I don't understand why not?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Neither organization can add a third-party candidate to some races (ones with only an incumbent and a Libertarian candidate) but not others that have both a Democrat and Republican running.Liberty wrote:If that were the case why wouldn't they rate Libertarians that are running against a single candidate.
It would only be fair to list and rate all the candidates. To turn a blind eye and not even acknowledge that they exist is dishonest.Charles L. Cotton wrote:That's where the potential pro-gun vote dilution come in. If there is a Democrat or Republican with an A or A+ rating running against an opponent with a B or lower rating, the addition of any third party candidate with an A rating will dilute the pro-gun vote.Liberty wrote:I don't believe that they should be giving every Libertarian a blank endorsement. Simply to acknowledge them and rate them as they would any other candidate.
And if TSRA and NRA rate Libertarians, would you also have us rate any other third party candidates? How about independent candidates? If not, why not? Why should the Libertarian Party rate special treatment not afforded to all third party and independent candidates? If you say "yes, rate everyone in the race," then there's even greater potential for pro-gun vote dilution.
The NRA has a reputation for nor playing well with others. They tend to look at others with similar goals as the competition. They attempted sabotage on Parker vs DC was shameful. Believe me the Libertarians are not always united in everything, but I've never met a member of the LIbertarian party that didn't feel stronger about the RKBA than Jonquil Jackson. The big difference with the Libertarians is that they are focused on the whole package of freedoms and not just the single issue.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Neither the TSRA nor NRA are trying to make the Libertarian Party go away. If the Party appeals to enough people then it will grow and become a viable political force and it will win some elections. If that ever happens, then I'm confident that the NRA and TSRA will rate their candidates.Liberty wrote:Just ignoring us will not make us go away. If the NRA/TSRA wants to grow its numbers perhaps they might consider not alienating thousands of their supporters and working with them instead.
If Libertarians are alienated from the NRA and TSRA, then they are not as committed to the Second Amendment as they claim. Why would any true Second Amendment supporter ask the NRA or TSRA to act in a manner that could jeopardize gun rights? Diluting pro-gun votes and having an anti-gunner elected just to be "fair" to the Libertarian candidate would be a disservice to our members, to the entire gun-owning public and to our mission. Asking us to do so is putting the welfare of the Libertarian Party ahead of the Second Amendment and gun owners.
The Libertarian Party isn't singled out for special treatment. As many TexasCHLforum members know, I've been politically active in Second Amendment issues for 30 years. I've been on the NRA Board of Directors since 2001, I've worked with TSRA's Legislative Committee/Legislative Director since 1987, and I've "officially" been Vice-Chairman of the TSRA Legislative Committee since 2003. If I were to run for office as a Libertarian, I would not be rated by either the NRA or TSRA. If I ran as a Republican against an A or A+ rated Democrat, I'd get an A rating, but both the NRA and TSRA would endorse my opponent. That's the way it should be.
Let me ask two questions? First, have any Libertarian candidates running for state office against a Democrat or Republican been elected? (This isn't a loaded question, I really don't know. I don't think so, but I'm not at all sure.) Secondly, does the Libertarian Party claim to be "conservative" as many members claim on gun boards?
Chas.
They didn't win any offices this time in Texas that I know of.
I don't believe Libertarians can be classified as Conservative or mostly Conservative.. They simply believe in freedoms from the Government. fer instance.
The government should be small. (most Republicans these days seem to like a fat government)
The Government shouldn't be deciding our moral values ..that should be up to moms and pops.
The Government isn't a Charity .. That's for our churches and organizations like the Red Cross.
The Government shouldn't be involved in religious functions like marriage
The Government needn't be making us be safe if we don't endanger others (Seat belts helmets)
Government needn't be sponsoring businesses and bailing them out.
The Government should be protecting us from crimminals and bad governments
We have a right to succeed and a right to fail.