It has to be hard sticking to your incumbent friendly endorsement policy when you have an NRA Board Member running for Governor against an really Second Amendment friendly incumbent Governor. How much do you like a race where that’s your choice? Beats voting in Pennsylvania, I can tell you that. Jan Brewer signed a constitutional carry bill into law, and the other guy is on the NRA Board. Maybe I can get used to 110 in the shade!
6 thoughts on “What a Choice”
And Dean Martin (currently state treasurer) isn’t bad either. He’s been beating the state deficit drum since Napolitano was spending us into oblivion.
Brewer’s only drawback is her pushing through a sales tax increase over cutting spending.
Mill’s has made some statements that make him come across as squishy on immigration.
This is a win anyway you slice it. I won’t have any heartburn pulling the lever for any of them in the general election.
I believe Martin has been A+ rated in prior elections too. On 2A issues, we’re in great shape in AZ.
NRA hasn’t effectively conveyed their incumbent friendly policy. The Brewer and McCain endorsements have really riled some people.
How would you suggest they convey it? Not that I’m default taking their side on this one, I’m just curious because I can’t think of that much else they could do for it short of taking out paid advertisements that do nothing but explain it. And I do agree that there’s a disconnect between how many ways they try to explain it and how many people understand it. (I mean, let’s face it, I didn’t think it was that hard to understand why they don’t endorse guys who try to ban our guns. But apparently, that’s up for debate in some parts of the blogosphere.)
I wish I had a great answer, but I don’t.
I see the disconnect between the policy and what people perceive the endorsement to mean. Chris Cox made a succinct statement at the annual meeting that conveyed; if you don’t like a candidate’s endorsement, it’s because of some political issue other than gun rights. That message seems to be getting lost.
Perhaps NRA could release all candidate grades for a state or office at the same time, preventing some of the WAG about what the grades/endorsement really mean.
Was it something along this message?
I’d love to brainstorm ways they can communicate it so that it comes off more clearly, but I’m not sure I can think of any new ways. The tough thing about endorsing at all once is that the impact and media attention for each one is lost. We have to keep in mind that about 30 million people think they are members of the NRA, so we have to use the mainstream media attention whenever we can get it. There’s also the practical issue with the different campaign schedules. (For example, not all candidates had time to respond to questionnaires before our primary up here, but endorsements needed to be issued in some races. That makes for a sticky situation if you want to release even all for the primary at once.)
To some degree, I think a problem like this is solved by the members becoming more engaged. But if they are irritated, then they won’t want to become more engaged. This is definitely not an easy to solve problem – at least without the involvement of a clue bat. :)
Yes, it was along the lines of that message, but short and sweet. I’ve sent you a long winded email on the subject.
Comments are closed.