Posted on 10/26/2001 12:02:18 AM PDT by KQQL
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
NRA Withholds Endorsement in Va. Race The National Rifle Association dubbed Republican Mark L. Earley "clearly a better candidate" for governor in a letter to its Virginia members yesterday, but it stopped short of endorsing Earley because of his vote in 1993 for the state law limiting gun purchases to one a month. The strongly worded letter gave Earley a grade of A-minus and praised his support for a major new exemption to the one-gun-a-month law that would allow unlimited gun purchases for the 104,000 Virginians with concealed weapons permits. It gave Democrat Mark R. Warner a grade of C ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I agree it seems silly not to officially endorse someone they rate as an "A-," but this is certainly a good thing.
Semantics aside, a mailing to 100,000 voters stating "Earley is clearly the better candidate" is an endorsement.
What "good things" would that be,things like the Gun Control Act of 1968? He was still braggin about being the man most responsible for that during his first term as NRA president.
Or would it be things like the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban"? Heston is for that too,going as far as saying "I hate AK-47's,and can't see why anybody would have a reason to own one."
And how is this not an "endorsement?"
Oh, I get it: They didn't use the words "This is an endorsement."
In the words of Catbert, that makes it "totally, totally different."
Do you really think there is no difference between for example the federal judges that George Bush will appoint, and those that Al Gore would have appointed? Or that Jumpin' Joe Biden would appoint, if it were up to him?
If you do, I suggest a reality check in the real near future.
You'd think these one-issue wonders who always take their ball and go home might have learned after 8 years and 9/11 that their inaction also has consequences. If you sat at home or voted independent in '92 & '96 because of this, you might want to feel perhaps a tinge of guilt regarding 9/11.
You mean that you have a problem with me since I don't blindly support the Republicans (like you have and do).
I have no personal axe to grind with Mark Earley, and in fact I like and respect him very much as a person. But I disagree with him on a number of issues, and gun control (which he favors) is at the top of that list.
Weld.
seems silly to me, too. Clearly, one of these two is going to be governor of VA, what is the point of NOT endorsing the one that is most favorable to your cause? heck an A- is nothing to sneeze at.
In that case,I don't even want to see you on FR whining about losing a right.
So I can blame you that I don't have my stinger?
Care to agree that your senators don't engage in partisan politics? Care to agree that you agree with the all of the votes of your senators? care to agree that your senators have lived up to their oath of office? care to agree that your senators have lived up to their special oath as a member of a jury in an impeachment trial? Care to agree that your senators have a personal and party platform that you agree with 100%. If you do not agree with the previous, would you care to agree that the two party system in this country is part of the problem?
I did neither, until 2000 when I voted independent, having finally seen the light. Oh Please! What on earth gives you the right to second guess the vote of anyone, other than your own elected officials, or your own vote. A vote is nothing more than a reflection of your own conscience, and some people value that. To cast any sort of guilt trip on anyone for exercising their Constitutional Rights, is really in poor taste.
How many people do you think, sit down before they vote, and consider without any data what-so-ever, lets see if I vote for candidate A, that will actually be a vote for candidate B, if not enough people come to the polls, or if too many people jump party in order to cause candidate C to act as a spoiler to both A and B.
This scenario could go on ad-nauseum and is just that, a nauseating scenario that should only be played out in the minds of anyone used to double dealing. Now those that do not vote are another horse all together, and they are the ones you should and did preach to as well.
Okay, but only if you don't whine at all. Like THAT would ever happen! LOL
I blindly support the candidate that most closely reflects my positions. I do not vote for a candidate that is a "one-note-charlie" on a single, insignificant issue (abortion) to the detriment of the BOR! When a candidate differs from my (MY) values, I try to either find another, more suitable candidate, OR I try to convince the candidate to see and support my position!
To refuse to vote for a candidate that supports 80% of your beliefs because of the remaining 20% is to vote for the opposition. Foolish and one of the main reasons we are in the shithole position we now occupy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.