The NRA spent over $13 million to defeat Democrats in 2008!!

[KansasVoter]

And this forum continues to support them!!!

(See the screen shot at the end of this post for the numbers)

I have held off posting this number for about a month but have been hinting about it with various members just to see the crap they spewed forth about how the number was only a few hundred thousand. I did it on purpose because I knew they were going to lie and just post the hard donation numbers and not the soft ones. So basically, flat out lying so the beloved NRA would not look like the anti-democrat organization that they are! It is so funny to read the comments, mostly PMs, saying I was lying when I said they spent "millions" against the Dems. That is why waiting was so worth it!

Even though the members here LOVE opensecrets.org, I knew the members would not list the "Independent Expenditures" by the NRA. Either because they were too biased to actually try to find them or because they did not understand how election spending is done.

For you confused and biased members:

In addition to direct contributions to federal candidates and the national parties, many organizations also spent money on their own to influence elections. Strict rules govern these expenditures and they must be reported to the Federal Election Commission. There are two kinds:
Independent expenditures are ads that expressly advocate the election or defeat of specific candidates and are aimed at the electorate as a whole. Under federal rules, these expenditures must be made completely independent of the candidates, with no coordination, and they can only be made by the organization's PAC.
Internal communication costs are internal political messages generally aimed only at the members of a union or organization, or company executives. These may be coordinated with the candidates and can be paid for directly from the organization's treasury.
Not included in these totals are funds spent for so-called "issue ads" that don't explicitly call for any candidates' election or defeat. That spending is not reported to the FEC.

You will see they spent over $13 million against Obama. And there are still people here, and I cannot name names, who continue to justify their spending against GREAT democrats over a single issue!! I think Al Frankin is one of the best Dems in the senate! He actually cares about the average American. He stands for everything the Dems should stand for. But, the NRA wanted him to lose over ONE SINGLE ISSUE. I would never support or defend an organization that spent millions against great Dems over a single issue. No single issue is worth defeating Dems who fight for liberal causes. But the NRA does this in every election and will do it again in 2012! And there are DU MEMBERS who will try to justify their spending on ONE SINGLE ISSUE. If the ACLU did it I would not be a ACLU member. And would slam the ACLU for every chance I got.

The NRA wanted Lindsey Graham to win! If you are a real Democrat this should make you sick. If you love the NRA then you are fine with it.

Once again, do not call yourself a true Democrat and DU member if you support and defend the NRA. None of us will believe it anyway!

I am glad I found this forum as it needed a voice of reason and logic. And I appreciate the members who have PMed me and sent me their support!



source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/indexpend.php?cmte=C00053553&cycle=2008

[PavePusher]

1. That Chicken Little suit does not wear well. n/t

[KansasVoter]

2. LOL....I bet another poster of what the first response would be and you were really close!!

No information but just a slam!! Thanks for meeting my expectations!!!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KansasVoter]

4. LOL...and I bet you would be the FIRST to justify the NRA!! LOL...I am on fire!!!

[SteveM]

42. Try some auto-induced urination -- that should help. nt

[benEzra]

5. And you know the easy way to fix that...

which is what the rest of us are trying to do...namely to wrest the gun issue away from the Third Way/DLC zealots responsible for the "Dems'll-take-yer-gunz" meme, and to return the party to its traditional support for gun-owner rights. We're getting there, despite the considerable noise from the fearmongers and DLC apologists.

I wrote the following back in 2004, but I think it's pretty apropos here as well. Apologies for the typos.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (2004)

[KansasVoter]

7. Why do we need to change anything??? We kicked ass in 2006 and 2008!

[X_Digger]

9. Short memory? Or blissful ignorance?

1994? 1996?

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

(tip of the hat to benEzra- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=203973)

Or President Clinton's 1995 State of the Union:

"The last Congress also passed the Brady bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several Members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=51634

2000? Had Gore won Tennessee and West Virginia, we'd be in a very different place.

[KansasVoter]

12. You post a lot of stuff that makes NO Sense. I am about to ignore you! I'll let you know if I do.

[X_Digger]

13. You be sure to ignore that with which you don't agree and notions..

.. of which your faith prevents you from being disabused.

[KansasVoter]

16. No, you just change the topic too much and also post weird stats that prove nothing. I will decide..

over the weekend. I cannot continue to read your posts that draw weird conclusions from incorrect data.

Sorry!

[X_Digger]

23. 'weird stats' like actual stats on CHL holders' crime rates compared to the public..

.. or the actual case law that proves police have no duty to protect you?

Yeah, those 'weird stats' prove nothing to someone who isn't open to examining their own faith-based preconceptions. I'll be happy to be on your 'ignore' list, and have you wonder what I might be saying in response to your verbal diarrhea of straw men, red herrings, and ad hominems.

[KansasVoter]

26. I don't think I would wonder at all. You really need a class on critical thinking.....

let me know where you live and I will find you one! Most CC have them.

[cleanhippie]

65. You should read your own headline every time you post anything.

While looking in a mirror.

[safeinOhio]

48. As I recall the NRA spent a ton

of $ and other capital to defeat Obama. Yet, he won by almost 10 million votes. Looks like the 2nd Amendment is not the MOST important issue in the world. Hey, I want to make the 7th Amendment the most important. I think it is as important to my freedom and pursuit of happiness as the 1st or 2nd, but WTF, no one here cares enough to even get excited about it. Please help me out by sending your donation to the Nation Trial Lawyers Ass., instead of the NRA or the ACLU.

[X_Digger]

49. That's the thing about wedge issues- they're rarely a majority,

but frequently represent a solid block of voters that can be cleaved away from a candidate or party that they otherwise would have stuck with.

I don't recall anyone saying that the second amendment was the most important.

re your side project re the 7th? Go find 3,999,999 other people willing to pony up $30/year and I'd bet you could get some action taken.

[safeinOhio]

54. One really great thing about

the Trial Lawyers, they give way more to Democrats. Kind of like guns, no one thinks about a lawyer until they need one. Then it'd be nice to not have a jury award overturned, thrown out, or the award capped. I've never needed my concealed weapon to save my life(except on the farm from a stray dog). I have needed lawyers save my ass.

I just thought that the 2nd was the only issue for a bunch on this forum. For some it is the only issue, or 90% of their post. Of those they argue the most with, I'd say they only post 10 or 20 % in the gun room. Much more rounded and interested in and discuss many issues.

[X_Digger]

56. Never assume that one's participation @ DU is indicative of RL (real life) participation.

For me, I see this issue as one where changes in opinion (compare today's gungeon to that of a year ago, or three), reflected in the changing opinion of Democratic lawmakers, will lead to more of our agenda being promoted.

If we stop helping our enemies drive wedges between groups of us, we win.

[safeinOhio]

59. best way to do that is to have

just a little empathy for those that disagree on a few minor issues.

[one-eyed fat man]

18. Your buddy Hennigan over at Brady.........

Dennis Hennigan, vice president of the Brady Center is more than a little disappointed with President Obama. He has launched another bitter complaint on the President's refusal to go tap dancing in the Gun Control Minefield.

It is now beyond doubt that the Administration is determined to say as little as possible about the plague of gun violence that inflicts death and injury on 300 Americans every day. When forced to comment on proposals to strengthen our anemic federal gun laws, the President and his representatives typically fall back on the gun lobby's canard, "We don't need new gun laws. We need to enforce the laws on the books."

What the President understands that you and Hennigan don't is that gun control gets Republicans elected. Not only do you not understand it, you are bound and determined to drive that wedge so deep that more and more people will see choosing between the progressive issues you are so fond of and the gun issue and deciding guns are more important.

What is so hilarious you are doing the exact same thing. You would drive away voters who would vote Democratic except for the party's suicide pact the with gun control.

[KansasVoter]

21. Hey Fat Man........

How can the NRA hate Obama and the Gun Control groups hate Obama? Riddle me that!

Also, the NRA lied and made up shit about Obama in 2008. You ok with that?

Had Obama done anything to take your guns away?

[one-eyed fat man]

33. Don't be dense.

The NRA hates Obama for everything he said and did before he became President, and for what he had said he was going to do if he became President, like reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, call for a Federal ban on concealed carry laws, close the 'gun show loophole,' etc, etc, etc.

Brady, et al hate Obama because he hasn't he done any of the things he once said he would do, like reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, call for a Federal ban on concealed carry laws, close the 'gun show loophole,' etc, etc, etc. He has carefully been avoiding the gun control issue altogether as apparently he feels, for the time being at least, that it is not worth losing control of Congress over the issue like it did for Bill Clinton in 1994.

So, demonstrably unlike you, it appears the President feels he has bigger fish to fry and will not sacrifice progress towards his progressive agenda to satisfy 'single-issue' extremists who demand more gun control at all costs!

If screaming for more draconian gun control results in more Republicans getting elected why would you want to do it? Since the NRA, like any single issue organization, thrives on contributions from people who are afraid of losing something why would you do everything on earth to empower them by convincing more people that Democrats are out to take their guns? If more Democrats supported gun rights, more Democrats would get elected. Somehow I was apparently under a mistaken impression that was the point of this place.

Let me know if I need to type slower, so you can get all that.

[KansasVoter]

52. If you want to insult someone....

you typing slower makes no sense. Stupid insult. Really weak!

You should have said something about using smaller words or something.

Keep working on it. You might get better.

[NewMoonTherian]

64. But you didn't address his concern.

If guns are, in fact, such a minor issue, and that issue is resulting in Democratic losses and Republican victories, wouldn't it be wiser to side with the people of the United States, and score huge political gains in the process?

If Democrats stopped pushing ideas like microstamping, handgun bans, private transfer bans, and assault weapons bans, First Freedom Magazine wouldn't be able to fill ten pages. If Democrats led the charge to repeal the NFA and GCA, the NRA would have to either have to shuck and jive to get behind the Dems, or blow whatever capital it had left on a pissweak smear campaign. The simple fact is that we giftwrap all the ammunition the NRA needs to stuff its coffers and those of Republican politicians.

[cleanhippie]

66. You really are a piece of work.....

Even when it is explained, that no matter whether you are right or not, your methods are whats pushing voters to the right, and you just dont get it. Even if EVERYTHING you say about guns and gun control is true and even if confiscating every gun in the country is the only answer, YOUR methods will still drive voters to the right, resulting in YOUR agenda being defeated.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that YOUR methods are TOXIC and that YOUR methods are what is keeping Dems from getting elected, not the NRA. In a roundabout way, you are actually HELPING republicans get elected and you are willfully ignore that fact. Sad, sad, sad.

[rrneck]

27. No, we didn't.

Given the socioeconomic climate we should have run away with it and secured Democratic control for a generation, but it was still a race. Obama won with 52% of the popular vote, hardly a landslide. If McCain hadn't hooked up with Bible Spice he might have won. It was barely a mandate following the worst economic collapse since 1929 and the worst president in the modern era of the republic.

You're just starstruck. After you've lived through a few presidential elections you'll have a better understanding of how hard it is and how long it takes to change a country without wrecking it.

[benEzra]

31. AFTER the party dropped the "assault weapon" fraud and the other ban-more-guns crap.

It was a tough fight, but we largely succeeded in taking the gun issue off the table in a lot of key races. However, the DLC "assault weapon" language is still in the platform, and the gun issue is still very much in play in some key races. And that is what you're complaining about, isn't it?

We still need to do a better job of educating candidates on the gun issue, and feigning surprise when "I promise to ban the most popular guns" goes over badly with the gun-owning community is less than convincing after nearly two decades of this crap.

[derby378]

35. Not enough ass, apparently...

...since Republicans have effectively written many of the laws signed by Obama over the past two years.

If you want to kill any hope of a Republican victory in 2010 and 2012, take away one of the clubs they use to beat us over the head with.

[pocoloco]

6. No brainier solution.......Quit fucking with people's guns!!!

When you fuck with gun rights repugs get elected.

When repugs get elected people die.

One million civilians in Iraq not counting soldiers.

Afghanistan?

How many walking dead in Iran??

Fuck the asshat repug trolls that continuely stir this shit up!!

[KansasVoter]

11. Another NRA defender! I'll add you to the list!!

[pocoloco]

24. If you could manage to get your head out of your ass.......

it might help your reading comprehension!

[rrneck]

28. The NRA has you on thier list, don't they?

:rofl:

[proteus_lives]

39. Oh, a list!

How fun!

Don't you wish you had somewhere to take this list?

You would have done well in the old Soviet Union.

:rofl:

[SteveM]

44. Sorry to tell you: people like you made the modern NRA...

And you are so selfish in your righteous indignation, you don't really care what kind of damage progressive candidates may suffer.
Of course, being so righteous may not be your problem: you could just be standard flame-bait where the names of a few posters may change, but little else.

Did you sign up to the NRA, or was it your daughter?

[SPedigrees]

19. +1 (and this does not equal support for the NRA)

My state has never had state wide restrictions on firearms, concealed or not, and we have an extremely low incidence of violent crime.

[slackmaster]

8. Who is the "this forum" you are referring to, KansasVoter?

You've given a whole lot more money to the NRA than I ever have.

[KansasVoter]

10. If $15 a whole lot of money to you? And they have spent at least $42 on me! LOL!

[slackmaster]

14. You have an amazing talent for misinterpreting what people write

Where have I ever said that $15 was "a whole lot of money" to me?

:crazy:

It IS a whole lot more than $0. Infinitely more (divide by zero error).

[KansasVoter]

25. I just did a quick poll in my company.....

And the numbers for "a whole lot of money" ranged from $1000 to $1 million dollars. So I win this one!

[slackmaster]

29. You don't win jack shit. You're just propping up your dishonesty with bullshit.

I never said that $15 was a whole lot of money to me.

Your statement was dishonest.

[shadowrider]

51. When you're flat-assed broke, with not a penny to your name, $15 IS a whole lot

perspective, perspective.

[Euromutt]

61. You asked the wrong question in your "quick poll"

You don't "win this one," because the question should not have been "how much do consider 'a whole lot' of money?" but rather, "do you think $15 is 'a whole lot more money' than $0?" It's the word "more" that's the key word here, because it makes the question one of comparisons.

As has been pointed out already, if you divide any positive number by 0, the result is infinity, so by giving any amount of money to the NRA (even a single penny), you have, mathematically speaking, given infinitely more money to the NRA than slackmaster has. It doesn't matter that $15, taken by itself, isn't commonly regarded as "a whole lot of money." To put things in perspective, I've given the NRA something in the order of $135 in total; that's not "a whole lot of money" according to the results of your poll, but it's nine times what you've given the organization. Doesn't the amount I've given seem like "a whole lot more" than the amount you've given?

[one-eyed fat man]

40. Do tell.................

"I will make sure to call and request "lost in the mail" magazine copies enough times to make sure they don't turn a profit on my $15."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=325753&mesg_id=325753

"I would never commit mail fraud. And it would be unfair to the NRA!!!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=325753&mesg_id=325801

"They also fedexed me some hard copy research for $28 so I have cost them at least $13!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=332402&mesg_id=332825

"I have already cost them more than the $15 sent them! And...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=332402&mesg_id=332805

"Hmmm...how could I cost them $12? I will work on that. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=325753&mesg_id=325815



Mail fraud? Wire fraud? Deception or thievery? Lying then? Lying now?

This is getting hard to follow.

[SteveM]

46. There you go: another NRA member flagellating himself. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

55. Did you spell that right?

Are you sure the l-a-g need to be there?

[SPedigrees]

15. Approx 50% of DU is against restrictive gun laws.

That does not equate to being supporters of the NRA. I'm a gun owner and I told the NRA to stick it when they went all RW crazy under the dubious leadership of Wayne LaPierre. I've read plenty of posts by gun owners on here that share my contempt for the NRA.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walk away]

67. I am pro restrictive gun laws and I am a DUer. I have never voted...

in a survey on this topic. What is the science used to determine that 50% of us feel the way you do? It must be the same kind that is smeared all over the "Pro Gun" web sites that prove everything from guns being safer than bath tubs to firearms curing cancer.

I'm sure if you can get all of the Gungeon members to vote in a survey you can pad any poll.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. Why would anyone be surprised that the NRA opposes Politicians with anti-RKBA records?

On some level, if you support a cause you will come across politicians whom you like but have a differing stance on that cause. Just because someone with a cause supports an organized group does not mean they endorse EVERY action of that group. You will never find powerful groups supporting 100%, and only 100%, of your beliefs.

[KansasVoter]

22. I would never support a pro-choice group that spent millions against the Dems either. Get it now???

[SPedigrees]

30. We got it from the start. You're dubbing people who share your views NRA supporters.

Wake up and get a clue. I don't support the NRA, nor does Pocoloco as far as I can tell, nor do many others. Slapping the label "NRA supporter" on everyone who speaks out against restrictive gun laws will not get your point across.

[benEzra]

32. The NRA comprises about 5% of gun-owning voters (~4M out of 80M).

There are roughly five times as many "assault weapon" owners in the United States as there are NRA members. There are between ten and fifteen times as many handgun owners in the Unites States as NRA members. If the NRA were to magically disappear tomorrow, the gun-rights landscape would not change, except that perhaps you would no longer have a scapegoat to pin the unpopularity of your views on.

The majority of U.S. gun owners---whether Dem, indie, or repub---are neither hunters nor wingshooters. People who propose bans aimed at us will be met with political opposition, and such opposition is in the long run good for the party at large (if you don't believe that, look at 2006 and 2008 vs. 1994-2004). You can scream "teh NRA is teh debbil" until you're blue in the face, but unless you are willing to actually understand the gun issue and accept that most gun owners do not own guns Just Like Yours, then you will not be adding anything to this debate.

[spin]

38. If the NRA disappeared, you would have the GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA (GOA)

If you think the NRA promotes Republicans and hates Democrats, you should check out the GOA.

The NRA is seriously considering endorsing Harry Reid. What does the GOA have to say?

Keep The Heat On Reid!
-- A Special Message To Second Amendment Supporters

July 16, 2010

Yesterday, GOA members rallied behind U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle, who's taking on anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada.

While Reid claims to support your gun rights, our alert highlighted 42 Reasons why Harry Reid MUST be defeated.

Well, that list has now grown as two additional anti-gun votes were added.

In March of this year, Sen. Reid voted against an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to prevent Veterans from losing their Second Amendment rights without due process of law.

The amendment was offered to the massive ObamaCare bill, which Reid was so intent on passing that he wouldn't allow a pro-gun amendment to get in his way.

And in November of last year, Reid voted to confirm the highly controversial Richard Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hamilton has stated that the Founding Fathers intended judges to amend the Constitution through "evolving case law."

So, you can now view the 44 Reasons why Harry Reid MUST be defeated!
http://gunowners.org/a071610.htm

I will not post any of the 44 reasons, but for those who are curious, this is the link:
http://gunowners.org/is-harry-reid-pro-gun-or-anti-gun.htm

Gun Owners of America

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a gun rights organization in the United States with over 300,000 members.<1> They make efforts to differentiate themselves from the larger National Rifle Association (NRA), and have publicly criticized the NRA on multiple occasions for what the GOA considers to be the selling out of the gun rights movement.

The organization has often been in opposition to the NRA in their respective endorsements and ratings of politicians and candidates. For instance, the GOA was outspoken in its opposition to John McCain's 2008 presidential bid, describing his gun-rights voting record as "abysmal, wretched, and pathetic"<2> and rating him with an F- on Second Amendment issues since 2004 as opposed to the NRA's (through its PAC, the NRA-PVF) C+ rating of McCain.<3> The GOA especially took issue with the NRA over the 2007 NICS Improvement Act.<4>

They have been described by Congressman Ron Paul as "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." This quote from Paul has long been displayed front and center on the homepage of the Gun Owners of America website, and Paul was the only 2008 Presidential candidate to gain an A+ rating from Gun Owners of America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_America

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. If the NRA disbanded, and *all* its members destroyed *all* their guns...

circa 95% of all current gun owners in the US would still be gun owners.

And as described, the GOA (who make the NRA look like flower children) would be ready and eager to pick up the torch.

Class, can we say "counterproductive"?

Good, I knew we could!

[KansasVoter]

34. Funny, where are all my buddies who said the NRA only spent $100,000?

[slackmaster]

36. I don't believe anyone ever said that.

Post links if you disagree.

[Glassunion]

43. Actually, I said $822,480.36

But to my defense I was answering the question "how much money was spent supporting a Repub". Not how much money was spent against the Dem for the presidential election. I mis-read the question.

But I cannot recall anyone saying $100k at all.

[slackmaster]

45. You mean KansasVoter just made stuff up and posted it as fact? What would Captain Renault say?

[Glassunion]

47. "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

[Glassunion]

37. Day Late and a Dollar Short....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=328136#332169

Glassunion (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-28-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #144 200. It's been two weeks... I'll save you the trouble...

The '08 election cycle as you mentioned with everything included like independent expenditures...
Total Spending against Democrats in '08: $13,620,549
Total Spending against Democrats in '06: $ 169,682
Total Spending against Democrats in '04: $ 1,917,140
Total Spending against Democrats in '02: $ 14,242

Administrative Postage/Shipping $845,375
Supplies, Equipment & Furniture $230,747
Miscellaneous Administrative $208,962
Salaries & Benefits $14,606
Rent/Utilities $6,274
Travel $2,742
Administrative Consultants $1,713
Campaign Expenses Campaign Direct Mail $366,008
Materials $58,808
Campaign Events $397
Polling/Surveys/Research $62
Contributions Candidates (Fed & Non-federal) $1,564,211
Parties (Fed & Non-federal) $375,400
Committees (Fed & Non-Federal) $67,550
Contrib Refunds $3,508
Fundraising Fundr Direct Mail/Telemarketing $1,269,341
Fundraising Consultants $481,480
Media Broadcast Media $239,209
Internet Media $36,324
Print Media $8,402
Miscellaneous Media $900


So, what does this mean? Does that mean that the NRA is a Republican organization? I don't think so. It is a single issue organization as you have stated. You seem to have problems with single issue organizations. I get it. So, don't donate to any of them.

The reason, I feel that so much money was spent against Democrats was for one reason only. As you said, they are a single issue organization, and the Democrats for the past decade and a half have all but abandond a civil right(that single issue). Perhaps you should ask yourself why our party has overwhelmingly abandoned that civil right.

The vast majority of that 13.6mil was spent specifically against Obama. Why is that do you think? Because he is a Democrat? Or is it because of his voting record and public opinion against a civil right? Do you think if we had put up a Democrat that supported the 2nd that the spending would have been so high against the Dems? Or do you think that it may have swung the other way?

I'm happy to see that our party is taking up the 2nd again. That we are supporting it more often.
Expeditures supporting Democrats in '02: 8.31%
Expeditures supporting Democrats in '04: .31%
Expeditures supporting Democrats in '06: .60%
Expeditures supporting Democrats in '08: 1.05%
Expeditures supporting Democrats in '10: 12.49%

Direct Contributions Percentages to Dems:
2010 30%
2008 20%
2006 15%
2004 14%
2002 8%
2000 8%
1998 14%
1996 16%
1994 20%
1992 37%
1990 36%

One thing above all else you should know. That $15 you spent on the Junior Membership to the NRA. Not one penny goes to any of the above. Nor does the $35 a year that I spend. The money comes from donations to their PAC the NRA-PVF. Yes donations can come from the parent organization, however they are limited to $5000, but if you go through their donors page, you note the absence of an NRA donation. You know who did spend some money? Hillary Clinton. I do recall a mailer from the NRA that was paid for by Hillary. http://www.gunbanobama.com/Templates/c63367a2-996a-422c-9afd-0d6f49a0ca86/Documents/NRA_obamausatoday1009.pdf

[Glassunion]

62. Nothing? Your silence is deafening. (nt)

[SteveM]

41. Brady's have some catching up to do. BTW, you are an NRA member? nt

[shadowrider]

50. Dang, you make me chuckle just like another poster

How can you live with such hatred toward a single issue organization? Does your head hurt?

[-..__...]

57. Theads like this...

make me miss the days of Mr. Benchley, CO Liberal and a few others (well before you were a member here).

They were bat-shit insane and obsessed too... but at least they were entertaining.

Now, go "cry me a river".

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. I dunno, I find the current crop of 'gun control proponents' interesting

They are not only entertaining, they force you to improve your research and forensic skills.

[slackmaster]

60. One of the former contributors you mentioned is still on my Ignore list

The other is a person of size.

[krispos42]

63. DNC is anti-gun. NRA fights against anti-gun DNC. Who's surprised?

Why on God's green earth would a single-issue organization support a party or candidate that is on the "wrong" side of the issue?

And this is why I've never joined the NRA.