NRA Pulls Support for Reid

[Nevermore]

Looks like voting for Kagan and Sotomayor broke the camel's back.

Source: NRA Political Victory Fund

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.

Also being being reported on Politico

[Yellowfin]

Interesting, but perhaps useless. They should have fought instead to keep Kagan and Sotomayor off the court entirely rather than merely retaliating after the fact.

[tsafa]

Interesting, but perhaps useless. They should have fought instead to keep Kagan and Sotomayor off the court entirely rather than merely retaliating after the fact.

I don't think there is anything that could have been done to keep Kagan and Sotomayor out of the Supreme court since Obama was elected to president. Obama had enough votes in congress to put almost anyone he wanted in there. The upcoming election in November is what counts most since Obama was elected into office. Wins by pro-gun rights candidates would produce two important results. First, it would stop any future anti-gun legislation from passing. Second, it would demonstrate the power of pro-gun rights organizations and keep even reelected anti-gunners quiet in the congress.

The NRA also has the high ground here in saying that they don't support candidates based on their party affiliations but rather on their actions in congress related strictly to gun rights. This is a very important place for them to be, because it gives them the ability to persuade both independent voters and even registered Democrats who favor gun rights. If the NRA comes across as a lapdog for the Republican Party, they would not have ability to reach Independent voters and registered Democrats. Strategically... theses are the votes that turn elections in favor of gun rights. There is a big difference in "fighting" for gun rights and "winning" gun rights. Only winning counts.

[Rundownfid]

I don't think there is anything that could have been done to keep Kagan and Sotomayor out of the Supreme court since Obama was elected to president. Obama had enough votes in congress to put almost anyone he wanted in there. The upcoming election in November is what counts most since Obama was elected into office. Wins by pro-gun rights candidates would produce two important results. First, it would stop any future anti-gun legislation from passing. Second, it would demonstrate the power of pro-gun rights organizations and keep even reelected anti-gunners quiet in the congress.

The NRA also has the high ground here in saying that they don't support candidates based on their party affiliations but rather on their actions in congress related strictly to gun rights. This is a very important place for them to be, because it gives them the ability to persuade both independent voters and even registered Democrats who favor gun rights. If the NRA comes across as a lapdog for the Republican Party, they would not have ability to reach Independent voters and registered Democrats. Strategically... theses are the votes that turn elections in favor of gun rights. There is a big difference in "fighting" for gun rights and "winning" gun rights. Only winning counts.

Good points but: 3. the ability to block the next Obama Supreme is critical. We are on a 5-4 court that says the 2nd amendment is an individual right, we can't lose that edge, and won't be safe until it is more like 7-2. Unfortunatly Sotomayor and Kagan appear to be anti-2nd amendment, and they are both young.

[Spartos]

Back a couple of months ago the NRA released a positive survey and assessment of Reid's record on the second ammendment that was just short of officially endorsing him. At that time, the NRA (and everyone else) knew VERY well that Reid was going to support Kagan. So I don't buy this idea that they suddently decided not to endorse him because of his support for Kagan.

I think it's clear that the REAL deciding factor is the thousands of NRA members who became angry and wrote letters warning that they would cancel their memberships if the NRA endorsed Reid.

As one who criticized the NRA in this forum I have to say that I am pleased that they seem to have listened to their membership. I give them credit for that.

But I'll always be disappointed that they ever considred endorsing Reid in the first place and published such a positive assessment of him. It has permanently lowered my opinion of the NRA.

[762xIan]

But I'll always be disappointed that they ever considred endorsing Reid in the first place and published such a positive assessment of him. It has permanently lowered my opinion of the NRA.

Like was mentioned earlier...the NRA policy is simple..."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". Reid, like him or hate his politics or not, had a good voting record when it came to guns.

As one who criticized the NRA in this forum I have to say that I am pleased that they seem to have listened to their membership. I give them credit for that.

As a life NRA member for almost 20 years, they DO listen to the membership, as big as the org. is it sometimes takes a while for the wheels to start moving. Just like in the early 90's, the gun culture was undergoing a big change from the hunting crowd running the NRA to the more collector/milsurp/semi-auto shooting crowd that it is today . It took a few years for the NRA to change its tune there also.

I am an active member and have had it out many times with Fudds and others who don't support EVERY aspect of gun ownership whether it is full auto's (NFA items) open carry or whatever, I support ALL of it, even though I don't even personally care one way or the other for those things.

It's easy to criticize from the sidelines, the NRA or any organization is only as good as its membership.

[Kratos]

Back a couple of months ago the NRA released a positive survey and assessment of Reid's record on the second ammendment that was just short of officially endorsing him. At that time, the NRA (and everyone else) knew VERY well that Reid was going to support Kagan. So I don't buy this idea that they suddently decided not to endorse him because of his support for Kagan.

I think it's clear that the REAL deciding factor is the thousands of NRA members who became angry and wrote letters warning that they would cancel their memberships if the NRA endorsed Reid.

As one who criticized the NRA in this forum I have to say that I am pleased that they seem to have listened to their membership. I give them credit for that.

But I'll always be disappointed that they ever considred endorsing Reid in the first place and published such a positive assessment of him. It has permanently lowered my opinion of the NRA.

Absolutely correct.

[ChamberedRound]

Back a couple of months ago the NRA released a positive survey and assessment of Reid's record on the second ammendment that was just short of officially endorsing him. At that time, the NRA (and everyone else) knew VERY well that Reid was going to support Kagan. So I don't buy this idea that they suddently decided not to endorse him because of his support for Kagan.

Why not? At this point the NRA was talking sweet about Reid because, quite frankly, he has always been a relatively strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. That he was working with Pelosi, ram-rodding shoddy health care legislation down our throats, pushing Obama's agenda, etc. was of NO CONCERN to the NRA because it didn't have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment.

If it's been said once on this site, it's been said a thousand times: the NRA is a SINGLE ISSUE ORGANIZATION. That's the reason why they have so much influence, and why their scoring, grades, and endorsements of candidates are actually given credence by voters and the political establishment.

As one who criticized the NRA in this forum I have to say that I am pleased that they seem to have listened to their membership. I give them credit for that.

But I'll always be disappointed that they ever considred endorsing Reid in the first place and published such a positive assessment of him. It has permanently lowered my opinion of the NRA.

Again, they may have considered it because of his past 2A voting record. However, that changed with his votes on Sotomayor and Kagan. It's because of those votes, coupled with membership feedback, that I believe the NRA didn't endorse him.

And while that might make us happy, we better hope and pray that the Senate majority switches parties or Reid wins his election. If one of those doesn't happen, I'd wager a bet that any Democratic Senator which might replace him as Senate Majority Leader is going to cause us much more trouble on the 2A front than Reid did. No matter what you may think of him, Reid was a big part of why we even got a floor vote on national carry reciprocity, and why many other onerous pieces of anti-gun legislation didn't even see the light of day in the Senate.

I understand we have a lot of NRA-haters here, but the fact is there's no organization more effective than the NRA at preserving our 2A rights at the federal level.

[Yellowfin]

I don't think there is anything that could have been done to keep Kagan and Sotomayor out of the Supreme court since Obama was elected to president. Obama had enough votes in congress to put almost anyone he wanted in there. The upcoming election in November is what counts most since Obama was elected into office.

True, but here's the problem: every single one counts. It's not which one came when, but having ANY of them on the court, and if you don't stop one then can't stop the others, then it doesn't matter which ones were which. If you lose a football game 24-21, it isn't because you didn't block the last field goal but because you also didn't stop the 3 touchdowns the other team scored.