Oct 2004

North Carolina Rifle & Pistol Association

Established 1938. Affiliated with NRA and CMP

NRA Candidate Ratings: The Real Story

How they are determined, and what they really mean

Soon it will be time once again for each of us to head to the polls and cast our votes. Although most people have focused on the Presidential election, there are many other elections that arguably have more bearing on our freedoms than whether Bush or Kerry wins. In North Carolina we will be electing a US Senator to replace Senator Edwards, electing all the seats in the North Carolina Legislature, and determining who will sit in the Governor’s, Lieutenant Governor’s and Attorney General’s seats. We should also not forget judicial races, and the many local elections.

Most of us consider the Candidate Ratings furnished by NRA-ILA to be important tools in helping us decide which candidates to choose, but sometimes the reason behind the picks made by NRA-ILA are unclear, or perhaps seem at odds with stories we’ve heard about the candidates or things the candidates have said or done in the past. Some people have even gone as far as attempting to use NRA’s ratings as a weapon against gun owners, by falsely claiming that NRA supports anti-gun candidates. With this President’s Column I hope to clear up some misconceptions and help you understand why NRA chooses specific candidates, even when that choice may be controversial.

The very first thing I’ll point out is something that should be quite obvious, but for some reason it’s a source of confusion for many gun owners in NC:

1. NRA’s endorsements are non-partisan, and issue-specific

This means that NRA does not favor Democrats over Republicans or Republicans over Democrats. NRA’s endorsements are based on the candidate’s attitude toward guns and gun owners. This also means that other political issues, such as a candidate’s stance on abortion, or taxes, or gay marriage, are not considered, since these issues have nothing to do with guns and gun rights. NRA is a single-issue group when it comes to politics. So, if you are upset that NRA endorsed a candidate who does not agree with your views on stem cell research, it is you who are wrong for being upset. It is not NRA who is wrong for failing to check the candidate’s views on a non-firearms-related issue. In a case like this you must decide which issue is more important to you, and vote your conscience.

2. Just because a candidate is an NRA member doesn’t mean they’ll automatically get an endorsement

I occasionally get complaints from candidates or their supporters that Candidate A is an NRA member and Candidate B is not, yet NRA member Candidate A didn’t get an endorsement. First of all, from a political standpoint being an NRA member doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The bulk of our strong supporters in the NC Legislature are not NRA members. A few are, but most are not. On the other hand we’ve had some virulently anti-gun politicians who are or were NRA Members. During her tenure as a State Senator, F-rated Karen Gottovi was one of the most active anti-gun legislators in the Senate. She proudly told everyone that she was an NRA member, while voting against pro-gun legislation and sponsoring anti-gun legislation. By the way, filmmaker Michael Moore is an NRA Life Member.

Secondly, even if a candidate is a pro-gun NRA member, it may not mean anything from an endorsement standpoint (see below regarding the “Friendly Incumbent Rule”).

3. The Friendly Incumbent Rule

This is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the endorsements game, even by candidates themselves. I don’t know why – to me it seems breathtakingly simple, but for some people it’s very difficult to understand. In a nutshell, it works like this:

If you are the incumbent in a particular seat and you have supported us in the past, we will reward you by giving you an endorsement.

It makes perfect sense. If Senator Smith does what we ask of him while serving his term, when he runs for reelection we will give him the endorsement. Always help your friends, and always make sure your friends want to stay friends with you. This is a rule that NRA sticks to like glue, and being willing to stick to it has earned NRA great respect by most, hatred by some. Why hatred? Well, here’s a hypothetical situation to illustrate:

Senator Smith has voted with us on every bill, and is running for reelection. He had an “A” rating the last time, and will continue with an “A” rating this time. So, by the Friendly Incumbent Rule he gets the endorsement for the Senate Seat. This time his challenger is Representative Jones. Rep. Jones has been an “A+” rated politician, sponsored NRA bills in the House, and received an NRA endorsement for his last campaign, but he’s tired of the House, and wants to become a Senator. Rep. Jones has always been a staunch supporter of NRA, so he thinks he should get the endorsement for his campaign, and he becomes very upset when he finds out that Senator Smith is getting the endorsement. He gets angry and accuses the NRA of selling him out. Perhaps he gets some angry gun owners to issue an “alert” condemning the NRA for supporting Senator Smith when Rep. Jones is, in Rep. Jones’ mind, the better choice.

Perhaps you are now seeing the crux of the issue. Senator Smith earned the endorsement for doing the job. Rep. Jones is a strong supporter, but he’s a challenger to a pro-gun incumbent – he’s a newcomer to the Senate seat. If we were to decide to give the endorsement to Rep. Jones instead, and Senator Smith won the election, he would perhaps become an enemy, or at the very least less friendly, for NRA turning on him and supporting someone else for “his” seat. It would basically be stabbing Senator Smith in the back. By the same token, if we did turn on Senator Smith and gave the endorsement to Rep. Jones because he’d been our friend in the House, and Rep. Jones won, how could Rep. Jones be sure we’d support him the next time around? We might go off and support someone else! The moral: stick with your friends, reward incumbents. If a pro-gun challenger wins, he will know that the next time, when he is the incumbent, he will get the endorsement if he’s supported us.

The truly amazing thing to me is that there are some fringe groups that don’t have a Friendly Incumbent rule. They’ll stab anyone in the back and twist in the political winds. Their “ratings” cannot be trusted, and indeed may have caused pro-gun supporters to lose their seats in a couple of past races.

4. Rate them on what they do, not on what they say

I participated in the ILA ratings discussion for North Carolina’s 2004 elections, and without giving anything away, I can tell you this already: there are going to be some endorsements that will stick in some craws. Why? Because some politicians who are supported by the anti-gun people are going to be supported by us. Why, you ask? Because we rate them on what they do, not on what they say. Here’s an example – a handful of well-known state legislators attended a fund-raiser held by North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (NCAGV), the group formerly known as North Carolinians for Gun Control. One of those well-known state legislators received a “Citizen of the Year” award from NCAGV. Most of these legislators will receive “A” ratings from NRA.

For gosh sakes, why? Simple. They voted with us. Yes, that’s right – when the opportunity to vote, on record, for or against guns and gun owners came up, most of these legislators, who had attended an anti-gun rally, voted WITH THE NRA, and AGAINST NCAGV. So I ask you: which is more important? Mouthing support, or voting? Yeah, that’s what I thought too! As long as these politicians continue to vote with us, who cares what rallies or fund-raisers they go to?

Again, I am amazed by some fringe loonies who base their support on what comes out of a politician’s mouth, rather than the votes cast by that politician. To some people image is more important than substance, I guess. If we went purely by what politicians say, we’d be giving “A”s to people who don’t deserve them (like NRA member Karen Gottovi) and “F”s to people who don’t deserve them. The ratings would then become meaningless.

So, if you hear someone say, “I can’t believe NRA gave an ‘A’ to a guy who had his picture taken with Lisa Price!” you’ll know the real story. By the way, the ones who attended the fund-raiser and then voted against us get “F” ratings.

5. Always give your enemy the chance to be your friend

Last but not least – something everyone should strive for. It’s just as important in politics as it is in personal relations or warfare. Never shut someone out completely or permanently condemn someone. If a person has an open mind we can often educate them and bring them around to our point of view. Congresswoman Sue Myrick is a staunch NRA supporter, but she wasn’t always. She was, at one time, anti-gun. The same with Senator Dole. She was, at one time, anti-gun. The naysayers predicted that despite her indication that she had learned she was wrong she would always be an anti-gun person at heart. Her voting record as a US Senator has so far proven the naysayers wrong. We must always give our enemies the chance to become our friends, by talking to them, helping them understand our point of view, and being willing to forgive past trespasses and grievances.

Governor Easley was not a friend of NRA when he was Attorney General. When he ran for governor in 2000 he received a tepid rating from NRA (as did his Republican challenger). NRA continued to keep talks open with him, though, and after he became governor he worked hard to earn NRA’s support. He has done everything NRA asked him to do as governor. He has stayed out of the “gun battles” in the legislature. He has signed every single pro-gun and pro-NRA bill placed before him. In short, he has done everything he needed to do to gain our support. The same goes for Attorney General Roy Cooper.

Governor Easley faces a challenge from State Senator Patrick Ballantine, who has a long track-record of pro-gun support. Remember though, that Ballantine, while having a pro-gun track record, is a challenger, not the incumbent. I’m not going to tell you now, at this early date prior to the election, who will get NRA’s endorsement, but if you use the 5 rules I’ve laid out you can easily figure it out for yourself!

In my opinion this is the way every race should be – both candidates with a strong and verifiable pro-gun track record. This gives gun owners what they really need – the ability to feel secure that either candidate will protect their rights. This way you can vote your conscience on other issues, knowing that the candidate of your choice will not sabotage your right to keep and bear arms.

Stay safe and have fun!