Chris Byrne has an excellent analysis of this years race in November. The Dems are going to take a beating. This is uncontested at this point. But it’s not going to be a panacea. This is one reason I think it’s important Reid keep his seat despite the fact that I hate him on other issues. I would hate Schumer or Durbin just as much or more on those same issues, and they’d also sabotage NRA every chance they could find. It’s not that I like Reid, it’s just that he’s the best choice there is for that seat given the possible choices.
16 thoughts on “Doing the Math”
Comments are closed.
The main benefit of getting more Republicans in office is for the SCOTUS nominations.
Otherwise… meh. First round of bailouts from the republicans, increase in federal department sizes from republicans, and out of control deficit spending. It wasn’t that long ago, and I don’t think they’ve fixed their ways.
If Reid wins, one of his first acts will be to introduce draconian antigun legislation, partly because he will no longer have anything to worry about, but mainly because he is a nasty, evil creep who gets a sexual thrill out of hurting people. The only reason the NRA is considering supporting him is the same reason they supported Dole for the GOP nomination in 1996: in both cases, the candidate threatened to pass all pending gun control legislation. Sorry, but I don’t buy your notion that the 2A movement is so weak and bereft that our only option is to beg for scraps from our enemies. Even if it were, I would rather go down fighting than on my knees.
Do you have personal experience with this sexual thrill, Ken?
And Bitter lives up to the name…
If the equation ends with a Reid victory, then there is something wrong with the the math. Reid is anti-Liberty which – by definition – means he is no good for 2AM no matter what bread and circuses he may offer the gullible.
This non-issue of Durbin or Schumer being the Dem leader is a distraction from the goal; that being a conservative revival and takeover in DC.
Reid is the enemy. It is a shame there are still those on our side that refuse to acknowledge that.
Bitter lives up to the name because he pulled the sexual thrill thing straight from his ass. I don’t disagree we need a takeover in DC, but it’s not going to happen this year in the Senate, short of a miracle. You have a choice between Reid, Schumer or Durbin. Take your pick. Read Chris Byrne’s post about the Senate races — we’re not in a position to take it back this year. If we do, it will be a miracle.
I’d have to disagree with the claim that Reid has to keep his Senate seat. If he doesn’t represent Nevadans, he shouldn’t be in the Senate! It doesn’t matter who will (or won’t) be majority leader of the Senate, because such a thing is impossible to predict.
Besides, it doesn’t matter who becomes the majority leader: any Democrat will have a great challenge to try to figure out what to do with such an angry electorate!
Pelosi hasn’t seem to care too much about how angry the electorate is. Remember, like Pelosi, Durbin and Schumer are safe. They could eat babies and the people of Chicago and New York would send them back.
And yes, ultimately the people of Nevada will decide, but that will have implications for the entire country.
I lived in Nevada – Reid isn’t keeping his seat.
If the NRA comes in and backs him strongly, there will be a backlash. If they manage to save him, and he represents the 50th Democrat in the Senate (VP breaks a tie), the backlash will be fatal to the NRA. I for one would never give them another cent.
The NRA would be well advised to stay as far from that race as possible.
It may very well be, but not endorsing Reid means this could never be a bipartisan issue, and that NRA can’t be depended on to support Democrats. If this is a single party issue, we’re toast. We’d be getting fscked just like every other conservative group by this Congress.
To be honest, what all those people who are going to get pissy about NRA supporting Reid are saying is that they don’t give a crap about the Second Amendment — that it takes a back seat to other conservative issues.
That’s fine if they want to believe that, but don’t come bitching to me when the Democrats go back to being anti-gun and the next Dem Congress bans one of your guns.
The Tea Party and Angle voters support ALL the Amendments, including the Second. Harry Reid most certainly doesn’t.
Maybe so, but that can’t be NRA’s concern. They only consider the Second.
“To be honest, what all those people who are going to get pissy about NRA supporting Reid are saying is that they don’t give a crap about the Second Amendment — that it takes a back seat to other conservative issues.”
No, that’s what those who want the NRA to support Kasich are saying. I readily admit that the NRA has every reason to support a somewhat pro-gun Democrat over a somewhat anti-gun Republican.
I don’t say the NRA should oppose Reid because he’s a leftist. I say they should oppose him because he has at best a fair record on gun rights, and that’s only because he’s been wise enough not to try to reverse-surf the pro-gun tidal wave of the last half-decade. Every indication shows that he’s ready to turn against the 2A at a moment’s notice.
I’ve lived in Nevada since I was five, and a large part of the reason of my antipathy toward Reid was *because* of his carrying water for Clinton’s anti-gun pogroms. I’ve given you links before, although you may not have read them, showing articles in which Reid attacked the NRA in his 1998 campaign. Listening to Reid ads that literally insulted gun owners made me a tad–with apologies to your wife–bitter.
Do you know what else irritates me about the attitude of Reid uber alles? It’s the antihistorical aspect of it. In the new doctored version of history, there was never any S&W boycott, there was never a Bellesiles incident, there was no tabling of the AWB in 2004 (allowing it to expire), and there was no Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act passed by the GOP Congress in 2005. No, those things are airbrushed like Trotsky or Kerensky during the Stalin years. In History 2.0, gun owners were slaves until Harry the Great liberated them on January 4, 2007.
Do a thought experiment: why shouldn’t gun owners support Obama in 2012? Like Reid, he has a nasty anti-gun history; also like Reid, he has an OK record over the last few years. Why shouldn’t we only look at his record from 2009 to 2010? Let’s face it, one thing gun owners can’t afford is President Hillary Clinton. So will you jump on the Obama ’12 bandwagon?
The answer is not no, but hell no. You know and I know that Obama would be pushing gun control legislation if he could politically afford it. And at some level, you have to know that Reid would be not only supporting it, but strongarming it through the Senate.
Which is exactly what he will be doing if he is reelected.
Bitter: I admit I don’t have proof that his thrill is a sexual one. Sexual or otherwise, he is an extremely nasty person who loves making personal attacks on people. He loves particularly to call his opponents “chicken hawks,” which is rich, since he avoided Vietnam on a college deferment and voted initially for all three of the wars that happened during his tenure. He also loves to cite the exact approval rating of any politician who disagrees with him, and he practically called Clarence Thomas a dumb *%^^@$. He’s an evil, spiteful waste of a human being.
I might add also that he’s so vile that his own son, who is running for governor, won’t use their last name in his ads.
“…that can’t be NRA’s concern. They only consider the Second.”
It is of great concern to me these days as I seem to be loosing my Constitutional liberties and economic freedoms every thime I turn on the news. I will oppose anyone taking away my liberties, including the NRA.
I’m not arguing with you. I’m warning you – that attitude could greatly diminish the NRA.