Monday, March 26, 2018

Can Politicians Allied With The NRA Be Held Accountable?


$340,664... and counting

Ann Kirkpatrick was once the staunchest NRA ally among congressional Democrats. Her rating was "A" and she was chosen to give the keynote address at their national convention. She cosponsored even their deadliest and most toxic legislation and she was rabid in her disdain for the Obama administration's mildest efforts to stop the murder-spree. Today, she's running for Congress again, whining to anyone who will listen that she's changed her blood-soaked ways. More on Kirkpatrick tonight. Meanwhile, she's not the only Democrat-- in the context of the March For Our Lives-- who are running frothier own (political) lives.

Conservative Democrat Mark Warner (VA) has a long record as being an NRA ally, even if not as slavishly so as Kirkpatrick. Yesterday he was on Face the Nation singing a new tune from this week's top ten. "I think it’s time to change our positions and reexamine them, he stumbled all over himself. "I think it’s time for us to have a legitimate debate about restrictions on gun magazines and assault weapons."

Warner was one of the only Senate Democrats who voted against a ban on assault-style weapons in 2013 after the NRA/GOP massacre at Sandy Hook. Of course the whole RepublicanParty was against the ban-- and still is. Yesterday, Ohio Governor Jon Kasich (R) was on State of the Union blaming Rick Saccone's loss of a blood red Republican seat in PA-18, the heart of Trump country, on the GOP clinging to its opposition to sane gun policies. "We've already seen what the public thinks, we saw [a Republican loss in] an election in Pennsylvania. I think people do want changes here." Ne also thinks elected officials should be held accountable at the ballot box for going along with party policies that are out of touch with the public. Buy the way, this Fox News poll, shows how the public feels about gun policies:

Kasich plans to run against Trump in 2020 and who told the March For Our Lives activists "you've got to keep it up," also said he thinks "people should be held absolutely accountable at the ballot box." He said there are 3 types of politicians when it comes to the debate over guns in this country: "those that want no changes on guns; those people that think there ought to be significant changes even while we protect the Second Amendment; and the third group are a bunch of politicians who are afraid of their own shadow." (The NRA endorsed Kasich for reelection in 2014.)

Since 1990, the NRA and other gun groups have spent $37,298,705 buying influence in Congress-- $32,361,024 to Republicans and $4,257,494 to Democrats. Among currently serving senators, there top 10 are all Republicans:
John McCain (R-AZ)- $618,113
Ted Cruz (R-TX)- $463,157
Marco Rubio (R-FL)- $244,019
Rand Paul (R-KY)- $231,587
Ron Johnson (R-WY)- $190,998
John Thune (R-SD)- $181,215
John Cornyn (R-TX)- $174,325
Pat Toomey (R-PA)- $167,051
Roy Blunt (R-PA)- $143,543
Richard Burr (R-NC)- $124,550
The top recipients of contributions fromcurrently serving Democrats in the Senate were Joe Donnelly (IN-$22,400) and Joe Manchin (WV-$20,700). Among currently serving House members the big bucks flowed to these ten murder-complict congressmembers:
Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $340,664
Don Young (R-AZ)- $197,272
Ken Calvert (R-CA)- $147,166
Steve Pearce (R-NM)- $129,250
Martha McSally (R-AZ)- $126,306
Pete Sessions (R-TX)- $126,276
Ed Royce (R-CA)- $109,120
Mike Coffman (R-CO)- $107,093
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)- $105,550
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $99,000
Other than Peterson, all the Democrats who have taken big contributions from the gun industry have been defeated-- Nick Rahall (WV), Alan Mollohan (WV), Allen Boyd (FL), Ike Skelton (MO), Tim Holden (PA) and Rick Boucher (VA). This year, the NRA allies who have been recruited to run by the DCCC-- like Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Elaine Luria (VA)-- are too wily to accept any NRA money, at least so far. I hope someone tells the March For Our Lives activists about their records though. They, like Republicans, should be held accountable at the ballot box in November.

Labels: , , , ,


At 5:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have we not yet learned that politicians will say things which make them appear to be on our side? Forget what they say on the stump. How have they voted? THAT is what needs to be covered.

At 9:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sadly, 5:01, that means we have to give them a 2 or 6-year test drive... and we can't just return them to the dealership until the end of the test.

As of today, there are politicians OPENLY allied with NRA money; the ones who WANT the NRA money and are subtle about it; and the ones who don't need NRA money but are still scared of the NRA. And, maybe, Pramila Jayapal.

NRA love is probably only a "hold accountable" issue today because of the general anti-red wave building. There have been more horrendous events (like the slaughter of 20 2nd-graders and the mowing down of 49 in a nightclub and 50-odd at a concert) when diddly fucking squat came of it. The difference is the anti-red wave and the fact that the most openly NRA-servile tend to be Rs.

As the anti-red wave peters out, so will the Parkland effect.

At 1:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Test drive, 9:06? No.

I just read an article which had Obama pegged in 1993, long before he got to the Federal level of office.

Few people make it to Congress or the White House having no prior experience in politics. Thus most have some kind of a record which can be examined.

At 6:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, that's true by the time they get to the oval.
But I was referring to the entry-level candidates. Randy Bryce, for instance, has never run and what he says is SORT OF all we have to go by.

Sort of because he did work for his local party and did work for $hillbillary's campaign. This fact doesn't automatically put what he SAYS in serious doubt, but you still have to consider it a red flag.

Other DCCC entry-level candidates have been recruited from sordid places and THEIR histories need to be considered as a red flag with klaxon blaring.

Also, what they SAY is carefully crafted by the democraps' consultants who are forced upon each and every DxCC approved candidate.

Generally speaking, and I'm deadly serious about this, you need to disbelieve everyone who the DxCCs are supporting simply because the DxCCs give them the lies they think they must use in order to get stupid leftys to vote for them.

We leftys would be far better off to just kill the democrap party by starving them of votes. Should have done this 30 years ago.
If BEING a democrap meant you would be assumed to be a corrupt liar (which is true 95% of the time) or a feckless rube, the good candidates (Jayapal, Bernie, Warren...) would need to find a different association. If that ever happened, all the current voters who waste their loyalty on a party that has only disdain for them after election day, would eagerly move over and jump on board. And a larg number of dormant voters would join them.

But it can't happen if you still vote democrap because you think they are less evil. They aren't less evil. They are just a tiny bit different.

At 9:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, 6:25, how does one find candidates worthy of support if they haven't run before? Let's stay with Randy Bryce since you are using him as an example.

Within either major party, one gets nowhere unless one works for the local party organization.

While I share your hesitation about his having worked for HER!, was it before or after Bernie (who has endorsed Bryce) crashed and caved into supporting the Coronation? As I see it, this makes a difference.

I am not a resident of WI-01 so I can't vote for Bryce. I have no real skin in the game, and my only interest is that he beats Ryan.

As for DxCC support, I tend to find that those candidates I would support without hesitation are being actively opposed if not sabotaged by the DxCC. I don't take DxCC endorsement as a sign of a good candidate. Unless I have a very good reason to support a Dem candidate, I look to third-party choices instead. I believe that more people should, for if we don't take risks occasionally, we end up with the same crap making things worse.

As for killing off the Party, that will happen to come about directly from them losing their supporters. The Whigs disappeared practically overnight once their supporters found a new choice. It will happen with the "democrats" once enough people lose the blinders and turn on their brains. My blinders began to slip with McGovern, and Carter caused them to fall off. HER! abusive and corrupt treatment of Sanders caused many blinders to slip if not fall off. Sanders' kowtow to aid the Coronation caused many more blinders to slip.

The tiny differences between the corporatist parties I have in the past described thusly: the "democrats" will kiss you before they screw you. The GOP just jams it in dry, and laughs at you.

At 12:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:19, as I understand it, it was before, during the WI primary. Yes, it makes a difference, but only a subtle one. *I* worked for Bernie. I would never have lowered myself to work for HER.

To answer your initial question, I start by NOT looking at anyone claiming association to the party of Pelosi/scummer/Clinton/Obama. Even if they might be decent and well-meaning, they are covered with feces by association. I refuse to vote for a democrap ever again after what they did to Bernie. They're already dead to me.

And, BTW, Warren refusing to endorse Bernie in the primaries was the last time any democrap actually surprised me. She's all but dead to me also.

And the democraps stopped kissing in 2008. Now the just say what they're gonna do and tell you to like it.


Post a Comment

<< Home