Thread: Romney Claims NRA Endorsement He Didn't Receive

Romney Claims NRA Endorsement He Didn't Receive

Mitt Romney on "Meet the Press" Sunday. (Getty/Meet the Press).


Maybe it was the pressure of the moment. Being under the Tim Russert spotlight can get to anyone. Under Russert's grilling about guns on this morning's "Meet the Press," former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney claimed an endorsement he'd never won.

In answer to questions about whether he would sign an assault weapons ban, Romney said: "Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I'd love to have their support."

Later in the interview, he added the following:

"I just talked about, about guns. I told you what my position was, and what I, what I did as governor; the fact that I received the endorsement of the NRA."

The problem?

He was never endorsed by the NRA, and didn't have their official support during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. The NRA declined to endorse in that race, as was acknowledged by Romney's spokesman this morning.


"The NRA did not endorse in the 2002 campaign," said spokesman Kevin Madden, when asked about Romney's comments. "Mitt Romney as a candidate received a respectable B grade rating from the NRA, and when he was governor he had the support of the NRA and the Gun Owners Action League in relaxing some of the state's burdensome licensing regulations."

What Madden didn't say was that Romney's Democratic opponent in the governor's race, Shannon O'Brien, was given a more than respectable "A" grade by the NRA, according to its website.

The issue of guns has repeatedly dogged Romney, who as a U.S. Senate candidate in 1996 was in favor of several gun control measures. Earlier this year, Romney was mocked for saying that he was a "small varmint" hunter.

-- Michael D. Shear

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trai ... ement.html

We've already seen this. Yawn.

Populist wrote:

We've already seen this. Yawn.

Sorry, I did a search and didn't find it. What's the "Yawn" mean? It doesn't concern you that he would lie to further his agenda. Hmmm.....IMO, this goes to the very core of his character. I would say it brings his integrity into question, however, that has already been done numerous times.

Perhaps you would be more interested in the "Romney's honesty problem" thread.

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-98102.html

Romney, Hunter, and Thompson are the only candidates that will be tough on this immigration disaster we are currently facing. The others may say so, and try to in pieces, but these 3 are the ONLY ONES that will cover all areas of what must be done.

If that doesn't matter to you, go ahead and keep saying negative things about Romney. When mccain wins, who will be crying the loudest?

I was under the impression that this is a forum where all sides of an issue can be discussed fairly. Am I missing something?

GeorgiaOnMyMind wrote:

I was under the impression that this is a forum where all sides of an issue can be discussed fairly. Am I missing something?

Isn't that what I'm doing, discussing the dark side that many folks are tending to ignore? What's not fair about that?

Personally, I would think folks would want to be as informed as possible. Hmmm........am I possibly missing something here?

Originally Posted by GeorgiaOnMyMind

Romney, Hunter, and Thompson are the only candidates that will be tough on this immigration disaster we are currently facing. The others may say so, and try to in pieces, but these 3 are the ONLY ONES that will cover all areas of what must be done.

If that doesn't matter to you, go ahead and keep saying negative things about Romney. When mccain wins, who will be crying the loudest?

I was under the impression that this is a forum where all sides of an issue can be discussed fairly. Am I missing something?

You forgot to mention Ron Paul in your list of the only ones who will cover all the areas of what must be done.

Well , you can always go for Huck

Hes a hunter ,

Ron Paul sounds like he wants to defend our borders, but I have not heard much from him about making the ones already here leave. What is his stance on the illegals already here?

We know the NRA has an "Espanol" website and that's all I'll state about that and they're more for Federal issues.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) supports State rights over Federal government and let's read what they think about Romney!

http://gunowners.org/pres08/romney.htm

Will The Real Romney Please Stand Up?
by Erich Pratt
Director of Communications

As he travels through the South -- contemplating a run for the presidency -- Mitt Romney sounds like the modern-day incarnation of John Wayne.

He tells shooters how he used to hunt rabbits as a boy. He visits with attendees at gun shows, impressing them with his knowledge of the Bill of Rights. He quotes the "right to keep and bear arms" language from memory and assures gun owners he's on their side.

But wait, isn't this the same Mitt Romney -- the former governor of Massachusetts -- who boasted that his view on firearms was "not going to make me the hero" of the gun lobby?

In fact, it is one and the same man. So what happened to the candidate who promised that he would not lift a finger to "chip away" at the gun laws in Massachusetts -- a state that has some of the most draconian gun restrictions in the union?

When Romney ran for Senate in 1994, he told the Boston Herald that he supported the Brady gun-control law and a ban on scores of semi-automatic firearms. Both laws were heavily supported by Democrats and -- according to President Bill Clinton -- were the reason that his party lost control of the Congress in 1994.

Ten years later, the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms was stripped from the law books. The banned guns became legal once again, and despite the Chicken Little cries from gun control advocates around the country, crime rates did not soar.

This should not be surprising. After the semi-auto ban expired in 2004, the Congressional Research Service admitted there was no evidence to support the notion that the ban had actually reduced crime, especially since -- and here's a great admission -- the "banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders" before the ban was implemented.

Likewise, the Brady gun control law has done nothing to curb crime, as was reported in one of the nation's leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association. The journal definitively stated in 2000 that the Brady law has failed to reduce "homicide rates and overall suicide rates" in states after they were required to impose waiting periods and background checks.

But despite the failure of these gun laws, Romney did not back off his support for gun control during his run for governor in 2002.

"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said during a gubernatorial debate with Democratic candidate Shannon O'Brien. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."

Perhaps Mr. Romney knows something that the criminologists don't know -- the criminologists who have actually studied these issues and have reported that gun control has failed to make people safer.

What we do know is that even in Massachusetts, Romney has tried to appease both sides of the aisle. As governor, Romney supported legislation to ease restrictions on gun licensing in the state, but he only did so at the expense of gun rights, as he signed a draconian ban on common, household firearms that are owned by millions of Americans across the nation.

This is kind of like the thief who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands $100, but then gives you $25 back to "soften" the blow.

Seeing that Mr. Romney likes to frequent both sides of the legislative aisle, Americans are going to want to know where he really stands on issues that are important to them. And when they go to polls next year, voters are going to be asking, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?"

Sorry folks this guy is not going to fool me into a vote!

Originally Posted by GeorgiaOnMyMind

Ron Paul sounds like he wants to defend our borders, but I have not heard much from him about making the ones already here leave. What is his stance on the illegals already here?

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/borde ... on-reform/