-=> Quoting John Perz to Dave Appel on 14 Jul 96  12:04 <=-
 Re: PRIMARIES 
 -> If what you say is true, and what Guy says is true, then we lost
 -> this battle in the primaries.
 JP> I think this is basicly true.
 JP> As I understand it, the NRA didn't endorse any of the candidates
 JP> during the primaries.
 JP> (Apparently, they feel that if they endorse the wrong candidate, they
 JP> will have little or no influence with the winner. This position may
 JP> need to be re-thought.)
I don't think so. I think in the early days (and they were very early 
this year), the only criterion would have been status. Gramm was gone too 
quick, but there was Buchanan, Alexander, Keyes, etc. For the only issues 
that NRA uses, they all looked pretty good. By the time there was a clear 
choice there was also a clear winner.
Their position seems to be not to choose when there is no clear 
distinction.
 JP> Very few gun owners were enthusiastic about Dole, but we were split
 JP> between several candidates.  I, myself, was a Phil Gramm supporter.  I
 JP> eventually ended up voting for Steve Forbes in the NY Primary,
 JP> principally as a protest against Dole.
 JP> And yes, I'm aware that Phil Gramms positions on the 2nd aren't
 JP> "perfect".  I dislike some parts of them myself.  I simply considered
 JP> him the best "electable" candidate.  Plus, many of his other positions
 JP> appealed to the small-l libertarian in me.
 JP> Pat Buchanon certainly had the "purest" position on the 2nd.  And
 JP> there's no doubt that he says what he means and means what he says.
 JP> Which is certainly refreshing in politics.
 JP> Trouble is, in my judgement, he would have been unelectable. He simply
 JP> scares too many people. It would have been Johnson-Goldwater all over
 JP> again, with, I fear, a coat-tail effect that would have lost us
 JP> Congress, too.
My first choice was Alexander, but he was gone by "Super Tuesday" when 
Texas cast their ballots. I ended up voting for Buchanan, as Forbes had 
not staked out a position that I could identify (on guns).
 JP> At least, with the Clinton-Dole race, we have a fighting chance to
 JP> keep control of Congress even if Clinton wins . . .
 JP> If Dole does lose, I expect the RNC will take a long, hard look at the
 JP> primary process.
 JP> But that's THEIR problem.  OUR problem is:  how can we effectively
 JP> unite gun owners into an effective force that can influence the
 JP> primaries so that someone as weakly committed to our rights as Bob Dole
 JP> is CAN'T win the nomination?
 JP> It's not too early to start kicking this question around.
 JP> Any ideas?
Our choice in the local Congressional race was to create the candidate we 
wanted. We chose the most favorable of the early front-runners and 
educated him to our side. This couldn't have been done with Dole no 
matter what his views - he was too busy as senator and majority leader. 
In other words, we need to start working now. The candidates in 2000 
won't really be any less busy than they were this year. We need to find 
leaders now and get them on our side. The reverse - finding the best 
defender of the Constitution now and trying to turn him into a leader - 
in untenable. That, and we need a clear choice in January 2000 (not half 
a dozen). Buchanan should never have run in that his major positions were 
the same as Keyes. Pat was more dynamic, but he had too many negatives.
IMHO
Steve
... I *will* fight for my country.
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------