The NRA does not hate the Tea Party. The NRA has always been a non-political organization with a single purpose: to protect gun ownership.
Their rules for political endorsement are published every two years in their magazines. The rules are designed to gain support for gun ownership. Roughly, endorse whoever supports guns the most with actions (not words); in case of a tie, go with the incumbent (I suppose because they have more influence).
I hope Sen. Reid will be their exception. However, if they break their own rules, incumbent Democrats will take notice, and they will be harder to influence in the future.
The NRA has been extremely successful in what it does… supporting gun ownership. Every two years they restate: The NRA is not a political organization… political party has nothing to do with the decision… nor do other issues have anything to do with the decision... the NRA is a single issue organization.
NRA believes their endorsement rules are why they can be so influential on Capitol Hill.
years.
Still, I think Wayne L. and company have been there too long and it looks to me like it may be time for a change at the top. The NRA have done some good things in the past but it appears to me that the folks in charge are having too much fun playing the political game. This endorsement is an example of that, as was the DISCLOSE Act fiasco and supporting Reid, to name just a few recent ones. The present leadership has simply been in the cesspool on the Potomac too long and lost touch with their members, pretty much totally. You said “The NRA has been extremely successful in what it does… supporting gun ownership”. You can bet your bottom dollar thst if Nancy needed one more vote in the house to pass a new gun ban Chet would provide it. If the ‘Rats needed one vote to pass it in the Senate Dingy Harry would do the same. There is no doubt in my mind about that. How is that “supporting gun ownership”? I won’t quit the NRA but I think LaPierre and Cox need to go.
“The NRA has been extremely successful in what it does… supporting gun ownership. Every two years they restate: The NRA is not a political organization… political party has nothing to do with the decision… nor do other issues have anything to do with the decision... the NRA is a single issue organization.”
You said it.
To repeat the concept for the benefit of the forum:
Democrats in pro-gun areas vote avoid anti-gun votes because of this NRA policy. It is the consistency of the NRA policy that makes it effective.
For example, Chet has a risk decision with each vote: (1) vote pro-gun, take the hit from the liberal Ds, but retain NRA endorsement; or (2) vote anti-gun, gain more liberal support, but lose NRA endorsement.
If the NRA endorsement was not assured to an incumbent, then Chet’s risk analysis would not weigh as much for option (1), and Chet would be less likely to vote pro-gun.
The Texas State RA has a similar policy for the same reasons.
—thank you—as you are the other grown-up on this thread who wasn’t born yesterday, you have stated what needed to be-—
If some of these knee jerk ranters would stop bitching about the NRA and actually think about it, they might ask themselves why with Pelosi and Reid running congress for the last 4 years not one piece of anti-gun legislation has even made it to the floor, let alone passed. In fact there has been pro-gun victories like allowing guns in National Parks. If the NRA was 100% Republican all the time, the Dems would have passed every Brady wet dream bill out there, They would have nothing to lose.
The R in NRA stands for Rifle, not Republican.