NRA Endorsements?

[GuyW]

[edited from emails. This one is MINE]

....the process you describe is probably the one I feared (rightfully or not). If you have NRA documents or Policies that NRA members can (should be able to) see, I'd like to read them to further educate myself. However, I'm very skeptical that anything therein would change my following thoughts.

See - first of all I don't see the need for NRA to wait to endorse Jay La Suer:

1. A. He has a proven gun-rights track record (as you said). We can believe what he says.

B. The other declared candidates have NOTHING but empty promises (if that). I personally don't care what those other candidates put on their responses, because I won't believe a pro-response in any case (we KNOW who/what these people stand for - (funny) business-as-usual on SD CCWs. Kolendar always claimed to be pro-gun, even when he was on the nat'l board of Handgun Control Inc. Sheik Obama is pro-gun too! Well - he says he is...

C. WHAT IF another candidate appears out of the ether? and WHAT IF this phantom candidate is OK-to-good, or even GREAT on gunrights?

Would this make Jay less than an A+ candidate? No.

Could the 2nd guy also get some sort of a NRA endorsement (lesser grade?)? I dunno - maybe.....rationally, yes...

2. Under these conditions - waiting serves no purpose for NRA, the SD NRA Member Council(s), or SD gun owners.

NRA has no need to be "fair and balanced" (unless there is a field of unknowns)....I mean, silly me - I thought "we" backed PRO-GUN candidates. And the earlier, the better. Unfortunately, I remember reading (uncorroborated) rumors that NRA has backed other candidates for Sheriff (in other Counties) that are horrible on gun rights....due (apparently) to some (stupid) political calculus that concluded that NRA backing an antigun Sheriff was good for CA gunowners. I don't have a perverse enuff imagination to conjure up reasons for other strange political calculus here in San Diego.

I think its time that the SD Members Council(s) took a stand on a no-brainer issue, and FORCED the issue.

To be really clear, I think Jay should be officially endorsed by the SD Member Council(s) within one month.

CA NRA had best follow along, and quickly.

[GuyW]

[from non-identified person with NRA Member Council experience.]

"The NRA, it seems, does not endorse a candidate until after the election is won, or at least is ahead on election day. I wonder how many candidates would have done better or even won the sought after office had they an NRA endorsement early on in the campaign. Having endorsed a "winner" always keeps their score high in picking the "winners".

The Members' Councils can do nothing without permission from Payne or Worley in Sacto. or Fairfax, VA. Often endorsing involves going out on a limb which they will not do. Ergo the members' councils are unable to support / endorse candidates. "Oh well, you can support a candidate as an individual......", but we must get the OK from Payne blah, blah, blah.

Then too, there's the question about what's going on within the NRA. Compromising, unsuccessfully, regarding some legislation which was not necessarily in the best interest of it's membership and gun owners generally. Giving John McCain a C+ grade when the GOA gave him an F grade. McCain not being a good friend to the gun owners. That board member, albeit two years ago, who didn't like "assault weapons" and if used should have the magazine capacity limited to five rounds. Is he still there?

So, the NRAMCGSD is not likely to be doing much of anything in the way of endorsing.

There are many Members' Council type groups out there, and some are former MCs having experienced the frustration of limitations on their activities."

[GuyW]

Yeah - I'm a 30+ year NRA Life member.

So what - WHAT have they done recently to help gun owners in San Diego County?

This endorsement is a scorched-earth issue to me. I have NO USE for anyone who jumps on the bandwagon (and takes credit) after others did the hard work....

Why put it here? Because by email (post #2) the system is broken, and I want everyone to know it.

[bwiese]

Think deeply....

Firstly there's all sortsa campaign law issues with an individual MC group endorsing somone. Can get real nasty real fast for that group - can you say legal bills? Payne & Worley don't want screwups.

Secondly, as to the antics about McCain and GOA - well, GOA are idiots that have never accomplished anything and have never changed the course of an election, period. (Think GOC in California, and remember their stupidity.) Maybe NRA doesn't like McCain's stance on relatively minor issues - as Wayne La Pierre said, "we can agree to disagree" on that - but he's pro-gun where it counts (voted against AW ban, did not support reauthorization, supported PLCAA).

Also I believe NRA does not endorse candidates until primaries are over and there's a clear difference in who's running. And in certain areas they are bright enough to NOT endorse someone in a swing area so that NRA endorsement can't be used *against* the person. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Jay La Seuer is pro-gun and that indeed would help in the SDSO, he certainly doesn't have Alzheimers or alcohol-based dementia like Kolender apparently does. But do remember though that some of his gun bills while in assembly were kinda stupid - in fact, AB2218 of a couple of years ago that he proposed would have created constructive possession for AW parts as an accidental byproduct of poor thought processes. I believe he was counselled to change wording by Right People and he didn't. Part of being pro-gun is being smart, and JLS didn't quite get it when in Assembly - I don't think he was every able to take any pro-gun bill of his and make it passable, though at least he was able to vote against bad gun laws.

[mikehaas]

A lot of naivete here.
And a lot of stating opinions without the experience to back them up. Like the part about compromising our rights away.

Every MC - every NRA member, actually (may be more effective from an MC because of their organization), can initiate the process to have any candidate endorsed. Have a pro-gunner running for dogcatcher? It is possible to have NRA endorse him/her. But how likely it is to happen is a different story, for many reasons.

It starts with having your candidate request a questionaire from NRA. Then, it is vital they answer and return it.

Questionaires are automatically sent out to all state and federal candidates. Local campaigns, like for country supe, city council, etc, must request them.

Then each candidate is RATED. Candidates not returning questionaires receive an automatic "F" RATING. Candidates returning questionaires are evaluated by NRA-PVF on many criteria, but assumning the pro-gun aspects are thought genuine and a good rating is given, I know that 2 of the most important criteria to getting a subsequent endorsement are:

1) Loyalty - If the candidate has voted with NRA in the past and been a reliable vote, NRA will not forget that, regardless of party. If you are a solid pro-gun Democrat like Nicole Parra, don't expect her Republican opponent to get an endorsement over her. (NRA being loyal is not only the right thing to do, it becomes very important when you expect loyalty from that elected lawmaker later on.)

2) Does the candidate stand a decent chance of winning? - No matter how pro-gun the candidate was, no matter who it is, everytime an NRA-endorsed candidate loses, it weakens the perception of NRA as an effective force. At the end of every election, NRA produces a statistic - that "XX% of NRA-endorsed candidates were elected" (is usually over 90%) - every NRA member should want that number to be as high as possible. It hurts the cause if NRA gives out endorsements like candy.

Throwing all this in the mix, it should be understandable why some excellent pro-gun candidates may receive "A" or "A+" RATING, but they still didn't get an endorsement.

There is a lot to the endorsement process that frankly escapes the average gun-owner, even those who volunteer for campaigns and are politically active. I know because I was once an average gun-owner and it took years of being involved and doing more listening than talking to learn some of this stuff. In summary, NRA knows how to win in the BIG sense and they don't throw valuable resources into races that aren't likely to win.

NRA only makes about $250 million/year - total. That just isn't a lot of money when it comes to educating, training, safety, lobbying, elections (all state and federal!) and God knows what else this immense association does.

[GuyW]

Well, this didn't improve the situation any...


NRA only makes about $250 million/year - total. That just isn't a lot of money when it comes to educating, training, safety, lobbying, elections (all state and federal!) and God knows what else this immense association does.

Irrelevant effort to redirect the discussion. If it costs NRA a dime to endorse Jay La Suer, its overweight with bureaucrats.


There is a lot to the endorsement process that frankly escapes the average gun-owner, even those who volunteer for campaigns and are politically active. I know because I was once an average gun-owner and it took years of being involved and doing more listening than talking to learn some of this stuff.

Good - now we have the "we're smarter than you" canard, to escape 'splainin' how the process is rational as applied to the race for Sheriff in San Diego....


In summary, NRA knows how to win in the BIG sense and they don't throw valuable resources into races that aren't likely to win.

Again with the we're smarter than you....sorry - we're looking behind the curtain.

Are you implying that Jay can't win? Instead of backing the only pro-gun candidate in the race, you give aid to Kolender's toadies...

This discussion has been about endorsement, not your precious "resources".

Amazing - the NRA refuses to endorse a pro-gun candidate, until he proves that he doesn't need their help.

I'm starting to believe the critics who charge that the NRA is actually less influential than perceived...


It hurts the cause if NRA gives out endorsements like candy.

Jay earned the endorsement, and it isn't your "candy" to hoard.


2) Does the candidate stand a decent chance of winning? - No matter how pro-gun the candidate was, no matter who it is, everytime an NRA-endorsed candidate loses, it weakens the perception of NRA as an effective force.

This is part of the reason that CA has anti-gun Sheriffs - you people are more concerned about the PR about your batting average than supporting pro-gun candidates.


At the end of every election, NRA produces a statistic - that "XX% of NRA-endorsed candidates were elected" (is usually over 90%) - every NRA member should want that number to be as high as possible.

No - every NRA member should be concerned that our limited resources went to endorse and support actual pro-gun candidates.

It's no wonder that previous candidates like Bill Hunt feel that the pro-gun community failed them - it sits on the sidelines doing nothing until the race is a sure thing.

[bwiese]

Jay certainly didn't earn the endorsement given the AB2218 fiasco (which really was written by Sam Paredes/GOC).

If it'd've passed we wouldn't have OLLs and lotsa folks woulda been in jail on new AW charges.

Given that he's likely better than the opposition we certainly can live with him, unless the opponents are showing some pro-gun leg.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

when vetting a candidate on a single issue please consider this:

1)Is your candidate requesting an endorsement? ( believe it or not , its not uncommon for people to gripe about not receiving endorsements from groups they never contacted. )

2))Is your candidate loyal? ( does your candidate have a proven record or high propensity to stay true to a firmly held belief /cause/position even in the face of opposition or expense of political capitol?)

3)Is your candidate viable? ( can your candidate win? Can he/she develop and implement a realistic campaign strategy and react to the fluid developments in a campaign? Can your candidate attract the necessary support from grassroots, leaders, elected, donors to fund the endeavor? Does your candidate have a good story, Name ID and ballot designation? Does your candidate have any baggage?)

4)Does you candidate have an opponent who is loyal and/or viable? ( If your cause doesn't appear to be affected either way are you willing to take a side? how does that benefit your membership? are their other circumstances that would cause an endorsement decision if the policies are the same?)

5) does you endorsement help the chosen candidate win? ( will your endorsement just be piling on a sure thing? does your endorsement run the risk of being used against your chosen candidate? is the potential reward worth any potential risks?)

6) what resources do you have to engage on a global scale. have you prioritized them in a way that your endorsement is sought after and meaningful? ( there are several thousand candidates for office every other year. where is your memberships resources best spent and how?)

please weigh liability vs viabilty vs you personal faves and vett the candidates in a professional unemotional manner.

then when you do act - WIN or lose on the high ground.

on a final note- the race in question is in 2010! I guess I should add- who is really going to file in 2 years? what if Kolendar retires in a year and Gore becomes sheriff? will you have a better concept of that candidate good or bad? what is your political budget 2 election cycles from now?

the UT did a story this summer (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080713/news_1m13sheriff.html)

[Anthonysmanifesto]

I think its time that the SD Members Council(s) took a stand on a no-brainer issue, and FORCED the issue.

To be really clear, I think Jay should be officially endorsed by the SD Member Council(s) within one month.

CA NRA had best follow along, and quickly.

why? you do know there are elections in November of 2008 right?

[GuyW]

Good - this is at least a (fairly) rational list of factors to be considered...all previously checked off as good to go in San Diego....


5) .....( will your endorsement just be piling on a sure thing?


So now we've lurched from waiting-to-see-who-wins, to being worried about being perceived as piling on?? Have you talked to the NRA about this?


6) what resources do you have to engage on a global scale. have you prioritized them in a way that your endorsement is sought after and meaningful? ( there are several thousand candidates fro office every other year. where is your memberships resources best spent and how?)

Oh yeah - imagine how horrible it would be if the NRA endorsed every reasonable pro-gun candidate for office who asked for it? It might stop some future anti-gun candidates for state and federal office dead in their tracks before they move up the ladder - can't have that.


As to who may file in the next 2 years - its irrelevant (but already considered)...nobody that's better than Jay....

[GuyW]

why? you do know there are elections in November of 2008 right?

Yeah - I know that.

How long does it take to make no-brainer decisions??

I suspected that this request was going to generate resistance and stalling. I don't accept stalling on this.

[bwiese]

Yeah - I know that.

How long does it take to make no-brainer decisions??

I suspected that this request was going to generate resistance and stalling. I don't accept stalling on this.

Who the f* of any import or any effect on the election even cares at this point, given it's a 2010 race? Why is there urgency to have the NRA imprimatur on him this early?

Hell, I lost track - I thought it was something important, an immediate upcoming race.

I met a girl like you once - she got too wet too early ;)

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Good - this is at least a (fairly) rational list of factors to be considered...all previously checked off as good to go in San Diego....

Im glad you like the list.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Yeah - I know that.

How long does it take to make no-brainer decisions??

I suspected that this request was going to generate resistance and stalling. I don't accept stalling on this.

Ill tell you as soon as all of the candidates have filed and their fundraiser and endorsements are posted. Im guessing 2 years...

no one is stalling. you are wedded to a candidate too early

[GuyW]

Who the f* of any import or any effect on the election even cares at this point, given it's a 2010 race? Why is there urgency to have the NRA imprimatur on him this early?

Hell, I lost track - I thought it was something important, an immediate upcoming race.

Some people think winning a tough race is important - too important to leave details to the last minute.

Apparently, some think its an easy task. But it takes time to raise the amount of money and support necessary to win in San Diego (if you don't have the establishment and newspaper in your corner)

The candidates are fairly young men - whoever wins the race for San Diego Sheriff, might well be the incumbent for a LONG time.

Sheriff Kolender is about 73 yo.

For example, candidate Lt. Jim Duffy is 46 years old. He is currently Chief of Staff to County Supervisor Ron Roberts, who is an anti-gun RINO. If Duffy wins - we can possibly have an anti-gun incumbent Sheriff for 24-28 years.

William D. Gore, 61....could easily be Sheriff 12 years.

[interesting tidbit - Gore was apparently "Special Agent in Charge, FBI, Seattle, Washington. Provided management assistance to Special Agent in Charge Glenn at Ruby Ridge." aka federal agents shoot members of the Randy Weaver family. http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby7.htm]

In any case, whether I'm of any import or not - I care.....now....2 years "early"....

[GuyW]

Ill tell you as soon as all of the candidates have filed and their fundraiser and endorsements are posted. Im guessing 2 years...

no one is stalling. you are wedded to a candidate too early

Wait 2 years?? You have no clue....

[Anthonysmanifesto]

The candidates are fairly young men - whoever wins the race for San Diego Sheriff, might well be the incumbent for a LONG time.



JIM DUFFY

Age: 46

City: Oceanside

Occupation: Chief of staff for county Supervisor Ron Roberts

Family: Divorced, three children, one grandchild

Experience: San Diego County Sheriff's Department, 22 years; Carlsbad Police Department, five years; Calipatria Police Department, one year

BILL GORE

Age: 61

Neighborhood: Mission Hills

Occupation: Undersheriff, San Diego County Sheriff's Department

Family: Wife, Natalie; adult son

Experience: County Sheriff's Department, four years; various positions in Federal Bureau of Investigation, including head of San Diego office, 33 years

JAY LA SUER

Age: 68

City: La Mesa

Occupation: Retired

Family: Wife, Lynn; two adult daughters; three grandchildren

Experience: State assemblyman, six years, termed out in 2006; La Mesa City Council, 10 years; San Diego County Sheriff's Department, 25 years, retired in 1994; San Diego Police Department, six years


***** please note these are just the people who have announced an INTENTION of filing in 2010....*****

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Wait 2 years?? You have no clue....

I get that alot, but mostly when I was single and dating. but your comment could mean alot of things...so ill toss it back to you.

[GuyW]

Think deeply....

Firstly there's all sortsa campaign law issues with an individual MC group endorsing somone. Can get real nasty real fast for that group - can you say legal bills? Payne & Worley don't want screwups.


Absent some signed legal document that requires the San Diego folks to turn their thought processes over the HQ - what basis would NRA have for legally bludgeoning the grassroots activists?

[bwiese]

Absent some signed legal document that requires the San Diego folks to turn their thought processes over the HQ - what basis would NRA have for legally bludgeoning the grassroots activists?

They're not 'bludgeoning' any individual. That individual is free to speak his mind. But the MC name/org can't be used, that's all.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Absent some signed legal document that requires the San Diego folks to turn their thought processes over the HQ - what basis would NRA have for legally bludgeoning the grassroots activists?

the NRA logos aren't for indiscriminate use on campaign mailers .

you might benefit from joining the NRA and your local Members Council.

and If you want to learn about this stuff tell your favorite candidate you want to volunteer for him/her.

[GuyW]

They're not 'bludgeoning' any individual. That individual is free to speak his mind. But the MC name/org can't be used, that's all.

Fine - we'll call it the non-nuetered grassroots group "San Diego Council of NRA Members"

....or maybe "SD NRA Members Who Support Pro-Constitution Candidates (Unlike The NRA HQ Which Is Waiting to See Which Way the Wind Blows)"

[GuyW]

you might benefit from joining the NRA and your local Members Council.

Ah, yes - then I can have my mind properly instructed....

You apparently didn't read this thread wherein I ID'd myself as a 30+ yr Life member....and, an NRA-neutered (if that's true) Member Council just isn't looking too attractive at this point in time, thank you...


and If you want to learn about this stuff....

What led you to believe I "don't know about this stuff"?

the NRA logos aren't for indiscriminate use on campaign mailers

Nobody suggested they would use the logo indiscriminantly.

[mike_schwartz@mail.com]

An NRA endorsement would allow the Council in San Diego to support Jay LaSuer as a group rather than individually. It would make it far easier and help us be more effective in getting the message out. That’s all. Nothing fancy.

Jay is very proud of his NRA Life Member status and has worked very hard to be pro gun throughout his career. He has made it clear that San Diego County will be a “shall issue” CCW county. Duffy and Gore will not and have stated this. They all claim to be pro-gun, but LaSuer has proven it. An endorsement will help the pro-gun crowd weed out the others. One more pro CCW Sheriff in California helps everyone in California.

This race started early because there will be no incumbent. It would be great if the NRA could make itself nimble enough to adjust its standard operating procedures to accommodate this kind of situation. I think that point alone is a great one to have. This is going to be a hard race because Gore is supported by a lot of left-wing anti-gun people. He has expressed it will be business as usual if he is elected.

Guy may have an aggressive and uncompromising style, but his points are good ones and the discussion will only help future operations of the NRA. Without these kinds of discussions (minus the insults and name calling) an organization could easily grow stagnant and ineffective. We are all on the same side. Let’s find the enemy and go after him.

-Michael

[mike_schwartz@mail.com]

when vetting a candidate on a single issue please consider this:

1)Is your candidate requesting an endorsement? ( believe it or not , its not uncommon for people to gripe about not receiving endorsements from groups they never contacted. )

NOT THAT I KNOW OF. WE ARE TRYING VERY HARD TO GET HIM ENDORSED. HE IS VERY PROUD OF THE A+ RATING HE HAD AS AN ASSEMBLYMAN FOR 6 YEARS.

2))Is your candidate loyal? ( does your candidate have a proven record or high propensity to stay true to a firmly held belief /cause/position even in the face of opposition or expense of political capitol?)

YES.

3)Is your candidate viable? ( can your candidate win? Can he/she develop and implement a realistic campaign strategy and react to the fluid developments in a campaign? Can your candidate attract the necessary support from grassroots, leaders, elected, donors to fund the endeavor? Does your candidate have a good story, Name ID and ballot designation? Does your candidate have any baggage?)

YES HE IS VIABLE.

4)Does you candidate have an opponent who is loyal and/or viable? ( If your cause doesn't appear to be affected either way are you willing to take a side? how does that benefit your membership? are their other circumstances that would cause an endorsement decision if the policies are the same?)

HIS OPPONENT IS VERY REAL AND AN ENDORSEMENT WOULD HEL LASUER WIN.

5) does you endorsement help the chosen candidate win? ( will your endorsement just be piling on a sure thing? does your endorsement run the risk of being used against your chosen candidate? is the potential reward worth any potential risks?)

YES.

6) what resources do you have to engage on a global scale. have you prioritized them in a way that your endorsement is sought after and meaningful? ( there are several thousand candidates for office every other year. where is your memberships resources best spent and how?)

SUPPORTING LASUER.

please weigh liability vs viabilty vs you personal faves and vett the candidates in a professional unemotional manner.

then when you do act - WIN or lose on the high ground.

on a final note- the race in question is in 2010! I guess I should add- who is really going to file in 2 years? what if Kolendar retires in a year and Gore becomes sheriff? will you have a better concept of that candidate good or bad? what is your political budget 2 election cycles from now?

LASUER HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD AND THERE ARE A FEW OTHERS WHO MAY RUN. NONE WITH THE PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF JAY LASUER. IF SOMEONE BETTER JUMPS IN, BE NIMBLE ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE ENDORSEMENT. THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMEONE COMING ALONG BETTER IS FAR LOWER THAN THE POSSIBILTY OF LASUER LOSING THE RACE DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORT.

[GuyW]

THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMEONE "BETTER" COMING ALONG IS FAR LOWER THAN THE POSSIBILTY OF LA SUER LOSING THE RACE DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORT.



(mildly rearranged, and)

Quoted for Truth

.

[bwiese]

I support JLS given the opposition.
I agree no one 'better' will come along.

Be aware that in a tight race NRA recommendation could be used against him by opposition so sometimes it's best to be quiet, the gunnies will know anyway.

But this is an example of why he wasn't the brightest guy for gunrights when in the Assembly:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2218_bill_20040331_amended_asm.html

Jay inadvertently woulda further criminalized gun ownership in his 'fix' of CA AW laws via proposed AB2218. It was a poorly written law creating a whole new 'constructive possession' issue that isn't present right now. (Shoulda let someone smarter than GOC's Sam Paredes write it!) If Jay's law were in place it would've affected OLLs unfavorable and created complex issues for folks owning multiple rifles with shared hicap mags (say a reg'd AR10 and an M1A, or a reg'd AR15 and a Keltec, etc.) - and more people would be in jail/felons for AW violations. "Fixes" like that we don't need.

[Rck'n'ROll]

So ummm....................... this guy is pro gun right? Who's name is on this freaking bill? :rolleyes:

AB2218

and a link to it

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2218_bill_20040331_amended_asm.html

Oh, oh, oh I have the ANSWER, Assembly Member La Suer!!!! So tell me again about this guy's proven track record!!!! I think you are a fraud and so is your guy La Suer! So, why don't you lay off the NRA and stop trying to hide what this guy has really done for the gun movement in the past.

thnx for your time.

Oh, is this a threat, "CA NRA had best follow along, and quickly". You are a freaking joke GuyW.

SEMPER FI


[edited from emails. This one is MINE]

....the process you describe is probably the one I feared (rightfully or not). If you have NRA documents or Policies that NRA members can (should be able to) see, I'd like to read them to further educate myself. However, I'm very skeptical that anything therein would change my following thoughts.

See - first of all I don't see the need for NRA to wait to endorse Jay La Suer:

1. A. He has a proven gun-rights track record (as you said). We can believe what he says.

B. The other declared candidates have NOTHING but empty promises (if that). I personally don't care what those other candidates put on their responses, because I won't believe a pro-response in any case (we KNOW who/what these people stand for - (funny) business-as-usual on SD CCWs. Freaking Kolendar always claimed to be pro-gun, even when he was on the nat'l board of Handgun Control Inc. Sheik Obama is pro-gun too! Well - he says he is...

C. WHAT IF another candidate appears out of the ether? and WHAT IF this phantom candidate is OK-to-good, or even GREAT on gunrights?

Would this make Jay less than an A+ candidate? No.

Could the 2nd guy also get some sort of a NRA endorsement (lesser grade?)? I dunno - maybe.....rationally, yes...

2. Under these conditions - waiting serves no purpose for NRA, the SD NRA Member Council(s), or SD gun owners.

NRA has no need to be "fair and balanced" (unless there is a field of unknowns)....I mean, silly me - I thought "we" backed PRO-GUN candidates. And the earlier, the better. Unfortunately, I remember reading (uncorroborated) rumors that NRA has backed other candidates for Sheriff (in other Counties) that are horrible on gun rights....due (apparently) to some (stupid) political calculus that concluded that NRA backing an antigun Sheriff was good for CA gunowners. I don't have a perverse enuff imagination to conjure up reasons for other strange political calculus here in San Diego.

I think its time that the SD Members Council(s) took a stand on a no-brainer issue, and FORCED the issue.

To be really clear, I think Jay should be officially endorsed by the SD Member Council(s) within one month.

CA NRA had best follow along, and quickly.

[bulgron]

I'm genuinely confused by this thread.

Did I miss something?

Has Jay La Suer sought an NRA endorsement? Has he contacted his local NRA Members' Council about that? Has he filled in the questionnaire that they should have given him if he approached them?

Has the NRA said that they WON'T endorse La Suer?

Why are you so upset anyway, Guy? It looks to me like you believe the NRA is going to fail to endorse the guy. On what grounds do you hold that belief?

[mike_schwartz@mail.com]

As far as I know Jay LaSuer has not asked for an endorsement. He is very well known to the San Diego Members' Council and the Council is being proactive in trying to get the endorsement.

According to the bylaws they will only give the questionnaire 80 (80 or 85 or something, but less than 90) days prior to the primary which in this case is in June of 2010. And they send the questionnaire to every candidate. They cannot just send it to one, according to the NRA rules. Well March of 2010 is a long way away and Guy (as well as many other San Diegans) feels that there is a lot of work to be done before that time. Jay LaSuer has a proven track record (I know this because of the A+ rating he had for his 6 years in the Assembly) and this is going to be a tough race so why not get the endorsement now so that the Members’ Council and other NRA members can start to really get behind him. The Members’ Council is not allowed to support a candidate who is not endorsed by the NRA. Endorsements and an A+ rating are two different things. As a side note, Rck’n’Roll…not a lot of “frauds” earn an A+ rating.

I really see this as a discussion on how the NRA could be more aggressive and nimble and what is the reason they are not. I think if we take it down a notch and step back to take a look at it, it is a good discussion to have.

Guy, correct me if I am wrong, but the reason Guy is “so upset” is he believes the NRA should endorse earlier and come out swinging hard. Valid discussion point. If there are people who know of reasons the NRA has the rules they do regarding this, it is a great time to discuss. Or if you have an opposing opinion, it is a great time to state that as well.

As for Jay LaSuer’s attempt to fix the “assault weapon ban” being a mistake…as Sheriff he will be running a department that enforces law and not making new law so his ability to write law…weather good or bad…shouldn’t be called into question, should it?

[bwiese]

Guy, correct me if I am wrong, but the reason Guy is “so upset” is he believes the NRA should endorse earlier and come out swinging hard. Valid discussion point. If there are people who know of reasons the NRA has the rules they do regarding this, it is a great time to discuss.

Swinging hard is not always swinging wisely. I think these timings for NRA policies have been well-borne out nationally with other NRA-affiliated gun groups (I don't believe this is a CA-only policy) and there's little or no reason to make an exception: those desires could be applied to *any* election where there's someone more pro-gun on one side than another. In real estate, houses that have been listed too long go 'stale'; perhaps political endorsements have a bit of that too.

As for Jay LaSuer’s attempt to fix the “assault weapon ban” being a mistake… as Sheriff he will be running a department that enforces law and not making new law so his ability to write law… weather good or bad…shouldn’t be called into question, should it?[/quote]

Um, in some ways it should: it is a matter of IQ, kinda. (Though I think at this point anyone could beat Kolender in an IQ test given Alzheimer's and rumored alcohol.) If JLS can't envision a law that was to supposedly fix something without actually making it worse, and didn't validate work of the person who actually wrote the text of the law (hint: not Jay! it was Sam Paredes of GOC) for 'backfire side effects' in spite of knowledgable NRA legal counsel, then there is a bit of a judgment question. I've also heard he's a bit of a crony with Kathy Lynch who I think we all despise here.

It's funny that there are hundreds of Calgunners here that can immediately see the problem with this bill and could have written it far better, yet he and his staffers couldn't - perhaps that's some ex-cop bravado, dunno. One would hope that in future complex AW/OLL & other gun matters he would not make a mistake of misinterpreting something not in our favor.

[mikehaas]

Originally Posted by mikehaas
NRA only makes about $250 million/year - total. That just isn't a lot of money when it comes to educating, training, safety, lobbying, elections (all state and federal!) and God knows what else this immense association does.
Well, this drivel didn't improve the situation any...

Irrelevant blather to redirect the discussion. If it costs NRA a dime to endorse Jay La Suer, its overweight with bureaucrats.
...
Oh, so you obviously don't even know what an endorsement means? (and here you are whining about the lack of one?) Pay attention now, this part is important...

An endosement turns on the NRA money for that candidate. It's only when a candidate is ENDORSED by NRA that they then receive funds and other assistance from the association. No endorsement, no NRA help of any kind. So yes, every endorsement means exactly that - expenditure of funds and resources. Every time. Otherwise, there's no reason for the endorsement.

And that all ties in with campaign finance laws because NRA has to account for every penny of every political contribution. You might want to lookup "in kind contribution" to continue your education.

(Hmm... this must be a new, novel way to support your pro-gun candidate - antagonize other gun-owners and insult NRA. La Suer better be way ahead with supporters like GuyW.)

[Kestryll]

Is there a reason the OP started this thread already swinging?

Your first post is DEMANDING that the CA NRA do something you want them to do, followed by this little gem:
NRA koolaid drinkers - start spinning....

And then it went downhill.

So, again I ask, is there a reason you came out swinging and trying your damnedest to start a fight in spite of the rules that state that posts are to be made in a civil manner?

I'm asking politely at this point...

[bulgron]

As far as I know Jay LaSuer has not asked for an endorsement.

I started to write a long reply to this, but in the end this statement is all that matters. LaSuer has not himself sought an endorsement (so far as I know, anyway). Given that, why does this thread even exist unless it's just to engage in some good old fashion NRA bashing?

[mike_schwartz@mail.com]

I am not in favor of bashing the NRA, any proud member of CALGUNS, any pro gun group who is trying to make a positive difference, or any candidate who is running with the Second Amendment as part of his platform. I am pretty sure your comment was not directed at me specifically, but I wanted to make this statement because this policy is one that should be adopted by all.

I appreciate everyone's input on this and thank you all for the discussion.

[bulgron]

I am not in favor of bashing the NRA, any proud member of CALGUNS, any pro gun group who is trying to make a positive difference, or any candidate who is running with the Second Amendment as part of his platform. I am pretty sure your comment was not directed at me specifically, but I wanted to make this statement because this policy is one that should be adopted by all.

I appreciate everyone's input on this and thank you all for the discussion.

No, my statement was not aimed at you, and I apologize if it came across as if it was.

[CoinStar]

In any case, whether I'm of any import or not - I care.....now....2 years "early"....

Folks that live five-hundred miles away who are chiming in here might not realize that, in spite of his flaws, Kolender isn'ti hated in the county. Therefore, his own endorsement upon exit will carry a lot of weight and it's not going to be for La Suer.

With that in mind, acting early, if only to rally pledged support from the NRA, isn't a waste of time for those of us that actually live here and have a bigger stake in it all.

[CoinStar]

...Otherwise, there's no reason for the endorsement.

So the name recognition of the NRA means nothing? Do they know that?

[bwiese]

JLS has a lotta problems that the NRA endorsement, should he ask for it, won't help since the goal's pretty far away.

- he has no discernably large amounts of cash: he needs $600+K to have a fighting chance, and I don't think he has that fundraising ability;
- he's pushing 70 in an area whose demographics skew quite a bit younger;
- he has problems with local Republican leadership (generally moderate, wholly aside from gun issues)
checked in w/a couple of folks who said "nice enough guy, but a friggin' loon". Area skews
upper-income/educated, which doesn't necessarily play well w/his profile he'll inherit from
Assembly service.
- the deck is stacked against him with other prospects. DA Bonnie Dumanis has one of her handpicked
ones in the SD aside from Gore.

From a gunrights standpoint he talks a good game and I believe he believes what he believes is right. However, his leg aide was Lori Paredes (GOC's Sam Parede's wife) which accounted for a buncha confused gun stuff that went nowhere
(like AB2218) for very good reason, thankfully. He's apparently close to Kathy Lynch too and thus also ended up discharging a Koretz ammo bill last year that otherwise woulda died - words were, "hey, it's just like wine" (meaning controlled delivery, adult signature, etc.) So with this I'm not sure he'd actually be asking for NRA support, given he's kinda screwed the pooch and created conflict/dispute in certain gun rights areas.

[CoinStar]

DA Bonnie Dumanis has one of her handpicked ones in the SD aside from Gore.

Dumanis has lost much of her credibility in the county. She's a non-issue in terms of who she'll back.

So with this I'm not sure he'd actually be asking for NRA support, given he's kinda screwed the pooch and created conflict/dispute in certain gun rights areas.

There are no permanent friends nor enemies in politics, Bill. You should know that.

The bottom line is that if La Suer seeks an endorsement from the NRA and they refuse, it will be a slap in the face to San Diegans and some of us won't forget it soon.

As it sits now, GOC is the only pro-gun group behind La Suer. That should tell you something right there.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

As it sits now, GOC is the only pro-gun group behind La Suer. That should tell you something right there.

yes it does

[bwiese]

As it sits now, GOC is the only pro-gun group behind La Suer. That should tell you something right there.

Yep indeed. I would hope & pray that no one would ever associate me with GOC if I were to run for office.

Sam "King of Microstamping & Lead Ammo Ban" Paredes is a useless and carries no weight.

[CoinStar]

Yep indeed. I would hope & pray that no one would ever associate me with GOC if I were to run for office.

Sam "King of Microstamping & Lead Ammo Ban" Paredes is a useless and carries no weight.

Well then I guess we can count on you to volunteer your time to campaign against La Suer since it ultimately won't effect you... unless San Diego somehow annexes San Jose into the county.

The point was, GOC at least recognizes that La Suer will be a positive for San Diego gun nuts. For some inexplicable reason though, you don't think the NRA should follow suit.

Odd...

[CoinStar]

yes it does

Indeed, and seeing that a certain contingent never miss seizing on the opportunity to bash GOC, it's a shame that those of us with something at stake here have to suffer the fallout of inter-family gun rights group pissing contests --whether real or imagined.

We've been all but guaranteed that the NRA isn't going to pursue shall issue in California because of feasibility. Ok. Fine. But getting the next best thing (a pro-CCW sheriff) would be nice.

Again, it's too bad it seems that we will be fighting against our own to achieve this.

[Kestryll]

As it sits now, GOC is the only pro-gun group behind La Suer. That should tell you something right there.

It does, but likely not the message you were hoping for.

[CoinStar]

It's exactly the message I intended to convey to the particular poster where it was aimed.

[bwiese]

Well then I guess we can count on you to volunteer your time to campaign against La Suer since it ultimately won't effect you... unless San Diego somehow annexes San Jose into the county.

The point was, GOC at least recognizes that La Suer will be a positive for San Diego gun nuts. For some inexplicable reason though, you don't think the NRA should follow suit.

Odd...

I didn't say that. I gave the background why JLS might not approach for recommendation anyway, since there's been drama in the past.

Regardless of that past, I'm sorry, but with the info I've received about him and the field, he doesn't have a chance of a flying monkey - so I don't think an endorsement would carry the day or even be warranted.

This is not unique. Look what happened in Brown vs Poochigian - even though Pooch was progun, they knew Pooch was a loser from the getgo.

Whatever GOC (Sam) wants is irrelevant since it's a one-man band down to a few thousand 'members' (or shall I say payment-submitters?) now. After folks saw how Sam screwed the pooch last year, they sent protest letters in instead of 'membership' checks.



We've been all but guaranteed that the NRA isn't going to pursue shall issue in California because of feasibility. Ok. Fine.Hmm, so am I hearing you really want unfeasible things?

But getting the next best thing (a pro-CCW sheriff) would be nice.


Yeah, I too would like that. Let us know when you have a winner. Ain't gonna be Jay. He needs LOTS of money, 15 years off his age, etc.

Rational CCW will come to us thru Heller derivatives and the courts.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

this thread started out as one man questioning the wisdom of the NRA's endorsements policies in such a manner that its hard to believe they were honestly seeking constructive input.

This thread has featured passionate supporters of one candidate who may or may not file for a particular office in 2 years.

This thread has given a voice to those persons who do not like that one of the most powerful and globally recognized membership organizations in the world has not endorsed a potential candidate who may or may not have requested said endorsement 2 years out.

This NRA bashers and Jay supporters have not provided one shred of evidence to support their claims that Jay is viable , will file, and be the best candidate after the filing period closes that also has a realistic chance of winning. at the same time, Im not saying he is or isn't- its just hard to take the battering ram method sans the proof. Im used to seeing better talking points when meeting with proponents of a candidate.

This Thread has not elevated "the debate" or helped anyone learn about the industry or how they can be more active participants in it.

This Thread is now trying to compare a boutique, sole proprietorship with the NRA in lieu of actual talking points.

Meanwhile, there is an election in November of 2008.

Im disappointed in this thread.

It would appear that few want to understand the process, just complain about it since they have made up their mind on who they want to vote for in 2010 if things go their way.

Passion for your candidate is great! I would never discourage anyone from having it.

To make demands here on this little corner of the internet of seasoned and hardened professionals with my best interests at heart honestly isn't worth a debate here.

[CoinStar]

This Thread is now trying to compare a boutique, sole proprietorship with the NRA in lieu of actual talking points.

If you're alluding to GOC, take note of which poster (hint: it wasn't me) brought up Paredes in the first place and in what sort of context he and GOC were thrown into the conversation. It wasn't just put out there for casual discussion. It was a smear stylized in guilt by association format.

The reason that local gun nuts are passionate about a prospective La Suer run is that the best guesses for an alternative are well known to us... and they're not pretty.

I too am disappointed with this thread because the usual naysayers (those who don't even live here!) would rather rain on the parade then offer even just a shred of moral support.

[CoinStar]

Rational CCW will come to us thru Heller derivatives and the courts.

Maybe, and thank Allah it wasn't up to the NRA to wait for a "viable" case instead of the now landmark Heller one to come along or else we'd still have nothing.

[mike_schwartz@mail.com]

Anthony (and all on this thread),
I agree that a lot of the comments made on this thread are more about trying to win the argument rather than have a discussion about a topic in a constructive way. I even agree that the original post, although inspiring passion, is not the style in which I choose to treat fellow gun advocates. So let me just get some facts out and then focus the discussion, if anyone is still interested.

Facts: Jay LaSuer has filed and is running. He has said he needs about $1,000,000 to run a successful campaign and this is based on the fact that he had about $800,000 in the war chest during his last run for Assembly. He has not asked (to my knowledge) for an NRA endorsement, but is certainly interested in this support. He is proud and vocal about his Life Membership in the NRA, his A+ rating with the NRA while in the Assembly, his involvement with El Cajon Gun Exchange and Lemon Grove Rod and Gun Club, and his campaigning at every gun show in San Diego so far this year (including the one coming up in October). He is the only candidate who will make San Diego County a true “shall issue” County with the possible exception of Ruff who has not filed papers yet and has frankly lost support from many who are now in favor of LaSuer. As far as being viable, he was a very popular Assemblyman and has a number of endorsements on his web site. He is as viable as Gore, Duffy, or Ruff.

Refocusing: An endorsement will not come until they close the filing window. This happens around March of 2010 because the primary is in June 2010. At this time the NRA will send questionnaires to all candidates, give them time to return the questionnaires, and then rate them and possibly give an endorsement. This is the process in any election. But the process will not start until March of 2010. Meanwhile Jay LaSuer is holding fund raisers and making appearances.

1) Give me the benefit of the doubt and let me assert the premise that LaSuer (despite whatever perceived flaws you may have listed) will get the endorsement and it is safe to assume this is a no-brainer. In a situation such as this, what is the danger in the NRA changing their rules to jump in early and hard to ensure that they show support for a pro CCW candidate for Sheriff especially for such a large county like San Diego?
2) If the NRA is not considering giving LaSuer an endorsement or changing the rules to support him earlier than normal, how much should the NRA listen to the gun community in San Diego (which is without a doubt overwhelmingly pro LaSuer) and how much should the gun community listen to the NRA? Who should have the power?
3) Should the NRA make it possible for the Members’ Council to support NRA rated candidates so they do not have to wait for an endorsement? Should there be a work-around for the Members’ Council? If not, why and what’s the danger? Again, the Members’ Council cannot support a candidate in any way who is not endorsed.

I think these are good questions to talk about and discuss. These issues are for an election that is two years away, but if changes are to be made, it is too late to affect the election in 6 weeks.

Thank you all for reading...


-Michael

[Paladin]

I went thru the above posts and just have a few comments in no real order and don't have time to flesh them out.

* Don't expect the NRA to change its policies to benefit one county race in one state in the USA. They developed their policies after several decades of hard fought federal, state, and probably even local campaigns. I'm sure they are quite confident of the wisdom of their policies.

* Don't expect the NRA to change its policies (or make an exception to its policy) as a short cut for JSL supporters doing the heavy lifting of forming a political org, raising big bucks, and running a viable campaign. That's your job, not the NRA's. 2 yrs isn't much time for JSL's campaign org -- it is plenty of time for the NRA to decide whom, if anyone, to stamp w/their endorsement.

* Run w/the grades JLS has earned. Use those to encourage pro-gun people to join your org (if you have one), and contribute to get him elected. But remember, all the pro-gun people in SD Co are only a fraction of the support that JSL will need to win, NRA endorsement or not. Similarly, issuing CCWs are only a minuscule part of being sheriff, and he's got to be competent in all the things necessary for being a successful sheriff.

* Calling the NRA out in public like this is NOT the way to get on their good side. IMO, if you are a leader of JLS's org, you've hurt his chances of getting an endorsement, rather than helped, by this behavior. This is not the way to treat someone you are trying to get to do your candidate a favor by giving them an endorsement. If you are a leader of JSL's campaign org, the very existence of this thread does not bode well for either it or for JSL (if he picked you to lead his org.).

If you are not a leader of his org, but rather just a zealous supporter of his, you may want to slow down and learn how politics works lest you hurt the very thing you are trying to help.

* Politics is all about things like trust, loyalty, and reputation. The NRA has earned an incredibly enviable reputation. IIRC, Wayne said that 24M people claim to be members when surveyed when in fact only 1/6th that many actually are members. 6 times as many people want to be associated w/the NRA as are actual members! That is unbelievable!

Plus, the NRA has an awesome -- awesome to those on our side, frightening to those on the other side -- reputation in knocking off political opponents.

These things spell political clout, political capital. And every time the NRA endorses someone, it is putting their/our hard-earned reputation on the line.

JSL supporters have got to make JSL and his org the kind of candidate and campaign that the NRA will want to endorse. Don't put the cart before the horse.

Hope this helps and wish you the best.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

to mike schwartz and paladin:

thank you both for elevating the debate here on calguns.

your lasts posts are the antidote to what was frustrating about this thread.

[GuyW]

I have no position, official or non-official, with the Jay La Suer campaign. I am merely an enthusiastic supporter.

Whatever any of you think about my posts, views, and tone they are not reviewed nor approved by the campaign or Jay.

Neither am I a member of the SD NRA Member Council. (Although I like the members, I will not be one in the current atmosphere - even though (or maybe even because) I have been a NRA Life member for 30+ years (CRPA as well)).

We (pro-gunners) in San Diego have the benefit and challenge of a somewhat rare confluence of circumstances - an (officially) non-incumbent Sheriff's race, and a very well-qualified candidate in Jay La Suer.

Since this is a pro-gun forum, I obviously talk about gun issues. But no one should confuse that focus with Jay being a single issue candidate - he is not.

But regardless of Jay's excellent qualifications - he (and all other candidates) will have a fight in this race, not because of any purported lack of qualifications (love the slams in this thread), but solely because the main opposing candidates have substantial resources at their disposal.

That is the reason he's starting his campaign 2 years early. To win.
Anyone who thinks a winner can wait till 2009 under these circumstances is clueless...

And the downside if La Suer doesn't win?

We get an anti-gun Kolender-clone for 12-24 years.

The options could not be starker, and thus the urgency I display.

San Diego gunowners who have met him or become aware of his campaign, have overwhelmingly supported him thus far (by the way -the entrance of any other putatively pro-gun candidate may well mean that neither pro-gunner will win).

So, San Diego citizens and gunowners will take on the challenge of helping Jay La Suer win the PRIMARY, but it seems obvious they will do so without any help from the NRA CA or DC. The Member Council will be officially neutered as well.

Thank you NRA for nothing.

Whether the volunteers' efforts will be aided in the final runoff election, or even be impeded by the NRA, remains very much a question.

And, collaterally, the NRA Member Council will not appear to be effective to many SD gunowners because it will be silent in what will obviously be a very important race, and that will undoubtedly harm their membership recruiting efforts.

So there it is - NRA can actually be an important participant with San Diego gunowners to win a very important race, or just be an out of town carpetbagger looking to polish their hit/run statistics.

Their choice.

[mikehaas]

There is nothing new under the sun in this thread. If you aren't on the inside of a campaign, on the inside of NRA, if you are an observer and not a player, you may be driven by passion but not by the facts.

The most effective path to winning is for gun-owners to do their job and be a vocal manifestation of ONE voice - NRA's. And for NRA to do it's job, which is to carefully and calculatingly choose ratings and endorsements for candidates and promote those most likely to win. I can't think of a single positive accomplishment that can be honestly attributed to GOC in the history of their existence. But man, can I recall the widespread damage to our gun-rights with GOC's refusal to cooperate with NRA, self-serving backroom dealing, pitting of the industry against gun-owners and any other way they can manage to gt well-intentioned gun-owners, manufacturers and dealers to pay for their mortgages and car payments.

For gun-owners to start directing what NRA should do (outside of the normal "member driven" aspect of NRA's architecture - we DO elect the members of the board, every year 1/3 of the board runs for re-election while garage-based GOC IS A PRIVATE COMPANY ANSWERABLE TO NO ONE) or for NRA to ignore the facts and listen to passion only - that is the path our enemies want us to take.

If a candidate hasn't asked for an endorsement, they many not want one. It may surprise the NRA-bashing political experts here but there are places in California where an NRA endorsement HURTS a candidate. (If more gun-owners were active in that area backing up NRA, it probably wouldn't be that way.) Rabid candidate supporters don't even care what their candidate wants - THEY ARE GOING TO DICTATE THE TERMS OF THEIR SUPPORT - to the candidate, to NRA, to EVERYONE - all the while pissing people off and creating problems. So how's that working out for you?

This thread has already received way too much attention considering the viciously negative manner in which it was born. Such attacks should be SIMPLY IGNORED as bait by those who don't understand the process, only their own frustration and anger. They can learn to ask politely, like adults. Attacking others and making demands is GOC's way of making friends and infuencing people (not), not NRA's and not calguns'.

Apologies to the calguns faithful are in order, GuyW. People have worked hard FOR YEARS to build a significant resource here and your postings have been disrespectful to many here. NRA works closely with calguns for a reason. Don't abuse this special forum.

[CoinStar]

It may surprise the NRA-bashing political experts here but there are places in California where an NRA endorsement HURTS a candidate.

Aside from the derision being cast here, I'll say that the statement is probably true enough for most of the major metro areas in California, including San Diego county.

That said, there really is no need for the NRA to endorse candidates other than the prospective "sure thing" winners that they desire. Fair enough, but... that doesn't make a good case for the NRA overall. It certainly makes me reconsider renewals each year.

As for any perceived "bashing", legitimate criticisms aren't that at all; they are warranted in many cases. And if someone is a paying member of an organization, they have every right to voice such criticisms lest they become a mere silent dues-payer (which seems to be the criticism dujour of the *other* gun nut groups).

[CoinStar]

1) Give me the benefit of the doubt and let me assert the premise that LaSuer (despite whatever perceived flaws you may have listed) will get the endorsement and it is safe to assume this is a no-brainer. In a situation such as this, what is the danger in the NRA changing their rules to jump in early and hard to ensure that they show support for a pro CCW candidate for Sheriff especially for such a large county like San Diego?
2) If the NRA is not considering giving LaSuer an endorsement or changing the rules to support him earlier than normal, how much should the NRA listen to the gun community in San Diego (which is without a doubt overwhelmingly pro LaSuer) and how much should the gun community listen to the NRA? Who should have the power?
3) Should the NRA make it possible for the Members’ Council to support NRA rated candidates so they do not have to wait for an endorsement? Should there be a work-around for the Members’ Council? If not, why and what’s the danger? Again, the Members’ Council cannot support a candidate in any way who is not endorsed.

<bump>

[GuyW]

If you aren't on the inside of a campaign, on the inside of NRA, if you are an observer and not a player, you may be driven by passion but not by the facts.

You assume too much. But that's the apparent arrogance of NRA insiders.


The most effective path to winning is for gun-owners to do their job and be a vocal manifestation of ONE voice - NRA's.

Translation: shut up and sit in the back of the bus.



I can't think of a single positive accomplishment that can be honestly attributed to GOC in the history of their existence. But man, can I recall the widespread damage to our gun-rights with GOC's refusal to cooperate with NRA, self-serving backroom dealing.


I don't especially care about GOC, or GOC bashing. Since you appear to think that listing other's failings = NRA's strengths, maybe its fair to talk here about NRA's failings? the list is long- should we start?....

On the other hand, does a non-involved gun owner have a bad impression of a "Gun Owners" group listed in campaign literature? NO. Some of you let your GOC-hate blind you to certain facts...



For gun-owners to start directing what NRA should do....that is the path our enemies want us to take.

Wow, your own words...


If a candidate hasn't asked for an endorsement, they many not want one.

Once again, your assumptions, I know that he wants it.


Apologies to the calguns faithful are in order, GuyW.

I apologize to anyone I've called a name (none).

Mods can delete the thread if they want.

I've found here the questions I wanted answered - which would not have been answered by another method: the NRA is a lumbering bureaucratic organization that is not grassroots-driven or grassroots-friendly (all hype aside), and member input is irrelevant, unwanted, and belittled.
San Diego NRA members are entirely on their own....


Don't abuse this special forum.

Right, not drinking the NRA HQ koolaid = abuse...
.

[Kestryll]

You came here looking for a fight just based on your first post and demeanor throughout this thread. Instead you were given information. That you have chosen to ignore it or be dismissive of it is indicative of the fact that you did not come here looking for discussion or input but rather to proclaim your demands while belittling those you are asking things of.

You are right, we CAN delete it, but fortunately for you some have chosen to discuss this issue rather then just pop in and make accusations and snide remarks.
That is why it is still open.

[GuyW]

You came here looking for a fight just based on your first post and demeanor throughout this thread.

No, I chose a aggressive approach because I was fairly certain that the response would be short and dismissive, "NRA knows best" etc. I wanted to find out whether I was right, and to make it public if so.

Instead you were given information. That you have chosen to ignore it...

I ignored nothing. Show me what I "ignored" and I'll tell you why it was deficient.

Apparently on these forums, NRA pronouncements are to be accepted by blind faith.

Instead you were given information. That you have chosen to.....be dismissive of it is indicative of the fact that you did not come here looking for discussion or input...

Gee - maybe its actually indicative of the weak and non-persuasive nature of the information

....rather to proclaim your demands...

As I already said, my "demands" were essentially a ruse to flush out information that San Diego gunowners might wish to know.

....while belittling those you are asking things of.

Quote me personally-belittling statements I made.

.

[Kestryll]

Below is a list of your snide, insulting or just plain rude comments since you asked. Every single one is a comment you have made and while they are all from this thread they are not all that is in this thread.

Since pointing out the issue does not seem to be apparent enough for you I'll say it plainly.
Make your points and ask your questions without the little digs, insults and snide remarks, we don't tolerate them here. Members are expected to post in a civil manner.

Now, if you find it oppressive here, say the word.
If you can not find it within yourself to post in a civil manner I will say the word.
Either way the antagonistic, petulant and insulting posts end here.

NRA HQ koolaid
But that's the apparent arrogance of NRA insiders.
NRA koolaid drinkers - start spinning....
Well, this drivel didn't improve the situation any...
Irrelevant blather
It's no wonder that previous candidates like Bill Hunt feel that the pro-gun community failed them - it sits on the sidelines doing nothing until the race is a sure thing....makes me puke...
How long does it take to make no-brainer decisions??

[Kestryll]

No, I chose a aggressive approach because I was fairly certain that the response would be short and dismissive, "NRA knows best" etc. I wanted to find out whether I was right, and to make it public if so.
So in other words, you DID come here looking to pick a fight just as I said.
Thank you for the verification.

Apparently on these forums, NRA pronouncements are to be accepted by blind faith.
Actually the kind of rude and antagonistic baiting you have admitted to is not allowed, that is where your problem is now lying.

As I already said, my "demands" were essentially a ruse to flush out information that San Diego gunowners might wish to know.

So in addition to admitting that you came here to pick a fight you also acknowledge that you purposely started this thread to troll and bait others to get a desired response so you could go elsewhere and claim to have achieved something.

An amazing collection of admissions.

[GuyW]

So in addition to admitting that you came here to pick a fight

You said I came to pick a fight. I said I came to get information.

...you also acknowledge that you purposely started this thread to troll and bait others to get a desired response

I said I came to verify information.

...response so you could go elsewhere and claim to have achieved something.


Show me where I said anything about taking this somewhere else - you think San Diego gunowners don't read CalGuns?

An amazing collection of admissions.

No - an amazing collection of assertions by you.

.

[GuyW]

Below is a list of your snide, insulting or just plain rude comments since you asked. Every single one is a comment you have made and while they are all from this thread they are not all that is in this thread.

Since pointing out the issue does not seem to be apparent enough for you I'll say it plainly.
Make your points and ask your questions without the little digs, insults and snide remarks, we don't tolerate them here. Members are expected to post in a civil manner.

Now, if you find it oppressive here, say the word.
If you can not find it within yourself to post in a civil manner I will say the word.
Either way the antagonistic, petulant and insulting posts end here.

I'll edit many of my posts in this thread.

Obviously BWiese is not subject to this rule, since in this thread he uses "stupid", "idiots", "Alzheimers" as a dig, etc etc

[Kestryll]

So your own words as quoted are assertions made by me?
Quoted from both in your own post and as a collection from your other posts in this thread. Those are assertions made by me and not your own words?

What an incredible logic leap!

[GuyW]

So your own words as quoted are assertions made by me?
Quoted from both in your own post and as a collection from your other posts in this thread. Those are assertions made by me and not your own words?

That's right - you understand the words I post through your own biased filter, and then characterize my intent.

[Kestryll]

That's right - you understand the words I post through your own filter, and then characterize my intent.

So simply quoting you changes the intent.
Interesting.
Oh, and now my filters are biased. Because I told you that posting in a rude manner is unacceptable.
You are right, I am biased, in favor of enforcing the rules.


Sorry, not buying the doublespeak nor the whitewash routine.
Your own words betray you and discount your later attempt to redefine them.
Words have meaning, attempting later to reclassify that meaning with specious claims of altered intent only serves to show that you know the meaning of your words and choose to obfuscate rather then stand by them.

[GuyW]

GuyW posted:

"No, I chose a aggressive approach because I was fairly certain that the response would be short and dismissive, "NRA knows best" etc. I wanted to find out whether I was right, and to make it public if so."

Kestryll responded:

"So in other words, you DID come here looking to pick a fight just as I said."

"In other words" - exactly - your words, not mine.

So, help me along - any Calgunner who comes here and posts a question, to which he/she knows or suspects he will get a negative or dismissive response, is "looking to pick a fight"?

Or is it "looking to pick a fight" to disseminate information to the gun public via CalGuns?

Maybe the offensive part is wanting "to find out whether I was right".

Or maybe you are fixated on "aggressive":

"2 a: marked by obtrusive energy b: marked by driving forceful energy or initiative : enterprising <an aggressive salesman>
3: strong or emphatic in effect or intent <aggressive colors> <aggressive flavors>"

(obtrusive: 1 a: forward in manner or conduct <obtrusive behavior> b: undesirably prominent
2: thrust out : protruding <a sharp obtrusive edge>)

I said I was looking for information, _you_ characterize it as fight.

BTW, I'm responding, not to fight, but to avoid the appearance that I agree with your characterizations...

[Kestryll]

No, anyone coming here who opens up with insults and rude comments is NOT looking for information, they are trolling.
Snide comments such as THESE are not condusive to 'asking questions' or 'disseminating information'.
Just to remind you again, these are YOUR words used as derogatory towards other members here.

NRA HQ koolaid
But that's the apparent arrogance of NRA insiders.
NRA koolaid drinkers - start spinning....
Well, this drivel didn't improve the situation any...
Irrelevant blather
It's no wonder that previous candidates like Bill Hunt feel that the pro-gun community failed them - it sits on the sidelines doing nothing until the race is a sure thing....makes me puke...
How long does it take to make no-brainer decisions??


You seem to think that is 'looking for information', I do call it trying to pick a fight.

[GuyW]

You seem to think that is 'looking for information', I do call it trying to pick a fight.

And what shall we call BWiese's use of adjectives that are disallowed for my use?

[GuyW]

"NRA HQ koolaid"..."NRA koolaid drinkers - start spinning...."

How many times have I read koolaid and kolaid drinker on Calguns?

"But that's the apparent arrogance of NRA insiders."

So you can judge me a troll, but I and anyone else cannot judge someone arrogant?

"Well, this drivel didn't improve the situation any..."

The term "drivel" is henceforth a disallowed word on CalGuns.

"Irrelevant blather"

Every statement on CalGuns is worthy of all admiration....well, except GuyW's.

"It's no wonder that previous candidates like Bill Hunt feel that the pro-gun community failed them - it sits on the sidelines doing nothing until the race is a sure thing....makes me puke..."

You really lost me here. Apparently I can't be sickened by actions or inactions of the pro-gun community.

"How long does it take to make no-brainer decisions??"
Henceforth, the term "no-brainer" is verboten on CalGuns - got it.

Boy, a person really needs to watch his step round here to avoid "fighting words"...

....so - how about that National Quilt-Off, huh?

...not that there's anything wrong with quilting, you understand...




.

[Kestryll]

Ahh.. so now we go from clouded intent and justification to 'Well he did it too!!'

As fun as it has been to watch logic get beat about the head and shoulders with justification I need to get ready to go home.

The end result is posting snide comments and trolling is unacceptable and always has been.

[GuyW]

Ahh.. so now we go from clouded intent and justification to 'Well he did it too!!'

Why should you be surprised - when there's more than one standard in play on a single issue?

Since I always play by the rules, I'm also open to new information that clearly delineates at what point adjectives or expressed judgements slide downward into "snide".

At this time, I can only conclude that in order to avoid being "snide" on CalGuns, no judgment can be expressed nor adjective used, about any person or organization, that anyone may POSSIBLY percieve to be negative or disparaging, even IF provably accurate.
.

[bwiese]

Obviously BWiese is not subject to this rule, since in this thread he uses .... "Alzheimers" as a dig, etc etc


Alzheimer's is not a dig. It honestly appears to be what Kolender is suffering from, perhaps combined with alcohol intake and stress from family trouble (criminal (step?)daughter). It's even made a variety of papers; he's not really running anything anymore, everything is being delegated to staff.

I definitely agree with you GuyW that it'd be great to have a pro-CCW sheriff *anywhere* - whether or not he caused some NRA legislative problems in Sacramento. Regardless of gunnies' stance, though, JLS has to capture the Republican structure down in SD and people I talk to (who don't ahve a horse in the race and don't care about CCW) don't think he has much of a chance. That's all I'm trying to say. And backing a nonwinning horse early is like picking up a fat chick at a bar at 8PM instead of 2AM - "go ugly early" ;)

Tellyawhat, Guy, how about putting $250 bet on JLS winning the upcoming election for SD Sheriff? (me for loss, you for win) - and I'll let you have it easy, bet is off if he doesn't enter the race. Despite all the diatribe above, I'd indeed hope I'd lose the money to you.

[GuyW]

Nah - I don't (formally) bet (life's a crapshoot...)

If I have an extra $250, it goes to Jay or another important (to me) local race.

And I've stirred up the bees enough here, I'm NOT getting started on the SD County Republican Party apparatus...

[bwiese]

Nah - I don't (formally) bet (life's a crapshoot...)

If I have an extra $250, it goes to Jay or another important (to me) local race.

And I've stirred up the bees enough here, I'm NOT getting started on the SD County Republican Party apparatus...

OK. Damn, usu easy to take candy from the faithful.

If you want J to succeed, start there (SD Repub) FIRST. Everything else has its time and place.

[GuyW]

* Don't expect the NRA to change its policies....They developed their policies after several decades....


Thanks for independently establishing their organizational inertia...I'd be in trouble if I said that...



* Don't expect the NRA to change its policies (or make an exception to its policy) as a short cut for JSL supporters doing the heavy lifting of forming a political org, raising big bucks, and running a viable campaign. That's your job, not the NRA's.

Thanks for assuming that San Diegans expected someone else to do the work, or are incapable of doing it. Gee - under Kestryll's rules, I'd say that's a disparaging assertion....


2 yrs isn't much time for JSL's campaign org

Now you're contradicting other posters who in their experience, would wait a while to do something.


* Calling the NRA out in public like this is NOT the way to get on their good side. IMO....you've hurt his chances of getting an endorsement, rather than helped, by this behavior.


Are you implying that more than merely a competent analysis procedure is involved in obtaining endorsements? I'm shocked and dismayed that anyone could reach such a conclusion...

BTW - I have no position or status with his campaign....I've assured that at this point....


...you may want to slow down and learn how politics works...

Why - how condescending of you, kind Sir!

Maaaaybe I don't like the way "politics works" (or doesn't work). Especially in an organization that I'm a member of.


JSL supporters have got to make JSL and his org the kind of candidate and campaign that the NRA will want to endorse.

No - they have to work like the NRA is irrelevant to the outcome - because at this point it is.

.

[Kestryll]

"NRA HQ koolaid"..."NRA koolaid drinkers - start spinning...."

How many times have I read koolaid and kolaid drinker on Calguns?

"But that's the apparent arrogance of NRA insiders."

So you can judge me a troll, but I and anyone else cannot judge someone arrogant?

"Well, this drivel didn't improve the situation any..."

The term "drivel" is henceforth a disallowed word on CalGuns.

"Irrelevant blather"

Every statement on CalGuns is worthy of all admiration....well, except GuyW's.

"It's no wonder that previous candidates like Bill Hunt feel that the pro-gun community failed them - it sits on the sidelines doing nothing until the race is a sure thing....makes me puke..."

You really lost me here. Apparently I can't be sickened by actions or inactions of the pro-gun community.

"How long does it take to make no-brainer decisions??"
Henceforth, the term "no-brainer" is verboten on CalGuns - got it.

Boy, a person really needs to watch his step round here to avoid "fighting words"...

....so - how about that National Quilt-Off, huh?

...not that there's anything wrong with quilting, you understand....

*sigh*
Home at last and I see we're still playing the game.

Okay, as amusing as this list is you left out a few critical components, and admittedly so did I. You asked "Where did I.." and i compiled a list. I worked under the supposition that since these were your words I did not have to point out the contextual significance. I should not have made that assumption.

In the instances that these comments were made, context converts them from generic statements to directly or indirectly applying to other members here.

"NRA koolaid drinkers - start spinning...." Comment made at the close of initial comments, dismissive and presupposing that anyone disagreeing is just another "drinker of the NRA koolaid" who will be 'spinning' things as opposed to answering questions.


Each one of these was made in direct response to the posting of another member.
Not just random commentary.
Not general remarks.
Direct and specific comments to another member.
"NRA HQ koolaid" "But that's the apparent arrogance of NRA insiders." "Well, this drivel didn't improve the situation any..." "Irrelevant blather"
Each rude little comment was made in response to the posted answer to your questions. You did not like the reply so you choose to respond in this manner.


"It's no wonder that previous candidates like Bill Hunt feel that the pro-gun community failed them - it sits on the sidelines doing nothing until the race is a sure thing....makes me puke..."
Making a statement that people here 'sitting on the sidelines' is both silly and offensive. Insulting the membership of the forum as 'fair-weather activists' is not the best way to win hearts and minds.


"How long does it take to make no-brainer decisions??"
The implication here is that those not sharing your view are not bright enough to make this 'no-brainer' decision. A nice way to blanket insult the membership of this forum.

So, seen in context yes, you do have to watch your step.
Because these kinds of directed and specific rude, sarcastic and snide comments are not well tolerated here.

And before you start complaining about 'interpretation' remember my earlier statement.
Words have meaning and when you choose your words without care for the meaning, implication or context you have no one but yourself to blame for the way they are interpreted.
When the context makes plain what you meant to say you have even less cause for complaint.

[CoinStar]

I definitely agree with you GuyW that it'd be great to have a pro-CCW sheriff *anywhere* - whether or not he caused some NRA legislative problems in Sacramento. Regardless of gunnies' stance, though, JLS has to capture the Republican structure down in SD and people I talk to (who don't ahve a horse in the race and don't care about CCW) don't think he has much of a chance. That's all I'm trying to say.

With respect to the highlight, ask yourself this: How is this helpful?

...and who are these "people" you're talking to down here? Do they have names of any significance or no?

Why on Earth this matters to you one way or the other is beyond me. If you don't think La Suer is a fit candidate for the sheriff's race, then by all means don't vote for him in a county where (presumably) you're not registered to vote.

It's that simple. If that's truly "all [you're] trying to say", then you've said it so let it go now and let those who are actually affected by this race discuss something constructive.

[GuyW]

"It's no wonder that previous candidates like Bill Hunt feel that the pro-gun community failed them - it sits on the sidelines doing nothing until the race is a sure thing...."


I did get a little loose in my paraphrase of an 2008 email from Bill Hunt (Orange County Sheriff candidate), "...and quite frankly was unable to generate enough support in the past. Especially from the 2A community considering my position on CCW's which has been public since 2005! I got virtually no financial support from them despite many promises to the contrary. I'm not putting myself or my family through that process again."


Making a statement that people here 'sitting on the sidelines' is both silly and offensive. Insulting the membership of the forum as 'fair-weather activists' is not the best way to win hearts and minds.


Not guilty - I said the "pro-gun community", not CalGunners. You sure look to take offense...

Coupled with the admissions in this thread that NRA will not get involved until after the primaries, it is not a silly nor "offensive", but rather a statement of facts.

Important to note here that the SD Sheriffs race would end at the primary election, if one candidate receives 50% +1 vote.


[I]"How long does it take to make no-brainer decisions??"
The implication here is that those not sharing your view are not bright enough to make this 'no-brainer' decision. A nice way to blanket insult the membership of this forum.

So, "no-brainer" is NOW a banned word.

If I didn't know better, I'd say this is really about the SUBSTANCE of my views.

[Paladin]

Wow. I offer you constructive advice and you try twisting my words to say things I didn't say. That says a lot about you, none of it good. Since you clearly don't care about your reputation, I'm not surprised that you don't care about the NRA maintaining its reputation.

The only reason I even spent the time to make that post was due to your "join date" at CGN and because RomanDad once said something nice about you. I can see I wasted my time. I will not repeat that mistake.

As I often say, everyone's good reputation either increases or decreases w/every post they make. I'll let the CGN membership and leadership decide how yours and mine have been affected by this thread.

Outta here.

[GuyW]

Outta here...

LOL. Sorry you don't like the import of your points...

BTW - Don't hold it against RomanDad - he didn't mean it, can't have said it more than once, and it was a long time ago and far, far away...

[bulgron]

This thread is Exhibit A for how California gun owners manage to shoot themselves in their own foot via in-fighting.

It's sad, really. The NRA is the most effective organization in the nation (actually, on the planet) for protecting our RKBA. But instead of thanking them, what we do is stand around hacking on them when the way they do business somehow doesn't suite us.

Nice.

The NRA isn't the enemy, people. The enemy consists of all the statist politicians and their supporters who are determined to take our firearm rights away from us. Or have we forgotten this simple little fact?

But I have an idea. If the NRA doesn't work for you, you can:

1. Become heavily involved in the NRA, maybe even run for a board position, and do your best to change the way it works from the inside; or

2. Start your own pro-gun organization that will work the way you want it to work, and then eat the NRA's lunch because obviously this new pro-gun organization will be so much better than the NRA that we'll all flock to it's standard.

Personally, I think option #1 is the better choice, but what do I know? I also happen to think that the NRA does a pretty good job given their resource constraints.

Guy, just so you know, you're inches away from finding yourself on my ignore list. That's sad because I mostly agree with you on all other issues discussed on this board. But the way you've chosen to go negative in this thread is beyond unacceptable. I have enough people in my life going negative right now (all the liberals who are supporting Obama), and I really don't need to come here to see gunnies doing it too.

[mchector]

I skipped pages 6 7 and 8, but I'll help guy in whatever shenanigans he comes up with anyway I can :D

[GuyW]

...The NRA isn't the enemy, people.


You're right, its not. Never said it was.

The motorcycle groups that oppose mandatory helmet laws aren't the enemies of pro-gunners, either....and they're also not assisting gun owners in San Diego County with a specific locally-important gunrights issue.


But I have an idea. If the NRA doesn't work for you, you can:

1. Become heavily involved in the NRA, maybe even run for a board position, and do your best to change the way it works from the inside...


An excellent and valid point (that at least one other offered), and one I'll return to.

First, an aside about "co-opting":

Hypothetically and generically, when a spokesman for a group makes a public point that a politician doesn't appreciate, the pol can resist in various ways. One is to call the spokesman in for a meeting, and the pol convinces him that he should advise and work with the pol. What too often occurs is that the spokesman ends up, not telling the pol what his group wants, but rather is going to the group and making excuses about why the pol really can't do what they want right now. He's been co-opted.

To return to the concept of becoming heavily involved in the NRA. That is a great option for some. They should do it if they can and want to.

Others without the freedom to get so heavily involved, still might want to be involved in some way.

ONE way would be this:

PARTICIPATION in a NON-NRA forums site, for NRA members ONLY.

The NON-NRA forums site, for NRA members ONLY, might look something like this

(And these are only preliminary ideas I have)

To be allowed to register, the person must prove NRA membership.

Said person would then be ID'd as "Joe Smith, 1" (ie, real name, 1 year member)
or "Sally Palin, 1x5" (ie, yearly member x 5 years) etc. (The point being, when "Osama Biden, 1" makes a post that NRA ought to assist in outlawing handguns, forum members can consider the source).

There would be a General Forum, and state forums.

The point would be a meeting place for NRA members, NRA Member Council members, friendly NRA board members, even NRA staff, to discuss GRASSROOTS and other concerns, get educated on topics, create new ideas and energy for the NRA, and develop grassroots projects.

I happen to think that CalGuns proves that valuable concepts and movements can grow out of such forums.

PM me if you have an interest or want to create such a site.

[GuyW]

The latest from today's North County Times...

[Note: moron reporter / paper mispelled his name...]

Speculation over Kolender's retirement fuels race

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008...bf005ed254.txt

Sheriff Bill Kolender still has two more years before he closes out what he has said will be his fourth and final term as San Diego County's top law enforcement officer.

But the campaign to replace him already has kicked into high gear, fueled by speculation that Kolender may retire before his term ends in 2010. The sheriff insisted he will finish his term.

The head of the deputies' union and one of the people running for the post said the scuttlebutt is that Kolender would like to handpick his successor, Undersheriff Bill Gore, by retiring early and allowing Gore to run as an incumbent in 2010.

They suggested that incumbency would give Gore an unfair edge in the election.

Thus far, three people have announced their candidacies in what is expected to be a crowded field. All are current or former employees of the Sheriff's Department.

Gore, Jim Duffy, county Supervisor Ron Roberts' chief of staff, and former state Assemblyman Jay LaSeur have formed campaign committees and are actively campaigning.

Kolender announced earlier this year that he would not seek another term.

He has endorsed Gore, his second in command, fueling speculation that Kolender would retire early, clearing the way for the Board of Supervisors to appoint a new sheriff.

"There is talk that that's a possibility," said Ernie Carrillo, president of the Deputy Sheriffs' Association of San Diego County, which represents more than 2,000 sworn officers in the department.

Carrillo said the association has not endorsed a candidate for sheriff and will not do so until next year.

The 73-year-old Kolender insisted he intends to stick around to the end of his fourth four-year term as sheriff. And he was firm about who he wanted to succeed him.

"I am retiring at the end of this term, that's been publicly noted," Kolender said. "And I am hoping that Bill Gore will take my place. I am supporting him all the way."

Early start?

Running for sheriff without an incumbent in the race is a rare opportunity in San Diego County, Duffy said. His own father, the late Sheriff John F. Duffy, served for two decades, from 1971 to 1991. Sheriffs tend to like picking their successors, Duffy said.

He said he sees a parallel between what happened in 1962 and what appears to be happening now.

Sheriff Bert Strand, who served from 1941 to 1962, left before his fifth term ended and endorsed Elmer Jansen, who was appointed interim sheriff. Jansen later lost in the 1963 election to Joseph O'Connor, who served until 1971.

"Sheriffs generally stay in office for a long period of time," Duffy said. "He (Strand) did the same thing that we suspect Kolender is doing ... he convinced the supervisors to appoint his undersheriff, Jansen, as sheriff. So that when the election came to fill that spot, he ran as the sheriff."

While incumbency and a sheriff's endorsement are assets, they obviously offer no guarantee of election, Duffy acknowledged. His own father endorsed an unsuccessful candidate to replace him, Duffy said.

The sheriff is responsible for a department with 4,000 employees and a budget of $570 million. The department's 2,300 sworn personnel patrol most of the county, including 10 cities and the unincorporated areas. It also operates the county's jails.

Both Duffy and Gore pointed to LaSeur as the one responsible for the early start. LaSeur formed a campaign committee in February.

"Jay LaSeur started it and once he started, Jim Duffy followed," Gore said.

LaSeur, who retired from the department as undersheriff in 1994, said he needed the time to garner endorsements and raise money to run.

"If you're going to get your message out, you need to have the money that's necessary," LaSeur said about the reason for starting his campaign when he did. "That's no cause for anybody else to start."

LaSeur dismissed the claim that he started his campaign late last winter because of the rumor that Kolender may retire early.

"I've heard those rumors, but rumors are like trees," he said. "They are all over the place."

Gore, a former FBI field agent in charge of the bureau's San Diego office, joined the Sheriff's Department in February 2004.

As for rumors of Kolender's early retirement, Gore said: "People have been speculating about that for years."

Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.

Jim Duffy

Age: 46

Residence: Oceanside

Education: Vista High School graduate, associates degree from MiraCosta College and attending National University.

Employment: Chief of Staff for county Supervisor Ron Roberts; on leave of absence from the Sheriff's Department, where he is a lieutenant and has worked since 1986.

Jay LaSeur

Age: 68

Residence: La Mesa

Education: Bachelors degree in public administration from San Diego State.

Employment: Sheriff's Department in 1970. LaSeur later served as a city councilman in La Mesa from 1990 to 2000. He was elected to the state Assembly in 2000 and was termed out in 2006.

Bill Gore

Age: 61

Residence: Mission Hills

Education: Bachelors degree from University of San Diego and masters degree in public administration from Seattle University.

Employment: Undersheriff, 32 years in the FBI, including head of San Diego office.

[GuyW]

Today's North County Times - it would be great for a couple of CalGunners to make this. (note: as far as I know, La Suer was not invited to this 2008 candidate forum)

Republican Club holds candidates forum

OCEANSIDE ---- The Republican Club of North County will meet at 6 p.m. Sept. 25 at the Oceanside Elks Lodge, 444 Country Club Lane. Fifth District Supervisor Bill Horn will moderate a candidates forum featuring Undersheriff Bill Gore as well as several candidates for office in North County. Cost for dinner is $15 for members; $20 for nonmembers. Reserve to (760) 717-0566 or deborahlsimon@yahoo.com.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008...c7006c1e09.txt