Vote Accordingly
By Mitch Berg
The Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance has released its candidate grades.
When reading this, remember – “F*”, with the asterisk, means “didn’t return the questionnaire”. While most Republicans (and a huge proportion of DFLers outside the metro) scored well, plenty of Republicans in tough DFL districts who would be solid on the Second Amendment very likely let the questionnaire slide; you gotta pick your battles. Don’t be put off by all the F* grades, anyway.
But most importantly, remember – the Second Amendment is a guarantee of a human and civil right. I’d vote for an anti-gun candidate no more than I would a pro-censorship one.
Either should you.
September 19th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
“Don’t be put off by all the F* grades, anyway.”
Between the ones not answering the questionnaire and the ones with the with the outright “F” grades the numbers come out to about 42% House and 35% Senate candidates. I’m not at all pleased with that. And of the whole lot you get but 2 with A+ ratings, the stalwarts Tony Cornish and Tom Hackbarth.
September 19th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Scott,
I’m not as concerned with the F* – I know a number of them are good on the issue in real life. The straight Fs? Well, we can deal with them at the polls.
And I know they don’t give out a lot of A+ grades; it’s pretty much reserved for the people who are the supreme Second Amendment leaders…
September 19th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
When the candidates received over a dozen email reminders, and had more than a month to complete the questionnaire? That’s not a “let it slide” issue. It’s a deliberate statement that they don’t value Second Amendment rights.
And you just let them off the hook: that’s a huge mistake. If they support gun rights, they will say so, publicly. If they don’t say so, it is a very good guess that they do not support those rights.
Just because a candidate has an “R” next to his name doesn’t mean he supports individual rights. We’ve done these candidate questionnaires for a long time. That F* means just what it looks like: a bad bet.
September 19th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Andrew,
You get to be an absolutist on the issue, naturally; you lead the group.
I know a number of candidates, personally, with F* ratings that I know would support the 2nd Amendment if they got into the Legislature. It’s a fact.
Would we both have preferred they answer the questionnaire and speak out in public? Absolutely. Do they have their reasons for not responding? Maybe. Are they good enough? I don’t think so either, and I’ll have a word with a few of ’em when I get a chance. Is an abstain good for GOCRA? Nope. Is it a tactical necessity in some of their districts? Arguable; it’s a rational conclusion, but on the other hand their odds are long enough as it is.
September 20th, 2012 at 8:26 am
Before a pro-gunner can affect legislation, s/he has to get elected and in some districts, admitting you’re pro-gun will give anti’s an opening to scream about cop killer bullets. I’m a Life Member but if I were running in St. Paul, I wouldn’t advertise the fact and that’s not shame, it’s a respectable tactical decision. More important is what does the person’s life say about their attitude? Own a pistol? Ever been hunting? Donated money for or against? Judge that, not the election campaign strategy.
September 20th, 2012 at 9:44 am
Yeah, disregard my comment and run with Nate’s.
While I”ve not been party to any discussions in any of the “F*” campaigns in Saint Paul, I’d suspect the decision was more tactical that ideological. In some districts – SD33? – one could probably win while carrying openly. In others – SD65 and 66 – it’s just another negative.
And that’s unfortunate – I’m on your side, remember! – but true.