GarandFan Posted August 27, 2010 at 10:06 PM Posted August 27, 2010 at 10:06 PM I didn't post this first ... mauserme did. But it deserves a thread with a descriptive title. This should generate some discussion! I am glad they decided to do this, after Reid supported both Sotomayor and Kagan. Votes simply must mean something. It was a tough choice, though, as Reid is an incumbent with a relatively strong gun rights record. So be it. Good decision, NRA. Frankly, though, I hope they don't endorse Angle. http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=14170 Statement From NRA-PVF Chairman Chris W. Cox On The 2010 Nevada U.S. Senate Race 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.
GarandFan Posted August 27, 2010 at 10:11 PM Author Posted August 27, 2010 at 10:11 PM Looks like they will not be endorsing Angle, either. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/nra-will-not-endorse-sharron-angle-either/62193/
mauserme Posted August 28, 2010 at 01:57 PM Posted August 28, 2010 at 01:57 PM http://thecaucus.blo...t-endorse-reid/ ... Keenly aware of the blow, a spokesman for Mr. Reid's campaign responded quickly, noting that the N.R.A. donated nearly $5,000 to Mr. Reid and nothing to Ms. Angle ...Perhaps they could use a little more of our money to even this up as well.
gravyboy77 Posted August 28, 2010 at 02:28 PM Posted August 28, 2010 at 02:28 PM http://thecaucus.blo...t-endorse-reid/ ... Keenly aware of the blow, a spokesman for Mr. Reid's campaign responded quickly, noting that the N.R.A. donated nearly $5,000 to Mr. Reid and nothing to Ms. Angle ...Perhaps they could use a little more of our money to even this up as well. Angle and Reid have been tied in the last 5 polls and Reid is in big, big trouble. The NRA better pony up the same amount for Angle.
GarandFan Posted August 28, 2010 at 02:35 PM Author Posted August 28, 2010 at 02:35 PM Angle and Reid have been tied in the last 5 polls and Reid is in big, big trouble. The NRA better pony up the same amount for Angle. I don't know if it's that simple. The NRA is between a rock, and a hard place. If Reid loses, but the Dems maintain control of the Senate, then the majority leader becomes Durbin or Schumer. The NRA knows that either of those two would refuse to move pro-gun legislation (unlike Reid, who did). For gun rights going forward, Reid losing in Nevada would be a victory only if the Republicans win a Senate majority. Then and only then would a pro-gun Senator (McConnell of KY) be senate leader.
mauserme Posted August 28, 2010 at 03:57 PM Posted August 28, 2010 at 03:57 PM That old appearance of neutrality versus true neutrality thing rearing its ugly head again? But I gues Mr. Cox never actually said the NRA is neutral in thsi race. He only implied it.
Xwing Posted September 1, 2010 at 11:18 PM Posted September 1, 2010 at 11:18 PM For gun rights going forward, Reid losing in Nevada would be a victory only if the Republicans win a Senate majority. Then and only then would a pro-gun Senator (McConnell of KY) be senate leader. That's what we need to be going for. It's the only way this nation will not continue to destroy itself with "dear leader" at the helm. A republican-controlled Senate could block his horrible policies.
spec4 Posted September 2, 2010 at 01:20 PM Posted September 2, 2010 at 01:20 PM Dick Morris was on Fox saying the Dems will lose the senate. Hope he's right. As bad as Reid is, Durban or Schumer would be worse. On the other hand, they are both incompetent and would make ***** out of themselves every time they are in front of a camera. Come to think of it, they do that now.
GarandFan Posted September 2, 2010 at 02:36 PM Author Posted September 2, 2010 at 02:36 PM A republican-controlled Senate could block his horrible policies. Indeed. And they could also initiate horrible policies of their own.
Federal Farmer Posted September 2, 2010 at 02:55 PM Posted September 2, 2010 at 02:55 PM A republican-controlled Senate could block his horrible policies. Indeed. And they could also initiate horrible policies of their own. Hopefully they won't get House, Senate and Presidency again, so Dem President or House can keep them in check. I'm a fan of divided government.
gravyboy77 Posted September 2, 2010 at 03:17 PM Posted September 2, 2010 at 03:17 PM A republican-controlled Senate could block his horrible policies. Indeed. And they could also initiate horrible policies of their own. Hopefully they won't get House, Senate and Presidency again, so Dem President or House can keep them in check. I'm a fan of divided government. I am also a fan of "checks and Balances", although i can't see how the republicans could pass horrible policies with Obama holding the veto pen. I want the republicans to take over the senate so they can block the extreemists that Obama can nominate to the supreme court more than anything else.
GarandFan Posted September 2, 2010 at 05:56 PM Author Posted September 2, 2010 at 05:56 PM I want the republicans to take over the senate so they can block the extreemists that Obama can nominate to the supreme court more than anything else. I most certainly agree with you on that one!
sctman800 Posted September 2, 2010 at 06:17 PM Posted September 2, 2010 at 06:17 PM Supreme Court nominees is probably the most importaint reason to re-take the Senate. Jim.
Xwing Posted September 4, 2010 at 09:01 PM Posted September 4, 2010 at 09:01 PM Indeed. And they could also initiate horrible policies of their own. Possible, but not very likely. What policy has a Republican Congress passed that is 1/10 as bad as Obama's steady march to Socialism and government-run-everything? They've been far from perfect, but compared to Obama, they're saints. We eventually (in 2.4 years) need to get a Republican house, senate, and president in order to have any chance of rolling back Obama's terrible laws (such as socialized medicine, anti-energy policy, free illegal immegration for all, and his continued plans to tax us and fee us to death.) Also, a Republican controlled Congress and Administration is our only chance of national CCW reciprocity. It's the only way to allow concealed carry in Illinois unless we can get Madigan and his crew out of power.
Howard Roark Posted September 5, 2010 at 05:23 AM Posted September 5, 2010 at 05:23 AM Indeed. And they could also initiate horrible policies of their own. Possible, but not very likely. What policy has a Republican Congress passed that is 1/10 as bad as Obama's steady march to Socialism and government-run-everything? They've been far from perfect, but compared to Obama, they're saints. We eventually (in 2.4 years) need to get a Republican house, senate, and president in order to have any chance of rolling back Obama's terrible laws (such as socialized medicine, anti-energy policy, free illegal immegration for all, and his continued plans to tax us and fee us to death.) Also, a Republican controlled Congress and Administration is our only chance of national CCW reciprocity. It's the only way to allow concealed carry in Illinois unless we can get Madigan and his crew out of power. Yes, the only path to civilian carry of arms in illinois is as you said. Word!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.