NRA-PVF Endorses "A"-Rated Stupak

"As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Bart Stupak has supported the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen, and demonstrated a commitment to the Second Amendment and to preserving our country's rich hunting heritage," said Chris W. Cox, Chairman of NRA Political Victory Fund. "His pro-gun support has earned him an 'A' rating and endorsement from NRA-PVF. I urge every NRA member in Michigan’s First Congressional District to vote for Bart Stupak on November 4th."

It's nice to see fences have been mended.

Time was, they only gave him a "C+."

That's probably because he supported the Brady positions on "campaign finance reform" First Amendment abridgements, not excepting RKBA political speech, not reducing background check time, private sale controls, opposing repeal of the DC gun ban and HR 2122.

But he's done good before and he's done good since, and we really ought to judge people by where they're at now, right?

I am proud to pledge my support to Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy for President of the United States of America...

I have invited the Senator to campaign with me in northern Michigan and share his vision for change with the people of the First Congressional District.

I don't know how the group behind this, who are reportedly "spending well into the 'eight figures' -- some have estimated as much as $40 million," to defeat who they predict would be "the most anti-gun president in American history," can present such a glowing endorsement with a straight face--and expect any credibility when they do.

It's not like Republican opponent Tom Casperson suffers by comparison, but let's grant for a moment that supporting Stupak is the politically smart thing to do--the guy can be supportive of gun owners, the lobbyists can work with him, it give us another voice in the democrat party, we can't realistically expect him to jump ship on the party nominee and be effective--come up with all the valid reasons for people to choose Stupak that you will. Fine.

Make those arguments. Come up with the pragmatic reasons why it's in our interest to do the political thing.

But address the differences, too, so we can be fully informed, evaluate the good with the bad, and persuade based on information we deserve to know, so that we can weigh best perceived outcomes against principles. In other words, cut the BS and be honest--why is that too much to expect from our "gun rights leaders"? This business of treating gun-owning voters like slogan-thirsty idiots who only serve to drink the Kool-Aid and pay for the next round does not serve well to inspire confidence in the sincerity of the Fairfax spin machine.