Pro-gun Democrats win endorsements from NRA

Not a lot of things have gone the Democrats' way this year, but dozens of their House candidates are getting a late boost from an unusual source: the National Rifle Association.

So far this year, the NRA has endorsed 58 incumbent House Democrats, including more than a dozen in seats that both parties view as critical to winning a majority.

The endorsements aren't the result of a sudden love for a party with which the NRA is often at odds. Rather, the powerful group adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy, which holds that if two candidates are equally supportive of gun rights, the incumbent gets the nod.

Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with the GOP, having clout with Democrats has also been useful. In early 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. suggested the Obama administration might try to reinstitute a ban on the sale of assault weapons. Backed by the NRA, several dozen House Democrats sent Holder a letter opposing such a move, and the idea never resurfaced.

"If it hadn't been for those 60 House Democrats . . . things would have turned out very differently," Arulanandam said.

But some Republicans in Washington privately grumble that the NRA is taking a short-sighted approach toward a crucial election.

"I think most [Republicans] would agree that [the NRA has] made friends with a lot of Democrats who will be former members of Congress next year, and most would agree they've been ill-advised," said a national GOP strategist who requested anonymity for fear of retribution for criticizing the influential group.

The strategist also questioned whether the gun issue would be decisive in a year dominated by debates over the economy, jobs and health care...

Shhhhhh... you're speaking logically to GOA zombies.

Folks: if you really want to support a "no compromise" gun rights org, ignore those ankle biters in the GOA and donate all you can to the Second Amendment Foundation. They are actually getting things done.

And 2AF never aligned itself with the Marxist-run "Save the Internet." http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/08/20/goa-gets-burned-dabbling-in-ancillary-issues/ See, GOA fanboys... that's what happens when you dive into ancillary issues.

>>Just because the NRA has habitually endorsed pro-gun incumbents over like minded challengers doesn’t make it good policy this year.<<

I disagree. It’s the consistency that keeps the Dems in line when push comes to shove. As I said, their present policy is what likely kept our gun rights from being destroyed by the current Congress. They certainly had the votes. Do you think Snowe and Collins would have supported a filibuster?

>> Hopefully, the NRA will not be successful in propelling incumbent Dems to victory over pro-gun Republican challengers. Do you at least agree with that?<<

I agree with you in hoping that the NRA endorsement doesn’t result in Dem victories. I honestly think that the NRA feels the same way, but they have to stick with their policy or they will become ineffective in the future. Don’t forget that it wasn’t all that many years ago that Rush Limbaugh proclaimed the Democrats to be toast. A few years later they controlled everything. That time will come again and then the NRA’s policy will look pretty good to us.

And by the way, there is at least one Democrat who’s embarrassed by the NRA endorsement. I forget which one, but he was obviously having trouble explaining it to his base when he received it. Maybe someone else here recalls who it was?

>>{{The NRA isn’t stupid; they’re very good at what they do best, i.e., ensure our gun rights.}}

Really?

North Carolina declared ‘gun free zone’ in anticipation of Hurricane Earl<<

Yes, really. Why do you think they exist? If there were no politicians willing to write laws that subvert the 2nd Amendment, we wouldn’t need the NRA, would we? All you’ve done is cite a case proving the point that the NRA is needed.

“I agree with you in hoping that the NRA endorsement doesn’t result in Dem victories. I honestly think that the NRA feels the same way”

Whew, I’m glad that you agree that a pro-gun Republican is better than a pro-gun Dem. As to the proposition that the NRA secretly hopes for a Republican victory while simultaneously supporting key Dems in competitive House races, I respectfully disagree. That would be like someone with lung cancer hoping that the cigarettes would cure them.

When the pro-gun Republican beats the pro-gun Dem (at least we can hope), I wonder how that newly minted incumbent Republican will feel towards the NRA. Maybe money would assuage the wounds in some cases, but people also hold grudges that money can’t buy.

The NRA has lost credibility with many conservative, 2nd amendment supporters. The same thing happened with seniors and the AARP, doctors and the AMA. True, some conservatives will come back, but others will seek out other gun rights groups that more consistently oppose the enemies of liberty.

Republicans are expected to win the House this year. But,if they do not win we all know it’s human nature that there will be some serious finger pointing. A lot of conservatives are going to look for someone to blame and the NRA will be at the top of the list.

North Carolina declared ‘gun free zone’ in anticipation of Hurricane Earl.

If it weren't for the NRA the atrocities of Katrina would have gone unanswered in Ray Nagin's "chocolate" version of Hell. After they grabbed the guns with literal military force, NRA mounted the lawsuits that both resulted in the legislation that prevented it from ever happening again (also copied all over in other states) and forced the government onto the road to returning the confiscated guns to the rightful owners. An ongoing process, I think. Still, absent the clout and the funding by the NRA, nothing would have been done and certainly any efforts would have been deemed local in nature and the story given short shrift by the MSM. As it was, the media had to cover what became a major event, even though they hated giving any recognition to the NRA.

>>As to the proposition that the NRA secretly hopes for a Republican victory while simultaneously supporting key Dems in competitive House races, I respectfully disagree. <<

Really? Disagree all you want, but I’d lay 10-1 odds that you’re wrong on that one, unless the Republican has an anti-gun stance, of course.

>>When the pro-gun Republican beats the pro-gun Dem (at least we can hope), I wonder how that newly minted incumbent Republican will feel towards the NRA. <<

Well, I can offer you some personal experience on that one. I ran against a Democrat in a statewide race. The incumbent Dem was very strong on gun rights (and meant it too) and got the NRA endorsement. If I’d have won, I’d have fully expected to get, and would have appreciated, the NRA endorsement in future races (unless I’d waffled on gun rights issues by then, of course.)

Long term members of the NRA are familiar with the logic underlying their stance and accept it as a necessary evil when it comes to effectively protecting our gun rights, as they certainly have, especially over the past year and a half when we could easily have lost most of them.

“Well, I can offer you some personal experience on that one. I ran against a Democrat in a statewide race. The incumbent Dem was very strong on gun rights (and meant it too) and got the NRA endorsement.”

So in effect, assuming that you are an NRA member, some of your dues contributed to your defeat at a Republican, all because you were the challenger. It is also apparent that second to gun rights, the NRA is firmly committed to incumbency. And incumbency does pose a problem because it firmly entrenches money and corruption in our political system.

Just because the NRA has a policy of supporting incumbents over challengers doesn’t mean that it should not consider re-evaluating that policy. There are undoubtedly high ranking members that also value conservative ideals and other aspects of the Constitution. Perhaps some of these people could re-evaluate this policy. What about polling members on a policy change? Is it wise to support pro-gun Democrats during an election that may deliver the House to the Republicans? Again, consider polling the membership to effect a change in the policy.

This isn’t just any ordinary year. We are on the cusp of sinking into a irreversible path towards socialism and a hard tyranny. The Constitution is being shredded every day. Just the other day, a judge found the 0bamacare mandates to be constitutional. Four SCOTUS judges clearly do not believe in the second amendment. The Dems and rino allies can take away our freedoms away w/o regard to the Constitution. Unfortunately, a “good” pro-gun Dem nonetheless allows the Leftist Dem leadership to attack the many aspects of Constitution. Although the Dems may not launch a direct attack on the 2nd amendment, these other attacks could lead to an eventual weakening or destruction of the second amendment (just look at the SCOTUS example and the implications of a Kennedy death with 0bama surrogate as replacement). Although the House poses a less direct threat to gun rights, they do have oversight on EPA (ammo issue), 0bamacare (gun privacy issues) among others.

I do not think that we are having a dispute on the overall direction of the county but instead we are discussing the best strategy to restore republican (”small r”) ideals. However, I’m not sure that the NRA’s current policy is the best for gun rights and our republic. Gun rights do not exist independently in a hermetically sealed vacuum. By wedding itself to incumbency as its second most important consideration, the NRA also in effect weds itself to the government establishment. The NRA should consider its membership’s opinion on these issues again or else it could go the same way as the pathetic AMA.

So, the scenario you set forth is such:

1. A politician in word and deed supports the 2nd Amendment, which...
2. Earns him the support of the NRA, the 500 lb gorilla in the room when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues, but...
3. When the politician is up for re-election, despite his past actions, the NRA turns his back on him due to a party affiliation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the single issue for which the NRA exists.
This brings and keeps politicians on the proper side of the Constitution in what way? This establishes a situation in which politicians give a damn what 2nd Amendment groups do or say?

And we can trust politicians' words simply because of an "R" next to their name? Are you on crack?

“And we can trust politicians’ words simply because of an “R” next to their name? Are you on crack?”

Did I say that having an R behind someones name guarantees fidelity to conservatism, free market and constitutional principles? No and never. This mis-characterization is a simplistic attack ofter employed by those that seek a straw man. I am against rinos just as I am against all Dems. Both oppose conservatism and the Constitution. The Dems oppose my values via direct assault and the rinos undermine my values through compromise.

As far as the NRA is concerned, it appears that they are ONLY concerned about the 2nd amendment. Because they support pro-gun incumbent Dems over equally pro-gun challenger Republicans, the NRA makes it somewhat more likely that a Democrat leadership will continue in the House this year. The NRA (and other narrow interest groups) have every right to do as they please.

My point is only that the 2nd amendment does not exist in a vacuum: it depends the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. My strong preference is to support groups that support the 2nd amendment AND the rest of the Constitution to give it life. And this year, with the House on the line, we cannot afford to allow the liberal Democrat leadership to prevail because the Democrats (and treasonous rinos) are a clear threat to all of our liberties. We need Constitutional conservative, pro-second amendment Republicans more than pro-second amendment Democrats.

I hope and believe that NRA members like you are committed to the entire Constitution and that even though we may have a dispute over the best way for out nation to preserve all of our liberties, perhaps we can work together at least in some ways against the foes of liberty.

I don't think I'm presenting a straw man argument. At its core, the situation is this: The NRA evaluates two candidates. Candidate A is an incumbent Democrat that has a pro-2A voting record and with whom the NRA has an existing relationship. Candidate B is a Republican with a 2A record that only exists on the survey that a staffer filled out and returned to the NRA. The anti-NRA people on this site (as well as firearms & 2A pundits such as Tom Gresham and Mark Walters) are openly angry that in these situations, the NRA chooses to endorse A over B.

What I say is why the simplistic choice for B? How many Republicans laid over, played dead, and voted for Kagan and Sotomayer? How many Republicans voted for the Clinton gun ban? I hate Harry Reid. I really do, but honestly, if I had to rely on his vote and voice for the 2nd Amendment, I'd trust him far more than some GOP pukes like Kasich, Ros-Lehtinen, Shays, or {snicker} Castle.

I understand that these decisions aren't made in a vacuum, but the NRA can't logically cast off candidates simply due to party affiliation. And that IS the criteria that the anti-NRA people argue the NRA should adopt.

I know what the NRA does. I will say this again and again, I do not support rinos. Rinos are pernicious through compromise.

By the way, what about the WVA race. No incumbents there-it’s a special election. Manchin (D) came out with a new ad touting his NRA endorsement. His opponent Raese is also pro-gun, oh but too bad, he’s a Republican. So if Manchin wins, how will he vote on a 0bama SCOTUS nominee? Ya think that nominee is going to be an anti-gun liberal? How may times in the history of the US Senate has a Dem Senator voted against a Dem president SCOTUS nominee? I guess when the NRA’s guy Manchin wins, we will find out. I just can’t wait.

The NRA supports pro-gun Dems. Pro gun Dems vote for the Dem leadership. The Dem leadership is liberal, socialist, and controlled by the progressives. The Dem leadership is anti-2nd amendment and anti-Constitutional to their rotten Marxist cores. They will never change.

I agree with you in so far as stating the the Republican leadership is far from perfect, but the Republican leadership is more pro Constitution and pro-gun than the Dem leadership IMHO.

The NRA is all about the 2nd amendment and that is perfectly fine. But, they are NOT a conservative organization and not a pro-Constitutional organization (except the 2nd amendment). Last time I checked, the Constitution and BOR had a lot to say about our other rights. But who cares about those rights when you have the NRA and its defense of the 2nd amendment.

I don’t think we can come to any agreement over our views of the NRA. I will not support such a group because I do not view it as a conservative group because of their support for Dems. I believe that there are other conservative gun right groups that are more in line with my political views.

What we need is pro 2nd amendment pro Constitutional, conservative Republicans to win elections. The Democrat party is dead and cannot be saved in my view. The Republicans and the Republican Party are highly imperfect and must be purged of progressives.

The NRA might think it’s making inroads into the progressive Democrat Party. But what I think is really going on is that the progressive Democrats are making inroads into the NRA. We have seen this happen with the AARP and seniors, the AMA and doctors. Watch out, it might happen to you guys!

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.