TexasCHLforum.com

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.

flb_78 wrote:Man your attitude is annoying.

Really?

There is only 1 candidate in either party that has a record of supporting gun rights and you say it is a wasted vote.

Yep...I'll say it...And it has nothing to do personally against him, you, or anyone else that is a principled supporter of Ron Paul...

So don't kill my thread by injecting Ron Paul yet again into a discussion that doesn't, and will not have anything to do with the big picture here...He had his chance, he does make some sense, but he doesn't poll well when he has too...And that is unfortunate...

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

srothstein wrote: Actually, if I don't vote for the Democratic candidate I will be wasting my vote, because a Democrat is going to win the election. We just don't know yet if the next president will be named Obama, Clinton, or McCain, but whichever of the three it is, it will be a Democrat that wins.

Oooof! What can I say to a shot up the gut like that?

Not much, because he is right, and I agree with him wholeheartedly...I'm just glad someone else said it before I went off topic on another aspect of this thread that I am about to address...

flb_78 wrote:I believe it was entirely feasible if the NRA had put up some support a couple of months ago instead of waiting until the primaries were half way over. It would seem that many on this board are more worried about giving Muslims rights then keeping our own.

And if I don't vote Republican, the terrorists win, right?

Okay slick...I'm not sure an education about the real situation is going to help here, so I'll make this simple...

The purpose of "my" thread was to introduce a little twist on something that was done years ago in a similar situation...

Charles Cotton, myself and a few others here do understand that to bolster the NRA's position to counter a very real, and hostile political climate after November 2008, we need to be supportive, encourage our organization to make a wise decision (which I hope it does in this case), not from the standpoint of whatever happens to occur to be a vindictive, or uncooperative position, yet be strong enough to weather this storm that is going to occur...

At this point it has NOTHING to do with ANY candidate at this point running for President...I believe our usual battle will be to help elect those candidates and incumbents (down ballot) that will (on the issue of the Second Amendment) will be solid on our side of the equation...That simply means we will not have to make many phonecalls, emails, letters to them when and if a gun-control bill sees the light of day in the next 4 years, until we can re-energize the cadre of people considering running for political office, and that are already known to be good supporters of our inalienable, individual right to keep and bear arms...Period...

If the NRA plays this right, it will be in a stronger position to do what it does during this hostile political environment for us...And we need to find an angle to help them create this stronger position...That is what I floated out there 2 pages back...

If you feel better about what you have said here in those posts...I hope you do...Doesn't do a thing though in this case...

I'm done addressing you directly on this particular matter...

yerasimos wrote: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.

Muchos Gracias!!!

Here are the CNN profiles of the candidates on the 2A, http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html

From Huckabee's site http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction ... ssue_id=18

# The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property.
# Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. I oppose gun control based on geography.
# I consistently opposed banning assault weapons and opposed the Brady Bill.
# As Governor, I protected gun manufacturers from frivolous law suits.
# I was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license.

I realize this is a single issue basis, but I feel if you're participating in this forum that the 2nd amendment is at least a key issue.
For those of you that think the assault weapon's ban "was/will be" ok, Natchez has high capacity mags on sale.

Personally, I have other issues with Huckabee, but I would rather work politically on those, than try to reverse 2nd amendment damage done by some of the others.

Well, Romney is going to announce his withdrawal from the race today (I think officially it will be worded like "suspending new efforts," or some such). I think it's a good bet Romney won't endorse McCain, as bitter as their in-fighting has been, and, mathematically, I don't know if his endorsement of Huckabee will make any difference.

So srothstein's prediction is one step closer to being true. My money is on Obama vs. McCain.

Texas early voting starts February 19 for our March 4 primary. Just in case.

Skiprr wrote:Well, Romney is going to announce his withdrawal from the race today (I think officially it will be worded like "suspending new efforts," or some such). I think it's a good bet Romney won't endorse McCain, as bitter as their in-fighting has been, and, mathematically, I don't know if his endorsement of Huckabee will make any difference.

So srothstein's prediction is one step closer to being true. My money is on Obama vs. McCain.

Texas early voting starts February 19 for our March 4 primary. Just in case.

He actually did withdraw. I heard his speech to CPAC, and he DID throw lukewarm support toward McCain. He basically said (paraphrasing), "I have much that I disagree with John McCain about, but I know that in the war on terror, he is as strong as any Republican candidate and MUCH stronger than either Clinton or Obama." He also said that, since we cannot afford a Clinton or Obama in the whitehouse, he was going to do his part to support the Republican nominee, while remaining a voice for conservatism within the party.

So, it is official... Romney is pretty much out, and McCain is pretty much the nominee.

All which means that the NRA can now concentrate its efforts on how to work with a McCain campaign and presidency (if he gets elected).

Huckabee hasn't quit yet! Could the NRA endorse him?

OverEasy wrote:Huckabee hasn't quit yet! Could the NRA endorse him?

They certainly could, but given that Romney is out (and he was in 2nd place behind McCain in delegates), would the NRA benefit by not building bridges with McCain now? If the NRA throws its support to Huckabee, then that is one less reason for McCain - who is already shaky on gun rights - to give two figs (or even one) for what the NRA thinks. So far, the committed delegates shake out like this:

Mike Huckabee 190
John McCain 703
Ron Paul 14
Mitt Romney 293
Total 1,200

1,191 delegates are needed to win the nomination. The lions share of Romney's delegates are likely going to go to McCain, since Romney is going to support McCain's candidacy. McCain only needs 487 more delegates to capture the nomination. Subtract a good chunk of Romney's 293 from that number. Then, start adding in those delegates from the remaining states. Texas is a winner takes all state with 140 delegates. As of 1/31/07, Texas was polling Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 29%, Mike Huckabee 20%, Ron Paul 8% (Paul can't even buy a break in his own state). With Romney out, McCain will pull a lot higher than 29%, and it isn't too hard to see him netting all 140 delegates. And in March, we also have the Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont and Mississippi primaries. Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont are all states with less than conservative state Republican parties. (Ohio has split Dem and Rep. Senators. Rhode Island finally boot Lincoln "RINO" Chaffee and replaced him with a Dem. And Vermont elected "Jumpin'" Jim Jeffers, for cryin' out loud.) So it isn't hard to see McCain capturing most, if not all, of the delegates from those 3 states. All the remaining primaries after March are in states with relatively low population density (Pennsylvania excepted) and fairly low delegate numbers. The upshot of all this is that we will know for certain by the end of march who the de facto Republican nominee will be, but it is fairly safe to say right now that it will be McCain.

If my interpretation is correct, then WRT to this thread topic, it is foolish of the NRA not to engage with McCain to see if they can get enough assurances from him to make it worth lending him their endorsement.

BTW, the thought of McCain makes me retch, but the situation is what it is, and it has to be dealt with.

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.

Well, I have to point out one thing in the race that many have let slip from their minds. The President does not have nearly as much power as people think. Some of the real powers are the party leaders behind the scenes. If they are against the office holder, he will get little done.

Now, we know the Democrats will back almost anything that Obama or Clinton propose. There are still quite a few in that party that remember the lesson about gun control, but a growing number think they can slip it in through smaller steps.

We also know the Republican Party is pretty much in favor of the RKBA. They can work with the congressmen to stop a lot of things. I don't think they will support McCain doing much in that way either.

So, if the 2A is one of your primary decision points, the Republican party is probably the party to support (other than the Libertarians) on that basis. I have a lot of other disgareements with McCain, but in all fairness, I don't see him working against our rights on firearms.

And if the Democrats stay split, or nominate Clinton, I think McCain will win so we need to start working with him now. It is always better politically to join in earlier than later. If Obama gets the nomination, I think the election is much closer and harder to call.

One of my favorite cartoons wades in:

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/02/08/

CompVest wrote:I hear what you are saying. However, the NRA not endorsing a candidate is akin to a voter not voting because there is no one he/she likes. It is better to put the best possible candidate in the office rather then abstain from voting and possibly get the worse. The NRA is not only a source of information about politicians but is a leader for many voters.