search
top

Party First. Your Rights, Second.

This ABC News article hints that we may have some trouble in an upcoming Republican Congress:

National Republicans are furious with the National Rifle Association, their natural ally, for endorsing 58 incumbent Democrats who support gun rights. And with Republicans aiming to win control of the House, some are promising retribution for the NRA next year.

“In about a week, the NRA will find themselves on the bad sides of a few dozen new Republican members of congress. They have put their credibility – and also that of their members – on the line for the sake of ingratiating themselves with a bunch of liberal Democrats who are about to lose, and lose badly,” said one senior GOP operative who requested anonymity to speak freely.

So these “dozen new Republican members of congress” are willing to put their party affiliation ahead of the Second Amendment and the Constitution? Looks like we may be headed back to the days with Republican majorities that weren’t really willing to do much for us. Remember folks that the last Republican Congress got us Lautenberg, the Gun Free School Zones Act, a ban on purchasing of handguns by those 18-20, and oh yeah, PLCAA. Gotta throw at least one bone to the gun nuts.

Now it would seem some want us to go back into an abusive relationship with the GOP. If any of the new freshman GOP critters want to hold a grudge against NRA, I sincerely hope NRA will be willing to involve itself in primaries to get them out.

24 Responses to “Party First. Your Rights, Second.”

  1. Bitter says:

    They are supremely stupid if they want to hold a grudge in an election like this. And notice that the veterans of political office aren’t the ones complaining – and I don’t just mean the ones who are incumbents in their own offices. The ones who understand that NRA has a clear policy that will benefit them when they win.

    Our own state lawmaker – running for his first ever NRA grade this year since his campaign screwed up in 2008 – even said that the policy makes sense, and he appreciated the transparency of the whole process.

  2. Miguel says:

    Oh hell, I guess I won’t be listening to Gun Talk this Sunday. Larry Pratt is on and I don’t wanna hear him chanting about how the NRA should become the National Republican Association. Worse case scenario, those butthurt Reps should be reminded that we can always go RINO hunting for 2012.

  3. Steve in TN says:

    When the NRA endorses the Pelosi backing, anti-2A voting Oberstar over a rock solid 2A supporting candidate (Cravaack) you can expect things like this. How about fixing the NRA instead of grousing over those who see the flaws?

  4. I will vote against anyone I see as violating the Constitution. It doesn’t matter what party the person belongs to. I’ve long come to the conclusion that the Republicans are not our friends. At best, they are fellow travelers. But, in the end, they are just in it for the power. Of course, the same goes for the Democrats.

  5. Dannytheman says:

    I think the Republicans will be smart and learn an important lesson. Be an incumbant and have a great record with the NRA and get support, and lots of it. So hopefully they will get in line and follow the over 12 million people who think they are NRA members.

    I am more worried that Reid loses and Shumer takes over Senate. Remember Shumer was the co author of the Semi Auto rifle ban in 1994. Reid has been good for the gun cause, I am betting Shumer will not be so good!

  6. Steve in TN says:

    * Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
    * Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
    * Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

    Yep, it is, Sebastian.

  7. Steve in TN says:

    The same thing goes for the GOP as the NRA.

    Fix it.

    I may not like what the NRA does at times, but I’m still a member and I sound off the the NRA powers-that-be when I am able. Right now, for me, that involves being an active member of my state chapter.

    If you don’t like what the GOP does, fix it. Get involved in your local GOP org and work from the grassroots up. Get the candidates you want instead of waiting to see what is given to you.

  8. Sebastian says:

    Probably why he’s a B+ and not an A. I’d bet he was lower before. He’s been voting the right way the past several congresses, though. The other guy has no record at all except a questionnaire.

  9. Sebastian says:

    I have complained to them about grades that I think are wrong this election cycle, and you know what? They agreed and fixed it. That benefitted a Republican too, not a Dem.

    I don’t think they get it right 100% of the time, but I don’t’ see any particular issue with Oberstar’s endorsement.

    I agree with you about getting involved, and the more I get involved the less convinced I am Republicans really care about this issue without having their feet constantly held to the fire. That’s one reason I work the party through the issue, rather than the issue through the party.

  10. Newbius says:

    Piling on here…The NRA chose to exercise the “incumbent-friendly” endorsement policy by backing anti-freedom (but NRA “A” or “B” rated) Democrats, and out of touch RINOs, over their also A-Rated challengers. I understand the policy, but the NRA should not be surprised at the outcome of their choices.

    If a backlash occurs, maybe the NRA would re-visit their incumbent-friendly policy and either become more selective with their endorsements and contributions, or remain on the sidelines when two candidates have equal Second Amendment chops.

    I do not advocate that they become another GOA. I do advocate that quit trying to hamstring those who would also fight for our rights but who are not on the NRA’s payroll (like they keep trying to do to Alan Gura).

  11. Sebastian says:

    Politically, the incumbent friendly policy makes sense. Incumbents are a) highly likely to win their elections (this year is different though, we may only see a 80% incumbent re-election rate), and b) have seniority, meaning they can get things done in the legislative body to a far greater degree than a newcomer and c) usually have a record on the issue that can be judged, whereas a newcomer typically will have no record, forcing you to go on promises.

    So I hope they don’t reconsider the policy. It’s worked out very well for gun rights, and will again.

  12. Heather from AK says:

    “If a backlash occurs, maybe the NRA would re-visit their incumbent-friendly policy and either become more selective with their endorsements and contributions, or remain on the sidelines when two candidates have equal Second Amendment chops.”

    Agreed.

  13. Sebastian says:

    I’ll use an example of a race in Pennsylvania. In 2006, long time A-rated Republican Melissa Hart got beat by Jason Altmire, AQ, despite Hart’s NRA endorsement. Hart ran against Altmire in 2008. Both had good records. But what do you think Altmire’s reaction would have been if NRA had just sat out and refused to do anything to help him?

    That’s an important consideration given that Altmire won re-election in 2008, and is looking to win this year too, probably because he’s actually a real blue dog.

  14. DirtCrashr says:

    When a national Leftwing news org declares something or someone on the Right to be a “Natural Ally” I remain skeptical and suspicious that they are trying to trap the narrative, and that maybe a “few-dozen” RHINOs (who the Left espouse) are in trouble – kill them for the Horn, I say.

  15. Drang says:

    “Dear Freshman Congresscritter
    “I pay the NRA to look out for my Second Amendment rights. Part of that is rating congresscritters on how well they look out for my Second Amendment rights. Surprisingly, the “R” does not, in fact, stand for “Republican”, and some Democratic congresscritters do well in these ratings, just as, alas, some Republicans–you may be familiar with the term “RINO”?–do not.
    “Don’t screw up.
    “Sincerely, your Boss.”

  16. LC Scotty says:

    We need punishments and rewards-failing to endorse incumbents that have largely voted our way will show that our cake is a lie.

  17. countertop says:

    Aren’t you reading a little too much coordination and conspiracy into the pronouncement of an anonymous senior GOP operative?

    WTF is that? To this lobbyists mind, it sounds like they talked to a bunch of Republican lobbyists (ie: folks who might lobby an issue and have a chip on their shoulder) and get a dumb quote. Heck, for all we know, it could be Larry Pratt himself.

    Frankly, I woudn’t pay much heed to it.

  18. Sebastian says:

    I hope I’m reading too much into it… I’ll put it that way.

  19. Andrew says:

    “Probably why he’s a B+ and not an A. I’d bet he was lower before. He’s been voting the right way the past several congresses, though. The other guy has no record at all except a questionnaire.”

    So, you can’t get a record without first being in Congress, and you can’t get NRA support if you have never been in Congress?

    Sounds like you are against new people running for office. And what is wrong with the questionaire? If they state their views and turn opposite after the election, you target them then.

    I am an NRA member. Dan Boren is running for re-election in my District. He sits on the Board of the NRA. Yet I will vote for his opponent simply because Boren is a lapdog Democrat.

  20. Sebastian says:

    Boren may be a Democrat, but he’s a real conservative. He’s been one of the few Democrats that hasn’t voted for Obama and Pelosi’s agenda. In short, what’s your real beef with the guy other than he’s got a D instead of an R after his name.

    And yeah, when I think the guy in the office is doing a good job, I want to keep him in there.

    And what is wrong with the questionnaire?

    Nothing’s wrong with the questionnaire, what you’re saying NRA should do is take a politician at his word, over someone who has an actual voting record. That seems dangerous to me, taking politicians at their word.

  21. Andrew says:

    Sorry Sebastian, I disagree that he is a Conservative. He may be a JFK Democrat, but not a Conservative.

    He gets a pass from the D’s because he has a District that the D’s want to hold. His father is David Boren, former OK Governor, and the name means everything around here.

    If he is a true Conservative (and remember, Conservative is a platform, not a party), he should just end all of our wondering and switch parties. But his family would disown him if he did that. He only wins each year because of his name, not his political stance.

    Asked in 2008 if he supported BO, he said at the time, he could not say one way or the other. Within 24 hours he was out there pledging his support of BO. Daddy dropped a dime and read him the riot act.

    Sorry, my vote still goes for the opponent.

    And what the heck is wrong with taking someones word? That used to be the way business was done, and in some instances is still done. But getting rarer and rarer. Fool me once, shame on you… You know the rest. We are entering an entirely different political atmosphere, and I like it.

    Love your blog by the way. Always learn something when I visit!

  22. Sebastian says:

    Well, to be honest, I’m not going to talk anyone out of punishing the Democratic Party as a whole. My father is certainly in your camp as well.

    I really think Boren should switch parties. Same with other people who have bucked Pelosi like Altmire.

top