I TOTALLY agree with you. That’s why I said it can be infuriating to see the NRA endorse a dem, but the NRA doesn’t judge candidates the way I do.
They strictly look at previous records voting on firearms related legislation, and stated positions. (voting records carry more weight)
If someone as liberal as Nancy Pelosi had a strong voting record supporting firearms owners, the NRA would endorse her. If her opponent had a similar established voting record, they would endorse neither. That’s how they have always done it.
The NRA pays no attention to political parties or even ideology when choosing a candidate to endorse. In the long run, I believe that helps their credibility all around, as they are focused on one single issue and nothing else.
The outrage over the NRA merely -considering- endorsing Harry Reid should serve as a warning sign that tunnel vision will get them in trouble in the long term if they even think about pulling a stunt like that again.
Their angry members’ concerns weren’t unfounded. You can tell me how the NRA makes its decisions as many times as you’d like, but I still maintain that it’s a mistake for them to place their trust in liberal candidates when they’ve proven they’re willing to sacrifice their so-called ‘convictions’ in the interests of advancing big government.
The NRA, like it or not, has conservatives as its base; I doubt many liberals or wishy-washy ‘moderates’ (liberals in denial) would give it credibility regardless of how many Democrats they endorse. Mark my words: by courting liberal candidates, they’re alienating their base just like the GOP elite and they’ll suffer the same consequences at some point if they stay the course.
In the long run, I believe that helps their credibility all around, as they are focused on one single issue and nothing else. <<
and hence, I believe...You AND the NRA Can’t see the forest for the trees...