TexasCHLforum.com

I could understand the purpose behind some token, limited financial support of McCain. Someone who promoted a "get-the-NRA" bill should consider himself lucky to get any form of support from us. Consider it a partial olive branch, that could be helpful later on. But given his "maverick" ways and volatile disposition, I would not be surprised if he returned the check, and did so publicly. This would be a helpful "clue".

I disagree with the idea of a full-on endorsement of McCain (assuming he will be the nominee, which appears likely as others have pointed out). Letter-grading the candidates seems like a less riskier path, assuming McCain would get at least a marginally better grade than the Democratic nominee.

I still believe the NRA's financial resources can be used more effectively in selected Senate and "red-state" legislative contests, to block bad appointees and legislation and protect recent state-level gains.

Fellow hoplophiles,

Perhaps we can focus this thread upon political strategies to weather the coming storm, aside from pimping our favorite presidential candidates or political parties.

Just a suggestion to keep things constructive.

In the spirit of Charles' and KBCraig's posts . . .

Hillary or Obama should get an F grade from the NRA. No big surprise there.

Assuming McCain or Romney is the RINO nominee, the NRA can give them a grade ranging from D to C-. If people insist upon choosing the lesser evil, then this gives them a rationalization to do so. Maybe this will leave the door ajar for future cooperation, as their grade was not as bad as their Democrat opponent.

If there is a continued strong aversion to third-party or independent presidential candidates, then omit their mention.

There should be a strong focus upon the endangered Senate Republican seats; conserving/improving position here could help block anti-gun judicial appointees. If this position falls, the anti-gunners could have free reign for both appointments and legislative activities.

How would the remaining resources be divvied up among House and state legislative contests?

stevie_d_64 wrote:Gunowner turnout is not a problem...Turning them out for "what", is what is important...

Perhaps the coming elections will be an opportunity for the state affiliate organizations to really shine--and increase membership. As they may have a better feel on the pulse of state and congressional district politics, they can do more of the heavy lifting and help distill the "what", and the NRA can play a more strategic role. On the flip side, the state organizations sometimes do not have as much name recognition as the NRA; in those cases, perhaps the NRA can play a more prominent role.

I understand you (and others) are more experienced in this political stuff than I am. I am just brainstorming here.

I want to better understand what is being proposed.

Is it a very public, explicit, immediate (within the next several weeks), pre-convention disavowal of all of the remaining Republicrat presidential candidates?

Is it waiting until after the conventions to publicly and explicitly disavow the Republicrat nominees?

Or is it a tacit omission of any presidential candidate endorsement, and skipping ahead to Congressional, state and local election endorsements?

I would suggest the tacit omission, a blackout of the presidential circus on NRANews and mailings, and an emphatic, strategic legislative focus.

Surely we agree that Obama and Hillary will not cooperate with the NRA. However, I believe McCain or Romney might under the right circumstances if they calculate that it is to their political advantage. By no means am I suggesting that they are pro-gun. They are not. I am simply recognizing that they are as opportunistic as 99% of the politicians out there, that the Republicans have been marginally friendlier to the Second Amendment, and that gun owners are perceived as "clients" of the Republican party.

As much as I dislike McCain and Romney (I refuse to vote for them at all, even if the NRA endorses them), I do not believe it would be wise to preemptively foreclose the possibility of strategic cooperation in the future. As far as the NRA is concerned, I believe they belong in a separate pigpen from Hillary and Obama.

In other words, if the current slate of presidential candidates are unacceptable, then just quietly focus upon maximizing gunowner turnout on election day, and emphasize the need to get pro-gun candidates (re)elected to state legislatures and Congress. That way, the NRA could be better positioned to monkeywrench with Obama or Hillary, or push some NRA-sponsored legislation in front of McCain or Romney, as well as preserve many of the state-level gains of the past several years.