Posted on 11/11/2010 12:44:34 PM PST by neverdem
When you analyze the impact of conservative and single-issue membership organizations on the 2010 midterm elections, you find that one group’s efforts dwarfed the rest: The National Rifle Association of America.
The NRA spent $20 million on behalf of its candidates — nearly five times more than the combined effort of all other such groups.
In fact, the amount of money the NRA spent to defeat Democrat John Spratt in South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District was more than all the other Second Amendment groups combined.
The group is now well-positioned to protect gun owners’ rights at the state and federal level for the next 10 years.
As of this writing, there are 17 new Republican faces in governors’ offices, 14 of whom received an A rating from the NRA on Second Amendment issues, and two of whom received a B rating.
The most important of these might be Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a state which might now join the 40 other states that allow their citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection.
It also means that 116 electoral votes that went for President Barack Obama in 2008, will now be hotly contested in 2012.
In the U.S. Senate, seven of the new Republicans are A-rated by the NRA, and one of them has a solid B+ rating. In addition, not a single incumbent senator with an A rating from the NRA lost election. This too would indicate a political tide returning.
Considering there are 100 seats in the Senate, it will take two more election cycles for the tide to completely turn. In addition, only two NRA A-rated senators could be considered at risk in 2012, while 10 Senators with NRA ratings of F, D and C will likely have contentious re-elections...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Sorry Joe, there is no way to pour sugar on that to make it better. There isn't enough sugar in the world. That is a great big freaking line and they jumped it.
As for a line being crossed, the ironic thing there is that the NRA has operated in this fashion for decades; it's only now that it's been noticed. Or that people have become so politically polarized that it now has become an issue. Or both.
I don’t want to expend resources supporting Dems through a political organization. I also don’t think other conservatives should support political organizations that support Dems as the NRA does.
Free Republic is primarily about promoting conservatism. Of course 2A is a part of that. However, the good that the NRA does in promoting 2A is torpedoed by the bad they are doing by supporting Dems who, along with rinos, are destroying this republic.
Non Sequitur.
Not at all. You simply don't want to understand the term "endorsement" when applied to politics. Which is what we're discussing.
We don't support him but we will kick four thousand dollars in his direction. This makes sense to you?
You still refuse to recognize the difference between a "donation" and an "endorsement". While a donation to a campaign (a primary campaign, specifically) does have the semblance of an "endorsement", in political terms it is not.
Perhaps you could look the two terms up in the dictionary. Or, better yet, call the NRA and ask them. If you hadn't thought of that yet, it's a good idea.
I'm done repeating myself to you -- I have work to do.
As you wish.
Regards, Bart.
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.