NRA Endorsements for Bad Candidates - Hurting Us !

I just recently received a mailer from Jim Mathias' campaign in his run against Mike McDermott for the 38th district and was jolted by the NRA's endorsement of him. I know both of them and know that Mike is the clear choice over the two from an objective RKBA perspective. What is the NRA thinking ? - or are they?

Because of NRA's endorsement of MD "soft Democrats" apparently as a result of a strict review of their voting record they(we - I'm a Life Member) are indirectly undermining our efforts to fight anti-rights legislation. Here's a recent story / example :

A family member is very active in political circles and was recently out on the street during a local event interviewing 'Democrats on the street'. Having known Mathias many years and feeling comfortable approaching him, the family member took the opportunity to interview him on the street.

When finished with the list of questions, and Mathias had answered most or all of them in agreement with the platform of the Republican party, family member stated " Well Jim, maybe you should join the Republican Party".

Jim said in reply, (paraphrasing here)

" I agree with you on all those issues, but I just do what O'Malley tells me to do. When he needs my vote on an issue, he lets me know. When he does not, I can vote however I like and work to make my constituency happy and keep my position in office."

Not only is this a tremendous strike against the checks and balances that are suppose to exist between the Executive and Legislative, this process works to assure that the party that is most actively working to destroy our RKBA and overall liberty WILL STAY IN POWER.

My 40+ years living here on the Shore shows me the rural and generally conservative folks here are easy prey for the lies and deceptions that are propagated by the Democrat party in MD. Even the Republicans who are worried about RKBA often vote for people like Mathias because he "seems well balanced" -- thanks to the NRA's endorsement.

It's not so hard to look deeper than the strict voting record and make better judgements about endorsement. In such a battleground state like MD, a serious rethinking of strategy may be in order.

And Roy Dyson comes to mind as likely another one that falls in this category.
I'm sure there are many others.

Any others on the forum observe this ? Anything out there to justify the NRA's approach?

NRA has an incumbent friendly endorsement policy. If both candidates are pro-2A in the eyes of the NRA then they will back the incumbent over the challenger.

Thanks for the info. I wonder about their rationale for the "incumbent friendly" approach. I will have to research this more. The bigger picture (IMO anyway) is that "incumbency friendly" anything is a large part of government problems in our state and nation overall.

These positions were intended by the founders to be stints of "service" by citizens of good standing and discernment, not lifelong jobs of power games and money brokering (our money by the way).

Like I originally stated - NRA should seriously reconsider the approach. It's the kind of policy that makes me lean toward giving $ to other Pro RKBA organizations instead of the NRA.

Call and write to the NRA-ILA and let them know about your dislike for their policy. This is the only way they will change it.

NRA has become sadly misinformed about some topics. This is why I did not renew my membership.

Incumbent are more likely to yield for fear of loosing an endorsement. Its a game. Our job its to
1. Understand the game,
2. Get other gun owners to understand the game.
3.make sure the incumbant knows that we know the game and are not impressed.
4. Vote in our best interests. That may mean not hurting an incumbent with a fair record as that may lead to an upset that is not in our favor.


If the NRA backed candidate losses to a worse candidate thats bad.

Let the perfect become the enemy of the good and you will loose..

Terplover said:

NRA has become sadly misinformed about some topics. This is why I did not renew my membership.

Click to expand...

Do what you will, they don't just operate locally. On a national level the Libs hate em because they hold such sway. If you are hated by the libs it means you hold power that they have trouble breaking. If you hold power and your goals are aligned with mine it's probably worth supporting even if they miss a few issues. You know , the greater good.

The NRA should remain non-partisan. It's not the National Republican Association. Pro-2a Dems should be supported for the same reason (checks and balances).

If you can prove that the incumbent does not deserve the rating, say by demonstrating they are only giving lip service and will subsequently vote with O'Malley Brown on gun rights, then I am sure they would be interested and remove the rating (they just downgraded someone in PA for that reason).

Otherwise, it is actually good to have pro-2A people in office with seniority, even if they are Dem, because they can influence policy and sponsor legislation.

Good discussion on NRA endorsement policy

DanB and others

I appreciate the replies and agree with some of the thinking to an extent .. Regarding the partisan aspect of things, RKBA is in fact an issue that is a strong party-line issue and the story I related points to the nature of the so called soft-Dem's that are accepting a role as a pawn to help keep their party in power, and they use the NRA to help keep them in power. I can cite issues where Republicans do it too, but need to stay on-topic.

I feel that these soft Dems are generally not really FOR our RKBA - at least not enough to "be there" when the chips are really down. The NRA does not have to be partisan to fold the partisan aspect of the problem into the strategy. I do not think its reasonable ( at least nowadays) to believe that the NRA gets any 'credit' due to their endorsement of Dems. If anything they lose credibility in the eyes of their membership that knows the real deal about the candidates they endorse.

They will only vote when O'Malley "needs" their vote. He does not need it when gun rights issues come up, because he has plenty of support across the bay, but he needs them to stay in office so he can get their votes when another issue comes up.. It's all intertwined.

I've listened to delegates state openly in town hall forums that they see their jobs as trading votes with the urban side of the state (regardless of effect) so they can get pork for the rural side of the state.

Does it really help our goals and legislation to have someone support our legislation that knows that our bill has no chance and they can use their endorsement to gain clout with their voters - all the while strengthening the position of the party blocking our legislation?

I forgot to add- On the suggestion to contact the NRA , I think I saw where a forum member here is the MD liaison to the NRA.. I was hoping someone like him would see my post..

To Brooklyn - You said :
"Vote in our best interests. That may mean not hurting an incumbent with a fair record as that may lead to an upset that is not in our favor. If the NRA backed candidate losses to a worse candidate that's bad."

This gives me the sense that "appearances" are being valued higher than having solid pro-gun legislators. We have lost and will always lose the "appearances war" until this country completely turns around on this and a bunch of other issues.

It is certainly my hope that the NRA endorsed incumbent in this case loses this election because of reason stated before. So by your logic, I am hoping that the NRA "looks bad" and therefore their endorsed candidate's loss will be NRA's loss, but it is the exact opposite. If the NRA candidate loses, NRA and MD RKBA will be greatly strengthened.

Bertfish said:

NRA has an incumbent friendly endorsement policy. If both candidates are pro-2A in the eyes of the NRA then they will back the incumbent over the challenger.

Click to expand...

I didn't know what, but it might explain why several MD races feature incumbent dems that are NRA endorsed even though the R-challengers have an A rating:

State Senate - District 29
AQ, Steve Waugh, Candidate (R)
A, *Roy P. Dyson, Incumbent (D)

State Senate - District 30
A-, Don Quinn, Candidate (R)
A+, *John C. Astle, Incumbent (D)

State Senate - District 32
A-, Larry Barber, Candidate (R)
A, *James E. “Ed” DeGrange, Sr., Incumbent (D)

State House - District 2B
AQ, Brett Wilson, Candidate (R)
A, *John P. Donoghue, Incumbent (D)


State House - District 29B
A, Deb Rey, Candidate (R)
A, *John Bohanan, Incumbent (D)


If the Dems truly vote pro-2A an are teh better candidate in a certain district, then ok, fine. But if they're 2A-only-on-the-street and not in session, they're no friends of ours.

There are races in Maryland where their is a Republican with a B rating running against a Democrat with an A rating. I need to decide how likely is the Democrat going to vote the party line (what MOM tells him to do) rather than the 2nd amendment.

Nessmuk said:

To Brooklyn - You said :
"Vote in our best interests. That may mean not hurting an incumbent with a fair record as that may lead to an upset that is not in our favor. If the NRA backed candidate losses to a worse candidate that's bad."

This gives me the sense that "appearances" are being valued higher than having solid pro-gun legislators. We have lost and will always lose the "appearances war" until this country completely turns around on this and a bunch of other issues.

It is certainly my hope that the NRA endorsed incumbent in this case loses this election because of reason stated before. So by your logic, I am hoping that the NRA "looks bad" and therefore their endorsed candidate's loss will be NRA's loss, but it is the exact opposite. If the NRA candidate loses, NRA and MD RKBA will be greatly strengthened.

Click to expand...

We shall see. But its not NRA that decides how we vote. So if you think you can get a pro gun legislator go for it. But if all you do is burn a bridge ... not good.


So the way this game might work is that NRA backs the incumbent... ( thus not burning a bridge) while others do as they please. That's the smart play.

Blacksmith101 said:

There are races in Maryland where their is a Republican with a B rating running against a Democrat with an A rating. I need to decide how likely is the Democrat going to vote the party line (what MOM tells him to do) rather than the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

But that's true of every politician on every issue. Anthony Brown says he won't raise taxes. The question is: do you believe him.

newq said:

Do what you will, they don't just operate locally. On a national level the Libs hate em because they hold such sway. If you are hated by the libs it means you hold power that they have trouble breaking. If you hold power and your goals are aligned with mine it's probably worth supporting even if they miss a few issues. You know , the greater good.

Click to expand...

This is my thought exactly, even if the NRA doesn't always come through for us here in the people's republic, I will ALWAYS support them and ALWAYS throw them cash when it's feasible for me.

They are probably the biggest reason we still have the rights we do have

amoebicmagician said:

This is my thought exactly, even if the NRA doesn't always come through for us here in the people's republic, I will ALWAYS support them and ALWAYS throw them cash when it's feasible for me.

They are probably the biggest reason we still have the rights we do have

Click to expand...

Damn right man.

How does a Dem in MD earn a high rating if he always does what O'Mao tells him to do?

danb said:

The NRA should remain non-partisan. It's not the National Republican Association. Pro-2a Dems should be supported for the same reason (checks and balances).

If you can prove that the incumbent does not deserve the rating, say by demonstrating they are only giving lip service and will subsequently vote with O'Malley Brown on gun rights, then I am sure they would be interested and remove the rating (they just downgraded someone in PA for that reason).

Otherwise, it is actually good to have pro-2A people in office with seniority, even if they are Dem, because they can influence policy and sponsor legislation.

Click to expand...

This is very true. I hope though that their records were reviewed on amendments and filibusters.

A true pro-2a dem is a good thing in MD. One who votes to end filibuster but then against SB281 is not.

Jim12 said:

How does a Dem in MD earn a high rating if he always does what O'Mao tells him to do?

Click to expand...

Because he often times doesn't.

Mathias voted no against his own party on several democratic/liberal issues such as lifting the prohibitions on the MVA giving drivers licenses to illegals.

He voted no to giving illegals instate tuition rates,

He voted against same sex marriage.

He voted no on SB281 on expanding the gun control measures last year.

He voted with republicans to keep the filibuster going to try to stall out the bill.

He was the one who sponsored the sunset clause to SB281 when it became apparent that it was going to pass regardless. Obviously it didn't pass because the rest of his party voted it down.

He voted No on increasing the gas tax,

He voted No on several of the various bills to decriminalize marijuana,

He voted No on repealing the death penalty in MD

etc etc etc.