Drop the nra.

[briarpatch]

The NRA is Helping Preserve the Anti Gun Democrat Majority


Posted by dhorowitz3 (Profile)

Tuesday, October 5th at 8:07AM EDT
163 Comments

Believe it or not, the only ones who might help Nancy Pelosi save her House majority are those who run legislative affairs at the NRA.  So called Blue Dog Democrats across the nation are campaigning as red meat conservatives in their home districts, while running deceptive ads about their Republican opponents.  They campaign as if they have nothing to do with the Democrat Party that they propelled to power and which passed all of the nefarious legislation that they purport to oppose.  The sick irony is that the more successful these liars are in distancing themselves from Pelosi, the more likely it will be that Pelosi will remain Speaker.  Here is my previous report on the need to expose the blue dogs.  Also, check out the Club for Growth’s excellent report on the lie of the conservative Democrat.

Fortunately, as long as the conservative rhetoric is coming from the Democrat candidates themselves, the voters aren’t buying it.  However, when the NRA parachutes in and endorses that Democrat for reelection over their 2nd amendment champion Republican opponents, people might give credence to their claims of being born again conservatives.  The sad thing is that the NRA is endorsing Democrats in the very districts that we must win in order to obtain 39 seats.  Here is a list of some of the Democrats who the NRA is endorsing that could cost us the majority:


AL-2: Bobby Bright
AR-4: Mike Ross
Ca-18: Dennis Cardoza
CO-3: John Salazar
CO-4: Betsy Markey
FL-2: Allen Boyd
Ga-2: Sanford Bishop
Ga-8: Jim Marshall
Ga-12: John Barrow
IA-3: Leonard Boswell
IL-11: Debbie Halvorson
IL-12: Jerry Costello
IN-Senate-Brad Ellsworth
IN-2: Joe Donnely
IN-8: Trent Van Haaften
IN-9: Baron Hill
KY-6: Ben Chandler
MD-1: Frank Kratovil
MI-1: Gary McDowell
MN-1: Tim Walz
MS-1: Travis Childers
MS-4: Gene Taylor
MO-4: Ike Skelton
NC-7: Mike McIntyre
NC-8: Larry Kissell
NC-11: Heath Shuler
ND-At Large: Earl Pomeroy
NM-1: Martin Heinrich
NM-2: Harry Teague
NM-3: Ben Lujan
NY-20: Scott Murphy
NY-23: Bill Owens
NY-24: Mike Acruri
OH-Gov. Ted Strickland
OH-6: Charlie Wilson
OH-16: John Boccieri
OH-18: Zack Space
OK-2: Dan Boren
OR-5: Kurt Schrader
PA-4: Jason Altmire
PA-10: Chris Carney
PA-11: Paul Kanjorski
PA-12: Mark Critz
PA-17: Tim Holden
SD-At Large: Stephanie Sandlin
TN-4: Lincoln Davis
TN-8: Roy Herron
TX-17: Chet Edwards
UT-2: Jim Matheson
VA-2: Glenn Nye
VA-5: Tom Perriello
VA-9: Rick Boucher
WI-3: Ron Kind
WI-8: Steve Kagen
WV-Senate: Joe Manchin
WV-3: Nick Rahall

There are a total of 53 Democrats in competitive/semi competitive districts that the NRA has endorsed.  There is simply no pathway to the majority without winning most of these seats.  Let me pose the following question.  What would be a more effective advertisement in these districts, an endorsement from the Sierra Club or from the NRA?  I think that it is quite clear that the NRA is one of the most effective organizations that are helping to preserve the Democrats majority.

It is important to note that the NRA is also staying out of some of the most vital Senate races like the Nevada Senate race because they are too scared of angering the Democrats.  In addition, they have endorsed Joe Manchin in West Virginia and Brad Ellsworth in Indiana.

The damning question for the hacks at the NRA is this.  If your endorsements really achieve their desired results and save those red district Democrats from defeat, then how can the GOP take back the House?  Do you really think that a Pelosi led congress would be more pro second amendment than the Republican led congress?

The NRA political hacks keep repeating ad nauseum that they endorse pro second amendment candidates, not conservative ones.  But here is the problem.  They are endorsing those who belong to a party that is anti gun at its core, and who are only pandering to the gun lobby to get elected in their right leaning districts.  Worse yet, they are endorsing these frauds over staunch pro gun legislators like Andy Harris (MD-1) and Kristi Noem (SD-At Large).  They make it seem as if they are endorsing pro gun Democrats over anti gun Republicans!

Do they not see through the election year pandering of the blue dogs?  Are they unaware of their Republican challengers, many of them having stellar pro gun records in state legislatures?  Can they really say with a straight face that dingy Harry is just as pro gun as Sharon Angle?  Do they understand that even if the blue dog is sincerely pro gun, it is totally worthless because he will be preserving the anti gun majority who control the leadership positions, chairmanships, and Rules Committee?  Surely, these veteran politicos are aware of the political dynamic of the 2010 elections and the legislative process.  They simply care about their own self preservation and political clout on the Hill, even at the expense of the second amendment.

The NRA knows that electing a Republican majority would be the best way to preserve the second amendment and protect gun rights.  But the end game for the NRA is not the protection of gun rights; it is the preservation of the NRA.  They have wagered that by playing ball with the Democrats, the NRA will project a more bi-partisan image and thus obtain some clout with the real power brokers.  They will be able to obtain such favors as exceptions from the unconstitutional Disclose Act.

I understand exactly what these political hacks are thinking.  It is kind of the same approach that AIPAC has taken when advocating for specific foreign policy positions.  They fear that if they support the Republican’s authentic pro-Israel stances (like moving the embassy to Jerusalem or cutting off all aid to the PLO terrorists), the Democrats cannot and will not support it.  The end result would be that AIPAC would lose clout with the Democrats and be marginalized in terms of their record of success and effectiveness.  They will therefore oppose measures that help Israel (and by extension, America) in order to promote and preserve their own influence on Capitol Hill.  The NRA is no different.

This is exactly what is motivating the NRA to endorse incumbent Democrats who sport a marginally pro gun record.  They get to brag about a bi-partisan influence, while incentivizing Democrats to cut them deals.  What they don’t realize is that these Democrats are part of a radical left majority that despises gun rights.  The Democrat leadership will give these blue dogs a hall pass to vote against them on gun issues, but there is a major catch.  Leadership will fail to bring up any meaningful gun legislation during their tenure as majority party in congress. Think about it, how many substantive roll call votes have been taken on gun issues during the 111th congress?  Three?  Four?  So now, these blue dogs get to promote their “three gun votes to know where” and the NRA will support them over a Republican who has fought for gun rights in a substantive and proactive way during their entire career.

Even though the NRA gets most of their support from conservative Republicans and its success has invariably been linked to the conservative movement, they are now divorcing themselves from us.  Well, we should reciprocate the favor and pledge not one dime for these frauds.  Gun Owners of America is the real pro second amendment organization in this country!  They will protect the second amendment along with every amendment by electing a conservative majority.
Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

[saddlebum]

Hey, you beat me to it by 16 mins.. Good job briarpatch! Your post is more detailed than my news link!

[Bigeasy]

The NRA's support of a candidate is based on their voting record on 2nd Amendment issues, not their stance on abortion, religion, welfare, or any other topic you may consider important.  To imply the NRA is some how anti-gun is just plain ridicules.  If not for the NRA, chances are good legal gun ownership in this country would be a memory.  Nuff said.

Larry

[saddlebum]

That doesn't explain why they endorse the encumbent Democrat when both his and the Republicans' record is the same. I'm not sticking up for Republicans, but they are more likely to not change their mind down the road. And they won't face constant pressure from their party to change their vote for anti-gun laws.........Yes the NRA has done good in the past but it seems they need their feet held to the fire these days. Like with Dirty Harry Reid. Doesn't make sense when voting records are equal on the 2nd amendment to endorse the anti-gun party candidate over the pro-gun party candidate. Unless they just like the idea of Socialism or something. I mean, what else factors into it?

[ironglow]

  I have always supported and paid my dues with the NRA because it is about all we have with organization enough to effectively fight the politicians.
  Yes, I realize they are "single issue", and otherwise not necessarily conservative; I don't expect them to be otherwise. However, Saddlebum and Briarpatch do have a point, one which gives me pause for concern. When faced with two candidates who have both defended the 2nd amendment, why should they back the one from a party that has historically, tried to take our guns ? It would seem, using deductive reasoning..that way back when each chose one party or the other, their choice would have included Constitutional issues.
  After all, when 'party pressure' over the gun rights issue starts to be applied, perhaps 3-4 years down the road..we already KNOW what way each party leans and which politician will be pressured which way...why take that chance ?

   Exhibit A..Christine Gillibrand (D, NY)  While representing just her home district..a hunter's district..she was very pro second amendment.
  When she goty a chance to run for the senate representing all NY state..she immediately switched to become an "anti".
     
     Many politicians will swap "convictions" as quickly as a baby pig will switch to a more plentiful teat ! Depends upon how their 'party' pressures them...

[dickttx]

Briarpatch,
Very well put.  If you were around back then, you will remember that the NRA sold out to the politicians back in the late 60's/early 70's also.  Some very irritated members went to the annual convention and took it back.
Been a member of the AICPA for 45 years and I can't think of a single thing they have done for me.
Did audits of Chambers of Commerce several times over the years.  They exist to get members to pay dues, to send the executive director to conferences to learn to get more members to pay more dues.
All organizations eventually are there only to perpetuate the organization.

[Pat/Rick]

Figured out I was better off without 'em a few years ago, their politics are out of the park IMO. Now, I have more money for ammo. AND don't need to keep sending chinese made crap back to them.

[teddy12b]

When I heard about the NRA & Harry Reid I decided that I'd sent them the last of my money until they shape up.  The only way they'll understand what I think about them is for me to not send them anymore money and the way this economy is that's not a hard decision anymore.

This isn't any different than when my wife and I were looking for a different vehicle and the owners of the big 3 showed up to DC asking for money in private jets.  The only way I could send them a message was to not buy one of their products.

[gypsyman]

Not sure about the other Dem's, but the Gov. here in Ohio,Strickland, is very much pro 2nd. Amd. He finally got out CCW laws straightened out. Really does hunt and fish. gypsyman

[Junior1942]

Face facts, guys--there's a lot of pro-gun, pro-hunting Democrats, including this one.  To politicize the NRA along Republican or Democrat lines is to call for the downfall of the NRA.  One year after the NRA falls, you'll have to check your guns out of your local police station in order to go hunting.

[Pat/Rick]

Face facts, guys--there's a lot of pro-gun, pro-hunting Democrats, including this one.  To politicize the NRA along Republican or Democrat lines is to call for the downfall of the NRA.  One year after the NRA falls, you'll have to check your guns out of your local police station in order to go hunting.

The nra has nothing to do with FREE men who exercise LIBERTY!
You can stand as a PATRIOT. Or you can flock like a herd animal.
If my blood waters the LIBERTY TREE than so be it.

[nw_hunter]

Briarpatch,
Very well put.  If you were around back then, you will remember that the NRA sold out to the politicians back in the late 60's/early 70's also.  Some very irritated members went to the annual convention and took it back.
Been a member of the AICPA for 45 years and I can't think of a single thing they have done for me.
Did audits of Chambers of Commerce several times over the years.  They exist to get members to pay dues, to send the executive director to conferences to learn to get more members to pay more dues.
All organizations eventually are there only to perpetuate the organization.

AMEN!

[torpedoman]

they have endorsed dino rossi here in washington and he has refused to make any comment on the 2nd.

[nw_hunter]

The NRA's support of a candidate is based on their voting record on 2nd Amendment issues, not their stance on abortion, religion, welfare, or any other topic you may consider important.  To imply the NRA is some how anti-gun is just plain ridicules.  If not for the NRA, chances are good legal gun ownership in this country would be a memory.  Nuff said.

Larry

Simply not true! Actually for some time now, we would have been better off without the NRA.The harm they have done gun owners, far outweigh any good they have done.
Check out this URL, and read the thread in depth, on the real NRA.
The Moderator has done a lot of research, and time well spent, I might add.

These are cold hard facts!They can all be substantiated.It's Ridiculous to argue with the truth! Truly NUFF said!


 http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=451774

[powderman]

Face facts, guys--there's a lot of pro-gun, pro-hunting Democrats, including this one.



Why would you support the one party that has done everything possible, pulled every dirty trick to disarm the law abiding in America??? Makes no sense at all. You support a party that is rabidly anti gun, pro gay, and pro death. then you say you are a gun owner and hunter? Yeah right. Go figger. POWDERMAN. 

[Pat/Rick]

they have endorsed dino rossi here in washington and he has refused to make any comment on the 2nd.

We got gregoire(D) instead. Don't know if thats any difference, but we had a revenue surplus before her first term was court appointed after a questionable election .Now we are in the red and our debt is growing. She still wants more. Now we vote on a state income tax this november.Our states health dept.s has been laying off people for a year now with more to come. Some county health dept.s no longer give immunizations. She is a demon(crat) and taking us to ruin on a state level. We have murray and cantwell taking us to ruin on a fed level.   Ah yes, life on the left coast.

[Graybeard]

Been telling ya for years the NRA is NOT a friend of gun owners. Their position on the First Amendment was put to the test earlier this year and they failed that test as well and yet they crow about how they support both the First and Second. Truth is they support who ever provides them the funds and folks rat now that ain't gun owners. They are the wolf in sheep's clothing.

[mrussel]

The NRA's support of a candidate is based on their voting record on 2nd Amendment issues, not their stance on abortion, religion, welfare, or any other topic you may consider important.  To imply the NRA is some how anti-gun is just plain ridicules.  If not for the NRA, chances are good legal gun ownership in this country would be a memory.  Nuff said.

Larry

 They are just angry that it turns out the NRA doesn't actually give a flying rats behind about their hardcore conservative agenda. The NRA cares about one thing. Gun rights. In fact its very good they dont. If you vote for gun rights,the NRA will support you. They dont care what your views on health care reform are and they should not. In fact,its a very good thing. If as the OP proposes,the NRA should only support republicans,then we WILL lose our rights and the NRA would be throwing away all their clout. There simply is not a clear majority of conservatives in this country any more than there is a clear majority of republicans. It swings back and forth. If the NRA refused to support ANY democrats,then no democrats would SEEK their support. Why anger your party by opposing gun legislation. For that matter,the NRA endorsement would be meaningless to republicans too,if there was no threat that it might be given to your opponent. Their support is important to political candidates on both sides so there is an incentive to support their agenda.

 BTW,even though I dont agree with him,Im pretty sure hes not Hitler. Even though we are on opposite sides of the divide,except when it comes to guns, I would like to offer a more clever derogatory term for Democrats. Might I suggest Democ-Rat.

[MGMorden]

I was a member for a few years once upon a time.  I've little use for them currently.  They are just too "doom and gloom" and employ scare tactics to dry and dredge out as much money as possible.

Last call I got from them,  did they explain their cause, the agendas, etc. and ask for a donation to support their cause?  Nah, that would be too level headed.  Instead I got a call proclaiming that the United Nations was coming into my house soon to take my guns away (delivered in such a dramatic tone that would make most stage actors think they'd gone to far).  Of course if I grab my checkbook and send them some money RIGHT NOW we can avert this disaster. 

After I got done talking with them they haven't called back.

The sad part is that if they had called and presented a legitimate and level headed position I'd have donated in a heartbeat.  The sensationalism killed it for me.

If you have to join clubs to feel like you're doing something, GOA is probably a better organization to join.  Truth be told though, you'll probably get better results by keeping a vigilant eye on the forums (all gun forums - almost all of them have a "legal" section for alerts and such) and writing your legislator whenever potentially dangerous legislation is proposed.  Sure it's a little more involved and more work than just sending a check to some lobby organization every year, but you'll probably do a lot more good.

[myronman3]

i will not be so eloquent as some of you.....i will just say it like it is....screw the nra.    they've been screwing us for many years.   i am amazed at how many of you still think otherwise.   

[P.A. Myers]

Dear FREEDOM lovers,
 I have listened to this one-issue crap for fourty years. In my youth I chaired a couple of civic organizations and became familiar with fun raising. A prime example of this is the NRA. The best way to loosen a man's purse strings is fear. One only need to look at the endless dire appeals for money and you realize that these are fear merchants of the first degree. The race issue was resolved in 1965, however the NAACP has continued to spew hatred in their efforts to preserve themselves. Recent historical SCotUS rulings have the potential to resolve Second Amendment issues for all time and the NRA sits on its hands. Gee, why would they do that? It is possible that in some dark forbiding vault, is a cure for cancer. Armed guards provided by the ACS? These organizations have become bloated and unresponsive. Our lord was asked, how shall we know the kinites [bad guys]? "You will know them by their fruit".

I am still a NRA life member by virtue of remaing alive and I still feel it is worthwhile if only by adding one number to the total of concerned gun owners. I pray that Heston returns to cleanse the temple.

Thanks for the vent,  P.A.

[Hooker]

Good post P.A.

Pat

[mrussel]

Face facts, guys--there's a lot of pro-gun, pro-hunting Democrats, including this one.  To politicize the NRA along Republican or Democrat lines is to call for the downfall of the NRA.  One year after the NRA falls, you'll have to check your guns out of your local police station in order to go hunting.

 

 Exactly.
  If you try to link 2nd amendment rights to all the other conservative issues,your going to end up with a weaker organization.In fact,I do pay attention to the NRAs opinion. I dont vote based solely on that,but I take it into account. (The fact is,I'm not naive enough to think that its reasonable to be a single issue voter,and no candidate is going to have 100% ideal positions on all the issues I care about) I can tell you this much,if the NRA simply became a GOP mouth piece I would stop listening to them,and I certainly would not give them any money. There are many people out there that feel just as I do.

[myronman3]

i miss the days when i was that naive. 
    republicant?  democrat?   i care not.     the point is the nra has screwed you as a gun owner over after time and they have a certain percentage of the population brainwashed.   they have no interest in winning the fight, instead they choose to perpetuate it.   it is all about the cash, and nothing else.   the nra would sell out your rights in a heartbeat if they got enough money for them.   believe that.   
   yeah, i know there are the chest thumpers out there, gonna preach about the nra and how i would be gunless if it wasnt for them protecting me.   bullspit.    the nra does NOT speak for me. 

[teddy12b]

At one point, yeah I'm sure the NRA started out with good intentions and meant to do the right thing.  It doesn't take a genious to see that the organization has changed.  Sure there's a lot of demacrats out there that fish & hunt, but when the lead Dem tells them to do something they will, same as the republicans did when W told them to spend more money.

[mrussel]

At one point, yeah I'm sure the NRA started out with good intentions and meant to do the right thing.  It doesn't take a genious to see that the organization has changed.  Sure there's a lot of demacrats out there that fish & hunt, but when the lead Dem tells them to do something they will, same as the republicans did when W told them to spend more money.

 So how does that make it any different. What your saying is,if the GOP decided to drop 2nd amendment rights from their platform to get more moderate voters,then your saying the republican senators would just do as they are told and vote away our rights. You may well be right,but I still think the NRA should support ANY politician with a proven record of supporting the 2nd amendment. I dont care if they are a professed communist,if they are a gun loving commie, they should be OK in the eyes of the NRA. The fact is,the NRA is a powerful group. Hard core left wingers despise them for that. They talk about how politicians that are not left enough for their tastes (democrats of course,becuase they *know* that EVERY republican is beholden to the evil "gun lobby") are "In the pockets of the NRA". They have an excellent point. Democrats from places where guns are popular do in fact pay attention to the NRA. They know that the NRAs support is important for them when election time comes around. The suggestion that the NRA should not support any democrats is about as self defeating as you can get.

  Politicians who dont follow the party line when it comes to votes on 2nd amendment related issues burn a lot of bridges. They do it becuase they beleive it is necessary to get their constituents to vote for them.

 Think about it this way. Suppose your a Utah Democrat in the house. The Pelosi Assault Weapons Control Act is up for a vote and your up for re-election. You know many of your constituents,even though your in a liberal district (and there are some,my representative here is Dem actually) own a lot of guns and they want you to vote against it. Even though they may be liberals (at least by Utah standards) they will not vote for you if you try to take away their guns. On the other hand, if you dont vote for it, the Democratic party is going to start telling those high dollar donors (and those who "aggregate" all the small donors and bring you lots of money) to send their money to other candidates. You have always supported 2nd amendment rights,becuase that's what people in Utah want and while you might not really care THAT much you really like your job,and hope to run for senate some day and maybe even run for president. The NRA has always rewarded that support of the 2nd amendment with their endorsement. Now the NRA tells you,sorry,remember that guy that's running against you running adds all season long telling the voters how you drink constantly,beat your 5 wifes are going to vote for the Pelosi bill. We are endorsing him. He does not have a better record than you,because in fact,he has no record at all,but hes a Republican and now we have decided we always endorse Republicans.
  What are you going to do now? Now you have nothing,no funding,no NRA endorsement and no reason at all not to do the politically saavy thing and vote for that bill and get your parties full support. Its better at least have a bucket of money to run a huge blitz of adds telling some finely crafted lies about how your opponent had a thing for 12 year old prostitutes during his much talked about tour of duty in Vietnam and came back with an opium habit.

 The NRA SHOULD only be about a candidates gun rights record. If you consistantly uphold 2nd amendment rights,you should get their stamp of approval.

[jimster]

This is getting more complicated then it needs to be.

Both democrats and republicans have lied in the past who said they were for second amendments rights, and then voted for gun control laws.  NRA went along with some of it too.

Dump them all, the dems, the reps, and the nra. You can't trust any of them.

[mrussel]

This is getting more complicated then it needs to be.

Both democrats and republicans have lied in the past who said they were for second amendments rights, and then voted for gun control laws.  NRA went along with some of it too.

Dump them all, the dems, the reps, and the nra. You can't trust any of them.

 Dumping the dems and the republicans isnt going to happen any time soon,so thats not a practical suggestion. Dumping the NRA in mass isnt likely to happen either,but its much more realistic than suddenly getting rid of the two dominant political parties. The question then becomes,then what.

[myronman3]

yes, it is a practical solution.   vote any incumbant out.   ANY.   get it?   everyone gets the axe, new reps all the way around.   

[mrussel]

yes, it is a practical solution.   vote any incumbant out.   ANY.   get it?   everyone gets the axe, new reps all the way around.  

 I disagree. Its a completely impractical solution. The fact is,its not going to happen. Even if the current parties ARE removed from power,it will happen over a time frame of years and the new parties will be filled with many of the same politicans. Suppose the tea party movement really takes hold. First,that would mean the democrats would run the country for probably 5-10 years at least while the conservative votes were split among the conservative candidates from two nationally relevant parties. Eventually one would probably edge out the other as conservatives realized that the GOP was going the way of the Whigs and the Federalists. All those republicans would reinvent themselves as members of the new party. In fact,they would probably claim to have ALLWAYS supported the agenda of the new party. ("I was always for x y and z,even when my fellow republicans were selling out to "whatever the current boogy man is") In other words,the name of the party would change and the people would be more or less the same while their supporters would go around bragging about how they "threw out the incumbents".

 Theres a real problem to really throwing out all the incumbents as well. Who do you replace them with and why do you think THEY will be any better. In fact,I suspect overall you would be very dissapointed with the replacements. After all,they could tell you anything you wanted to hear to get elected but what reason do you have to beleive them. Some will tell the truth and try to do as they promise. Some will just tell you whatever you want to hear to get elected. Some will decide once they are elected that the promises they made were naive becuase they didn't understand how it was going to work once they were in office and they will compromise to get their most important issues taken care of in some way they feel is at least acceptable. Just like now,the ones who try and fail to get all their campaign promises done will be called liars becuase they "didn't do what they said they would",the ones who decide to compromise will be called liars becuase they "sold out" and "didn't do most of what they said they would do". Some of the liars will be called on it,but many of the more skilled liars will have only made promises they could weasle out of,or they will simply DENY the allegations that they lied,or they will just IGNORE the allegations and make up more lies to distract you. In other words,it will be the same old problems with a bunch of new faces.

 Dont tell me its a practical solution. Its just not. There is no realistic way to do it. You can say "all we have to do is all go vote them all out" but thats like saying "we can solve world hunger and have world peace. All we have to do is just all decide to do it" but the problem is,you cant get everyone to agree on how to do it or what the best way to go about it is,or even if its a good idea at all. Its not that we cant do it. There is more than enough food in the world for everyone to have plenty. We really dont have to have wars or fight or even have violence on a small scale (people robbing or killing people) either as it it takes at least one person to decide on a violent course of action to start any sort of violent confrontation (including a war). The problem is,you cant get everyone to agree to solve their problems peacefully or even agree that solving problems peacefully is a good idea, which is why many of us (myself included) decide to carry guns in recognition that the world is an ugly mess place that is far from ideal and that often times,the decision to use violence may not be mine,but the other person involved. Similarly,its simply not possible to convince everyone that voting out all the incumbents is even a good idea,much less find unknown candidates and get everyone to agree they are better than the guys in office now. Good luck with that one.