Thursday, July 20, 2006

NRA endorses anti-gunner

The rumors are true. The NRA gave Schwarz an A rating and endorsed him in the 7th district. At best, they have a short memory and forgot Joe Schwarz' term in the state senate. At worst, they were games playing. For whatever reason, it's sad to see possibly the most powerful grass roots organization in the country endorse someone with this bad of record on the 2nd amendemnt.

Should one decent term make up for his 16 year anti-2a record in the state senate? I don't think so. While Schwarz has a top level press secretary, a record speaks for itself.

Joe Schwarz campaign on gun grabs when he ran for governor in 2002 against Dick Posthumus. He was the most anti-2a candidate running that incluces David Bonior and Jennifer Granholm circa 2002(and Granholm has improved greatly on this issue - enough to no longer earn an unacceptable rating from SAFR). In 2004, he still supported the ugly gun ban and was booed out of a townhall meeting in Jackson because of this issue.

As I said on November 20

I'm not a fan of Mr. Schwarz. This goes back to his days in the state senate where he was a frequent critic of gun owners, pro-lifers, and tax hawks. I can respect honest disagreement, but when I'm told that I'm a "bubba who straps on and packs a 9mm" because I support the right of law abiding citizens to carry concealed pistols or that I am a "zealot" because I am pro-life, well I'll be supporting his primary challenger. I will give Schwarz credit for some honesty where he said that he "didn't give a shit" (exact quote) if he got the votes of pro-lifers and 2nd amendment supporters. That much is obvious by his mouth. In the 2002 primary debate in his gubenatorial campaign, he stated that he was not opposed to tax increases. He also brought up his anti-gun views there.

I will concede that Schwarz hasn't been terrible as a congressman, even surprisingly supporting the gun lawsuit ban, but I have to look at a 16+ year record over two years. He is unrepentantly anti-gun. He was one of the anti-conceal carry leaders. He is also pro-abortion and ran on that in the 2002 gubenatoral primary. Add the tax support, and it's three strikes and yer out.

NRA's wrong. SAFR and GOA are right. If you want someone you can count on when it comes to the Second Amendment, vote for Tim Walberg.


Keith Richards said...

I too was a bit baffled when I saw the NRA endorsement of Schwartz. It does worry me because it calls into question the value of all their endorsements.

I've noticed during this election season that there are serious problems with the way some groups do their endorsements. For example, the RTL refused to endorse Zandstra even though he was clearly the most pro-life candidate in the group. RTL has also refused to endorse Flynn for Congress even though he is clearly pro-life.

When it comes to endorsements I much prefer methodology that rates candidates on their views and on past record, giving a letter grade to show how strongly a candidate meets endorsement requirements. Another nice feature is when groups give grades for past performance as well as current performance.

My guess with Schwartz is that he was forced to eat a little humble pie during the last 2 years because he knew he would be faced with a tough campaign this year. It is likely he will return to his old ways once he feels more secure about his ability to hold onto his seat.

Pogo said...

Looks to me like the NRA may be worried about the ability of Walberg to win in the general election, figuring it is better to support a candidate that may support them every now and than to end up with totally anti-2a congressman.

I don't personally agree with this logic but it is the only explanation I can come up with for the NRA endorsement.

anonymous said...

This is a real stunner! What next, a Right-To-Life endorsement?

bluzie said...

Ever think you Right Wingers may be over the top and to the Right of the NRA?

Many of you seem mighty extreme to me.

Trust me, this doesn't bother me at all, in fact I love that the Livingston GOP is moving to the extreme Right.

Dan said...

The NRA is inconsistent. That's my problem with them. You're pro-2a or not. Schwarz isn't.

Moving to the extreme right? That's a joke. The GOP in general has moved LEFTWARD since 1994. Bigger government is a left wing stance.

Bluzie - You're party's gun grabbing is probably the number one reason why you haven't gotten past the 40% mark in this county at the top of the ticket since 1986. (And don't lie to me and say that nobody wants to take away my guns) Stabenow voted to ban almost all center-fire ammunition.

Patrick Flynn said...

Endorsements, whether they come from PETA or Mother Teresa are worthless if political strategy enters the endorsing process.

Pure merit should be the only criteria.

It's true Keith, Right to Life of Michigan made it clear a year ago that I would not even get a questionnaire. This is a violation of the public trust. They know that so many pro-life people have depended on RTL as a voter guide.

But, remain alert - things are beginning to change. For example, the Press & Argus reveals that RTL is no longer the only endorsing game in town:

Also the new Michigan Chooses Life PAC endorsements are due out next week.

As for the NRA, they are huge and political. The need to be careful. Many organizations lose their grass roots quality when they grow to these levels. Many of the smaller pro-2 amendment groups seem to be more sincere and committed to their purpose.

Keith Richards said...

Organizations must focus on their priorities when making endorsements. It is when they forget their priorities, allowing opinions about issues not relevant to their purpose to creep into their decision making, that they lose credibility.

To be believable, 2nd amendment and pro-life groups need to give approval or disapproval based on candidate opinions/track record, nothing less, nothing more. Each and every candidate should get a rating that is released to the public. Incumbents should not be given preferential treatment especially when they have a poor long term record. Single issue focus should be so intense that candidates of all political parties should be given equal consideration.

And bluzie, we rock-hard Reagan conservatives stand up for what we believe in. If this means that we buck the Republican party leadership so be it. Yes, this means that our values are more important to us than our party affiliation. You may think this is extreme, but what values should we compromise on to please party leadership? The right to life? Smaller government? Lower taxes? Personal freedom and privacy? The right to protect ourselves and our families? Fiscal responsibility? Strong national defense? Strong borders? Full enforcement of U.S. laws? It is our values that get us involved in politics, and diehard conservatives are not prepared to sell our souls for political compromise. If you've been around for a while you should have noticed by now that conservatives on this blog criticize Republicans even more harshly than Democrats, because as voting Republicans we take it personally when members of our chosen party go astray on issues important to conservatives. And yes, our criticism of President Bush on many issues has been both frequent and harsh. His low poll numbers are the due to conservative anger, not due to opposition from Democrats who never supported him in the first place..

If you believe that it is extremist to hold dear and follow these traditional American values as practiced by many generations of Americans, feel free to call us extremist because this shows the voting public what you and your fellow Democrats REALLY believe in.

Patrick Flynn said...

Now I see why the Rolling Stones have been so successful. You go, Keith!

Count Me Red said...

Wow Keith, well said and ditto's.

Count Me Red said...

The NRA and RTL lately have made some blunders. Something happens when you get full of yourself. They better reread their mission statements and try to endorse their values and not who they think will win. Makes them look silly and makes fundraising hard.