Do anti-gun legislators deserve support simply because they're Republican?

Buckeye Firearms Association ^ | 10/16/06 | Ken Hanson & Chad Baus

[OH2Am]

Buckeye Firearms Association has always described itself as a non-partisan political action committee. Yet in recent days, PAC Chairman Jim Irvine has been in conversation with a reader who takes exception to the endorsement of Democrats. (For an excellent article on the NRA's endorsement of Democrats in national races, click here)

In a bit of ironic timing, as this conversation was going on, another Buckeye Firearms Association volunteer was having her own conversation with just the type of Republican this PAC could never endorse...

[clamper1797]

That is EXACTLY how I do it ...

[Dead Corpse]

Never... EVER vote Democrat. Especially these days with the outright Socialism expressed by a majority of that party.

However, don't just automatically pull the lever for "liberal" anti-Rights RINO's either. Vote Third party in those cases.

[untrained skeptic]

Yea, I've unfortunately voted for a number of candidates who did not deserve my vote simply because they were the far better of two bad choices.

I'll be doing it again shortly when I vote for Mike Dewine again despite how much I detest him.

[clamper1797]

Greeting fellow EE ... I'll be holding my nose when I vote
against Angelinass by voting for AArnold.

[Atlas Sneezed]

If the RINOs who are anti-gun learn that they can't win more votes by pandering to the left, maybe some RINOs will be deterred. We might lose a few seats, but we might stem this ridiculous tide of unprincipled RINOs.

It is better that a few RINOs LOSE, even to communists, if that means that we get Republican candidates who have real principles.

Kind of like spanking your kids. Even the ones you don't spank will get the message.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I will take a conservative over a “moderate Republican” if I can get it. I will accept a “moderate Republican” over a RINO if I have to. I will live with a RINO over a Demoncrat if I must.

---

This is the fertile soil that grows RINOs.

[Shooter 2.5]

I understand for politics sake, the NRA has to reward pro-gun politicians so they can eventually take over the dem party.

That doesn't mean I have to. $crew 'em.

[untrained skeptic]

This is the fertile soil that grows RINOs.

The place to defeat RINOs is in the Primary.

However, in any election you very rarely if ever get to vote for your ideal candidate. You instead must choose among the choices that are available.

We do need to convince more people that voting for a bad incumbent is better than voting for a better challenger in the primary because they feel the incumbent has a better chance simply because they are the incumbent is a bad idea.

However, we also need to have some better challengers. More often or not we are left with picking the least horrible of the candidates.

I'm not at all happy with this situation, so if you have a rational solution to this dilemma, please share it.

[flipper999]

The answer is yes in the general election. In fact, not only should you vote for the rino, you should convince others around you to vote for them too.

We MUST not lose the house or the senate.

[supercat]

ONLY if it keeps a liberal democrat out office

The problem with that theory is that it means that Democrats can guarantee the election of anti-gun congresscritters by running radical leftists.

When was the Lautenberg Abomination passed? What was the margin of passage? Why did it pass when it did, with the margin it did?

[Atlas Sneezed]

However, in any election you very rarely if ever get to vote for your ideal candidate.

---

We are not talking about my ideal and ordinary republicans with flaws. We are talking about anti-gunners. Not only do they not deserve my vote, they deserve to be strung up for betraying the basic principles of the party.

I there were more people like me, NO Republican would dare such a betrayal.

[JTHomes]

The Republicans piss me off these days. But I can't see voting for a Democrat. They'll drive us to socialism and economic ruin twice as fast as the Republicans will. I'd rather take my time on that ride.

[muleskinner]

If you vote for the democrat, and it changes the majority party in the House Of Reps., just remember who will be in charge:
Nancy Pelosi - Speaker-Nothing more need be said.
John Conyers - Judiciary - a true psycho who has promised to bring impeachment charges and a friend of Fidel.
Charlie Wrangell - an extreme left-wing democrat nut from Brooklyn, he will get to chair the Ways and Means Committee.
Henry Waxman - another nut - head of Gov't Reform - one useless investigation after another.
Jane Harman - Intelligence Committee - wants to go back to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - now there's a step forward.(sarc)

[jim_trent]

We have posted back and forth before, Beelzebubba, and we are not going to agree. You think I am wrong and I think you are wrong.

I just remember back to the 1992 election when the "principled conservatives" went for the nutcase, Perot. The 80% to 85% of his votes who would have kept Clinton OUT of office (ie: would have voted for Bush in a 2-man race) instead gave us 8 years of destroying the military and building up the terrorists that want to harm us. No, I don't think we were better off by splitting our vote and giving the office to Clinton.

[therut]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. If someone does not support the 2nd amendment they are a RINO at best.... It is a line in the sand that tells you what they think of YOU.

[untrained skeptic]

I there were more people like me, NO Republican would dare such a betrayal.

But the problem is there aren't enough people who believe strongly in their right to keep and bear arms. So the politicians do dare to betray us regarding that right and our other rights.

That's the unfortunate truth of our current reality.

I don't know how to change that reality. I do know that complaining about it does very little by itself. I also no that refusing to make a choice because neither of the choices is desirable is a solution.

We have to do our best to make the best choice.

That may not seem like a good choice when we have to choose between bad choices, but we still need to pick the better of the two. Otherwise we will have our choices made for us by those that are easily swayed by lies and deceit.

[supercat]

I don't know how to change that reality. I do know that complaining about it does very little by itself. I also no that refusing to make a choice because neither of the choices is desirable is a solution.

If you're willing to accept a politician who stabs you in the back, just because his opponent is worse, you'll always get stabbed in the back.

Perhaps next election it will be safer to "send a message" than this one, but you can bet the RINOs will do everything they can to see that it isn't.

RINOs and Democrats play "good cop/bad cop". People need to realize the "good cop" is not their friend.

[CountryBumpkin]

Yes, for one simple reason. It is much easier to persuade an otherwise acceptable Pub to come over to the side of the Second Amendment than it is to convince a Dim to become conservative on any issue. A Pub usually leans towards anti-Second Amendment based on understandable moral grounds. Dims tend to be just plain unreasonable beyond hope.

[untrained skeptic]

If you're willing to accept a politician who stabs you in the back, just because his opponent is worse, you'll always get stabbed in the back.

If I don't accept the candidate "who stabs me in the back" over the opponent that is worse, I still get either him or his even worse opponent. Not choosing doesn't change that.

Perhaps next election it will be safer to "send a message" than this one, but you can bet the RINOs will do everything they can to see that it isn't.

The fact that there are so many RINOs does appear to guarantee that if there is a Republican majority it won't be a conservative majority. Therefore very little that conservative voters want done gets done. The government keeps growing in size and in how it interferes in our daily lives.

I don't disagree with that. However, if you put Democrats in office, in most cases things will be even worse. If they have the majority they will also set the agenda. Instead of the true conservatives trying to push through good laws, they will spend all their time fighting bad laws.

I agree that the many in the Republican party have become liberal in their views. They push more government as the solution to every problem. We do need to change that. We need to unseat the RINOs in the primaries. That is something that very rarely happens, but there does appear to be a trend of primaries becoming closer races as more conservatives reject RINOs.

However, what message does withdrawing support from a RINO send? It tells the Democrats that the Republicans are defeatable. For many people the message will be that the voters have become more liberal and that more "moderate" Republican candidates are the ones who have a chance of winning (RINOs). Here in Ohio, the State Republican Party leadership is made of of mostly RINOs. They are not going to throw their weight behind a conservative candidate, because conservatives would take them out of positions of power in the party.

They instead back RINOs in primaries and we see them attacking candidates like Blackwell because of how his plans to cut taxes and limit the growth of government might prevent the State from being able to give local governments money for things like a fire engine.

That was actually in an attack add by Petro against Blackwell in the primary for the governor's race. How dare Blackwell attempt to reduce taxes when it might in some theoretical case prevent the state government from being able to provide money for the "needs" of local governments.

The choice you offer is no choice. The message you want to send isn't going to be clear. If it is a clear message by the majority of Republicans, then you'll be able to send it clearly in the primary.

Part of life is making hard choices. Refusing to accept reality and neglecting to make those choices is irresponsible.

RINOs and Democrats play "good cop/bad cop". People need to realize the "good cop" is not their friend.

True. But I'm not claiming RINOs are my friend. However in some cases they are the least bad of two bad choices.

You should educate yourself on the issues and on the candidates views and voting records on those issues, and then make an informed vote for the better of the two candidates.

[supercat]

If I don't accept the candidate "who stabs me in the back" over the opponent that is worse, I still get either him or his even worse opponent. Not choosing doesn't change that.

The goal is to have someone not stab you in the back. The only way that's going to happen is if the politician in power knows that stabbing you in the back will be to his detriment.

Conservatives are in a bind because they have for years allowed RINOs to stab them in the back without reprisals. Every time the RINOs get away with stabbing conservatives in the back, the harder it will be to remove them, and the more unavoidable damage will result from the attempt.

Someone who refuses to amputate a fingertip because of gangrene will not save the finger. The problem won't go away, but it will instead get worse. If a different doctor finally decides to cut off an arm because most of it had become infected, the loss of the arm is not the fault of the doctor who cut it off but rather the fault of those who refused to amputate the fingertip.

However, what message does withdrawing support from a RINO send? It tells the Democrats that the Republicans are defeatable. For many people the message will be that the voters have become more liberal and that more "moderate" Republican candidates are the ones who have a chance of winning (RINOs).

Every vote received by a clearly conservative third-party candidate is a vote which everyone will know the Republican forfeited as a result of his refusal to act like a conservative.

How will that suggest that more "moderate" Republicans will have more chance of winning? To me, it would seem to make clear that for the Republicans to win they should recapture their conservative base. Look at the logic from a candidate perspective: move left, and fight over some voters whom the other candidate is trying hard to grab, or move left and pick up some voters with minimal competition. Shouldn't be a hard choice, if politicians were forced to actually make it.