Pro-Gun VA Democrats Win Endorsement from the NRA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100606329.html


<SNIP>

"At a gathering of volunteers for Robert Hurt's (R) campaign in Charlottesville last week, a concerned supporter asked the candidate why the NRA nod went to his opponent, freshman Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.).

Hurt said he was unhappy with the group's decision and attempted to explain the NRA policy, before also trying to link his opponent to Pelosi. "There is no more anti-Second Amendment vote than a vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker," Hurt said.

. . .

The NRA has endorsed three of the four potentially vulnerable Democrats in Virginia, backing Reps. Rick Boucher and Glenn Nye as well as Perriello. "

The Donkey said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100606329.html

"There is no more anti-Second Amendment vote than a vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker," Hurt said.

"

Click to expand...

Dont care who the NRA endorses. P*** on them alll...

DontTreadOnMeVa said:

Dont care who the NRA endorses. P*** on them alll...

Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up my feelings.
I talked to Hurts Campaign last weekend.
The NRA is taking a "If it ain't broke" position.

As I posted here earlier today, not only is this not really a big deal, it's actually quite a good thing, as it indicates the pro-gun agenda is expanding across other value bases... It's good as long as everyone realizes that an NRA endorsement does not mean what it once meant, and that all candidates must be evaluated on more than just one issue.

The point I made in that post is reinforced yet again, the Democrats (our favorite Mr. Donkey included) are loudly proclaiming these endorsements, because they are trying as hard as they can to fool the voters into thinking that their candidates are now moderate or even ::gasp:: conservative!

It won't work, voters are smarter than that this time around.

TFred

TFred said:

As I posted here earlier today, not only is this not really a big deal, it's actually quite a good thing, as it indicates the pro-gun agenda is expanding across other value bases... It's good as long as everyone realizes that an NRA endorsement does not mean what it once meant, and that all candidates must be evaluated on more than just one issue.

The point I made in that post is reinforced yet again, the Democrats (our favorite Mr. Donkey included) are loudly proclaiming these endorsements, because they are trying as hard as they can to fool the voters into thinking that their candidates are now moderate or even ::gasp:: conservative!

It won't work, voters are smarter than that this time around.

TFred

Click to expand...

If it was only that simple Tfred.

That District is rural, really hard hit by the economy, has a fairly large Black Population who are going to vote Democrat no matter who is running, a large white population who are not going to vote at all and local elections that have all of them fed up.

VCDL is NOT BIG there. There are members... I only know a handful and half of them are memberships that I used to pay for but stopped last year. The NRA does make a difference among the voting population.

You have to give the Devil his due. Perriello beat Goode who had been a Representative of one sort or the other in the area, since he was 24 years old and he did it by registering people who didn't normally vote in the area...Like College kids.

Christian Rickers, a former Kaine Administration employee is running for Treasurer in Lunenburg and pushing the Perilliello platform. That may get even more of the undecided locals.

I wouldn't want to put any money on that race yet and yeah, the NRA is making it worse.

As one of Perriello's constituents I have only been disappointed that he has cast the votes that he seemed to indicate he would cast as a candidate (from my recollection). I did not vote for Perriello and don't plan to this go round, but seeing how Mr. Perriello has stuck to the things he said he'd vote for I believe that he will remain a supporter of the 2A when given the opportunity even as he has one other issues. Like TFred suggests, I think it is a good thing that even some members of Congress who might otherwise vote the government expanding line of thinking, understand that the 2A and what it entails needs to be protected.

jmelvin said:

As one of Perriello's constituents I have only been disappointed that he has cast the votes that he seemed to indicate he would cast as a candidate (from my recollection). I did not vote for Perriello and don't plan to this go round, but seeing how Mr. Perriello has stuck to the things he said he'd vote for I believe that he will remain a supporter of the 2A when given the opportunity even as he has one other issues. Like TFred suggests, I think it is a good thing that even some members of Congress who might otherwise vote the government expanding line of thinking, understand that the 2A and what it entails needs to be protected.

Click to expand...

And, as TFred said in #4, all candidates must be evaluated on more than just one issue. We tend to get into trouble, politically, when we dismiss an otherwise reasonable candidate on the basis of their disagreement on one issue out of many other issues on which we may agree.

Just my .02

Sorry think I went against the rules of posting so I voluntarily removed.

TFred said:

As I posted here earlier today, not only is this not really a big deal, it's actually quite a good thing, ...

TFred

Click to expand...

It concerns me that all of you seems to be missing the central problem. As WaPo says:

The powerful group adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy, which holds that if two candidates are equally supportive of gun rights, the incumbent gets the nod.

Click to expand...

That would apply to RINOs like Cantor as well. The NRA chooses the power of incumbency over principle. That's ultimately destructive, but try convincing Cox or Arulanandam of that.

peter nap said:

That pretty much sums up my feelings.
I talked to Hurts Campaign last weekend.
The NRA is taking a "If it ain't broke" position.

Click to expand...

Well the NRA is broke. Some others have commented:

Incumbent Friendly Policy

A lot of folks have questioned why NRA has a policy that’s incumbent friendly.

Click to expand...

This article provides some insight:

The lesson is clear - a constitutional Republic needs constant turnover in its leadership, regular infusions of new blood, fresh sets of eyes, in order to retain its founding principles. Otherwise, entrenched politicians will come to view their offices as theirs by right and will do whatever they can to protect their power and perks.

Click to expand...

NRA Incumbent Policy: Is The NRA Blind or What?

The NRA policy is that if two candidates are equally supportive of gun rights, the incumbent gets their support.

No other issues are considered, including the integrity and honesty of the candidates. It’s just a matter of who’s been in office longer.

The NRA’s incumbent-friendly policy is typical of the insanity that pervades our political climate today.

Members of the NRA need to stop blindly following the pied piper.

The NRA is in position to determine the outcome of the elections.

I wouldn’t have a problem with that except that they aren’t thinking, they are blindly endorsing candidates, and then they are telling their members to do the same.

Click to expand...

Well. I am not blind. I consult GOA. See their ratings for Virginia.

The NRA is what it is: a one-issue organization.

What it comes down to is that pro-gun points-of-view are starting to spread to politicians who hold other positions that the more traditional pro-gun people may not support.

More people, who are more politically diverse, are supporting more gun rights. Tell me again how that can be bad.

TFred

Repeater said:

Well. I am not blind. I consult GOA. See their ratings for Virginia.

Click to expand...

You mean, like the "A" for Cantor? What am I missing here?

Tess said:

You mean, like the "A" for Cantor? What am I missing here?

Click to expand...

I saw that. That's hilarious. What is GOA missing here? Perhaps Pratt and Velleco should explain.

Anyone here think Cantor deserves an 'A' or even a 'Z' -- I wonder Aaron Zelman thinks.

TFred said:

As I posted here earlier today, not only is this not really a big deal, it's actually quite a good thing, as it indicates the pro-gun agenda is expanding across other value bases... It's good as long as everyone realizes that an NRA endorsement does not mean what it once meant, and that all candidates must be evaluated on more than just one issue.

Click to expand...

I agree, they endorse on a sole issue and this endorsement is a great thing in my opinion. It shows the NRA is actually being unbiased in it's endorsements.

And yes, candidates must be evaluated on more than one issue. Given Hurt's stance on some issues, this endorsement is just icing on the cake.

peter nap said:

...
You have to give the Devil his due. Perriello beat Goode who had been a Representative of one sort or the other in the area, since he was 24 years old and he did it by registering people who didn't normally vote in the area...Like College kids...

Click to expand...

About 700 votes separated the candidates. The dems have a funny way of coming up with the votes they need.

The NRA is stupid. Okay....so they are supposedly "pro gun". They are also going to be voting for anti-gun Supreme Court Justices and bills that have anti-gun legislation hidden deep within.

I think the time has passed when gun rights are compromised by legislation directly addressing guns. They will now be targeted inside of bills without our knowledge, through attacks on ammunition supply and ammo taxation (guns are no good without ammo) which will incrementally "ban" ammo/guns by slowly pricing ammo out of the reach of more and more average Americans, and via proxies of unelectable such as the EPA.

If you endorse a Harry Reid or a Periello then you are endorsing someone who WILL pass VERY large bills that WILL have anti-gun components. Much like how the National Park carry law was changed when it was hidden inside of the Credit Card bill.

All three of the NRA endorsed pro-gun Virginia democratic incumbants -- Nye, Perriello, and Boucher -- went down in yesterday's election, thanks I am sure, in no small part, to "pro-gun" Virginia voters.

The Virginia congressional delegation has not gained one pro-gun vote.

The losses of Rick Boucher and Tom Periello are particular blows to gun rights. The democratic "take-away" from these losses is that democrats have little to gain by being pro-2A.

This morning, the Virginia democratic party is far more "anti-gun" than it was yesterday, as is the the national democratic party.

On the other hand, the Republicans have this morning reached their "high water mark" both in Virginia and nationally. They are unlikely to do this well again for a very long time

Sooner or later (and I think sooner) new democrats will recapture these lost seats.

I wonder how pro-gun these new democrats will be.

Donkey has been hitting the sauce

Donkey,

Do you use a "Crystal Ball" or a crack pipe to make your predictions?:lol:

Personally, I hope future Democrat and Republican losses are replaced with Libertarian victories.:banana:

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

The Donkey said:

All three of the NRA endorsed pro-gun Virginia democratic incumbants -- Nye, Perriello, and Boucher -- went down in yesterday's election, thanks I am sure, in no small part, to "pro-gun" Virginia voters.

The Virginia congressional delegation has not gained one pro-gun vote.

The losses of Rick Boucher and Tom Periello are particular blows to gun rights. The democratic "take-away" from these losses is that democrats have little to gain by being pro-2A.

This morning, the Virginia democratic party is far more "anti-gun" than it was yesterday, as is the the national democratic party.

.

Click to expand...

The real important part of this is that the three republicans will help make sure the next speaker of the house will be pro 2A!

The Donkey said:

All three of the NRA endorsed pro-gun Virginia democratic incumbants -- Nye, Perriello, and Boucher -- went down in yesterday's election, thanks I am sure, in no small part, to "pro-gun" Virginia voters.

The Virginia congressional delegation has not gained one pro-gun vote.

The losses of Rick Boucher and Tom Periello are particular blows to gun rights. The democratic "take-away" from these losses is that democrats have little to gain by being pro-2A.

This morning, the Virginia democratic party is far more "anti-gun" than it was yesterday, as is the the national democratic party.

On the other hand, the Republicans have this morning reached their "high water mark" both in Virginia and nationally. They are unlikely to do this well again for a very long time

Sooner or later (and I think sooner) new democrats will recapture these lost seats.

I wonder how pro-gun these new democrats will be.

Click to expand...

And of course back here on terra firma...

Just as you cannot select a candidate based solely on an NRA endorsement, a losing candidate cannot evaluate their loss based solely on the fact that the NRA endorsement didn't win them the election.

The notion that Griffith and Hurt will be detrimental to "gun rights" compared to Boucher and Periello is laughable at best, and a typical indication of the fantasy land world that most Democrats seem to live in these days.

The Virginia Democratic party is no more or less anti-gun as a result of this election. Boucher and Periello are still Democrats, and if they are men of even the most limited integrity, their "gun views" will stay the same even though they lost. If they change, that would be clear evidence that they held these views in an effort to deceive the voters.

The Virginia congressional delegation is at least as pro-gun, if not clearly more so than before.

If the Democrats have an ounce of brain matter among them, their "take-away" should be that the regular folks are done with the Obama train wreck, and they are finally able to see that where Democrats are concerned, all politics bow to the national agenda. Unfortunately, for the nation as well as for the remaining Democrats, all indications from Obama are that he still just doesn't get it, and will endeavor to shove his agenda down our throats with as much furor as ever.

TFred