CalamityJane
Member
Has the NRA come out yet for a presidential candidate? I looked at their site and didn't see anything.
Thanks.
Thanks.
NRA endorsement?
- Thread starter CalamityJane
- Start date
- Status
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Usually not a good idea for a lobbying organization to endorse before the primary. If their chosen happens to lose the primary they have made a potential enemy out of whoever wins.
They will endorse the Republican candidate I would assume, whoever that might be. At least this time given the choices.
They will endorse the Republican candidate I would assume, whoever that might be. At least this time given the choices.
CalamityJane
Member
I guess I meant to word my question, have they endorsed a Republican candidate for the primary? But I can see why they would wait, as you said TexasRifleman. I keep hearing on the news different people and organizations giving their endorsement to different people, on both sides, but they are probably not lobbying groups.
Basically, all of the Republican candidates give at least lip service to being pro-gun anyway, so why endorse. Whoever the Rep nominee is, he will get the endorsement. There's no pro-gun Dem.
The endorsements are usually more valuable in the senate and house races. In our last senate race, both party's candidates were pro gun with 'A' ratings, but the NRA did endorse the Republican, who lost (Conrad Burns). I'm not sure why they took sides.
The endorsements are usually more valuable in the senate and house races. In our last senate race, both party's candidates were pro gun with 'A' ratings, but the NRA did endorse the Republican, who lost (Conrad Burns). I'm not sure why they took sides.
Zundfolge
Member
On the (way way) outside chance that Richardson gets the DNC nomination and Gulliani gets the GOP nomination, I bet the NRA endorses the Democrat.
Outlaws
Member
And if it isn't Richardson, but Hilary or Obama, and the NRA endorses Romney or Rudy (who knows if they would swallow their pride with McCain) then it just proves they are not a gun rights organization but a mindless machine. If they take the position of, "there is no progun candidate, vote for a 3rd party or write in your vote," I will respect them. I don't go for this concept of voting for the least worst anymore like there is actually something to win by doing so. You are just voting to give a little rather than lose a lot. Stand your ground and let them go for all or nothing.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Outlaws said:
Name the last time in politics that somebody "Stood their ground" and got everything they wanted in one win.
If you don't get all, then what does that leave for the "Stand your ground" crowd?
Brett Bellmore
Member
Because we know that for most of the Republican candidates, it's just lip service? And endorsing at this point gives us a much improved chance of having at least one (Major party; It's a given the Libertarian will be pro-gun.) candidate on the ballot next fall who's actually on our side.
We ought to be endorsing somebody at the Presidential primary level for both parties, with the understanding that the choice gets made fresh for the general election.
And endorsing one candidate might make an enemy of another? Applies just as much to the general election, by that reasoning we ought not endorse at all.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
You can't really believe that any candidate running for President under the current Democratic Party ticket (let's have some reality here folks, Richardson ain't gonna get it OK?) would even ACCEPT an NRA endorsement let alone work towards the same goals as that group.
The Executive Branch is NOT where NRA is effective with their endorsements or their lobbying.
These days it's always going to be the Republican candidate as far as President goes.. The real power however is not in the office of the President but in Congress. The endorsements by NRA and other groups of congressional candidates does much more towards getting people elected, and makes the biggest difference in what laws get passed or don't.
You can't endorse candidates from each party.
"Get Both" works on THR when someone asks which rifle to buy, it doesn't work when you are choosing candidates.
Unfortunately this runs into the "no politics at THR" wall. Frankly I don't really understand that since there are few things in this country right now more politicized than firearms except maybe abortions.
I'm not sure how you can talk about the freedom to own firearms WITHOUT making it a political discussion but, since that's how it is,
I am....... IBTL.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
I think that the last time I checked the voting statistics for the recent past Presidential elections, all of the third party candidates together got about 1% of the total vote. (It would be worthwhile to check behind me because I might be remembering wrong: I checked about two years ago. So it might even be 2%.)
A vote cast for a third party Presidential candidate is mostly symbolic. It's a way to protest the major parties and candidates, I suppose. The trouble is that after the election is over nobody but the maverick voter remembers and nobody else cares.
Perhaps it's a way to build a cumulative effect of some kind but where Second Amendment issues are concerned you're like the condemned man who enjoys a great last meal before he sits in the electric chair. Once the switch is pulled nothing else matters and you don't get to order dessert.
That's the problem faced by gun owners. They can become former gun owners at the flick of a switch. Once your guns are gone they don't get un-gone four years or eight years later. I suppose that the spirit of a man who was executed might get some satisfaction if DNA evidence proves four years later that he was innocent, but he still can't have any pudding. He's history.
It's okay with me if you really think that I'm really wrong. But the quiet part of your mind should tell you that you're taking an awful risk when you bet the farm on a game of winner-take-all when the dealer names the game, makes the rules, holds the deck, and deals the cards. Talk all you want about how well you will play the next hand, but you're playing for keeps and once you lose that farm it's not yours anymore.
Vote for a third candidate if you want or sit out the next election if that makes you happy. Be sure that the anti gun forces will be happy too. In fact they would be delighted if every gun owner in the country decides to protest in such ways forever. All you're doing is make their votes count more.
As for that nasty "compromise" word, of course you don't have to compromise about anything at all. When the switch is pulled you have the absolute right to say "I am not going to die and you can't make me." It's a great way to make a statement and everybody will applaud you for your principles but keep in mind that no matter how well you do it you don't get to do it again.
Politics is compromise. That's all it is. It's a matter of persuading people to your side with the joint goal of getting as many people as possible to go along with you willingly while weakening your opponents. You make your votes count and their votes irrelevant. Best is if everyone votes for you; next best is if your opponents voluntarily stay away from the polls; good enough is if you can get them to vote for The Simpsons.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Er, uh, "Legal" fourm. Political forum, we ain't got no of.
, Art
, Art- Status
