If a candidate fails to return the VCDL survey, they brand themselves as either Anti or slimy. I am not certain there is a practical difference. I have less problem with a candidate who disagrees on an item or two than one who does not want to be on record for their views (slimy). The perception seems to be: "if I do not agree100%, they will not vote for me, therefor it is better to have no statements at all and leave it open to interpretation". A candidate unwilling to answer is little better than one opposed to freedom. They are unwilling to be counted on.
With the NRA, if I remember correctly, they cannot have a rating until they have voted on issues. Someone could be 100% pro-gun/pro-liberty and have no voting record and miss an endorsement. I am not sure that VCDL is the lesser system.
With all due respect, I could not possibly disagree more with your position.
I personally know one of the most pro-gun Delegates in the state, and he does not return the survey, because in the big picture, keeping him in office, it does not help him. That's
all that counts. Making VCDL members feel all warm and fuzzy because a politician filled out a form does very little toward accomplishing our goals.
It seems that many of us forget that we do not live in a one-issue world. The politicians have to run a campaign that will get them elected, not make one small constituency feel good. The simple fact is that some politicians have the support of the pro-gun crowd, whether or not they fill out a survey. But some of the fence-sitting voters are vulnerable to the anti-gun mind tricks that could be used against them if they publish a strongly pro-gun survey. This is not rocket science, it's politics.
The answer is to know the candidates inside and out. Be involved with their campaigns. Go to their meetings. Ask them questions face-to-face. Any candidate can fill out any form in the way that the sponsor wants to hear. There is no guarantee that their votes will match their survey form.
TFred
