Posted on 10/02/2010 3:06:19 PM PDT by Qbert
The National Rifle Association says it has endorsed Democratic Rep. Tim Walz in southern Minnesota's 1st District because he's a strong defender of the Second Amendment.
Walz is running for a third term against GOP challenger Randy Demmer and Independence Party candidate Steven Wilson.
The NRA's Political Victory Fund gives both Walz and Demmer A grades. But the pro-gun lobby says Walz gets the nod because of a number of his votes in support of gun rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at wcco.com ...
“the NRA is NOT a conservative organization....they will back pro gun democrats....then dump them the next election cycle for any transgression....(and the same with Republicans)
it is a pro gun organization...
the NRA is what it is....they are not endorsing Reed this year....because of his votes on Sotomayor and Kagan....though previously he earned their loyalty by not voting for anti gun bills.”
—The NRA endorsed Dem. Joe Manchin for WV Senate...even though Manchin previously appointed anti-gun rights leftist Goodwin to replace Byrd until the special election. Goodwin promptly voted for Kagan. Something is seriously wrong here. This isn’t even ‘single issue’ anymore:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2597849/posts
I really do not believe that there is such a thing as a "pro-gun Democrat". All Democrats, and most voters know that the Dem party is a party with ultimate plans for firearm confiscation. They let some members pretend to be pro-gun, but only in a fundamentally meaningless way, while other freedoms and property are confiscated, and laws are engineered to make gun ownership more difficult and costly (and the definition approved group of gun owners continually narrows.)
In other words, the election of a "pro-gun" Democrat is a Pyrrhic victory in which we appear to be winning a small battle, but winning the over-all war is now less likely.
The NRA knows this (or they are totally inept) but still continues with the "single issue" nonsense.
I choose to NOT renew my NRA membership, and all the mail, and calls, and other slick techniques will not budge me on that.
.
If the current administration and a newly elected Dem controlled House is successful in throwing out the Constitution, the Second amendment goes with it. Then the only way to get it all back is through revolt, and it is much easier to vote them out now, not be single issue. Why lend endorsement at all when both get same grades.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry...but that was brilliant. :-)
Btw, goa IIRC, MN-01: Emmer ‘A’, Walz ‘D’...
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry...but that was brilliant. :-)
Btw, goa IIRC, MN-01: Demmer ‘A’, Walz ‘D’...
You should answer. I did, three days in a row. Since they called me I felt free to tell them exactly what I thought of them each time. It was funny that they didn’t hang up, just kept asking me to please listen to the spin.
Are you saying you don't want Democrats to support gun rights? I'll take all the supporters I can get on second amendment protections. I hope every Democrat gets endorsed by the NRA along with every Republican and Independent.
Tell me what I am missing here?
Who be da man? YOU be da man!
Excellent post, cuts right to the problem!
The NRA is a one-issue organization, and makes no bones about it. They’ve always endorsed both Republicans and Democrats. By having endorsees in both parties, they maintain influence no matter who’s in power, and it’s worked very well, in terms of maintaining gun rights through liberal and conservative administrations and congresses. Even 0bama can’t be too openly anti-gun, or he would lose support from the NRA dependents in his own party.
The NRA came within a hair’s breadth of endorsing Harry Reid. And I may not trust either political party, but there’s no way I would trust a Democrat to keep his word on anything. The so-called ‘moderates’ are kept on a short leash.
We are rapidly approaching the time when NRA’s Political Action Committee the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) will begin issuing endorsements in elections across the country.
As always in an election year, we receive many calls and e-mails inquiring about our endorsement policy in general, and specific races in particular. That trend has certainly held up this year, as we have received many inquiries about high profile races, such as the Nevada Senate race. For the record, NRA-PVF has not yet announced any ratings or endorsements in this race.
With few exceptions, and for several reasons, we generally do not announce ratings or endorsements until closer to the elections. There are still votes to be graded and other information to be evaluated prior to issuing an accurate grade as Election Day nears.
As in every election year, some of these endorsements prompt questions concerning the criteria NRA-PVF uses in making these decisions. Following is a brief explanation of that policy.
The NRA-PVF is non-partisan in issuing its candidate grades and endorsements. We do not base our decisions on a candidate’s party affiliation, but rather on his or her record on Second Amendment issues. The NRA is a single-issue organization. The only issues on which we evaluate candidates seeking elected office are gun-related issues. While there are many issues a candidate must address with voters, and while voters evaluate a number of non-gun-related issues in factoring which candidate they will support or oppose, NRA-PVF’s sole criteria in issuing grades and endorsements is a candidate’s position on gun-related issues.
With four million NRA members and 80 million gun owners in the country, our constituency is diverse in its views on multiple issues of our day. However, we are all united in our support of the Second Amendment and our opposition to the notion that passing more laws that negatively impact law-abiding gun owners will reduce crime. For us to divide that otherwise united base of support on non-firearm-related issues would be strategically foolish.
NRA has an incumbent-friendly policy that dictates our support for pro-gun incumbents seeking reelection. It is important that we stand with our friends who stand with us in Congress or the state legislature through their actions. Of course, should a pro-gun challenger win his election, and stay true to support for our gun rights, then he will be the beneficiary of this policy when seeking re-election.
For candidates who are not incumbents or who have not previously held elective office and thus lack voting records, we review answers to NRA’s candidate questionnaires, their campaign literature and relevant statements, and rely on intelligence from NRA members and gun owners in the field.
All of this information is then reviewed and a grade of “A” to “F” is issued. Endorsements are not given in every race. Our endorsement is not given lightly; it is something that is reserved for those candidates who meet certain criteria and something that must be earned.
Sometimes we receive inquiries concerning judicial races. NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements in judicial elections. In the rare circumstances where NRA-PVF makes endorsements in state judicial races, there are many complexities that must be taken into account, including the following:
• Judges, unlike legislators, often do not have voting records. Therefore, in evaluating judicial candidates, NRA-PVF can only make evaluations based upon past legal opinions and public statements involving firearm-related issues;
• Individual states implement different codes of judicial conduct, and have often passed statutes limiting judicial candidates from announcing their views on issues or controversies that may come before the court, and;
• These codes or statutes may prevent judicial candidates from filling out NRA-PVF candidate questionnaires. Even if a candidate could fill out a questionnaire, and then got elected to the bench, the questionnaire answers might later force the judge to recuse him- or herself from a firearm-related case.
We certainly welcome input and information from our members on judicial candidates. It is important to remember, however, that NRA-PVF’s involvement in judicial races remains the exception and not the rule.
For a list of candidate grades and endorsements for your state, please refer to your November NRA magazines, or visit www.NRAPVF.org.
I’m a member of the NRA and am mad as hell about this endorsement! Doesn’t the NRA realize that we need a Conservative (Republican) MAJORITY in Congress to protect our 2nd Amendment rights?
GOA candidate ratings
http://gunowners.org/2010candidateratingsguide.htm
2010 Minnesota Candidates
House
DISTRICT NAME PARTY RATING
01 DEMMER-—— R - A
01 WALZ -——— D - D
01 JOHNSON -— I - F
They have been fighting the fight and mostly winning ever since I can remember! They prevented handguns from being controlled like machineguns. They prevented handguns from being banned by 1979 as the antis said they would be. They derailed the assault rifle bans. They are the first into the fight to keep your guns safe.
And so many are sulling up because they believe the NRA should endorse their favorite candidate.
Do you NRA dropouts really think your pathetic whines will keep Soros from pouring millions into banning your guns? Can you come up with enough cash to buy TV time to counter the Brady Center's lies?
If not, you need to be a member of the biggest, baddest pro-gun organization there is! THE NRA!
The NRA can just plain ol’ go to hell.
Yeah, and they would have if they'd thought they could have gotten away with it. As it is, they just publicly said they weren't going to endorse him but they quietly slipped him a check. (wink wink.)
Why does the Brady Campaign never cite a bill as being funded behind the scenes by the GOA, SAF, etc?
Because they are nobodies. The NRA has the clout specifically for this reason.
I swear, I’ve heard more people resigning their NRA membership here than they probably even have members. It’s ridiculous and shows how clueless the average FReeper is when it comes to successful lobbying.
Ideals are nice, but results are better. The NRA provides that.
No, we will not accept them for what they ‘are’, because what they are, are a bunch of compromisers.
And many of us don’t want to put of a organization that shortsighted, to think that you can defend one of the Bill of Rights and ignore the rest.
Didn't you guys learn anything from the phony 'pro-life' Democrats, who quickly sold out the 'pro-life' vote?
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.