Welcome to my world, Mark. More from Levin:
“I think they want to be kingmakers; I think that if they’re not involved in making these decisions — imposing them on the rest of us — they’d just as soon be on the outside throwing bricks at the White House, at Obama, where they can raise money and empower themselves. But I honestly am starting to believe that they’d rather Obama win than a conservative Republican.
I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: It’s not about party. It’s about the ruling class vs. the rest of us — and we are the enemy of the ruling class establishment, both Democrat and Republican, who have far more in common with each, in terms of their goals, than they do with the people they are elected to represent.
Boehner and McConnell made that clear during the debt ceiling debate, undercutting CC&B, holding symbolic votes to mollify the base while simultaneously working behind the scenes — in secret — to broker a “compromise” deal that in the end studiously avoided the spending problem, produced phantom cuts (while reinforcing the false notions that a decrease in the rate of increased spending is a “cut,” and that a shut down of government, coupled with forced prioritized spending, is a “default”) and led directly to a credit rating reduction. And John McCain all but told us, parroting the intentionally unflattering terms used by the WSJ editorial board, that the base of the Republican party is anathema to the inside-the-Beltway political class, who in a perfect world could just rule over us and not have to put up with our unreasonable and extremist demands — specifically, that we stick to first principles and honor the Constitution, while working to shrink the power and reach of the federal government.
Pay attention to how those on “our” side begin to counsel us, yet again, on how the “conservatives” and “purists” are engaging in “unhelpful” rhetoric — that they need to be careful what they say lest the left take it out of context and use it as a weapon. Even as these sober, seasoned realists do exactly that by way of their public counsel (witness today’s GOP establishment concern with a TEA Party member’s confrontation with Obama, or Karl Rove’s willingness to pretend that Rick Perry really wants to put Bernanke on trial for treason — or at the very least, that reasonable people might interpret his remarks that way).
When those on “our” side adopt the tactics of the left to maneuver for power and influence, they have essentially become part of the very ideology that is seeking to “fundamentally transform” the United States. They just wish to do it more slowly, and with lower taxes along the way. And this is true whether they consciously know it or not.
Fox News and all of its various and sundry whores can suck a dick I think. This election thingy is a serious matter for grown-ups.
ryan rhodes should be on fox
One mistaken lesson to be taken from a comparison of the election of 2008 to the election of 2010 is that the American voting public is a fickle lot. A foolish lot, certainly, but fickle?
No.
Yet, I believe that precisely this misread or over-read of the voting public lies very much behind the cowardice (mere prudence, they’d claim) of the so-called establishment Republican. Well, that, and a politico-philosophical laziness on the part of the leading national politicians of a sort rarely if ever known in the annals of great nations of the earth.
Free inquiry.
wi polls close in 30 min. perhaps a fleebagger gets bagged.
National Soros Radio watches Fox News so you don’t have to
karltherover is my favorite meg ryan pickle
Madison, Federalist No. 38:
nra backs a fleebagger
Link
Good lord.
We’re doomed.
ok so Fox News and the NRA can both suck a dick
some days there’s just not enough dicks
sdferr,
I’d say that many if not most of the crowd in Washington have based their entire careers betting that the fickle proposition is true. The fickle need to be bought, not just once, but over and over again, every election. This is behind the “bringing home the bacon to my district” which evolved into the easily done earmark.
That they would continue to be elected even when their actual votes were against the articulated interests of their constituents constituted proof positive that they were indeed fickle. This was why both 1994 and especially 2010 were such a shock and must be shown to be just a case of overly fickle and feckless fickleness.
isn’t the same National Soros Radio/MSNBC crowd what are coming to our money-printing whore of a federal reserve chief’s defense the same ones what coined the term “bankstas”
I’m thinking same same
Because criticism of the Fed chairman isn’t protected by the First Amendment, you inbred yokels.
D.C. has been infested by those critters that ate Bill Paxson and Tom Skeritt and used Sigourney Weaver to host one of their spawn.
I say we take off and … you know. Only way to be sure.
Rove needs to examine the definition treason and the effects of the actions of Bernanke on the nation. Perry isn’t backing down.
Bernanke is part of the same anti-american Timmy Geithner/Goldman Sachs clique what lead America’s useless and cowardly president around by his nose…
it really for reals is a small world after all
I don’t see how the voter’s being foolish — namely, by re-electing a politician who had voted against the constituent’s articulated interest — as an example of fickleness. If, on the other hand, the voters were fickle, they’d vote against the politician who “brought home the bacon” just on a whim, which by and large, the voters do not do.
Link
dana perino sux karl rove’s slim penis
I was taking off from this, but perhaps wrongly, in that the fickle will only be loyal for a short time after they receive compensation and so must be paid again and again when election time comes.
That looks like fickle to their own protestations of love (toward the Prince), which in matters of politics is going to be an illusion for the most part in any case (though I daren’t say always!) — we need merely note the purchase.
Here, however, today, it’s not so much a question of love as of national salvation. Shit is getting dire out there (and in no small part on account of the very foolishness of the voting population, as it happens): as this condition dawns on more and more of the people, they will be looking for solutions, and hopefully putting their own brains to work on the problem for a change (is my guess — witness Wisconsin!).
So I think it the worst part of the establishment pols to mismeasure the time and the circumstance, to show themselves to be so mistrustful of the people that they quail to do what is right for fear of — of — of what, exactly? Idiots!
the shit is indeed getting dire… failshit California has already blown their budget … the budget they passed 7 weeks ago, and bumblefuck’s double dip recession is just getting started
this poor little state is already godawful dirty and desperate and crimey
This is gonna get ugly.
Link
Plus, though I haven’t read round about there in the Prince for a while now, but we want to notice Machiavelli reducing the choice to two powerful emotions (or the most powerful emotions?), eliding altogether that “other” thing, reason — or persuasion and argument — the business equals use amongst one another in political matters.
oh good the socialist NRA candidate is winning I’ll have to write them a check tonight so I can get it in the mail and they get it by the end of the week
interesting
Link
oh good karltherover is on greta. bush bobbleheads for all.
Looks like the people of Wisconsin are saying, sure, yeah, head to Illinois or Indiana on our dime. The money we’re giving you to do the job isn’t real. So why should the job have to be real?
The Wisconsin unionists should be furious at Obama for not bringing his Rolling Blunder tour bus to Wisconsin today, in support of the fleebaggers. He’s never once been there to offer support, for that there was an undercurrent of resentment amongst the LeftLibProggs. If one of the fleebaggers loses, maybe they’ll blame Obama.
they socialists won’t lose the NRA used all its muscle
Pretty awesome, huh?
I’m drinking tonight. Don’t care.
In Hong Kong they encourage weeknight drinking, you know. Pretty sure I saw that in a brochure somewhere.
fox news is the oh really bush news network.
we lost a skirmish not the battle
Yeah, the NRA is single-issue, and believes that in order to keep that single issue front-and-center it’s best to not just pick a party and support only that party, but to judge each candidate on individual merits. Usually it’s no contest: Democrats love gun control as a party plank.
Which is why I wound up voting for Gore for US Senator, twice.
But they caught massive hell from members when they were poised to endorse Reid for re-up. Finally, they acquiesced, and offered no endorsement in that race.
If by that you mean we retain each branch of government in a state that Obama carried by 13 after passing a conservative shit-ton of legislation, nr?
Well, yeah.
These have still been shitty recall elections though. And they require at least a night or two of anger and finger pointing.
I blame the cowardly self-serving fat-ass socialist douchebags at the National Rifle Association
The NRA doesn’t recognize your ‘socialist’ terminology, ‘feets. What about ‘single-issue’ do you not understand?
the part where a goddamn wisco commie just held his seat and thumbed his nose at liberty
In the spirit of angry finger pointing: *.
But he supported legislation deemed helpful to preserving the 2nd Amendment, therefore earning the rightful endorsement of the NRA.
What about ‘single-issue’ do you not understand ?
Hank Paulson is part of that cliche.
So what does that make The Decider™?
Fuck that single issue bullshit.
Right in its ass.
discretion is the better part of valor I think Mr. serr8d and endorsing a cocksucking union whore piece of shit like Holperin is textbook indiscrete
Hank Paulson was goony from the get-go
goony and weird
motherfucker got on his knees and begged Nancy Pelosi like he was a goddamn dog
you just know he likes to put on a girl scout uniform and get spanked
That single issue (the 2nd Amendment) is the only issue the NRA cares about. It’s a hell of an issue to bear standard for; and I support them for their unwavering support of it.
That is all.
We couldn’t get concealed carry in this state for the longest time for one single fucking reason. Democrats.
Now we get enough Republicans elected to change that goddamn law and I’m hearing that Holperin — WHO CAUCUSES WITH DEMOCRATS — fits the NRA single issue criteria.
Fuck that. It’s bullshit. Fucking bullshit.
well off year august recall elections are nation riveting. don’t shoot til you see the whites of their eyes.
racists i denounce myself.
see chameleon lying there in the sun all things to everyone
run run away
for to protect your union whore masters
Fucking morons
Recall the NRA was responsible for Al Gore losing Tennessee in 2000. We worked our asses off here; it paid off handsomely, wouldn’t you say?
I recall central park in fall how you tore your dress what a mess I confess
that’s not all you had to go and endorse a fucking wisco commie
S’long, you RINO bastard.
Simac would have done all of that and also not caucused with the gun control lobby.
Where’s the single issue advantage for supporting the Democrat?
It doesn’t exist. This is just a fairy tale you’re telling yourself.
Heh. The NRA: giving the TEA Party a fall-back position. You be sure to Thank us some day, m’kay?
Much like when Sarah Palin stood up for her old mentor, John McCain, for his re-election (much to the butt-hurt of ‘feets). You always dance with the one who brung you.
If the NRA hadn’t endorsed this little shit, then this little shit and lots of other little shits who are Democrats could cry “See? the NRA will turn it’s back on us in a heartbeat! Why, again, should we risk alienating our caucuses and fellow travelers and support these 2nd Amendment rights?”
Why, indeed?
Luckily, they’d be replaced by Republicans, who likely would support the second amendment and mean it.
The NRA:
the aarp of stupid people with guns
Wisconsin link thingy says both Dems win their seats, 78% & 100% precincts reporting respectively. R’s hold a one seat majority then.
nra aarp fuckin’ beltway losers
i remember
late september
we caught a flick
u said u were hungry
i put my dick in a popcorn box
i rock
u never return my calls
waterfalls
i shaved my head mohawk like
are u talking to me?
Wasn’t so long ago that Democrats were not far-LeftLibProggs. Remember the blue dogs? All but dead now, driven out by the new, neo-Marxists.
But not all of them, obviously, are that far gone. This little shit did the right thing, whatever his inner thoughts are, he did pull the right levers. And was rewarded for it with that endorsement.
The NRA is the only big tent with flaps left open, I suppose.
I think it’s a super smart strategy to support politicians we need a second amendment protection from… in order to defend the second amendment.
Up north we had a straight up Tea party candidate. And that NRA issue shot her down.
But, that’s a good thing, I’m told.
Where’s the single issue advantage for supporting the Democrat?
seniority
“R’s hold a one seat majority then.”
til the dude flips. who cares the proggs can’t do jack shit about walkers’ stuff right now. when them union dues stop rolling in its going to hurt.
politics as usual
“The NRA is the only big tent with flaps left open, I suppose”
nah another piece of the dc establishment. ax karltherover!
It’s a difficult line to walk.
But we have a solid string of successes to point to.
Ehhh, just give me tonight, serr8d. I’ll work it out of my system. Tonight we rage and point fingers.
We haven’t even started on the suddenly worthless state GOP.
There’s not 51 Republicans in the US Senate.
Seems like hugging the only room temperature tree in the middle of a burning forest, which, even were it to survive the conflagration will only blow down in the next wind storm once all the others are gone.
Should the tables flip, a more senior Holperin still won’t do shit for us on the second amendment. He’ll arrange himself an out so he can vote the right way while the legislation still goes against us.
That’s how it works.
“. Thanking the NRA for our long-standing work on this issue, Senator Moran remarked, ”
well backing a candidate who went after a fucking loser who fled the state on an important issue was too tough for the cocktail party crowd. ef the ruling class.
Think about what you’re linking here, serr8d. How exactly was Wisco one of only two states without concealed carry?
I’ll give you a hint. It alternated between the unbeatable Democratic legislative caucus and the Democratic governor.
If you even pretend to hint that the NRA did shit about shit for us here I might strangle you.
Anyone reading comments by Karl Rove on Rick Perry should remember that Perry and the whole Bush organization have detested one another for years. The Bushes and Rove were major behind the scenes supporters of Kay Bailey Hutchison when she ran against Perry last time, for example.
propagandist for the nra you be proud can you do aarp? you be old sumday soon
we had joy
we had fun
we had seasons in the sun
but the wine and the song
like the seasons,all have gone
I don’t think the NRA is of the ‘elite’, nr, the occasional bow-tie notwithstanding.
well fox news is the bush/rove network.
only cary grant should wear a bow-tie
“I don’t think the NRA is of the ‘elite’”
yea they are no different then the other lobbyist in dc. smaller gov’t=less lobbyist. excuse me while i regulate your toilet’s flow rate.
The official line, which I pretty much nailed just above.
Given the string of obvious successes, I can pretty much say without worry that their policy is, generally, effective.
Add the NRA to the list of organizations in need of a TEA time then. Did Simac make a big deal out of her support for gun rights? Did she campaign on being a vote that actually mattered? Is she even a member?
Because it doesn’t matter what else they might do.
Even if those other things might make you think, “Shit, I better buy some guns because these assholes are looking to steal everything I have and enslave me and my children.”
Yeah, it’s all the same thing really, as long as they occasionally defend your right to defend yourself against every other law they pass.
(That should read very sarcastically. Does it read that way?)
Well newrouter, at least the nra isn’t part of a democrat public employee union tax money laundering scheme. When the NRA wants to start subsidizing bullets, we’ll talk.
the nra is another 1 issue inside dc bs operation. nra is eligible for aarp.
Works so well that they can be played like a gut hooked fish by the progressive leaders of the Dems. Tactical vs Strategic.
“When the NRA wants to start subsidizing bullets, we’ll talk.”
’cause keeping your mouth shut is too much trouble for the nra/aarp. go grover and karltherover. bush 1,2,3,4 winns
Tea party founder around there. She supports your right to take a bazooka into the supermarket.
Yet, not an incumbent.
Being backed by the NRA (having that rating on that single issue) is equivalent to being annointed by the Pope around there. And it had jack shit to do with anything but his throw away votes that he never, ever actually pushed when it mattered to us.
hey we got the “mexican” jeb bush pushing HUNTSMAN. we need more texas idiots.
I mentioned, above, the Reid Exception…
Eventually, the gouge between Left and Right will be such that no organization can bridge it. Then, there will be open conflict, which is not a pleasant thing, really.
The difference being that wheras the aarp is primarily concerned with getting old people to support Democrats so they can get their piece of social welfare pie, the NRA actually cares about the 2nd Amendment. And as long as Obama Care doesn’t have any 2nd Amendment ramifications, they don’t give a shit how Stupak voted.
The pro-lifers did, however.
Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy.
Well, next time the trick is going to be to make the endorsement by the NRA-ILA folks about as meaningful to the rank and file as the Teamsters’ endorsement of the gun-confiscating illiberal leftist is to their rank and file. If the NRA vote is that important, go after him for not having done more to earn that support.
That’s why they still get my money.
Hey, stop being such losers and they might keep it.
More likely is that the Nevada members understood better than the ILA that Harry Reid was the head of a predominantly anti-gun caucus who would most like prove incapable of standing up to Durban and Chucky Schumer if push came to shove.
Gun rights are like an inverse of abortion rights. It’s as hard for a nationally prominant Democrat to be for the former as it is to be against the latter.
And vice versa for Republicans.
In hindsight? Yeah.
Obamacare doesn’t take on the 2nd in a frontal assault but simply outflanks it and all the others amendments. If it is not repealed and is fully implemented nothing in the constitution will be worth more than toilet paper after you’ve wiped.
NRA ratings look at it in a race by race tactical way. Democrat/progressives looked at simply getting control of Congress and the Presidency, blue-dogs, yellow-dogs, any mutt as long as they had a[D]. One session, pressure, payoffs, lies, all for the ultimate gold ring to rule us all. That’s was a strategy. It’s still working and the clock is ticking, counting down to when freedom goes bye-bye.
Not saying they haven’t done yeoman work in many areas, especially right to carry, but the 2nd can be lost in ways other than the ones they concern themselves with and they need to step back and take a larger view so as to not do their cause harm.
Now you have the start of plan for next time.
The trick here isn’t to persuade the NRA-ILA to change it’s pro-gun pro-incumbent ways. It’s to persuade the rank and file that your pro-gun candidate can do as well or better on protecting gun rights, while also being better on other issues that gun owners happen to care about.
They’ll get around to addressing those as well, I believe. They pay attention to the AMA & CDC when they start pushing their noxious guns are a health threat crap.
I still don’t feel all that conciliatory. I’m just grasping that it’s our (my) fault as much as anything locally.
The NRA needs to change that stance though. It’s nonsensical in too many ways. Free speech? Nah, we’re single issue. Anything else? Nah, we’re single issue.
If I can embrace more and not be a single issue asshole myself because I see how things are interrelated, they can give it a try as well.
oh dear this is pitiful…
someone is getting desperate
Yes, truly, but [in Nelson’s voice] Ah – ha, too late for that! Or as William Jacobson put it, as Obama’s Catch-2012:
National Soros Radio is reeking of desperate this morning as well
Texas Job Growth Trend Stretches Back For Decades
America’s greatness stretches back for decades, as well. I guess Obama is just better at “transformative change” than Perry.
Ann Richards; Architect of the 2012 Recovery
[…] Mark Levin: “I’m going to be honest with you. I’m starting to think these Repubicans — these… Pay attention to how those on “our” side begin to counsel us, yet again, on how the “conservatives” and “purists” are engaging in “unhelpful” rhetoric — that they need to be careful what they say lest the left take it out of context and use it as a weapon. Even as these sober, seasoned realists do exactly that by way of their public counsel (witness today’s GOP establishment concern with a TEA Party member’s confrontation with Obama, or Karl Rove’s willingness to pretend that Rick Perry really wants to put Bernanke on trial for treason — or at the very least, that reasonable people might interpret his remarks that way). […]
Wow. So a single-issue organization bases their support solely on that single issue? Color me surprised.
Kidding aside, my single issue is not everyone else’s single issue, what I have to do is convince enough people to support me on my single issue. That is the common sense answer because that is how all politics works. And that usually means that I have to give these other people something for their support.
The fact that other people don’t have the same single issue I have doesn’t necessarily mean they are evil, deluded, misguided, etc. Leave that nonsense to the left and their What’s the Matter With Kansas? arrogance. All it means is that different people perceive their interests differently. For a liberty-supporting person that should be so freaking obvious that it shouldn’t have to be said. No, I do not like compromising either, but that is the price we pay for being a republic.
what we need to do is (a) continue to infiltrate and take over a party. The Republican establishment wouldn’t be squealing like they are if they didn’t fear that was actually happening, so they are fighting as hard as they can and as smart as they know how in order to save their phoney-baloney jobs. Then (b) continue trying to change the narrative so that the baseline of compromise shifts away from “expansion, just whether it should be fast or slow”, to “no expansion at all”, to “retraction, whether it be fast or slow”.
It took a long time for the expansion position to become the permanent baseline of common sense conventioonal wisdom political thought and it isn’t going to go away quickly. This is a long march through the institutions, my friends and yes, the establishment of both parties will fight back.
Because, you know, that’s what establishments do.
[…] very important piece of advice from Jeff Goldstein: Pay attention to how those on “our” side begin to counsel us, yet […]
Hence, here we are today.
Go team!
Perhaps that has something to do with the NRA always backing incumbents?
I’m not sure where all the NRA-bashing is coming from here. If the Tea Party found a fiscally conservative old-school Democrat running in a close race, I would hope they’d support that Democrat, especially if the race were against a free-spending RINO. If the Democrat were a gun-grabber, then the NRA would be expected to support the challenger, and we’d again find ourselves on opposite sides of an election.
In either case, our two groups are doing what they were formed to do. Truth is, in most cases we’re going to be fighting on the same side, since there tends to be a lot of overlap between small-gov activists and 2nd Amendment activists. I don’t see why we need to piss on one another just because we don’t agree 100% of the time.
The NRA does not exist to get Republicans elected, any more than the Tea Party does. We each have principles that transcend party politics. Hell, if the GOP don’t get its shit together right quick, the Tea Party will exist to get Republicans shitcanned, which will bring a lot of this nonsense into perspective.
[…] for the party — and vanishingly few of whom seem to be as on “our” side as they pretend to […]
I don’t think the NRA should become the Republican Gun Owners Club. If they did, they would quickly just be called republicans, and irrelevant(as republicans are already known for being gun nuts).
The NRA is the only reason you have a gun today, period. Without them, Clinton would have turned us into England with respect to guns.
Also, if you want the NRA to concern itself with the overall record of a politician, rather than just their second amendment record, where does it stop? Should they worry about a politicians record on abortion? Gay Marriage? Climate change? Farm subsidies?
If a dem has been a staunch supporter of the second amendment during their term, but the NRA refuses to endorse them because they raised the tax on cigarets, or voted for the defense of Marriage act, how long do you think it’ll be before they lose all credibility with regard to their commitment to the second amendment, and die as an organization?
I’d give it about a half hour.
Because they just acted against my interests in my state.
Do that and I’ll criticize it.
Part of the problem the NRA faces is that at it’s a large group, almost like a political party. And while most members surely see the other* amendments in the Bill of Rights as interconnected, there’s a sizable chunk that only want their sporting purposes protected and will bail at the first sign that the NRA is becoming “ideological.”
That said, there were a number of years where I was utterly fed up with the NRA but since I have a life membership I didn’t bail; they just weren’t getting any more money out of me while they were doing what I didn’t like. As for endorsements, I’ve never really paid much attention to those, from NRA or anyone else.
How about, stance on guns being equal, they support the candidate who doesn’t stand for centralized government and the usurpation of individual liberties aside from the right to go bag and elk?
Argue for this position on incumbents all you want. It’s based on an American political landscape that has changed, and the usurpers on the left have learned to use the NRA like bitterclingery meat puppets.
As someone who has only recently begun arming himself, the NRA — who would have had my support — isn’t getting shit from me. Not while they work to endorse candidates who play them with throwaway votes so that they can do damage to the republic in countless other ways.
I’d say the NRA could use a little judgement here and there.
If a state is struggling to reclaim its second amendment rights and the impetus to this is the Democratic party, you can’t sell me the argument that supporting a Democrat makes sense.
Maybe in other states or nationally given other circumstances. Not in this one.
Besides, the Second Amendment isn’t the only issue that I care about. I can’t give away nine things to keep one. And that’s what I’m getting with a Democratic incumbent with a positive NRA rating.
Not sure why I said impetus there. Impediment.
“How about, stance on guns being equal, they support the candidate who doesn’t stand for centralized government and the usurpation of individual liberties aside from the right to go bag and elk?”
The NRA isn’t about your right to bag an elk, it’s about protecting the part of the constitution that ensures that the rest stands. In other words, they believe if the second amendment is secure the rest will be, and without it it won’t. They only tell you which politician supports the second amendment, it’s your job to worry about the rest.
As for supporting the incumbent, I think that has to do with mission statement credibility, as I said earlier. If they’ve been supportive of someone because they are pro second amendment, but then switch to someone else because they are pro second amendment and don’t like CAFE standards on new cars, politicians will lose all interest in the second amendment, ‘cuz ultimately it doesn’t matter.
Not true. They tell you which incumbent supports the Second Amendment. If both support the Second Amendment, they should either stay out of it, or else back the candidate who doesn’t believe the Constitution is a flawed, outmoded document.
Were I counseling them.
I still can’t buy the argument that they should support politicians who are actively working to undermine the rest and yet still caucus with the gun control lobby.
We support these politicians so that we can protect ourselves against these politicians.
Huh?
There are definite problems with single issue advocacy. This NRA stuff being a prime example.
The NRA has chosen an expedient, if not foolproof approach. All else being equal they will go with the incumbent.
This is a sad, but honest admission of the power that comes with incumbency.
Depending on one’s priorities it does not always yield the best results, but in a two party system it does tend to minimize fights over non-tangential issues, and can even encourage people to cross party lines.
But in this specific case the issues are not tangential, as Jeff notes they are truly fundamental to the cause. It does point up the need for the NRA to further refine it’s approach to endorsements. Thankfully the NRA has proven at least somewhat responsive to the rank and file. Hopefully they will hear from more members about the need to refine endorsements so an not to give aid to the statists.
[…] Jeff @ Protein Wisdom, who adds: I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: It’s not about party. It’s about the ruling […]
“If both support the Second Amendment, they should either stay out of it
Even if that means withdrawing support from someone that worked for the NRAs single issue, because of some other issue?
There’s a lot of dems in the NRA, if they want to become a non-entity, declaring they will only support pro second amendment TEA Party people would be a fast way to do it.
Gotta go for a few hours, I’ll be back…
If both support the Second Amendment, the NRA should say so, and then stay out of it.
Other “single issue” groups are just fine with the idea of endorsing more than one candidate for a particular office.
I thought they were single issue. If both candidates support the issue, withdrawing is merely a reflection that the issue is well protected by both candidates.
So to answer your question, yes.
That would work for me.
The problem with ideologically capturing an organization that is ostensibly non-ideological is that you end up killing the organization. If teh NRA went all anti-Democrat tehn they would be doing great damage to their actual purpose and would alienate all of theose people whose concern is guns, and not other politics.
I think a good example is to look at the mainline protestant denominations after the Left captured them and started using them to promote the Left’s agenda. Their memberships cratered and are continuing to crater. If they had remained churches focused solely on being churches I think they would still be pretty robust. But they didn’t, and their membership that wasn’t all Leftist and social justice and economic justice left and went to find churches that were still intersted in being a just church.
Whew, what a day!
“I thought they were single issue. If both candidates support the issue, withdrawing is merely a reflection that the issue is well protected by both candidates.”
Yes, they are single issue.
Say there’s a Senator that is a NRA member, listens and works with the NRA. Has a record going back years in the senate fighting for the NRA agenda and thwarting the gun grabbers and ammo deniers and being praised by the NRA for it.
Then a challenger comes along, also a NRA member, says he’ll support the second amendment, and also is for issue x!. If the NRA then refuses to endorse the sitting senator that has earned their praise, because someone else claiming sympathy for the cause comes along and plus they’re for issue x!, all incentive for anyone else to support them unless they also support issue x!(and maybe in the future issue y!, and z!) is lost.
A nano second after that, the NRA become irrelevant.
What I mean is, the NRA won’t be about their single issue anymore, they’ll be about issue x!. And who knows what else ya gotta do in the future to get their endorsement. Maybe get religion, and be against traditional lead ammo, for the environment.
It’s kinda like the TEA Party, if they get all caught up in arguing over SSM and the war on drugs, who will listen when they talk about spending.
Just the choir.
There shoulda been a question mark in there, but you knew that…
“And this is true whether they consciously know it or not.”
Bingo.
And that is a serious challenge.
On a more positive note, what’s the word from Bob Reed? About time for the blessed event, isn’t it?
Bob, I lit a candle for your family last week at my favorite church in San Francisco.
LB, the NRA endorsed a challenger here in Illinois who said she supported the 2nd amendment, and we voted for her, and that’s how we ended up with Jan Schakowski, who is one of the reasons we still don’t have CCW in Illinois.
Which is of course what’s wrong with Jeff’s argument: When he says they tell you which incumbent supports the Second Amendment he misses the more important according to their voting record, which, as you note, is supposed to be the reason they can only support incumbents.
Here in Illinois, I guess we got so dazzled by the prospect of anyone actually supporting the 2nd that we lost our heads….