Page 5 of 5
Re: NRA to endorse Harry Reid?
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:41 pm
by atticus
Not to cut too fine a point, Reid is a nation-wide issue because he's the majority leader in the senate. His actions go way beyond the borders of Nevada and affect us all. But I understand your point. Moreover, I second your focus on good candidates, not just single-issue voting. We need the NRA and I appreciate what it does. But we have our own obligation to vote intelligently, and to work for good candidates. Moreover, we often forget the significance of political involvement at the local level: precinct work, school districts, utility and water districts, hospital districts. These are all matters that affect us directly, and on which we can have an immediate positive effect. Thanks for your post.

Re: NRA to endorse Harry Reid?
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:29 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
magillapd wrote:The NRA does not get people elected, nor does any other organization.
We most certainly do! The highest profile NRA victories in recent elections was Gore and Kerry. The NRA absolutely did give Bush the victory. Our work at the local level has made the difference in many thousand of state and local elections as well.
magillapd wrote:No candidate should EVER be elected based on one single issue. What a voter needs to do is look at the candidate’s record, platform, and endorsements. With that, make an informed decision on who to vote for.
I respectfully disagree strongly with this premise. Thankfully, most NRA members do also, otherwise we would not be the largest and most effective civil rights organization in the country. I'm not saying issues other than guns are not important, but I am saying a candidate's stand on guns is a litmus test. If they are wrong on guns, there's no reason for me to look any further. If both candidates support my right to own and use guns, then I can and do look further.
Chas.
Re: NRA to endorse Harry Reid?
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:50 pm
by gmckinl
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm not saying issues other than guns are not important, but I am saying a candidate's stand on guns is a litmus test. If they are wrong on guns, there's no reason for me to look any further. Chas.
Agree completely. Any candidate must pass that test first, then I'll look deeper. A "nyet" vote there and they are out... no recovering from that failure. This article sums up my position
http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I have no issues with anything in that article.