by plblark on Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:29 am
Here's my personal view on Swanson and the Endorsement:
There's a difference between party politics, personal politics and single issue or narrow issue Political Action Committees
I'm not a fan of Party line voting. My votes tend one way but they're based upone research and experience.
As to personal politics, the ACORN issue, the $749,999.99 settlement and the control of the funds it gave the office, and her continued influence by Hatch are issues.
But for a narrowly focused Gun Rights Political Action Committee, you have to go on the record. And her record is very good.
If you tell politicians: If you support us, we'll support you; If you oppose us, we'll oppose you.
Then you havwe to carry through on both sides of that carrot and stick offer.
It's one thing for someone to support you or do the right thing when it's on their party plank or in their party and constituents' understood beliefs. It's even MORE important to take note when it's not. When someone takes a politically risky stand or action because it's the right thing to do, it's worthy or note and attention. Rewarding that kind of thing pays dividends by encouraging not just that candidate but others to take principaled stands on your issues.
Swanson did the right thing when in office on multiple occasions. She ably represented MN in appealing the MCPPA overturn, and signed onto BOTH amicus briefs for Heller and Miller even though it would not be politically popular with her party or her friends, she did the right thing.