Posted on 09/25/2007 2:13:46 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The National Rifle Association, which did not endorse President Bush in 2000 and 2004 until just a month before the general election, is considering stepping into the presidential campaign fray early next year during the primary season, the group's chief lobbyist says.
While the NRA waited until October in each of the past two presidential election years before endorsing a candidate, the group plans to take a more high-profile role early in the 2008 Republican nomination process.
"Historically, we have not gotten involved in primaries. We traditionally wait until after the conventions," said Chris Cox, head lobbyist for the NRA. "That being said, given the candidates and the process and the front-loading of the primaries, it is a possibility that we could get involved in one of these presidential primaries."
Republican presidential hopefuls know of the 4-million-member group's power. On Friday, they paraded before 500 lifetime NRA members at a conference in Washington, each making a pitch for why they are the best candidate to protect the rights of gun owners.
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who earned an "A" rating from the NRA during his time in the Senate, was the group's favorite. Meanwhile, the GOP front-runner, Rudolph W. Giuliani, left members underwhelmed.
"He's a flip-flopper," said Ed Hanson of Wisconsin, shortly after listening to the former New York City mayor's speech at the Capital Hilton. "He should say one thing and stick with it. Say what you mean and stand by it. He hasn't done that. And that's a problem — a huge problem."
Interviews with a dozen others who attended the star-studded event — all lifetime members, some wearing NRA hats, others in camouflage gear — found a consensus: Mr. Giuliani is not their man...(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Everybody says that. Maybe he does excite the base, or would if they really got hear his message.
I want the best candidate, the one who will be the best President. Not sure if that is Hunter, Huckabee, or Thompson. But Thompson seems a little too middle of the road to me, unlike Reagan who ran far more to the right than he was able to govern, but still governed more on the right than any other recent, as in post WW-II, make that post Great Depression, President.
Talk is cheap, and his record is a bit more spotty than I'd like.
Still if he is the nominee, he's light years above of any of the 'Rat candidates on my Second Amendment litmus test scale.
He also voted for several versions of what became Campaign Finance Reform, also known as incumbent protection, including the version that became law.
But unlike most politicians, he isn't loath to admit mistakes.
You used old cliches and innuendo against Fred... the polls (once again) prove otherwise. We have ONE CHANCE to defeat 'toon and save America... we need a man that can WIN!
LLS
That's right! My how time flys and things sneak up on me.
yeah, i’d read that hit piece a couple times, didn’t realize it originated from GOA until today.
but i read thru those “bad” votes, in context of the whole bill, not just the part that dealt with 2A, and IMHO a couple of them were bad enough to irritate me.
Out of curiosity, which votes specifically irritated you? His record isn’t perfect (he is a politician, after all), but there’s been enough misinformation out there that I want to make sure he’s being judged on the facts.
He’s done some things with which I don’t agree, too — but for me, his pros overwhelmingly outnumber his cons.
Thompson’s record has been incorrectly reported by the GOA (among others). That’s not to say he’s perfect — no politician is. Which of his second amendment votes particularly bother you, in comparison to Hunter’s votes?
honostly, i don’t remember now, i’d have to re-read thru them all again.
Sounds good. I’ll just note that two of the anti-gun votes GOA claimed Thompson made were completely wrong:
ref. 9 (taggants in gunpowder): GOA’s citation is wrong — Thompson voted to KILL the Kerry amendment on gunpowder taggants
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00287
ref. 13: GOA’s citation is wrong — Thompson voted FOR the Smith amendment that required immediate destruction of all firearms, etc.and permitted those harmed by violations of this provision the right to sue for damages
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00217
Yeah I know, but I also know that much the same was said of George W. Bush. And he's certainly been a mixed bag. Good on taking the fight to the terrorists, not so good on general military funding. Terrible on the border.
Better than either AlGore or JF'nK? Bet your booty. But how is that? Still, I was out there in the street in front of, and around, the Alamo, chanting "Get out of Cheney's House", during the Florida fiasco, twice in fact. I've been at two FReeps in Crawford, actually three if you count the Move America forward affair a few weeks ago, when I also was at the Waco stop.
But I'm really, really tired of having to vote for the Most Electable, rather than the best. In fact I probably won't. But a, my opinion is not fully formed yet as to which one that is.
One thing that is not necessarily negative, but makes me nervous is that Fred is an Actor (and a lawyer). Of course he's a good communicator. But unlike Reagan and George W. Bush, and like Hunter, he has no real executive experience. As an actor, with Reagen being something of an exception since he was never really a big star, actors tend to crave approval. That might be part of the reason he voted for that Constitutional abomination, the CFR/incumbent protection Act.
Winning the election and defeating the Hildebeast are Good Things, but the winning candidate will have to govern too. Be nice to have someone with some experience at that. No perfect choice I guess, but there never is. The primaries are a long way off, and I've got time to make up my mind.
The whole military R&D system seems to be going into meltdown, particularly the Army's but the Navy and Air Force aren't so far behind. That's mostly Congress fault, but it still needs fixing and it would be nice to have someone who understood it at a gut level to get that done.
Great new video at the NRA website.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917543/posts
A Real Hunter in the Whitehouse
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1917542/posts
Duncan Hunter Video at the NRA
Sure. He came out against the LOST because it would infringe on the sovereignty of the U.S. but he’s going to throw it away by combining all of North America. He wants stronger States’ Rights, but at the same time he wants to weaken the
United States.
That’s really logical.
From Fred’s Senate website:
(Senator Thompson does not)”believe that the United States should cede any of our sovereign rights as a nation to multilateral institutions. At no time should international institutions be given the authority to tax American citizens, control U.S. soldiers outside our chain of command, prosecute Americans soldiers and citizens, or make laws governing the American people.
Senator Thompson believes our adherence to these principles and priorities will ensure that the United States remains free, strong, and prosperous — a beacon of hope and model for all, and the undisputed leader of the free world.”
Hey T2D...the CFR isn’t an evil shadow government. John Bolton is a CFR member and he sure as hell isn’t a one-worlder, I don’t think Fred is either.
Yeah...we hear mostly negative news about the CFR because of the fact that many members (but by NO means all or even most) are NAU types...but not all...it’s not a requirement to be a one-world-gov’t type to be in the CFR...heck, I could join if I wanted to.
IMHO, the Thompson and Hunter are the top tier with Romney and Huckabee 2nd tier. The rest are just chatter in my opinion.
nevermind. i’ve been better informed since then. apparently the information i got was from a GOA hit piece that’s been pretty well debunked.
While Ron Paul might be great on the 2nd Amendment...I don’t see the NRA endorsing a guy that has no desire at all to protect us from terrorism and should be carted out of Congress in the next available straightjacket.
Agreed. There's something else that I find interesting: yesterday I received a mailing with a "Fred08" marking on the envelope. Inside was a donation form and 2nd Amendment-related questionnaire for me to complete and return. The cover letter gave the gun-rights positions of Fred and his top-tier Republican competitors as well as Hillary and Obama.
It didn't say "NRA" anywhere on the papers, but I'd bet that the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action played a big part in producing that mailing. I've seen enough of their work in the past to notice the similarities.
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.