Skip to comments.In switch, NRA eyeing role in GOP primaries (Might endorse Fred!)
Posted on 09/25/2007 2:13:46 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The National Rifle Association, which did not endorse President Bush in 2000 and 2004 until just a month before the general election, is considering stepping into the presidential campaign fray early next year during the primary season, the group's chief lobbyist says.
While the NRA waited until October in each of the past two presidential election years before endorsing a candidate, the group plans to take a more high-profile role early in the 2008 Republican nomination process.
"Historically, we have not gotten involved in primaries. We traditionally wait until after the conventions," said Chris Cox, head lobbyist for the NRA. "That being said, given the candidates and the process and the front-loading of the primaries, it is a possibility that we could get involved in one of these presidential primaries."
Republican presidential hopefuls know of the 4-million-member group's power. On Friday, they paraded before 500 lifetime NRA members at a conference in Washington, each making a pitch for why they are the best candidate to protect the rights of gun owners.
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who earned an "A" rating from the NRA during his time in the Senate, was the group's favorite. Meanwhile, the GOP front-runner, Rudolph W. Giuliani, left members underwhelmed.
"He's a flip-flopper," said Ed Hanson of Wisconsin, shortly after listening to the former New York City mayor's speech at the Capital Hilton. "He should say one thing and stick with it. Say what you mean and stand by it. He hasn't done that. And that's a problem a huge problem."
Interviews with a dozen others who attended the star-studded event all lifetime members, some wearing NRA hats, others in camouflage gear found a consensus: Mr. Giuliani is not their man...(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
No offense to his supporters here, but Rudy reminds me of a clapped out Bob Newheart. I keep waiting for the punch line.
I’m not saying Thompson has a bad 2nd amendment record, but if the NRA were really serious about this issue they would of course endorse Ron Paul. Somehow I have a feeling that ain’t gonna happen...
My confidence in NRA, of which I am a member, sank a bit after that little episode, I must say.
They are serious. Getting in before the primaries means they want to ensure we get a serious conservative candidate who has the best shot at defeating Hillary. And that’s why they’re not about to endorse a whacked out antiwar moonbat or a liberal gun grabber or a flip flopping RINO. The choice is obvious.
Go, FRed, Go!!
It would be a wise move. Make an endorsement when it can really affect the debate. Giuliani and Romney both have strong anti-gun records, McCain is on both sides.
The NRA (I'm a life member too) knows Ron Paul has no chance of ever being the nominee. There would be no point in endorsing a second-tier candidate and it would just hurt the NRA's credibility. Fred is the most conservative top tier candidate and I agree that the NRA should endorse him now.
-—ditto that—Ron Paul has a little more chance as the nominee than I do-—
I think if the NRA endorses Fred it will help galvanize a lot more people who are undecided. It will also reinforce that “gun rights” will be a plank in Fred’s platform which is sure to bring out the moonbats ire.
Don’t we always hammer the unions for doing this kind of thing so early? And why not Duncan Hunter? This comes off as another of those Fred/Rudy/Romney/McCain is a tier 1 candidate self-fulfilling prophecies and I don’t think I’m the only one who does not like that.
I am also tired of their monthly solicitation for money, their magazine, typical of many today, more catalog the anything else. LaPerre (spl) is willing to let the liberals erode our rights, versus telling them to FO. He debates like a pacifist.
I like Hunter but he has only a marginal chance of victory since he can't hope to win over the independent moderates or the conservative democrats (Reagan Democrats) who'll be more terrified of Hillary than Fred but unable to commit to Hunter for a wider variety of reasons besides guns. You absolutely cannot win the Oval Office without attracting a substantial number of votes from across the aisle.
As for the unions...well sure...but they're always on the side of EVIL and they always choose to sacrifice their souls (and guns) to find the next DO-BOY who will dance to their worker state tune.
They said the same things about Reagan. Whether Hunter is another Reagan isn’t the issue, though. What is the issue is a nominating process that we have to trust or change so that we can trust it. I’m getting the impression that people don’t trust it because they want to rig it in favor of the electable candidates to prevent a Duncan Hunter from slipping by. It really seems like a return to the smoke-filled room selection process.
The NRA also supported the scumbag Democrat John Murtha over a pro-gun Republican Diana Irey. Which is why I will not be renewing my membership.
I sure would like to hear the reason behind nra supporting the dirtbag.
With all that said, this is the first really relevant critique I’ve heard of the NRA. Murtha (IMHO) is a despicable piece of turncoat trash, and the only reason I can imagine they have supported him is a consolidation of their power with the Democratic base. That’s an “inside the beltway” view, and I’d prefer my NRA to be a little more populist. They need to understand that their membership is not Washington insiders and although there is an occasional pro-gun Democrat like Murtha hanging out there, the 2nd amendment issue has become largely partisan, so it would serve their interests to fall on the right hand side of the aisle in all ties.
I'm going to make sure they hear my views on this.
...just wish he wasn’t a CFR member. He’ll push for the stupid PPP /NAU for sure.