How Did the Election Impact the Second Amendment?
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence wasted no time promoting the 2010 election as a victory for gun control.
Twenty-seven Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who were endorsed by the National Rifle Association were defeated yesterday, while only two incumbent Democratic House members who co-sponsored a major gun control bill this session lost their re-election bids.
How did Brady do?
Overall, Brady endorsees won 92% of their House races.* But deeper examination highlights questions about their endorsement process.
In 2008, Brady rode Obama’s coattails to victory, endorsing nearly all Democrats in likely Democrat districts, then proclaiming it a victory for gun control in their post-election report.
However, Brady was soon disappointed. In January 2010, Brady wrote: “Barack Obama was elected on a campaign platform of enacting strong new gun laws,” but failed to deliver. This was because analysis of their report showed that Brady:
- Manipulated their endorsement process to manufacture a better winning percentage,
- Ignored the fact that voters didn’t consider gun control an important issue,
- Ignored voters’ frustration with Republicans (Brady endorses Democrats almost exclusively), and
- Ignored all the pro-rights Democrats who were elected.
In 2010, Brady again selected many safe candidates to endorse. As in 2008, Brady focused endorsements in traditionally Democratic, anti-rights states, like New York, California, and Massachusetts. Connecticut was one of the few states with a Democratic sweep; Brady endorsed three of their five reps. Massachusetts elected 10 (of 10) Democrats, five were Brady-endorsed.
Brady endorsed 25 of California’s 53 winning representatives. These all came from districts that have voted Democrat in recent decades, generally the last 20+ years, and 24 were incumbents who stood an above-average chance of re-election.
Curiously, Brady dropped many 2008 endorsees, mostly in at-risk states – to them – perhaps because of the justifiable apprehension that Democrat endorsees would lose. These states had higher rates of Republican wins, and all but 2 Brady endorsees are Democrats.
In an apparent first, Michael Arcuri (NY-24) went from Brady- to NRA-endorsed (2008-2010) because he became pro-rights, voting for concealed carry in national parks and cosponsoring NRA-supported BATFE reform.
Arcuri and 44 others lost their 2008 Brady endorsement; 36 maintained their NRA F-grade and three their 2008 D-grade. Curiously, Pelosi lost hers despite a solid anti-rights record. With few exceptions, Brady kept endorsements in “safe” states, earning the highest grades in their latest scorecard: Brady’s top 6 states (scoring 50+) contained a majority (59%) of Brady’s endorsees.
Brady picked some likely wins to boost their numbers. For example, Joseph Cao lost to Brady-endorsed Cedric Richmond, a black, in Louisiana’s 60% black District 2. The Los Angeles Times called Cao’s 2008 win a “fluke.” The only reason he won was because 19-year Congressman William Jefferson was about to be convicted for bribery. Since 1893, Cao was the first non-Democrat to hold this seat.
Charles Djou (HI-1) won a special election when 20-year Democratic Representative Neil Abercrombie resigned to run for governor. Djou won with only 39% of vote, because two Democrats split the party ticket. Brady-endorsed Colleen Hanabusa, who won in 2010, was one of those candidates. This district traditionally votes Democrat.
This is how Brady manufactures larger winning percentages.
* (This analysis covers only the House because 435 outcomes is a better sample size than the Senate’s 37.)
In all, Brady endorsed 113 House candidates in 29 states; the NRA endorsed 272 in all 50 states, including 36 (13%) in Brady’s top states. Conversely, Brady endorsed only three House candidates (3%) in their bottom seven states (Brady scores under 3), while the NRA endorsed 26 (10%). The NRA endorsement process was far more equitable, based upon candidates’ pro-rights reputations rather than anticipated outcomes.
As in 2008, it’s about local politics lining up with the Brady agenda, not a national referendum for gun control. CNN exit polls indicated that the economy was rated first (52% of voters) as the most important issue facing the country; gun control scored zero.
How did the NRA do?
Overall, the NRA scored an 82% winning percentage. But further examination highlights a trend that makes this number misleading.
The NRA endorsed many Democratic candidates because they stood for the Second Amendment under the anti-rights Obama/Pelosi regime.
ABC reported that some Republicans were “furious” over the NRA’s Democratic endorsees:
“In about a week, the NRA will find themselves on the bad sides of a few dozen new Republican members of congress. They have put their credibility – and also that of their members – on the line for the sake of ingratiating themselves with a bunch of liberal Democrats who are about to lose, and lose badly,” said one senior GOP operative who requested anonymity to speak freely.
But by endorsing them, the NRA demonstrated that it stands by pro-rights incumbents, regardless of political trends. This loyalty indicates how the NRA will support those who promote the Second Amendment in the future. It’s how successful single-issue organizations operate. The Washington Post recently wrote that the NRA is “long regarded as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in town … .” Even the New York Times acknowledges this truth.
After the election, Chris W. Cox, NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action executive director, stated:
Last night was a strong night for the NRA and the Second Amendment. As a result, there will be an unprecedented number of NRA A-rated candidates in both chambers. With the help of our 4 million members, we have led a brick by brick restoration of the Second Amendment and made any opposition to gun rights into a political liability for candidates from either party. Our duty now is to ensure that whoever campaigned as pro-gun now votes pro-gun in the 112th Congress.
The NRA represents the right of the people – not a political party – to keep and bear arms.
Seventeen NRA-endorsed Republicans and 33 Democrats lost (50 total). Thirty-three NRA-endorsed Democrats lost to Republicans; 29 were incumbents, reflecting voters’ dissatisfaction with Democratic policies.
The winners of these contests were 32 Republican and 18 Democrat, reflecting the general shift in voters’ attitudes. Of the 30 Republicans who beat NRA-endorsees, 14 earned A grades and 16 “AQ,” signifying rookie candidates demonstrating Second Amendment support by returning exemplary NRA questionnaires. A 2008 election analysis showed that rookies with an AQ grade all earned an A grade in 2010 as incumbents.
Only 20 of 50 are losses for America’s law-abiding gun owners.
The House moved from an overall NRA grade of C+ in 2008 to B- in 2010. This cannot be considered anything but progress for the Second Amendment. There are 31 A-graded Democrats and 188 A-graded Republicans, making a straight majority on Second Amendment voting. Including 39 Republican and one Democrat AQ, gun owners have 259 solid House votes.
One last consideration: Five new House Republicans earned NRA grades of C or D, and two were Brady-endorsed. It’s curious that “GOP operatives” complain about the NRA’s lack of loyalty to them, while ignoring their own betrayal of the Second Amendment by supporting anti-rights politicians within the party.
That’s the difference between politics and principles.
The one and only way gun control will come to the United States is if the Second Amendment is repealed. For some reason the gun controllers have ignored that route.
Could it be that repeal campaign would be a long, bloody, expensive conflict that will overshadow all other legislative work and will in all probability be lost?
We already have huge amounts of unconstitutional gun control. Since when do you need a permit to exercise a right? What part of “shall not be infringed” doesn’t anyone understand. It’s not limited to congress like the first amendment. It’s a universal statement, no limits. The founding fathers meant for us to be able to keep any kind of arms we could buy or make and be able to carry them any where we went. They were right. If I had my 357 revolver on an airliner and you were on the plane you would be safer than if I didn’t have it. If some of the passengers on the flights on 9/11 had been armed the twin towers would probably still be standing. Admiral Yamamoto told his superiors that an invasion of the U.S. Mainland would fail due to the armed citizens.
Back in the 1950s the Soviets said that the only way to successfully invade the US would be to disarm the American population, the left has been working hard to achieve this goal. Armed people think for themselves and all big government types hate that idea.
They don’t take this route because they know it is a loser for them, they are very afraid that trying to repeal the Second Amendment would give the pro Constitution side a lot of ammo to use against them in the states with strict gun control, and it would.
The NRA is not my friend, and I could not give rat’s behind about the deceitful Brady bunch.
The elections of 2008 really impacted the Second Amendment – Americans bought firearms and ammunition like never before (my tribe’s contribution to the self-defense was several EBR’s and numerous handguns in several calibers, and thousands of rounds of ammo and reloading equipment) thanks to the current president. Even my Obama-loving neighbor commenced buying all kinds of silly firearms first time in his asinine life.
That phenomenon spoke louder than the NRA has ever whispered or sold out our precious Second Amendment. The NRA is not the 2nd amendment champion it’s made up to be.
When it really matters, it’s the American people who’ll protect the 2nd Amendment. The NRA was going to endorse Harry Reid, that should tell people all they need to know about the agenda of the NRA.
As to the Brady Campaign – The Handgun Control, Inc. – they have lying since the beginning, assisted by our ‘unbiased’ media, the NRA, and several presidents from Reagan to the current coconutphobe. Regardless, the gun-owners of America have been winning year after year of which the increasing number of shall-issue (CCW) states is a perfect example.
TIM: I see a lot of negative press about the NRA from 2nd Amendment supporters. I think we have to keep in mind that not all political organizations are prestine, and undoubtedly, without the efforts of the NRA over the last 30 years we’d have our 2nd Amendment rights greatly restricted.
As for the NRA’s support for Harry Reid, many fail to understand that Harry Reid is a very big supporter of the 2nd Amendment and has been a great friend to the NRA. He helped get the largest gun range in the world established in Nevada. With that said, Reid has also strongly endorsed very confused people to the high court (Elena Kagan). He’s a lying politician after all. That is why the NRA DID NOT endorse anyone in the Nevada Senate race.
The NRA is a single issue organization. The fact that it supports Democrats and Republicans alike proves it. The NRA may be the single most important civic organiztion on the planet. It ensures we all may stay well armed, which will always make wanna-be tyrants thinks long and hard.
Prior to Al Gore losing in 2000 in part due to being a gun grabber Reid was no friend of gun owners. He voted for the AW ban, the Brady Bill, to close down the CMP, to destroy M-1 rifles, etc. It would appear that only then he felt the heat and saw the light.
Harry Reid is a Democrat, a member of a party that has made the total elimination of the Second Amendment a plank in their platform for over a generation now. He helped pass Obamacare, which will become the best vehicle for de facto gun control (in the name of ‘public health’) ever seen.
And before you go assuming that Reid’s ‘principles’ as a pro-2A Senator will keep him from voting for any gun control legislation, you should go look at the history of the “fiscal conservative” Blue Dog Caucus (whic voted to the man for Obamacare and the Porkulus) and the “Pro-Life Democrats” (who voted to the man for Obamacare, public funding for abortion and all).
The NRA helped keep him in office. Thanks, guys.
I,m no fan of Dirty Harry’s, but had he lost Chuck U Shumer would be the Majority Leader , and how would that work ?
You might keep in mind these pesky facts:
(1) Of the 251 Congressmen who signed the pro-gun congressional amicus brief in the McDonald case stating that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right for all Americans, 81 were House Democrats (and 19 of the 58 Senators signing were Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid).
(2) Of the 243 cosponsors of H.R. 2296 (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Modernization and Reform Act) — 76 are House Democrats.
(3) Of the 211 cosponsors of H.R. 442 (Veterans’ Heritage Firearms Act) — 66 are House Democrats.
(4) Of the 209 cosponsors of H.R. 197 (National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act) — 65 are House Democrats.
(5) 65 Democratic Congressmen signed a letter last year to Attorney General Eric Holder expressing their opposition to the reenactment of the failed 1994 Clinton ban on semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines (plus Ike Skelton sent a separate letter.)
(6) When Congress voted last year to allow carrying and transportation of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges, 67 Senators (including 26 Democrats) and 279 Representatives (including 105 Democrats) voted for it.
(7) Republican Congressman Peter King (NY-2) is the sponsor this session of the gun owner blacklist/terrorist watchlist bill this session.
(8) Republican Congressman Mike Castle (DE-AL) is the sponsor this session of the legislation to regulate gun shows out of business.
(9) Republican Congressman Mark Kirk (IL-10) sponsored the bill to reenact the failed and expired Clinton ban of semi-automatic firearms in the 110th Congress.
(10) Gun shows came perilously close to being regulated out of business when Congress, both houses then controlled by Republicans, considered a juvenile justice reform bill in 1999. Not surprisingly, not all House Republicans voted against the hostile (Conyers and McCarthy) amendments but, fortunately, there were enough pro-gun Democrats to offset them and prevent its passage.
These devils never quit. They are busy extending imaginary ‘rights’ to non-citizens while destroying the legitimate rights of the American people. If they attempt to remove guns from homes in this country, they need to be dealt with severely. And promptly.
Why do you think gun and ammo sales has increase so much? People are afraid they are going to be necessary to protect our freedom.
Although gun rights is an important issue, I doubt that it had much to do with this election. I’m wondering if it even made the top five issues the people thought were important in this election. It was all about the economy, government spending, government bailouts, Obamacare, taxes, and reducing the size of government. As I said, gun rights may be important, but I doubt it swayed the opinion of many people during this particular election. Anyway, first you have to win back Congress before you can do anything about gun laws. Therefore, we’re well on the way to changing things in Washington. Finally.
Read the entire article. I answered your question.
No thanks to the NRA for contributing to many losers. They figured they could spread it around and then curry favor with the left. In other words, the bastards handed the dues paying money of its supporters to help elect people their supporters opposed. Kind of like those public service unions taking taxpayer money to hand over to those whom we oppose. I am a member of the NRA. AND THEY CAN NOW GO TO HELL.
The problem for the NRA is that in virtually every race they endorsed a Democrat, the Republican was just as good or better on gun rights. In the other races, like the Indiana U.S. Senate race and Ohio Governor, the bad votes of the Republican were in 1994 and they had long since changed their views on gun rights. But for Democrat Congressmen like Chet Edwards or Senators like Harry Reid, bad votes as recently as 2002 or 2009 in the case of anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Elaine Kagan were ignored while perfect on gun rights Republican Challengers were not endorsed. The NRA showed that it was interested in keeping its cynical deal on the Disclose Act, where it and AARP and the Sierra Club got a exemption from reporting their member, than gun rights. The NRA took a huge hit to its credibility and gun rights supporters should abandon them and look to organizations like Gun Owners of America who endorse and grade politicians on the issue, not based on cynical Washington deals.
I am still waiting for EVIDENCE that the NRA cut a back room deal. I have seen many articles about how the NRA dropped resistance to DISCLOSE after the membership threshold was added, but that’s after the fact. I have seen a plethora of op/eds about NRA’s alleged “back room deal,” but no evidence (e.g. recordings, transcripts of meetings, witness statements, etc.)
Can you enlighten me?
The NRA was up front about being a Second Amendment organization, so that should have come as no surprise. My inside sources concurred that no meeting was set up so the NRA could extract a deal, though they admit they dropped opposition after Congress added the threshold because the NRA is a single issue organization.
Federal legal standards indicate that when one makes an accusation, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
There is a huge difference between endorsing candidates and supporting candidates. The NRA Political Victory Fund is reported to be spending $20 million in this election cycle (www.dailycaller.com/2010/11/01/thedc-exclusive-nra-spends-20-million-this-cycle). According to reports to the Federal Election Commission, GOA spent very little to support their few endorsed candidates. Their largest PAC expenditure was for their accountant (over $15,000) and that amount is more than one-third of their total 2010 expenditures to date). As of October 13, GOA spent $3,559 for its endorsed Senate candidates and $2,877 for its endorsed House candidates. Over $20 million spent by the NRA and less than $10,000 by GOA – who did more to protect your Second Amendment rights in the 2010 election cycle?
The NRA rates politicians in office by their record, and politicians that have yet to be elected with a questionnaire. In effect one group is rated as apples and the other oranges. As with all one issue organizations the bigger picture is sometimes lost.
The Brady people however are an anti-gun group with a bigger agenda that uses fear and not facts to support it’s position. The results of any poll taken be either group needs to be considered in context and not as a “proven fact”. I am a NRA member but sometime the NRA’s focus on one issue looses the bigger picture. The Brady people I think are just irrational.
Mr. Nemerov, while a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I turn my back on the NRA and like-minded associations long ago.
The NRA and co. are SO myopic of their ‘gun rights’ issues – they’ve tunnel vision. Metaphorically speaking, they’re a ship with no ballast nor wheel.
Right now, I don’t want to hear about gun control, or abortion, or gay marriage. Let’s stick to the issues that the Federal Government unquestionably must handle right now: the policies that have wrought economic havoc and crushed individual opportunity out of our system. Fix that, first, and then we can talk about the diversions.
While those are all important issues I agree with your approach. Kick the single issue litmus test BS to the curb – at least until the country has been put on a fiscally sound footing. If nothing else this article confirms one more time what I’ve already known about single issue tests – they are basically worthless as a voting guide – unless you are a single issue type of person. And if thats the case – get a life.
One thing at a time may sound good, but many things can happen at once. Voters and politicians need to address all important issues continuously, because stuff can be sneaked in when we’re not looking. Just as surveys cover many issues, our legislators need to hear about all issues (repeatedly) to realize what things are important to us, not just one thing at a time. If any major gun control bill gets passed, our ability to defend could be impaired and, as per #11, nothing will survive. Repudiation of the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t be required, just some liberal judge legislating from the bench could have the same effect.
The NRA’s myopic position of currying favor with both parties by endorsing both parties’ candidates should earn them mass exodus of their members. There are many other gun organizations that don’t behave like the elite Republicans who keep supporting RINOs, such as SAF, CCRKBA, GOA, NAGR, and probably others. NRA has a long history of misleading their members about their wasting of funds on liberal causes, and they don’t deserve the support of their members, very few of whom are aware of what the NRA really does. It’s not the only game in town.
Just as with a magician, misdirection as well as misperception are tools of the socialist bloc. And I would comment that we are where we are today, with strong socialist influence in the government at all levels, has to do with both.
#9 valerie: You are so wrong. This is how the gun control freaks want you to think. Besides, without the 2nd Amendment, none of the others matter or will survive. Are you willing to face that?
I’m sure your guns are important to you – along with the second amendment – they are important to me too. But you can’t simply focus on a single issue while the left does a sleight of hand and VIOLA! the first amendment is being eroded. THAT is the tactic the left uses – they get you focused on one issue while they work behind your back on something else. Why else have you not heard anything of consequence in the way of eroding second amendment rights? Just enough to keep you focused. Turn around and take a good hard look at what is going on behind your back.
The first amendment is their main target – but you can’t focus on that to the detriment of all else either. You have to keep the big picture in focus when dealing with the left.
Hells bells – if this country goes broke – as seems likely if we remain on the present course our Constitution and Bill of Rights won’t amount to a hill of beans. God and guns will be all we have left.
Obama has made some very shady appointments to the FCC and other bureaucracies in an attempt to throttle talk radio and hamper Fox news and others who are critical of him. Thank God these bureaucracies have ‘anti-bodies’ that are resistant to extreme change. Mostly I dislike how the bureaucracies are organized and run – but in times like this it is a blessing in disguise.
Mr. Nemerov:
“How Did the Election Impact the Second Amendment?”
Hmmm, YOU tell ME. Meet West-By Gawd-Virginia Senator-elect DemocRat Joe Manchin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM
And Harry Reid has a “B” rating from the NRA.
So whatever Brady might claim, (and bearing in mind that they would LIKE to be the mirror-image of NRA in fund-raising and grassroots “community organizing”…pardon the term), they are suckling at the hind-teat of history here.
Look, Heller v. DC is a done deal. Likewise, the 14th amendmnet incorporation clause, McDonald v. Chicago, has been rendered.
Brady’s entire stance is akin to a lobby trying to reverse school de-segregation…in 1960.
The fact that any organization is trying to push “Gun-Control”,(enforced civilian disarmament) legislation in this day and age is ridiculous…but it makes the lobby money.
At this point, the only way to “get there from here”, ethically and legally, is as David Guy said up in reply #1: They have to amend the Constitution repealing the Second Amendment.
Good luck with that.
As far as NRA goes, they are a victim of their own success. NRA and Brady are in a peculiar little symbiotic relationship where one organization profits by the continued existence of the other…so neither group is going to let their issue go.
Truth be told, NRA lost credibility with the RTKBA when they declined to support the Heller case, they only filed their amicus brief as a “yeah, what HE said!” after sniffing the wind. Between that underwhelming moral stance and total “mailbox fatigue” from their endless “beggar mailings”, I have no use for them anymore, although the National Firearms Museum in their Fairfax headquarters, (Gun-nut Purgatory, I call it), is awesome!.
Alan Gura did an amazing job on Heller. So you wanted the NRA to stop him? What’s your point? The NRA filed an amicus in support of Heller, as did many other organizations.
If you went to the NRA Political Victory Fund web site, you will see why the NRA endorsed Manchin: His political record shows h supports the Second Amendment.
If you read my entire article, you would know why the NRA supports those who support the Second Amendment.
“So you wanted the NRA to stop him? What’s your point? The NRA filed an amicus in support of Heller, as did many other organizations.”
No, Mr. Nemerov. I wnated NRA to get on board the Heller bandwagon when it was still at District court level.
Here’s what Alan Gura, (may his name live forevermore), had to say about NRA’s role:
“Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who masterminded the challenge to the D.C. handgun ban, says the NRA has joined him “ever so grudgingly” only in recent weeks, after years of trying to wreck the litigation and avoid a Second Amendment showdown. At earlier stages, the NRA sought to consolidate its own case, which challenged the D.C. law on a “kitchen sink” array of rationales, with Gura’s. In a 2003 filing, Gura called the NRA case “sham litigation” aimed at muddying his Second Amendment claim.
Even after the D.C. Circuit ruled in March, says Gura, the NRA lobbied for legislation to repeal the D.C. handgun ban as a way to keep the case out of the Supreme Court. “The NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case, but we went ahead anyway,” says Gura, a name partner in the firm of Gura & Possessky. “It’s not their case, and they are somewhat territorial.”"
from: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1185527215310
Now, NRA might be forgiven if they thought that Heller was going to be a loser, but I reckon that NRA also looked at a Heller win as losing their big money-making “bogeyman” that they have profited so well from over the decades.
(Or do you think that their headquarters off of I-66 was built for free?)
By marking time until the Big Game, they made of themselves “johnny come latelys”, and in so doing, confirmed many of the charges that the gun Owners of America had always maintained about them…namely that with NRA, NRA’s well-being and not the RTKBA came FIRST.
But as it wa
I understand this now but I was sure angry with the NRA for supporting Harry Reid no matter how pro gun rights he appears to be. I honestly feel that he will turn on those rights as well as the others he has helped trample in his quest for power.
You have to keep in mind that Harry Reid is a Mormon.
There is no way in Hell that a Mormon is going to disarm the Danites of the Church of JC of LDS.
There is no way in Hell that the LDS is going to support a Mormon politician who would vote to disarm them.
The history of their Church in the US is one of pretty hideous violence against them, and to be fair about it, some pretty hideous violence of their own against others.
Salt Lake City knows good and well why the citizens need the RTKBA, so as far as Harry trying to disarm the citizenry…
Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
I gots me a gub. And some bullets, too. And I’m on the no-fly list. Is this a great country or what?
Why many of the NRA faithful, me included, want the NRA house cleaned, is the puff piece article about Harry Reid, printed in the American Rifleman conveniently timed with the recent primary voting season. It shows Harry smiling together with the happy faces of Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre, top NRA wheelers and dealers, at a dedication of a shooting area credited to Harry.
The single-issue NRA leadership apparently doesn’t care if Harry bankrupts the country and takes away every one’s first amendment rights, as long as the NRA can get a new place to shoot. The NRA sends the message that the only use for our guns will be to commit suicide when Harry and Hussein get through with us.
I like to believe they both really knew better, but were somehow blackmailed into printing the article. No matter, even though member flak forced them to not endorse Harry, the end result was the same. Harry had the article and pictures that spoke loud and clear that Harry was “in” with the NRA. We will never know how the vote might have gone if that disastrous article was not in Harry’s pocket. And yes the article was only printed in a “single-issue” Rifleman.
When the NRA was willing to sell other groups out to protect themselves, they lost me. . . .I am no longer a member, and have no plans to rejoin. Anyone who will endorse Harry Reid is no friend of mine. . . .Join Gunowners of America, or Grassroots Gunrights. . . . the NRA exists for itself.
The NRA did not endorse Harry Reid.
Here in Round Rock, Texas (an Austin suburb) our Democrat state rep lost to a Republican. The former rep could not or would not answer a simple question about her stance on gun issues; she had a form email stating the current Texas laws which she sent out to answer requests for her opinion on likely legislation in the next session.
Her attempt to hide from the issues did not work. While the primary reason for her loss may have been the Democrat implosion this election, her stance on gun issues lost her at least my potential vote.
Brady endorsed 25 of California’s 53 winning representatives. These all came from districts that have voted Democrat in recent decades, generally the last 20+ years
California is a thoroughly gerrymandered state where this outcome was predictable. The state was re-districted by Democrat Jesse Unruh who’s work has provided permanent safe majorities for Democerats since 1961, with an assist from Democrat Phil Burton in 1981. California Democrats came up with a plan that did to Golden State congressional districts what Hitler and Stalin once did to Poland.
Howard,
GOOD STUFF! Hey, who are the 5 Republicans with the bad NRA grades & the two backed by Brady?
The Brady bunch endorsed Republican Congressmen Chris Smith (NJ-4) and Peter King (NY-3) for reelection.
I read a lot of complaints about who the NRA endorsed or A rated. NRA policy is to stand by its incumbent friends, even when an equally rated challenger runs. And it works!
Did anyone notice that no bad gun bills came up for a vote in this congress? That was no accident. That was NRA political power built by non partisan support of friends of the RKBA. NRA can not protect the RKBA without enough friends in both houses of congress to stop onerous gun bills regardless of which party controls congress.
The “R” in NRA is for Rifle, not Republican.
For the whiners that want to leave the NRA to join some other RKBA group I would point out that of all the RKBA supporting groups out there, only the NRA has a board of directors elected by its members, none of the other groups allow members to vote on their directors. I would also point out that the NRA is the 500 pound gorilla of the RKBA movement. The NRA has ten times the membership and revenue of all the other RKBA groups combined. The anti-gun media talk mostly about the NRA, not the other groups. The anti-gun legislators worry about the NRA, not the other groups. If you don’t like the NRA policy, then vote for directors that want to do it your way. The other groups won’t let you do that.
Bill:
“For the whiners that want to leave the NRA to join some other RKBA group I would point out that of all the RKBA supporting groups out there, only the NRA has a board of directors elected by its members, none of the other groups allow members to vote on their directors. I would also point out that the NRA is the 500 pound gorilla of the RKBA movement. The NRA has ten times the membership and revenue of all the other RKBA groups combined. The anti-gun media talk mostly about the NRA, not the other groups. The anti-gun legislators worry about the NRA, not the other groups.”
Yes, yes, yes and yes. All this is true.
But in the single most crucial piece litigation, the case that put the RTKBA movement over the top, the “Super Bowl”, NRA woefully underperformed.
And not only did it underperform, it tried to keep the other players who went on to win from taking the field.
As much as you’d like to talk past it, the facts are in the record, and NRA needs to suck it up and take responsibility for the disappointment that they caused tens and hundreds of thousands of RTKBA activists.
Or not…and watch their membership vanish into the arms of GOA or JPFO or other more worthy groups.
“If you don’t like the NRA policy, then vote for directors that want to do it your way. The other groups won’t let you do that.”
I used to hear this same kind of thing from my union officers.
I’m no longer a member of that union…you get me?
NRA is a voluntary organization, no-one is forced to join and no-one is forced to stay. There are some significant monetary advantages to be gained from leaving the outfit. Put simply, NRA is in Sales.
And since it is fundamentally a Sales outfit, the responsibility to attract customers is ENTIRELY upon NRA.
Now if they think that they can do that by keeping the BoDs happy, then they are free to try that approach.
However one must wonder what role the BoD played in their obstructionist and “slow-belling” stance on Heller…
Having a Board of Directors is no guarantee of any kind of market success…ask General Motors or Chrysler.
Why did Gun Owners of America endorse only 64 U.S. House candidates and not endorse the pro-gun Republican candidate opposing the anti-gun Democrat in the competitive Senate races in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Also, there is a huge difference between endorsing candidates and supporting candidates. The NRA Political Victory Fund is reported to be spending $20 million in this election cycle (www.dailycaller.com/2010/11/01/thedc-exclusive-nra-spends-20-million-this-cycle). According to reports to the Federal Election Commission, GOA spent very little to support their few endorsed candidates. Their largest PAC expenditure was for their accountant (over $15,000) and that amount is more than one-third of their total 2010 expenditures to date). As of October 13, GOA spent $3,559 for its endorsed Senate candidates and $2,877 for its endorsed House candidates. Over $20 million spent by the NRA and less than $10,000 by GOA – who did more to protect your Second Amendment rights in the 2010 election cycle?
The Second Amendment’s Great Election Night — http://www.newledger.com/2010/11/the-second-amendments-great-election-night
As the B.S.about the NRA endorsing (maybe) Harry Reid has filled out many columns by the ignorant among the media, and what a huge number that is, I have repeatedly challenged anyone to provide any proof that the NRA was considering such an endorsment. No response from any of the B.S. artists. I have several contacts on the NRA board and was told there was nothing to it. So, once again, show proof (I’ll leave it up to Glen to determine the truth of the “proof”) and I’ll buy you a membership in GOA, or the Brady Bunch if you wish. I strongly believe that much of this is generated by anti-NRA people shilling for GOA. I’d really like to see Larry Pratt’s books. Since he doesn’t spend his member’s dues on politicking I have to wonder where all of that money goes.
KbzIdo http://cje6CgslLk0ds3Nnto7djJaor.com
No one has even tried to actually remove the second amendment.No one or party wants to go down in history as the cause of the second Civil War and they are smart enough to know that they don’t like guns and using guns in a second Civil War to get rid of guns just doesn’t make sense to anyone.
NRA Support Propels Candidates — http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/nra-national-rifle-association/2010/11/09/id/376453
Read “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross, (I think). The story is a bit dated but it shows what might happen if a runaway government over reaches.
For a contemporary story along those lines, read this online novel, which I’m still waiting to see in print.