How to tell a Bart “cave-man” Stupak apart from honest non-caving pols.

Same problem with “tax pledges” and “ethics pledges” and what have you – how do you make sure the pol who’s signing the pledge (and taking the campaign endorsements) won’t turn around and, well, cave when the national party calls?

Not sure there’s a good answer for this for most politicians – but the Founding Fathers already provided an answer by creating a citizen-legislature…

Mew

when the bribe is high enough. Dems can be bought off, bribed of just plain blackmailed into submission.

The NRTL has been collecting $$ for many, many years. What have they to show for it? Rampant U.S.A. abortions and exported abortions. What has the NRA to show for all their collected $$? Gun control in too many cities and states. It’s a business. I am now looking into the Gun Owners of America.

The NRA does more than endorse candidates. It is a large organization dedicated to firearms heritage in a broad sense. Championing the First Amendment is a bit of an overreach from its mission statement. Once the direct threat to the organization is removed, it is very hard to argue that the NRA should be involved.
People do not donate to the NRA for that purpose. I would hope that the concerned members donate to other organizations who will fight the fight.

This issue has nothing to do with whether the NRA endorses Democrats. There are many gun-owning Democrats who are NRA members. It would be a breach of trust of the membership to use contributed funds for partisan purposes, even if the Democrats are wrong.

Yes, the DISCLOSE Act is horrible. But it is not the job of the NRA as an institution to challenge it. They really should be deploying those resources elsewhere. Of course, concerned members are free to be involved with other advocacy groups.

The National Right to Life example is not in dispute and proves the point on its own. People need to know if a group is evolving into something else. The NAE, Nat. Assn. of Evangelicals had a guy leading it for years who is now working for George Soros. He used his position with the NAE to lobby aggressively for things like global warming, which is a giant economic and cultural revolt against the United States. This went on for years before he was finally forced out. All kinds of things can happen in a group. It’s better to know about them sooner than later.

give him a better ranking. The rankings are based on gun related votes. If the votes did not matter, the NRA would never get Democrat support. and would be considered a Republican organization, which it is not.

When both candidates are pro 2a, I think the party leadership should be a deciding factor. Some not so great Dems do get higher ratings from time to time in order to entice them to live up to that rating.

As far as kasich it looks like he earned his poor rating. I guess HE has fences to mend.

Single-issue focus does create a real problem, as Erick pointed out. But if the NRA became a group supporting conservative causes in general, that would necessarily mean compromising its basic principles on the 2nd Amendment, as has been mentioned regarding Kasich.

None of this is news, really. The NRA has always been guided by the single issue it exists to protect. An example is the ever-execrable John Dingell, who has always been a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and as such has earned top ranking by the NRA. Distasteful, yes. Practical necessity, also yes.

By all means, join the GOA as well as the NRA. Join your local clubs, state associations, etc. Join every group that promoted your firearms freedom. There is no rule saying we must always agree with every decision made by the NRA, but there is also no rule saying that we must take sides within the pro-gun pro-2nd Amendment community and eat our own. Please, don’t use this disagreement as a tool to harm the one organization that has stood sucessfully for decades between gun owners and the gun grabbers.

My staunch conservatism has caused me to vote contrary to NRA recommendations before, and I’m sure it will again, depending upon the overall positions of candidates. I have no problem with the occasional disagreement within the family. That’s life. But I remain, and will remain, as I have been since the age of 10, a member and contributor.

Club For Growth does this as well knocking down more overall conservative Republicans in primaries to get pro-business at all cost Republicans in place regardless of how those Republicans vote on other issues.

“Speech Freed!
Thanks to the diligent efforts of the NRA and its reporters throughout the country, the Supreme Court has restored First Amendment rights for all.”

From the story:
“The NRA took a lead role in the first challenge to the speech ban, the case of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.”
and
“Once again, the NRA participated in the case (Citizens United), foling an amicus brief that urged that the censorship law be struck down.”

And from the June cover story:
“Trimming Citizens
When it comes to censoring the First Amendment rights of Second Amendment advocates, some in Congress aren’t about to let a U.S. Supreme Court decision like Citizens United slow them down.”

So the NRA is being quite dishonest, IMO. Full disclosure: I am a Life Member of the NRA, and I always read A1F cover to cover when it arrives.

Now, it is dishonest for the NRA to claim it is not involved in First Amendment issues, They have clearly illustrated they believe what should be obvious to anybody, that you cannot advocate for Second Amendment rights without the liberty enshrined in the First Amendment. What they have now illustrated is that they are not so much concerned with the rights of all Americans, just those who join the NRA. (Aside: don’t give me any bull about only protecting their members; it doesn’t work that way, just like negotiated contracts protect the group, not only the dues-paying members.)

The NRA has willingly – gladly – fallen victim to Alinsky Rule 11: They became the target, froze, carved out an exemption for themselves (personalized), and set themselves apart from other organizations that protect the Second Amendment (polarized). In the process, they marginalized all groups that don’t meet the qualifications carved out in their agreed-to exemption.

Back to the April story:
“In truth, 96 percent of business corporations are small businesses. While the Fortune 500 companies have the manpower resources to process all the complicated paperwork to run a political action committee, the 2002 law (McCain-Feingold) actually silenced the voices of the neighborhood auto repair shop and the family grocery store.”

For context, just picture NRA as the Fortune 500 company, Gun Owners of America as the auto repair shop, and Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership as the family grocery store.

Now, again, in June:
“In the coming months, the defense of the First Amendment will be a crucial issue in Congress.

Despite what much of the ‘mainstream’ media told you, Citizens United has nothing to do with contributions to political campaigns. Citizens United only protects the right of unions and corporations, including NRA, to make independent expenditures before elections. By participating in civil rights organizations such as NRA, ordinary citizens can combine their small donations to speak as one, so that all the American people can hear their message.

The media (who were not affected by the campaign finance law) will probably tell you that the only corporations with anything at stake in the debate are bit businesses. But the truth is that a top target of many speech controllers is you and your participation with millions of other Americans in the National Rifle Association. Fortunately, NRA members can be confident that NRA will continue, as it has for years, to defend its members’ privacy and its ability to communicate freely with the American people.”

Clearly, the NRA is trying to have it both ways. They want to paint themselves as a “small business” in the throes of a federal bureaucracy, but they gain an exemption based on everything big business.

Can’t anybody with an objective view see that the NRA is trying to build a fence, while throwing the little guys to the wolves?

The NRA is playing along with Congress in the creation of rules that do not apply equally to all citizen groups. It is not right. It is why the Tea Party revolutionists have banded together.

Make no mistake. The NRA has accepted the dimunition of the rights of millions upon millions of Americans, as long as it doesn’t apply to the NRA’s own millions.

Interesting point made in the comments thread on the “in defense of the NRA” blog article Moe references:

The two tests for exemption from regulation in this sell-out deal are member identification and financial disclosure. The NRA cannot enjoy this so-called carve out, without opening up their membership roles, and their donation records to show that less than 15% of NRA funds come from corporate donors.

That’s right, every donation to the NRA is now subject to discovery litigation by anyone challenging their nifty new free speech carve-out.

Checkers vs chess, indeed.