A few weeks ago, many people here on RedState were going after the NRA because of their endorsements of several democrats. At the time, I thought there was some mistake, because I thought that the NRA just gives “grades” to the candidates and I didn’t think they endorsed anyone.
I was wrong.
I live in NY-20th, former home of Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York. She received the “A” rating from the NRA while she served as our congresswoman, but then her performance as Chuck Schumer’s puppet in the Senate has now earned her an “F”.
Scott Murphy-D is now our congressman, appointed after Gillibrand vacated the spot to become senator. We have a very strong Conservative opponent, Chris Gibson, challenging him. I was chagrined when I received my copy of NRA’s Freedom magazine to find out that while both Murphy and Gibson received “A” grades, the NRA had endorsed Murphy.
I know that the NRA does not pursue the conservative “big picture” and is narrowly focused on the 2nd amendment. This might justify their endorsement of a candidate who supports abortion or social spending. In the case of NY-20th however, they do not have the “big picture” in mind AT ALL. After Gillibrand’s turncoat behavior, it is clear that so-called “blue dog” democrats have a higher master, and that is liberalism. Who knows if these people really do believe in 2nd amendment rights but are then pressured to abandon those beliefs, or if they never believed in them and just said what they needed to in order to get elected. What is clear is that endorsing these people does not make any sense.
To add insult to injury, they did NOT endorse either of the Republicans running against Schumer and Gillibrand! Gillibrand’s opponent, Joe DioGuardi, received a “B”, while Schumer’s opponent, Jay Townsend, received a grade of “AQ”, meaning that his grade was based only on the questionnaire that the NRA provided but there is no voting record to judge. Apparently, these grades are not high enough for the NRA endorsement. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Who could possibly be worse than Chuck Schumer?
I understand the NRA’s need to be bi-partisan so that they can make progress in defending the 2nd amendment no matter which party is in power. I think some modifications to their approach are in order:
1. If both candidates receive an “A”, then look to the principles of the candidate’s respective parties, since that is what they will be pressured to emulate. When it comes to the 2nd amendment, that means endorsing the Republican!
2. If one of the candidates is rated as an “F”, then endorse the other one! Voters might view no endorsement from the NRA as: “with respect to the 2nd amendment, they both stink, so choose according to some other issue.” Okay fine, a “D” rating isn’t much better. But no endorsement for a “B” and “AQ”? Seems like the purity test is too pure!