The National Rifle Association has endorsed Steve Kagen for Congress in the 8th District. Both Congressman Kagen and GOP challenger John Gard, a former state assembly speaker, received “A” grades from the NRA for their legislative records. In such an instance, the Appleton Post-Crescent reports, “The endorsement always goes to the incumbent when everything else is equal, said Jeff Nass, an NRA member and president of the Wisconsin Rifle and Pistol Association.” Politico confirms that this is the NRA’s practice nationally.
This practice seems to me to be questionable for two reasons. First, just because some people vote right on an issue does not mean they will be a leader on the issue. In other words, Cong. Kagen may vote to protect Second Amendment rights, but he will not be a leader drafting legislation, working on it in committee, holding press conferences on it, etc. John Gard, on the other hand, was a leader for gun rights in the Assembly and would doubtless take an interest in the issue in Congress, if for no other reason than that he’s an avid sportsman himself.
Second, party matters. Sure, Steve Kagen may vote right on an individual piece of legislation concerning guns if a vote is taken. But he will also vote for Speaker Pelosi and Committee Chairman Conyers and other gun control lefties who will not allow such legislation to reach the floor. And he and the Kagen Democrats will certainly work against judges who will protect 2nd Amdt. rights.
One alternative: The NRA could do what Wisconsin Right to Life does, and endorse multiple candidates in the same race when they are all good on the issue. Or they could make no endorsement when they candidates are tied on record. In either alternative, NRA members who vote this issue first could vote instead on secondary issues. Or they could go beyond the simple categories of grade and incumbency to consider service rendered to the cause, enthusiasm for the issue, and party platform. Such a system, while it would introduce more subjectivity into endorsements, may also result in better recommendations to members.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
Speaking of endorsements, what do you make of all this Colin Powell for Obama speculation? I sort of fail to see the big deal. What’s your take?
This post condensed to its essence:
“OH NOES! The NRA actually looked at record rather than party and didn’t endorse the Republican! DOES NOT COMPUTE! DOES NOT…”
Hey Evan, have you seen Michele Bachmann’s interview on Hardball? Looks like McCarthyism has found its true heir. Oy vey.
Ugh. I wish I hadn’t. Scary stuff. That lady is more than a couple kinds of crazy.
The great thing is that, I guess, her opponent raised over $30,000 in the few hours following her appearance. So here’s hoping the good people of Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District can send that lady back to screaming on a street corner, where she clearly belongs.
Like you, Evan, I fail to see the big deal with Colin Powell. Admittedly, he is considered a senior statesman in American politics. But I don’t know how many undecided voters are waiting with baited breath to know who he’s backing.
I did not see Bachmann’s interview on Hardball, a show I generally do not watch on a channel I usually avoid, but my previous impression of her from other times she’s been on TV was positive.
Daniel–look it up on YouTube. It’s an eye-opener…HUAC deja vu.
Evan–you’re behind the times. Her opponent has now raised more than $125,000 since that interview aired. Go Elwyn Tinklenberg!
Daniel, don’t watch it. I wouldn’t want you to witness the end of your Republican ideals; you know see what your party has become. Just continue to ignore those racist robo calls, the lynching Obama figures, the KKK mailings in Atlanta, the attacking of reporters at Palin rallies, the lying about Acorn by Fox news and other abominable news sources, the accusations of a stolen election being pushed by Republican talking heads, and so on. No, I would rather you stick your head in the sand and pretend none of this is real.
Hyperbole and overgeneralization much, Richard? Seriously, tone it down…you’re bordering on hatefulness yourself.
I apologize for my tone. I was shooting for sarcasm and disbelief.
Richard,
Owing to its long history as a subsidiary of the Democrat Party, are the KKK mailings in Atlanta for some Georgia Democrat’s senatorial or congressional campaign? I’m unfamiliar with the story.
Aw, it’s so cute when the little dittoheads misspell “democratic”. But I suppose it does make sense–if you don’t know what a word means, you can’t be expected to spell it.
It’s also adorable when they make the “Yes, it’s true that we intentionally court poorly educated racists in order to win the South nowadays, but the Democrats used to do the same thing up until they passed the Civil Rights Act forty years ago! Clearly, this means that modern Democrats are as bad as we are!” argument. They probably think that modern Germans are Nazis and that the modern Catholic Church officials advocate crusades and inquisitions, too! But they try so hard to make an argument, the poor things, so we really ought to give them a treat for trying.
Brian, I saw the story on CNN, but it appears there is no record of it on the tubes or on CNN’s website. I will assume they reported false story.
And the award for the most incoherent post of the month goes to Kat. I literally have no idea what you were trying to accomplish with that post.
I’m happy to know I touched a nerve, though!
Nope, didn’t touch a nerve. You actually made me laugh more than I have in weeks. Thanks for that.
In simple terms that you can understand:
1. It’s the Democratic Party. I know that “democratic” is a hard concept for you, but you really should learn how to spell it.
2. Yes, the KKK were all Southern Democrats for a very long time–a time which ended in the 1960′s when the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act and the Republicans pounced at the chance to co-opt the “Southern Strategy”. The KKK is now a “subsidiary” of the Republican Party, and has been for forty years. Arguing that the post-Civil-Rights-Act Democratic Party is affiliated with the KKK is akin to arguing that Germans born post-1945 carry blame for Nazism, or that the modern Catholic Church is guilty of the crusades or inquisitions of earlier centuries. It is an argument that any child can find the flaws in–but a Marquette grad apparently can’t. Go figure.
Nice try, though, kiddo.
1) As long as Democrats go ape-shit over two letters, “i” and “c”, for me it will be the Democrat Party.
2) Considering that the senior most statesman in the Democrat Party is the former leader of the KKK, I’d say that it’s still a subsidiary of the Democrat Party. If you want I can go into how pretty much most of the policies of the Democrat Party are at their core racist.
3) Do you want the data on the Civil Rights Act?
The Civil Rights Act was passed because of the Republican Party, against the wishes of Democrat “statesmen” like Byrd and Al Gore, Sr. who voted against it.
4) I don’t know if you’re re-launching the “You’re a Protestant” idea in the comments but let me tell you, it’s one of my favorite rumors out there.
Brian, your spin of and ignorance of what went down with the Civil Rights Act and its subsequent result is disgusting. You know full well, that being a Democrat in the sixties was a very different thing and you know full well Republicans have been using race to win elections ever sine the Civil Rights Act. The fact that in one go you blame democrats for the race problems and pretend the Republican party is not racist is disgusting and using revisionist history.
Richard,
Are you actually serious? It was leaders in the Democrat Party who tried to block the Civil Rights Act. It wasn’t Republicans who led day-long filibusters agaisnt the Bill. Sorry pal, that’s a fact of history. The Democrat Party has been racist since the days of Andrew Jackson up through to today. The sins of Margaret Sanger still haunt her Democrat Party enablers today, particularly through the racist bias of abortion. Shame on Democrats.
Why don’t you open up a history text on the Civil Rights Act for once?
I know this might be hard for you to comprehend, but political parties change platforms and ideology over time. A Democrat in the 1960′s is not representative of modern Democrats. They far more closely resemble modern Republicans. And I think geography agrees with me.
Also, I cannot fathom what kind of brain washing it takes to sincerely believe modern democrats are racist. I have met quite a few in my day and I disagree with you. Republicans on the other hand…
Want to maybe, like, provide a few examples?
I mean Jesus, Richard, the senior statesman in the Democrat Party, Robert “KKK” Byrd, was the former leader of the KKK! Hello!
If you want to actually discuss this, great. Let’s talk about Barack’s outright racism. Barack believes any opposition to his coronation is silent racism. His “typical white person” comment. “Cling to guns and religion.” All the Orwellian warnings about Republicans claiming that he’s “different from the other presidents.” Even apart from his frothy black supremacist friends Rev’s Wright and Jackson, Barack is extreme to the core. If you want to get into policy, Barack buys into the typical anti-black racism of affirmative action which claims that blacks and other minorities are inherently inferior to whites/asians. And that’s just the current Messiah of the Democrat Party. You really want to get into Democrats like George Wallace and Jimmah Cartah?
I don’t want to discuss this with you because it is clear that you have been sucked into the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O Reilly reeducation program. Kind of like how this current economic crisis is the fault of Democrats and minorities; nice try but reality disagrees with you. I can only express how disturbed I am that an educated person, such as yourself, believes what you just wrote. I hope some day you realize how misinformed you have become.
Richard!
Come on, pal. Can’t you come up with a few examples of Republican racism? Or maybe it’s just a myth and you feel bad thinking about all the Democrat Party racists of the past 200 years. It’s too bad you don’t want to talk about any evidence or facts … I really enjoy those discussions.
I’ve leave you to think about the Democrat Party’s own Vice Presidential candidate’s thoughts on Barack Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African American [Barack Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy.”
1) You have every right to be a child, it doesn’t bug me at all. I actually find it rather funny whenever Limbaugh and his ilk do it.
2) Key word, of course, being “former.” Unlike the supposedly good Christians of the right wing, we Democrats actually take God at his word that true repentance is always possible and always acceptable. The Jewish phrasing of the concept would be “The gates of prayer are sometimes closed, but the gates of repentance are always open.” The Christian phrasing would probably be Jesus’s words to the adulteress: “Go and sin no more.” I take it this is not an unfamiliar concept? (Also, you do realize that Byrd was not “the leader” of the KKK, correct? He never even led a local chapter.)
3) Perhaps, Brian, you missed the part where I said that the Southern Switch happened AFTER the Civil Rights Act (and largely because of it)? So no, your little revelation is not news. But I note that you left out the crucial details that it was JFK, a Democratic president, who got the bill written and argued passionately in its defense, and that LBJ, a Democratic president, was the driving force behind the act’s passage, and that all the historians agree that the act only passed because of him. What was your major, again? I really hope it wasn’t history.
4) What the heck? I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Who said anything about Protestants?
As for your cries of racism:
Affirmative Action–so now it’s racist against minorities? I thought the GOP talking point was that it was racist against white males.
“Typical White Person”–yes, that language usage was problematic, but it’s no more “radical” than when a woman talks about “typical men” or an atheist talks about “typical Christians.” Stereotypical and wrong, yes. Disappointing, definitely. But let he who is without sin cast the first stone on that score. Come clean–how many times have you said someone was a “typical woman” or a “typical liberal” or a “typical Muslim” or a “typical” anything? I’m willing to bet you use it frequently (especially the first two), if you’re honest with yourself. I know I say “typical men” and “typical Republican” (or some variation thereof) more often than I should, and “typical Jew” while joking around with my friends. I shouldn’t, but I do–and so do you. It’s hardly “outright” anything.
“Cling to guns and religion”–how, exactly, is that racist?
Jeremiah Wright–from where I sit, Wright is no more extreme or crazy than the average (dare I say typical?) Evangelical pastor or hardliner Catholic priest or ultra-Orthodox rabbi. So unless you can honestly say that you would also be concerned by a member of those religious groups in high office (which, if you are a Palin supporter, you can’t), you’re nothing but a hypocrite.
Jesse Jackson–so tell me, when have they ever been friends or even appeared to like each other? Or did you just assume that they must be close?
George Wallace–I see the “the Democratic Party of forty years ago is no more comparable to the Democratic Party today than the Republican Party of Barry Goldwater is comparable to the Republican Party of the neocons” history lesson flew over your head again. Once again, is the modern Catholic Church evil because of the actions of the Borgia pope or their policies during the Holocaust? No? Didn’t think so. (Or better yet, how about the Mormon church, the most reliable GOP base in the country?)
Jimmy Carter–what’s with the minstrel show spelling, Brian?
As for Republican racism, let’s start with Limbaugh and his friends’ assertions that Colin Powell only endorsed Obama because Obama is black, the baseless Republican outcry about ACORN and subsequent attempt to have people from the inner-city who had proper registrations stricken from the record (while ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that anyone has ever fraudulently cast a vote under a false name, and trying to hush up the Mark Jacoby story), the disgusting racial slurs that are being posted and encouraged on FreeRepublic and RedState (I go over there for laughs sometimes, but now they’re just plain disgusting) and shouted at McCain-Palin rallies, the election and reelection of Strom Thurmond (who left the Democratic Party after LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act) and Jesse Helms in the Republican Party, and the continued insistance of a sizeable chunk of the right that all Muslims and Arabs are evil (leading to assaults on American Muslims and vandalism of mosques), not to mention the perpetuation of the Reagan myth of the “black welfare queen” and the insistance that minorities end up on welfare because they don’t work hard enough.
Your move, Brian. Bring it.
Kat,
As a liberal, you have a wonderful way of avoiding reality. Instead of yet again arguing each of your points, could you tell me your thoughts on this:
http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/c.....tml?blog=y
It’s simple racism. Your party is sick to the core.
Also from today:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008.....u-pretend/
God forbid any minority trespass the Democrat Party. (cf. Any of the dozens of activist minority Republicans I knew at MU.)