Endorsements matter
9 Responses to “Endorsements matter”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 7th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Someone needs to forward this to Rudy.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Heh
I just so happened to have enjoyed a pleasant lunch with some of Rudy’s big time financial supporters yesterday in DC.
They get this issue, or at least that’s all they hear from me.
Whether he gets it, well time will tell.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Forget Rudy! He SAYS that he now suports the RKBA…just when he is running for the Republican nomination. Then we obediently elect him as the “lesser of two evils” and we have some mass-murder shooting by criminals, deranged people, or “terrorists” and Rudy reverts back to his gut anti-gun position saying, I’m gonna have to restrict or deny guns to “keep you safe”. No thanks!
Even supposedly pro-gun Bush said he would sign a new AWB. And the National Guard was confiscating guns form LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS iin N.O. What would long-time anti-gunner Rudy do…oh yeah, let me guess “no one needs an “assault weapon” (SEMI-AUTO) to hunt deer” but I’ll allow you quaint little peasants to keep your hunting guns…for a government-licensed activity. Oh thank you, Great Benevolent Master. What a bad joke if conservatives fall for Rudy!
Hey, if no one needs these “assault weapons” for deer hunting, then what are all those guys around government officials, like Rudy, if he’s the Prez, carrying all those FULL-AUTO weapons??? Oh yeah, their lives are more important than the citizens who EMPLOY them…NOT!!!!!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
which begs the question, “If endorsements are so important, why is the NRA keeping it options open as regards those in the presidential primaries whom we know have long anti-gun records?”
November 7th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I will hear him speak to the Federalist Society next week in D.C., where, I am sure, he will try to masquerade himself as a libertarian.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
“If endorsements are so important, why is the NRA keeping it options open as regards those in the presidential primaries whom we know have long anti-gun records?”
Because politics isn’t about principle. It’s a dirty game where you have to worry about pissing off the wrong people. The risk would be that NRA tries to kneecap Rudy and he wins the nomination anyway. Knowing that NRA tried to do everything in their power to defeat him, do you think he’s going to give a rat’s ass about anything we have to say once he’s in office? If Rudy is running neck-and-neck with, say, Fred Thompson or Ron Paul, and endorsement might be what Fred or Ron needs for that push over the top, but right now, it would be foolish to endorse anyone.
Back the wrong horse, it might not be a “lesser of two evils” it’ll be between two candidates who want to screw us. Right now Rudy says he doesn’t want to do that. Do I believe he feels it in his heart? No. I don’t think his true feelings have changed. But he knows what’s expected of him if he wants to have a shot at the nomination, and then at the presidency, and then at a second term.
I don’t want to see Rudy win the nomination, but it might happen regardless. If he does, I’d rather him not be pissed off at gun owners. The difference between Hillary and Rudy is that Rudy has tried to mend fences. There’s at least a chance he might play ball with us. We know Hillary will screw us every chance she gets.
Not an ideal choice, by any measure, but there’s a very good chance the Republicans will stick us with it. Fred doesn’t seem to want to be president, and Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance. He hasn’t polled double digits in single state yet. Maybe the best thing long run is to punish the Republicans and let Hillary win, but that’s going to be a looong 8 years.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Actually,
On guns I like Hillary better than the other Ds.
She at least has felt the sting of the gun issue, and is a much savier politician ie: she would throw us AND the gun banning bigots over just as easily, and based only on what she calculated to be in her best political odds
November 8th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Once again, If Rudy, Mitt or McCain were to win the nomination anyway, without the endorsement of the NRA, who now holds the power? Not the NRA for damn sure, because now the candidate knows he is needed more than he needs.
You’re right, politics is a dirty game. We should cut the political throats of all those three. If we succeed the eventual nominee will owe us and need us. If we fail, it doesn’t matter, because people getting their asses kissed do not respect the kissers. Period. And therefore feel no need to do a damn thing for them unless they get more back in value than they give.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Paying too much for everything is a sure way to end up with no capital at all.
The current strategy is a loser. That we appear to be losing slowly does not change the outcome.