With all the kerfuffle over the NRA’s non-endorsement of Pelosi wing man Harry Reid, the left-leaning mainstream media seems to have forgotten that the National Rifle Association is not a sub-division of the Tea Party, or an adjunct of the Grand Old Party. The Washington Post has its knickers in a twist about the NRA’s support for “pro-gun Democrats,” wading into the cesspool of firearms-related realpolitik . . .

Not a lot of things have gone the Democrats’ way this year, but dozens of their House candidates are getting a late boost from an unusual source: the National Rifle Association. So far this year, the NRA has endorsed 58 incumbent House Democrats, including more than a dozen in seats that both parties view as critical to winning a majority.

Single issue gun owners note: this strategy is not quite as principled as it seems . . .

The endorsements aren’t the result of a sudden love for a party with which the NRA is often at odds. Rather, the powerful group adheres to what it calls “an incumbent-friendly” policy, which holds that if two candidates are equally supportive of gun rights, the incumbent gets the nod . . .

The thumbs-up from the NRA has given Democrats who represent conservative districts, such as Herseth Sandlin, an opportunity to fight back against repeated attacks that they’re tied to their party’s liberal leaders in Washington. With an NRA endorsement in hand, candidates are able to assert that they are willing to choose their constituents over their leaders when warranted.

Conversely, the NRA is so closely associated with the Republican Party that GOP candidates with impeccable records on gun rights are left to explain why they didn’t get the group’s backing.

In other words, given a choice between two NRA-friendly candidates, the NRA is for the status quo. Which protects the status quo. Which could keep the Dems in power, which is the party of gun control. Except when it isn’t because of the pro-gun Democrats who cater to their friends in the NRA.

That’s the meta-strategy. On the ground, things can get even more bizarre. And ugly. NRA-denied Charlottesville Congressional candidate Robert Hurt (R) the proverbial nod. Hurt hurts the NRA by claiming that it’s hurting its cause.

Hurt said he was unhappy with the group’s decision and attempted to explain the NRA policy, before also trying to link his opponent to Pelosi. “There is no more anti-Second Amendment vote than a vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker,” Hurt said.

Good point. But then they ALL have good points, in a “pass the hand sanitizer Mr. Emanuel” kinda way. And that’s why I like the Glock 26 more than, say, people. Well, politicians. And those who manipulate them for our benefit. Despite the debt of gratitude that we owe them.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

3 COMMENTS

  1. And the problem with this strategy is?

    There's no problem with endorsing pro-gun Democrats, as long as those pro-gun Democrats are 1) Actually pro-gun, and 2) Able to prevent other anti-gun Democrats from threatening that seat.

    Consider it another way: if you've got a pro-gun Republican in office, no matter how fervently pro-gun they are, you're only one election away from a sex or corruption scandal, retirement or untimely death, or a 'throw-the-bums-out' election. If any of these happen, the seat goes to whichever Democrat can raise the most money, and odds are significant that you'll get an anti-gun congressman. And now they're the incumbent; good luck getting rid of them.

    But if you've got a pro-gun Democrat in office, then you're never closer than TWO elections away from electing a Feinstein/Schumer jerkoff. If your gun-dog Democrat gets voted out, who'll replace them? A republican! The anti's won't be able to touch that seat until the new Republican somehow wears out his welcome.

  3. Some dems support the 2A and they get endorsed by the NRA, big whoop. I'm a conservative and an NRA member and it doesn't piss me off that much, sometimes you gotta buddy up with the lefty's to get your goal accomplished.

Comments are closed.