Contact Gillespie and Warner to return their VCDL surveys

[OakRidgeStars]

VA-ALERT: Action Item: Contact Gillespie and Warner to return their VCDL surveys

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

VCDL has still not received a completed VCDL Federal Candidate Survey from either Ed Gillespie or Mark Warner. The Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, HAS returned his survey.

Every election the Virginia Citizens Defense League surveys candidates to determine where they stand on our right to keep and bear arms.

Failure to return a completed Candidate Survey frequently indicates indifference, if not outright hostility, toward the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

A candidate saying, “I support the Second Amendment!” means nothing. Chuck Schumer has said he supports the Second Amendment, too. The VCDL Candidate Survey tells us what a candidate would do with future legislation, something that you can’t necessarily tell from past legislation.

ACTION ITEM:

1. Call Ed Gillespie at 703-838-7774 and/or email his campaign at contact@edforsenate.com and urge Mr. Gillespie to return his VCDL Candidate Survey IMMEDIATELY.

2. Call Mark Warner at 703-636-7614 and/or email his campaign at trey@markwarnerva.com and urge Mr. Warner to return his VCDL Candidate Survey IMMEDIATELY.

We need answers. If all of you apply pressure to Gillespie and Warner, we will get them.




***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]

[jcgorla]

Contacted both this morning!

[dorminWS]

I am sad to observe that this is surely more about gamesmanship than basic values. Any move either candidate makes must be weighed in the balance of how many voters it will attract versus how many voters it will repel.

The VCDL is a very effective lobbying organization at the state level, but my guess is that both Warmer’s and Gillespie’s campaigns are looking at this from a little different angle: While there are some among the VCDL who are outspoken, aggressive and perhaps even shrill in their pursuit of firm commitments from candidates, there are many more that simply quietly support and defend their Second Amendment rights along with their other conservative social and economic values. Some VCDL members may view groups like VCDL as necessary to counter the extreme anti-Second Amendment activists that never stop agitating for their goals, and pay dues without any real commitment to the organization. Both Gillespie’s and Warner’s campaigns know this. In other words, they probably believe most VCDL members will not be single-issue voters.

While Gillespie’s campaign needs the votes of the pro-gun people, it also needs the votes of all those “come-heres” in NOVA and other urban areas and liberal enclaves in the Commonwealth who may be alienated by a clear statement in support of unfettered Second Amendment rights. The latter probably outnumbers the former, but the grungy truth is that to be elected, Gillespie needs both groups to vote for him. I do not know whether a response to this survey will alienate more Northern Virginia “moderates” and “independents” than it will attract conservative independents from the Virginia heartland, but I am sure that alienating either group will not be conducive to a Gillespie victory.

Since Warner has not responded either, his crew has probably advised him similarly; hoping to pander to “conservative values” with his commercials where he prattles on with bald-faced lies about how fiscally conservative and bipartisan he’s been. And I’m dead certain each is posed with bated breath to exploit an answer to the survey by the other in a manner calculated to cost the answering candidate the maximum number of votes.

So my guess is that both candidates have decided to continue this conspiracy of silence where neither can afford to speak the truth (whatever it is), and leave the voters to cast their votes either based upon other issues or what they HOPE a given candidate MIGHT do on Second Amendment issues.

Bad ethics, perhaps, but sound gamesmanship; and as I’ve said before, it doesn’t make a damn what you believe in your heart of hearts and intend to do if elected unless you GET elected.

[ShotgunBlast]

It doesn't really matter since the VCDL-PAC doesn't endorse the candidate that turns in the best survey anyway, as evidenced by last year's survey results.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SpanishInquisition]

What Shotgun said. Apparently, "endorsement" is a substitute for "predicted winner" in PACspeak when seeking political allies.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SHMIV]

If a politician is going to lie on camera, he'll lie on a survey, too.

The best way to predict a candidates future performance, is to look at his past performance.

I suppose that the board of VCDL consists of folks that are not single issue voters. Just because a candidate answers a questionnaire,based around a single issue, better than his opponent, that doesn't make him the best candidate. I can't say for certain, since I have no involvement with VCDL, but I suspect that the survey is but one of many factors that are taken into consideration when VCDL chooses to officially endorse a candidate.

Rick- you've announced that VGOF officially supports a specific candidate, in the past. When that endorsement was made, issues were considered that were not gun related, yes?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

If a politician is going to lie on camera, he'll lie on a survey, too.

The best way to predict a candidates future performance, is to look at his past performance.

I suppose that the board of VCDL consists of folks that are not single issue voters. Just because a candidate answers a questionnaire,based around a single issue, better than his opponent, that doesn't make him the best candidate. I can't say for certain, since I have no involvement with VCDL, but I suspect that the survey is but one of many factors that are taken into consideration when VCDL chooses to officially endorse a candidate.

Rick- you've announced that VGOF officially supports a specific candidate, in the past. When that endorsement was made, issues were considered that were not gun related, yes?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Leave it to the specialty groups to decide which candidate best supports their specific issue. I don't look to VCDL-PAC for an endorsement of a candidate based on a variety of issues or qualificiations determined somehow from some group of leadership based on whatever beliefs they have - I look to them for an endorsement of a candidate based on gun rights. I look at a coal industry group for an endorsement of a candidate that is coal friendly. I look to a variety of other groups that I care about for endorsements of candidates based on their specific issue and then I as the voter can lump all of those endorsements together and figure out which candidate is best for me based on MY beliefs and not the beliefs of the leadership committees of those various groups.

[SHMIV]

I understand that train of thought. But, there is the human element. I expect that there was an endorsement meeting. And I expect, too, that the committee members voted to endorse their own favorite candidates. It would be hard to vote otherwise.

In the case of VCDL endorsing KC over Sarvis, last year (if I recall correctly), KC had a proven track record that Sarvis lacked. Everyone knows pretty much knows what to expect from KC. I have to assume that this was taken into consideration at the endorsement meeting, along with survey results.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[smltooner]

IIRC, the NRA has endorsed Gillespie.
For whatever that's worth....for years they have been endorsing Harry Reid.

[SpanishInquisition]

Yeah. Really hard to run down a form and add or subtract a point based on whether or not the answer promotes our right to arms, then release those results.
Yeah.

VCDL is supposed to be a single issue entity.Hijinx like this is why they are no longer getting money from me.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SHMIV]

They DID release the results. That's how we know that Sarvis gave the best answers while KC got the endorsement.

KC, though, was provably friendly to gun owners. Sarvis just said he was. I don't think that the decision to endorse KC was made lightly, or made by one individual. I believe that it was the result of deliberation and a vote. I could be wrong in my belief; as I said before, I have no involvement in that particular organization. But, that's how things tend to get decided in similarly structured organizations.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

Ah the plot thickens. Gillespie camp submits a form letter to VCDL instead of survey results. That's ok, my prediction is that VCDL-PAC still gives him the endorsement.

Thanks for contacting us about the Second Amendment and gun rights.

As Virginia’s senator, Ed Gillespie would oppose efforts to infringe upon our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which is an individual right. He would not vote in favor of treaties that would cede firearm regulation to international bodies like the United Nations, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Senator Warner voted against the bi-partisan Senate rejection of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty which could undermine our Second Amendment rights and infringe on U.S. sovereignty. Ed would have stood up for our Second Amendment Constitutional right.
Ed has earned the NRA’s endorsement in the Virginia Senate race and has received the highest rating they can give. Click here to read the NRA’s letter, which thanks Ed for his “steadfast support of the Second Amendment.”

Ed opposes the “universal” background check system, any United Nations’ or other global organization’s attempts to restrict our Second Amendment rights, and supports concealed carry reciprocity.

Senator Warner, on the other hand, has campaigned with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has also financially supported his campaign.

This November, join me in supporting Ed Gillespie, who will stand up for us and our Constitutional rights in the United States Senate. Click here to join “Sportsmen for Ed” and see what others are saying about Ed’s support for the Second Amendment.
Sincerely,
Sandy Liddy Bourne
Coalitions Director
Ed Gillespie for Senate

[dorminWS]

Yup. Got the same e-mail. Canned reply for all of the "fringe" who have nothing better to do than stuff like writing letters about the VCDL survey. Doesn't bespeak a great deal of concern for or commitment on 2nd Amendment issues; at least on the part of his no-doubt young and gun-ignorant staff. And it leaves him still surrounded by some ambiguity. Like I said, that's the smart gamesmanship, because Warner has NO ambiguity to hide behind on gun issues; he's been drinking deep of the liberal Kool-Aid.

[Kreutz]

What Shotgun said. Apparently, "endorsement" is a substitute for "predicted winner" in PACspeak when seeking political allies.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Barring divine intervention Warner is going to win, so it's not like they have much to lose by endorsing the most pro-2A candidate.