; by the FY79 budget process, in the spring of 1978, Carter began to increase spending which only picked up under Reagan.

The weakening of intelligence was, alas, a bi-partisan thing as well. Skepticism of the intelligence community was universal on Capitol Hill of the 1970s, and it wasn't without some justification, even if the ends to which that skepticism was put were regretable. The CIA seemed ineffective where Congress wanted it to be effective (e.g., Vietnam) and all too effective where Congress was hesitant (e.g., Chile).


13 posted on 10/14/2004 2:08:26 PM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
a vote for ANY Democrat in the House translates into a vote for Nancy Pelosi

Bingo. And if anyone think that strengthens gun owner's rights, I'll sell them my South Dakota oceanfront villa.

14 posted on 10/14/2004 2:11:49 PM PDT by anonymous_user (Kerry's Foreign Policy: "Talk big and carry a soft stick.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: paulcissa
Most intelligent Americans that frequent this site don't need the NRA or anyone else to tell them who to vote for.

It is powerful enough to sway some fence sitters into thinking, "Well, she can't be that bad if the NRA likes her."

If South Dakotans buy into the fairy tale of "conservative Democrats" that's ignorant. When the NRA buys into an endorsement based on one House vote, that's just plain sloppy and disingenuous to their supporters.

I guarantee they won't endorse her in 2006, and they will have played a pretty major role in getting her in Washington (if elected) in 2004.

15 posted on 10/14/2004 2:17:43 PM PDT by anonymous_user (Kerry's Foreign Policy: "Talk big and carry a soft stick.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: anonymous_user
As long as they've endorsed Thune (which I'm sure they will, if they haven't already), who frankly cares?

The SD Senate race is exponentially more important than the at-large House seat.

16 posted on 10/14/2004 3:55:58 PM PDT by K1avg (A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
This is why I refuse to donate money to the NRA-ILA. The morons can not seem to understand that a vote for ANY Democrat in the House translates into a vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House. Likewise, supporting ANY Democrat in the Senate is support for Tom Daschle for Senate Majority Leader

Exactly right!

I am a lifetime member of the GOA, but will never join the NRA as long it endorses Democrats over Republicans.

They are cutting gun-owners throats by ignoring the fact that every Democrat elected gets them closer to a majority and the Democratic party is anti-gun-period.

17 posted on 10/14/2004 4:20:29 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: K1avg

Thune was endorsed with an A. Dasshole got an F+.


18 posted on 10/14/2004 4:22:47 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Dead or alive, I got a .45 - and I never miss!!!" - AC/DC - Problem Child)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: anonymous_user

We read this in our local paper,The Rapid City Journal, yesterday morning.

This morning we cancelled four lifetime memberships from this household.


19 posted on 10/14/2004 4:26:16 PM PDT by Rushmore Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anonymous_user
I think disingenuous is good choice of words for this specific subject. I'm an NRA member and stay close to 2A issues and personally, I'm highly suspect of ILA's motives regarding this particular endorsment.

I don't understand all the angles they may be working at this particular moment but I know that a fish rots from the head down. And this fish stinks bad.

20 posted on 10/14/2004 4:26:34 PM PDT by paulcissa (Only YOU can prevent liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-109 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson