As an NRA member and a brand-new Floridacarry member, I believe that the latter should win out when it comes to power and the ability to influence votes. This is achievable in the following manner (and I don't know if it's already in place; if so, please direct me to the link):
Floridacarry, along with this forum, needs to come up with an A+ through F rating system of its own: one that's honest with the voters about the candidates' stances -- one that asks the tough questions. It's obvious that the NRA has failed us when it's handing out A grades to Bogdanoff and others who have betrayed us. As a former teacher and now a professor, I believe the F should be employed sparingly, but if someone deserves it, they should get it.
The point is: we need a grading system that is going to be working for voters rather than misleading them. If somebody took a very long time to convince (as was the case with my own Senator, unbeknownst to me), then the grade should reflect this. Alerts should be sent out whenever things like this happen, so that the public can be made aware. The grades have to be sent to the press, to the legislators, to the NRA leadership, and in order to be solid, they probably need to include explanations detailing why this particular legislator (who was once an A) has had his or her grade dropped.
The explanations should be left on the website, while the shortlists themselves must be mailed to the press, published online, sent to the NRA (as a request for them to "correct" their own lists), and used for campaign purposes: an endorsement from an organization known for its thorough research and honesty will win out in the eyes of gun voters (and there are plenty of those). When an organization with an honest rating system backs a candidate, it will win out every single time over an organization that hands out A's willy-nilly based on promises and speculation.
The fact that a candidate claims to be pro-rights, an NRA member, and a "hunter since [he] was a child" can no longer cut it; it can no longer win endorsements; instead, the tough questions need to be asked, answered, backed up by action, and refuted by sheer fact. Many of us already have the answers to a grading system for most of our legislators; we just need to put our proposals out here and coincide on grades for the aforesaid.
Someone spit out the list, and let's get to work. Senate first and house second. Thoughts?
Edit (5/16/2011) -- OK, we don't have a preliminary Senate list with names and grades. Here is mine based on what I've researched and witnessed (along with your suggestions underneath). This is, of course, subject to change upon evidence, and will ultimately be sent to EVERYONE. Help me get this list right:
P.S: I need clarification for all the above and some educated answers for these:
Benacquisito, Lizbeth (R27)
Gaetz, Don (R4) --
Gardiner, Andy (R9) –
Storms,Ronda (R10)
Wise, Stephen R. (R5)
THE LIST (for now)
JD Alexander (R17) –
Altman, Thad(R24) --
Benacquisito, Lizbeth (R27)
Bennett, Michael S. “Mike” (R21) –
Bogdanoff, Ellyn Setnor (R25) –
Braynon II, Oscar (D33) --
Bullard, Larcenia J. (D39) –
Dean, Charles S. “Charlie,” Sr. (R3) –
Detert, Nancy C. (R23) –
Diaz de la Portilla (R36) –
Dockery, Paula (R15) –
Evers, Greg (R2) –
Fasano, Mike (R11) --
Flores, Anitere (R38) –
Gaetz, Don (R4) --
Garcia, Rene (R40) –
Gardiner, Andy (R9) --
Haridopolos, Mike (R26) –
Hays, Alan (R20) –
Hill, Anthony C. “Tony,” Sr. (D1) –
Jones, Dennis L., D.C. (R13) –
Joyner, Arthenia L. (D18) –
Latvala, Jack (R16) –
Lynn, Evelyn J. (R7) –
Margolis, Gwen (D35) –
Montford, Bill (D6) –
Negron, Joe (R28) –
Norman, Jim (R12) –
Oelrich, Steve (R14) –
Rich, Nan (R34) –
Richter, Garrett (R37) –
Ring, Jeremy (R32) –
Sachs, Maria Lorts (D30) –
Simmons, David (R22) –
Siplin, Gary (D19) –
Smith, Christopher L. “Chris” (R29) –
Sobel, Eleanor (D31) –
Storms,Ronda (R10)
Thrasher, John (R8) –
Wise, Stephen R. (R5)
Floridacarry, along with this forum, needs to come up with an A+ through F rating system of its own: one that's honest with the voters about the candidates' stances -- one that asks the tough questions. It's obvious that the NRA has failed us when it's handing out A grades to Bogdanoff and others who have betrayed us. As a former teacher and now a professor, I believe the F should be employed sparingly, but if someone deserves it, they should get it.
The point is: we need a grading system that is going to be working for voters rather than misleading them. If somebody took a very long time to convince (as was the case with my own Senator, unbeknownst to me), then the grade should reflect this. Alerts should be sent out whenever things like this happen, so that the public can be made aware. The grades have to be sent to the press, to the legislators, to the NRA leadership, and in order to be solid, they probably need to include explanations detailing why this particular legislator (who was once an A) has had his or her grade dropped.
The explanations should be left on the website, while the shortlists themselves must be mailed to the press, published online, sent to the NRA (as a request for them to "correct" their own lists), and used for campaign purposes: an endorsement from an organization known for its thorough research and honesty will win out in the eyes of gun voters (and there are plenty of those). When an organization with an honest rating system backs a candidate, it will win out every single time over an organization that hands out A's willy-nilly based on promises and speculation.
The fact that a candidate claims to be pro-rights, an NRA member, and a "hunter since [he] was a child" can no longer cut it; it can no longer win endorsements; instead, the tough questions need to be asked, answered, backed up by action, and refuted by sheer fact. Many of us already have the answers to a grading system for most of our legislators; we just need to put our proposals out here and coincide on grades for the aforesaid.
Someone spit out the list, and let's get to work. Senate first and house second. Thoughts?
Edit (5/16/2011) -- OK, we don't have a preliminary Senate list with names and grades. Here is mine based on what I've researched and witnessed (along with your suggestions underneath). This is, of course, subject to change upon evidence, and will ultimately be sent to EVERYONE. Help me get this list right:
P.S: I need clarification for all the above and some educated answers for these:
Benacquisito, Lizbeth (R27)
Gaetz, Don (R4) --
Gardiner, Andy (R9) –
Storms,Ronda (R10)
Wise, Stephen R. (R5)
THE LIST (for now)
JD Alexander (R17) –
Altman, Thad(R24) --
Benacquisito, Lizbeth (R27)
Bennett, Michael S. “Mike” (R21) –
Bogdanoff, Ellyn Setnor (R25) –
Braynon II, Oscar (D33) --
Bullard, Larcenia J. (D39) –
Dean, Charles S. “Charlie,” Sr. (R3) –
Detert, Nancy C. (R23) –
Diaz de la Portilla (R36) –
Dockery, Paula (R15) –
Evers, Greg (R2) –
Fasano, Mike (R11) --
Flores, Anitere (R38) –
Gaetz, Don (R4) --
Garcia, Rene (R40) –
Gardiner, Andy (R9) --
Haridopolos, Mike (R26) –
Hays, Alan (R20) –
Hill, Anthony C. “Tony,” Sr. (D1) –
Jones, Dennis L., D.C. (R13) –
Joyner, Arthenia L. (D18) –
Latvala, Jack (R16) –
Lynn, Evelyn J. (R7) –
Margolis, Gwen (D35) –
Montford, Bill (D6) –
Negron, Joe (R28) –
Norman, Jim (R12) –
Oelrich, Steve (R14) –
Rich, Nan (R34) –
Richter, Garrett (R37) –
Ring, Jeremy (R32) –
Sachs, Maria Lorts (D30) –
Simmons, David (R22) –
Siplin, Gary (D19) –
Smith, Christopher L. “Chris” (R29) –
Sobel, Eleanor (D31) –
Storms,Ronda (R10)
Thrasher, John (R8) –
Wise, Stephen R. (R5)
Last edited: