search
top

No NRA Endorsement for Harry Reid

There was this somewhat stunning announcement from Chris Cox on the NRA’s Political Victory Fund site this afternoon:

Friday, August 27, 2010 In the coming days and weeks, the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) will be announcing endorsements and candidate ratings in hundreds of federal races, as well as thousands of state legislative races. Unless these announcements are required by the timing of primary or special elections, the NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements while important legislative business is pending. The NRA-PVF also operates under a long-standing policy that gives preference to incumbent candidates who have voted with the NRA on key issues, which is explained in more detail here.The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan’s confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.

The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.

NRA members and other interested parties are encouraged to visit www.NRAPVF.org for more information as Election Day draws near.

Given that the NRA’s Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre are about as Washington Insider as it comes, the non-endorsement of Reid is recognition of two things in my opinion. First, the membership would rise up in protest if Harry Reid were to be endorsed. Second, the tide against the status quo is so strong that those who get in its way will be wiped out. Just ask Republican incumbents like Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, and quite probably after all is said and done, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

PS: While Bitter and Sebastian are on vacation in Hawaii, I will be one of the guest bloggers in their absence. As my blog, No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money is quite new, I feel truly honored to be asked. I will do my best to keep up the standards that they have established.

4 Responses to “No NRA Endorsement for Harry Reid”

  1. Miguel says:

    Wait… I thought the NRA endorsed Harry Reid already. You mean the Uncompromised Interweebs were wrong?
    The Horror!

  2. Shawn says:

    The people complained when they thought the NRA was going to endorse reid. Now that they are not going to and the people who got upset are STILL upset. Now they are saying they look like they INTENDED to endorse him with being on the fence so long and having an article in the American Rifleman praising reid by being pro-gun and helping create that nice range. Now reid is in the lead and they blame the NRA. You can’t win with these people. To them the NRA is the enemy. Much better to support the GOA or JFPO or any number of other gun rights groups that have nowhere near the political power or money or membership numbers. Yet if it were not for the NRA we would be great britian by now.

    The “R” is not for republican. I don’t see why people can’t figure that out. Also they are a gun rights group only. They are not around for other issues unless it affects there ability to do their primary job. The “Campaign finance reform” bill comes to mind.

  3. Brad says:

    For a long time the NRA was squeamish about advancing 2nd Amendment rights through litigation. But the cats out of the bag now since DC v Heller. Now the NRA has no choice but to face the high stakes challenges of fighting it out in the courts.

    I think the NRA squeamishness was because they understood how high risk this course is, and they are right. The 2nd Amendment stands on the edge of nullification, as the 5 to 4 decision in McDonald v Chicago demonstrated. Now selection of new Supreme Court justices is The Most Important Thing a U.S. Senator does as far as gun rights are concerned.

    So I think the NRA refusal to endorse Reid isn’t realpolitik scheming. I accept the NRA explanation for the refusal to endorse, because the reason the NRA gave really is that all-important.

  4. Carl from Chicago says:

    Mr. Richardson:

    Thanks for guest blogging … and your own blog is excellent, I might add!

    But I would not describe NRAs lack of a Reid endorsement as “stunning”, but rather, “totally expected.” Perhaps one of the most significant factors for gun rights going forward are the appointees to the SCOTUS. And the evidence for Kagan’s position, and now Sotomayor’s position (in McDonald) is particularly indicative.

    In my opinion, the NRA had no other choice but to deny Reid an endorsement.

top