NRA GOP Shills
Hardly, despite the cries of some:
The National Rifle Association has a simple agenda in Washington: protecting gun ownership. But it faces a complex challenge this campaign season: supporting Republican control of Congress while staying loyal to Democratic candidates who supported the gun lobby.
“We will endorse regardless of party,” says Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “However, gun owners are very concerned and do not want as speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has been consistently vocal against their rights. They understand the significance of these elections.”
That means the NRA, which sits on a campaign war chest of $20 million, is expecting to endorse as many as 60 Democrats in House and Senate elections, about the same number it endorsed in every national election since 2002 and three times the 20 or so Democrats it supported in races during the early 1990s. At the same time, the NRA wants to make sure Republicans keep control of Congress.
They endorsed Democrat Governors Bill Richardson and Phil Bredesen. And, of course, many liberals are right on guns.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Didn’t you link to or post an entry recently about how the NRA endorsed a Republican candidate with a poor gun rights history over the Democratic candidate who had a great NRA rating? I thought I remembered something like that recently.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Hmm, not that I recall immediately but it sounds familiar.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Might have been Corker, who has no gun rights history, vs Junior, who rates a C from the NRA.
I don’t see the NRA endorsing Dems as a bad thing. First, it gets that parties’ attention, also, many who vote don’t have gun rights as a “deal breaker” like folks who come here.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Maybe it wasn’t you who linked to it—but I remember now, it was a link to this entry:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=5324#comments
October 13th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
A couple of reasons why your argument that my post illustrates they are GOP shills doesn’t work: (I know, kinda funny given my post on the matter.)
1) I was looking to the future. NRA did not endorse “a Republican candidate with a poor gun rights history over the Democratic candidate who had a great NRA rating.” It was a primary election. The Democratic pro-gun candidate was never running against a Republican for the Governor’s seat.
2) It had the potential to blow up in their face. I don’t have time to search the archives right now, but I believe I reported that they lucked out and it didn’t happen. Smith lost. Even if Smith won, it’s not clear what would have happened for the general. NRA probably would have stayed out of the race and allowed both candidates to say they have been previously endorsed in other races.
3) It wasn’t even “a Republican candidate with a poor gun rights history”, the guy had a freaking A rating. The potential Democratic nominee (again, to be clear, not the actual nominee at this point) had an A+. It was pro-gun vs. slightly more pro-gun. Characterizing the situation I was writing about as NRA supporting an anti-rights guy because he’s a Republican is just plain wrong and misleading. I’d appreciate not having that kind of accusation associated with my post.
4) The point could also be made that politically supporting the Republican would be better since the legislature (I’m told) is likely to stay in the hands of the GOP. One of their own would be more likely to get things done. I’m not really sold on that argument, but it came from someone who knows Florida politics very well, so I’m throwing it out there.
5) If you don’t follow the gun rights debate on the national level, then you’re probably not familiar with the personalities involved. In this case, I specifically named a person who was responsible for issuing the endorsement so early in the race.
While I know I sound bitchy about this, please understand that while I have never stepped away from an opportunity to bitch about NRA, I try to make sure the complaints are valid. I check my facts and I check with everyone I know to make sure there’s not a larger point I’m missing. Using these very specific situations with very unique personalities involved that do not (usually) represent the larger picture really frustrates me. Now, back to bitching in real life about the camps the motrin can’t kill, my lack of sleep and the fact that I’m just now having a dose of caffiene for the first time in 3 days.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Bitter, I was not making an argument. I thought I remembered the post and thought that was the gist of it.
I’m an NRA member, I just want to make sure they do remain non-partisan and support the best gun-rights candidate at all times.
I do appreciate your clarification and followup—because I was curious as to what ended up happening—but I want to clarify that I was not attacking Uncle (or purposefully misstating your stance). I was just confused on the situation 🙂