Replies

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.