NRA backs Fimian, veterans group endorses Connolly [VA-11]

The political arms of the National Rifle Association and Veterans of Foreign Wars have weighed in on the hotly-contested congressional race in northern Virginia’s 11th District, splitting their support between Republican Keith Fimian and Democratic incumbent Gerald Connolly.

The VFW Political Action Committee, which represents roughly 2.2 million VFW members, auxiliaries and military families, recently endorsed Connolly, while the NRA’s Political Victory Fund has thrown its support behind Fimian.

And do you think anyone will be ripping into the VFW like they have the NRA in the past? I’m sure that Connolly has probably helped the VFW on a lot of veterans issues in the Congress and that’s why they are supporting him. However, no one rips on the American Legion, VFW, Small businessman association or anyone else if they support a Dem. Let the NRA support a Dem and see the anti NRA forces come out with their claws.

The American Legion, VFW and Small Business Association are groups that were created to support people who have done their bit to earn support. The NRA was created to protect an ideal. People’s wants and needs change but the ideal of the Second Amendment does not. But the NRA jumps around as if that ideal changes. That is why they are considered hypocritical when they endorese a candidate that will not back the Second Amendment as completely as the NRA claims to.

"But the NRA jumps around as if that ideal changes. That is why they are considered hypocritical when they endorese a candidate that will not back the Second Amendment as completely as the NRA claims to."

You are correct that the NRA is there to protect one thing, the second amendment. However, you are wrong when you talk about the NRA jumping around as if that ideal changes. They have been rock solid in what that ideal means and says. What people are upset with is that they have backed leftists candidates who have supported the Obama agenda but are rock solid on that ideal (the second amendment). That is the epitome of staying true to your principles and stated agenda. Not letting other issues affect the issue that you are there to defend.

Then why would the NRA endorse a House candidate who voted to make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House? It may be true that said candidate talks a tough game on the Second Amendment, but undermines that talk by voting for Pelosi who is as anti-Second Amendment as they come. The same can be said of the Senate. How serious can you take the NRA if they endorse a candidate who talks tough, but then turns around and votes to confirm gun-grabbers to the Supreme Court? That is what the NRA is missing and that it why it looks like they are jumping around. The problem is that they don’t seem to care.

"Then why would the NRA endorse a House candidate who voted to make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House?"

They never said they would score a vote against Nancy Pelosi as speaker for your NRA grade. Did the VFW, American Legion, Chamber of Commerce factor that into who they support? Obviously not since they support house Dems over pubbies at times.

"How serious can you take the NRA if they endorse a candidate who talks tough, but then turns around and votes to confirm gun-grabbers to the Supreme Court?"

You need to get facts instead of spewing out allegations. The fact is, they declined to support Harry Reid this election cycle and one of the main reason was because of his votes for Sotemayor and Kagan to the Supreme Court.

They never said they would score a vote against Nancy Pelosi as speaker for your NRA grade.

They need to. Remember, the Speaker of the House sets the legislative agenda for that chamber and if the candidate is going to vote for a gun-grabber as Speaker, the NRA should take that into account. This is a prime example of one of those "non-Second Amendment" issues that has a major impact on Second Amendment issues.

Did the VFW, American Legion, Chamber of Commerce factor that into who they support?

I defer back to my previous argument about the differences between the NRA and these organizations.

You need to get facts instead of spewing out allegations. The fact is, they declined to support Harry Reid this election cycle and one of the main reason was because of his votes for Sotemayor and Kagan to the Supreme Court.

Who said I was referring to Harry Reid specifically? I was throwing out a generic example. Several Dem Senators (not to mention several GOP) who claim to hold the same principles as the NRA also voted to confirm those two. But the fact that the NRA never even asked about the possibility that Senate candidates might vote to confirm such gun-grabbers (for the various Federal benches as well as the Supreme Court) again shows how out-of-touch the NRA is with the political process.

My overall point is that having such a myopic vision of being a "single issue" organization has a tendency to undermine the principles the NRA claims to hold dear. It's never about just the Second Amendment or any singular issue. There are secondary considerations to account for that are often just as influential. I fault the NRA for ignoring those secondary considerations and question whether they do so because they truly believe in the Second Amendment or if they are simply gaming the system in various attempts at making a power play.

That is why I am going with the logical alternative: Gun Owners of America.

"That is why I am going with the logical alternative: Gun Owners of America."

I figured you were a supporter of GOA right from the start. You are like most other GOA supporters, you just want to bash the NRA. No one on capitol hill cares about GOA. Gun freedoms have been advanced in this country over the last 30 years because of the NRA, not the GOA. It explains why you are willing to bash the NRA but not other organizations that support Dems from time to time because they support them on their issues.

"I fault the NRA for ignoring those secondary considerations"

But never fault the VFW, American Legion, Chamber of Commerce etc. for doing the exact same thing. Hence, the whole message of this thread. Just another attempt of a GOA supporter trying to make the GOA relevant and bash the NRA. It's sole purpose in life....

"I defer back to my previous argument about the differences between the NRA and these organizations."

GOA supporter explains this.

"Remember, the Speaker of the House sets the legislative agenda"

Name one anti gun bill that has passed the house in this last session of Congress?

"I was throwing out a generic example. Several Dem Senators (not to mention several GOP) who claim to hold the same principles as the NRA also voted to confirm those two."

If you're going to make allegations, then be specific. Which Dem Senator who has an NRA A rating or above this election cycle voted for those two to the Supreme Court?

I'm sorry you are so prejudiced against people like me simply because we step back and look at the big picture that the NRA ignores. Your requests for specific information about this election cycle only clouds the overall picture. It isn't about specifics. It about stepping back and looking at the whole thing. It is about realizing that there is an entire process in Congress and government that affects gun rights.

You want specific evidence of legislation? I'll go one better. The confirmation of Eric Holder as AG. He is as big a gun-grabber as Nancy Pelosi. And since you want to focus on Harry Reid, he voted to confirm Holder. And even after this, the NRA was still flirting with the idea of endorsing him. If the NRA were serious about defending Second Amendment rights and truly was a "single issue" advocacy group, that one vote to confirm should have been a deal breaker. Apparently, the NRA didn't think so. (Note that this confirmation vote came before the confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan.)

That's not bashing the NRA. That's simply speaking to the facts. The NRA may consider that confirmation vote to be a "non-Second Amendment" issue, but they would be wrong for thinking so. Anyone would be wrong for thinking so. And this is precisely what I (and many others like me) are referring to when we say that the NRA has lost sight of the big picture.

Now, if you can explain why the NRA didn't consider that confirmation vote to be a deal breaker for a "single issue" advocacy group, I'm all ears.

"It isn't about specifics. It about stepping back and looking at the whole thing."

So, in other words, you can't come up with one Democratic Senator who voted for Kagan and Sotemayor who the NRA has given an A rating and is backing this election cycle? Typical NRA basher. Bash the NRA for something and then cannot come up with specific examples of what you're talking about.

"And even after this, the NRA was still flirting with the idea of endorsing him."

How do you know that? Do you work at the NRA offices in Virginia? Can you show me one article where it shows the NRA was thinking of backing Harry Reid? You probably don't even know where all of this comes from because you know nothing about the NRA. I'll tell you where. There was a huge new public shooting range opened in Nevada and there was an article about it in the NRA magazines. Harry Reid was one of the main forces (along with the NRA) behind this. He was featured prominently in the article as he should be. He should be given credit for doing this. However, the article never stated that the NRA was supporting him for re-election. Which they are not.

Typical GOA basher. You have no facts. Just the need to bash the NRA. The NRA gets things done for our second amendment liberties. The GOA sits back and bashes the NRA and does little to nothing to advance our second amendment liberties. No thanks, I'll stick with the organization who actually gets something done...

NRA Now Leans Toward Endorsing Harry Reid

All of this after Reid voted to confirm gun-grabbing Holder and Sotomayor. As I said, if the NRA were truly a Second Amendment advocacy group, the vote to confirm Holder alone should have been enough for the NRA to say, "We don't want to be seen in public with you ever again."

Here is some more on that issue:

NRA controversy flares up again over Harry Reid

There should have been no controversy at all. The NRA should have said "No" to Harry Reid from the very beginning. They finally said 'no' only after they lost thousands of members (not to mention hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations).

I know your stuck on the name-calling here, but could you at least try to respond to the facts and answer my question as to why the NRA didn't consider the Holder confirmation vote a deal breaker?

This is what I wrote:

"Can you show me one article where it shows the NRA was thinking of backing Harry Reid?"

And you give me links that claim "multiple sources" tell me the NRA is thinking about endorsing Harry Reid. That's not proof!! Heck, one of them was a friggin blog. People can write anything online!!! Maybe I should re-state this slightly. Can you show me an article from a credible news source that show definitive proof, not some "unnamed source". BTW, the reason that they did not support them if they ever were thinking about it has nothing to do with you or people like you. It has to do with angry lifetime NRA members e-mailing, writing and calling them. So you did nothing but what the GOA does. Bash them. For something they never did.

"but could you at least try to respond to the facts and answer my question as to why the NRA didn't consider the Holder confirmation vote a deal breaker?"

According to this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/us/politics/03holder.html?hp

Jeff Sessions of Alabama voted to confirm Holder. When he's up for re-election in 2014 should the NRA hold this vote against him? Should the NRA support the Dem in this race?

Jeff Sessions of Alabama voted to confirm Holder. When he's up for re-election in 2014 should the NRA hold this vote against him?

Absolutely they should. A confirmation vote for a gun-grabber is not something that can be graded on an A to E scale. It is PASS/FAIL plain and simple.

And this goes directly back to my biggest critique of the NRA: If they were truly a "single issue" advocacy group, Sessions would never get an endorsement from the NRA again.

BTW, the Examiner is a credible source. That link confirmed the first link. Also, in the RedState blog is a link to a video showing Wayne Lapierre schmoozing with Harry Reid (after his votes to confirm Holder and Sotomayor). Clearly, a politician's votes to confirm gun-grabbers aren't as big a concern with the NRA as it is for those of us who live outside the Beltway.

"Absolutely they should."

Okay, so now the NRA should work to defeat the conservative republican in Alabama and instead support what will most likely be someone strong on Gun issues (after all it is Alabama) but will vote in lock step with the Dem party while trying to hide his true record. Great, glad we have that settled.

"BTW, the Examiner is a credible source. That link confirmed the first link."

No, one link parroted the other link. If it was a credible article, it would have concrete proof. The unnamed sources stuff is just crap. You know it. But then again, anything to bash the NRA, right?

BTW, answer one of my questions. What politician fears a poor grade from the GOA? What politician touts their support from the GOA over their support from the NRA? I see lots of signs and advertisements by candidates that tout their NRA support or "lifelong NRA membership", but not GOA. I remember in the 2008 campaign, Mitt Romney wanted to shore up his gun credentials. How did he do this? By becoming a lifetime NRA member. As far as I know, he didn't sign up to be a lifetime GOA member. It just goes to show, the NRA has the influence to get things done on the 2nd amendment. The GOA has no influence and simply exists to bash the NRA.

The VFW (by law) is unable to endorse candidates.

VFW PAC is the one supporting candidates..if you think this rankles you, check out who else they endorse....
Boxer, Hastings, the D in FL who is running against LTCOL West to just name a few.

It may be time to send an AARP like message to the VFW, as I, for one, really hate to think ANY of my dues money are supporting the likes of Boxer etal, even though I am a life member and don’t necessarily pay yearly dues ... etc..

It just goes to show, the NRA has the influence to get things done on the 2nd amendment. The GOA has no influence and simply exists to bash the NRA.

When the NRA deserves the criticism:

Aaron Zelman's (JPFO) open letter to Ted Nugent about the NRA

As for your concern about who the NRA would support if it did not support Sessions, the answer is that the NRA touts itself as a "single issue" advocacy group. If neither candidate is reliable, they should withhold their endorsement altogether.

And the way you put it, that is exactly what is happening with many of the Dem candidates they've endorsed in the past. They've voted pro-gun just enough to placate the NRA but voted with their fellow leftists the rest of the time.

"They've voted pro-gun just enough to placate the NRA but voted with their fellow leftists the rest of the time."

And again, my original point in this whole thread. The NRA has always said they are a single issue organization and get bashed for it on this site. Yet, when the VFW supports the Dem and the NRA supports the Pubbie as in this thread, no one on here rips into the VFW. When the chamber of commerce supports granting amnesty to illegal immigrants I don't see anyone on this site bash them.

"If neither candidate is reliable, they should withhold their endorsement altogether."

And they do that many times. However, in my scenario above which is very likely in a place like Alabama (Sessions Dem opponent being very pro gun) you would rather they support the Dem candidate instead of the Conservative sessions. All because he voted for Eric Holder as AG.

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.