NRA to endorse Harry Reid?

[atticus]

After Bork, after Miguel Estrada, republican presidents have tweaked their supreme court nominations to try to get a nominee that could be confirmed by the senate. If you have a republican in the senate in the seat currently held by H. Reid, and if the republicans have a stronger minority (or even a majority), then the next Supreme Court nominee (even one nominated by Obama) may well have to be more acceptable. Nothing in Reid's background recommends keeping him. Not his position as majority leader, not his voting record. It's a choice, yes, and there are plenty of reasons not to choose Reid. Even if Durbin or Schumer is the next majority leader, if Reid is gone then the republicans will have a better shot at blocking anti-gun legislation. Why keep Reid if the democrats are so weakened that they cannot pass anti-gun bills?

[seamusTX]

If you have a republican in the senate in the seat currently held by H. Reid,...

This would require the Republicans to have a majority. The majority party gets to name the committee chairmen. It's all or nothing.

In 1993, when there was a vacancy on the court, Pres. Clinton asked Sen. Orrin Hatch for a short list of names that the Republicans in the Senate would not contest. I thought, when I heard this account, that is exactly what "advice and consent" is supposed to mean. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated and confirmed.

Supreme Court nominees are not selected on the basis of their RKBA views. The conservative nominees by Republican presidents tend to go in that direction, but there are no guarantees. No president since Theodore Roosevelt has had more than a passing interest in shooting or the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

- Jim

[atticus]

Good points. However, a 40+ minority is fillibuster insurance, even on judicial nominations under present day practice. It's the fillibuster I'm talking about. And I note that there are more than a few pro-gun democratic senators. If the republicans have 40+, then those dems will be much more likely to go against the dem party position on gun issues.

[Charles L. Cotton]

When confirmation votes came up in the Senate, Harry Reid voted for each of the 4 justices who wrote those amazing dissents in Heller and McDonald. He can be counted on to vote for confirmation of every anti-gun justice candidate that comes up. That's a very bad voting record on guns for senator Reid. One more non-constitutionalist on the Supreme Court, and you can kiss your NRA victories goodbye. Harry Reid's so-called great voting record on guns is not really so good after all when you consider his support of Sotomajor, Kagan, and that ilk. Reid has very little regard for the constitution. The result? The present Washington D.C. government that constantly looks for ways to control the citizens. That will include 2nd amendment issues.

Nevada has a chance to send a better, wiser constitutionalist to the Senate. That's better than keeping Harry Reid. You should not live in fear of the bad democrat Senate majority leaders (Schumer, Durbin, or whoever). They are like poisonous mushrooms in the forest. Get rid of one, another will pop up. Don't live in fear of Schumer, Durbin, or any of those hands. Just send better people to the Senate.

I agree with you about the vote for Kagan.

Do you know the rest of his voting record? Do you know what bills he kept from reaching the Senate floor? Do you know what bills he kept from even being filed?

There are a lot of reasons not to like Harry Reid, but his track record on guns isn't one of them. Trying to paint Reid as anti-gun is unfounded at best. It's right up there with arguing that gun owners would be better off with a new junior Senator from Nevada and Chuck Schumer or Dick Burbin as Senate Majority.

Again, the NRA has not endorsed Reid.

Chas.

Bump -- while waiting for answers.

Chas.

[nitrogen]

The NRA is a gun rights org. It is not a conservative org.

If Harry Reid's guns record is good, it should be enough for a GUN RIGHTS org to endorse him.

I'm assuming Harry Reid is pro health care, pro abortion, pro gay rights, etc. Thats' fine. The NRA shouldn't care. IF his record on pro guns is good, they should endorse him.

I don't want the NRA to stop endorsing people because of other, non-gun related things.

[baldeagle]

The NRA is a gun rights org. It is not a conservative org.

If Harry Reid's guns record is good, it should be enough for a GUN RIGHTS org to endorse him.

I'm assuming Harry Reid is pro health care, pro abortion, pro gay rights, etc. Thats' fine. The NRA shouldn't care. IF his record on pro guns is good, they should endorse him.

I don't want the NRA to stop endorsing people because of other, non-gun related things.

So you have no problem with a supposedly pro-RKBA Senator who voted for two Supreme Court nominees (now Justices) who are decidedly anti-RKBA, to the point that they will vote against RKBA cases despite the precedent-setting Heller and MacDonald decisions?

Those who say Harry Reid is pro-gun are either kidding themselves or don't understand politicians who have no soul (of which Harry Reid is a charter member.)

[seamusTX]

Wow! Now we can detect the existence or absence of souls.

Sen. Reid is not "pro-gun." Nobody in Congress really is. They just want to earn the votes and fear the retribution of pro-RKBA voters.

- Jim

[atticus]

Charles, Nope, I don't know what bills Reid kept from coming to the floor. I cannot at all cite his pro-gun voting record. Please say what anti-gun bills he blocked from coming to the floor. Apparently you think I must have written that Reid had an anti-gun voting record. I'm not sure that's what I wrote. I pointed to his votes and actions supporting all of the anti-gun justices now on the supreme court. I think that's an important part of his voting record; in some respects, the most important part. I thought I had given some response to your questions, apparently not a good one:

"After Bork, after Miguel Estrada, republican presidents have tweaked their supreme court nominations to try to get a nominee that could be confirmed by the senate. If you have a republican in the senate in the seat currently held by H. Reid, and if the republicans have a stronger minority (or even a majority), then the next Supreme Court nominee (even one nominated by Obama) may well have to be more acceptable. Nothing in Reid's background recommends keeping him. Not his position as majority leader, not his voting record. It's a choice, yes, and there are plenty of reasons not to choose Reid. Even if Durbin or Schumer is the next majority leader, if Reid is gone then the republicans will have a better shot at blocking anti-gun legislation. Why keep Reid if the democrats are so weakened that they cannot pass anti-gun bills?"

If Reid is gone, does it not make a difference if the democrats have less than 60 votes? To sum up, it appears you are willing to support Reid. I am not. Reid's actions on non-gun bills is also part of the destruction of our constitution. Your reasons seem to be practical political ones. Fine, I understand. If you dont' want Schumer or Durbin as majority leader, fine. That's a very good point. But under that scenario, neither Schumer nor Durbin would have close to a 60 vote majority in the senate. I'm willing to take the smaller democrat majority that results in an enhanced ability of the pro-gun minority (including both republicans and democrats) to block bad bills.

If my ignorance of the particulars of Reid's voting record and bill management are the trump card in this discussion, then I readily fold. But I think Reid's record on Supreme Court (and district and appellate court) nominations ought to be part of the discussion. Perhaps you disagree.

[Charles L. Cotton]

To sum up, it appears you are willing to support Reid. I am not.

I don't support Reid, I live in Texas. If you don't live in Nevada then you can't support him either. This thread was started to blast the NRA for endorsing Reid's reelection, but the NRA hasn't done that. My comments have been directed to the political reality in the Senate and to the basis of the NRA's power in Washington; i.e. supporting those who support us.

Had the GOA and NGRA not falsely claimed we were endorsing Reid, we wouldn't have spent weeks arguing about something that may or may not happen. But this is precisely what GOA and NGRA wanted because the only way they draw attention to their organizations is by blasting the NRA.

Chas.

[atticus]

Charles, My posts on this thread began and ended with the point that Reid is a disaster on judicial nominations. I've never stated nor implied that he has an anti-gun voting record in the Senate, except for his horrible voting record on judicial appointments. I don't speak for others who may claim he has an overall anti-gun voting record. Nor am I a member of any gun organization except one: I am a member of the NRA. Nor am I a resident of Nevada. I am a life-long Texan. But non-Nevadans can support Nevada senate candidates via political contributions to the candidate, or to their national party. But more than that, this whole discussion has centered around whether Reid should go or stay. Whether I call that "support" or use some other verb, that's what we're talking about. When you re-posted your point soliciting a response about Schumer and Durbin as the likely senate majority leader, it appears you prefer Reid to stay on as majority leader. Apparently I misunderstood, but my misunderstanding is also a fair reading of what you have posted. I'm not criticizing the NRA for its political strategy. In fact, I have posted on another board how I thought Tom Gresham was unfair and rude to Wayne LaPierre on Tom's talk show when they discussed the NRA carve-out on the disclose bill. I think we have just about beat this poor dead horse back to life. I vote we let him lie. Best wishes.

[Liberty]

To sum up, it appears you are willing to support Reid. I am not.

I don't support Reid, I live in Texas. If you don't live in Nevada then you can't support him either. This thread was started to blast the NRA for endorsing Reid's reelection, but the NRA hasn't done that. My comments have been directed to the political reality in the Senate and to the basis of the NRA's power in Washington; i.e. supporting those who support us.

Had the GOA and NGRA not falsely claimed we were endorsing Reid, we wouldn't have spent weeks arguing about something that may or may not happen. But this is precisely what GOA and NGRA wanted because the only way they draw attention to their organizations is by blasting the NRA.

Chas.

We can support candidates in other states. if we wish. We can support them with our words, and dollars. We just can't vote for Nevadans.

[74novaman]

They didn't endorse him.

http://www.nrapvf.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=14170&T=1

[Charles L. Cotton]

Perhaps in the future we can ignore the anti-NRA propaganda fostered by GOA.

Chas.

[atticus]

It sounds like Reid's pro-Kagan vote cost him. Well it should have.

[magillapd]

What people forget is that it is they who have to power of choice, and since this is a senator, this is a Nevada issue only. Single Issue organizations look at whatever candidates are up for election in any given area, and they choose who they want to support.
The NRA does not get people elected, nor does any other organization. No candidate should EVER be elected based on one single issue. What a voter needs to do is look at the candidate’s record, platform, and endorsements. With that, make an informed decision on who to vote for.
I believe in the NRA’s mission and support them. I wish for the voting public to start looking beyond single issues. I feel that is one of the most dangerous things that can happen.
I hope Nevada makes the best choice for them in Nov. I hope the NRA continues to pressure Congress to follow the Constitution.