http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs ... 00318/1024

NRA rating shoots down honest GOP candidate

Jim Alexander
Dan Popkey
The Idaho Statesman | Edition Date: 10-20-2004

MOUNTAIN HOME — Republican Tim Corder Sr. made a mistake. He told the National Rifle Association what he really thought.

Corder was one of the GOP's best prospects — until he got crosswise with the NRA.

Corder got a "D" rating from the NRA, as an "anti-gun candidate," while his Democratic opponent, Jim Alexander got an "A," as a "solidly pro-gun candidate." In District 22 — Elmore and Boise counties — that's likely to end GOP hopes to capture retiring Democratic Sen. Fred Kennedy's seat.

The news was a blow to Senate GOP Caucus Chairman Brad Little of Emmett. Little told me Tuesday he'd heard a rumor that Corder "hadn't done well" on the NRA's 21-question survey, but didn't know the details.

"If it hurts with sportsmen and gun owners, it's damaging, particularly in that district," Little acknowledged.

Alexander, chairman of the Mountain Home School Board for 15 years, is top-notch. A pharmacist, he's owned Sav-Mor Drug for 26 years and has a centrist approach. He's backed by a wide range of groups, including the teachers' union, Idaho Power and the Idaho Hospital Association. But in a district with an Air Force base and a wartime Republican president on the ballot, Corder had a real shot.

Not any more.

"It will definitely be damaging," said George Dovel, the NRA's election volunteer coordinator in the 1st Congressional District and a Boise County voter. "If he doesn't alter this, it could cost him the election."

Corder got a "D" for three reasons, Dovel said.

First, he said he supports restrictions on private possession of semi-automatic firearms, often called "assault weapons." Second, Corder backed legislation requiring private collectors and gun sellers who are not licensed dealers to do background checks before selling weapons privately and at gun shows. Third, he favors restrictions on gun ownership for people convicted of violent misdemeanors.

The right to bear arms is an article of faith, especially for Idaho GOP candidates. What was Corder thinking?

Corder is earnest, engaging and refreshingly blunt. He's also naive. As of Sept. 30, he'd raised $6,600, compared to Alexander's $26,900. Even with that disadvantage, he spent just $2,100, leaving Senate President Pro Tem Bob Geddes to wonder why Corder wasn't using what he had. Corder said he's running a frugal campaign because that's how he'd govern.

That's not the way to capture an open seat. And you don't win without carefully considering what you tell the NRA. Corder said he only learned of his "D" on Tuesday, when a sheriff's candidate in Boise County asked him about it.

On a semi-automatic ban, Corder said he misunderstood, thinking they were asking about fully automatic weapons. A Vietnam veteran, he said his views spring from having been in combat.

"My bias about weapons doesn't come from the media," Corder said. "My bias comes from having them used against me and having to carry and use them against others. I concede my mind quit working."

Upon reflection, he said he supports the right to own semi-automatics. He stood his ground on background checks for private gun sales. "I'm not sure why those folks shouldn't fall under the same rules as a gun dealer. Maybe there's a good reason. I don't know what it is."

He also said misdemeanor offenders should have a harder time owning guns. "It should certainly be a bit harder for them to buy a weapon if they've been convicted of a violent crime, even a misdemeanor."

The NRA line can be hard to toe for a candidate who speaks his own mind.

"I don't know what I can say to appease them," Corder said. "I'm not going to take away their weapons."

Pro Tem Geddes, who got an "A+" NRA rating, said he feels for a first-time candidate wading through a complicated, 21-question survey. "Eighteen out of 21 right, that's 85.7 percent," Geddes said. "That's a pretty strong 'B' in my book."

But Geddes said he's dropped Corder from his list of prospective pickups because the NRA's against him.

That's a shame. Corder would be a fine addition to the Senate. He's a retired farmer with a trucking business. He worries about fully integrating Idaho's growing Hispanic community and campaigns with ease in Spanish. He's a good-hearted guy who helped start a Lutheran church school. He's on the highway district board and has ideas to save money on public works.

He's unafraid to voice unconventional ideas. He favors replacing the state income tax with a revenue-neutral sales tax. He wants to freeze property tax valuations on homes of retired folks. He thinks No Child Left Behind is depressing student performance. He'd like 10th-graders to pick an academic or vocational track and get vocational students into paying jobs as apprentice plumbers, electricians and other trades.

He wants smaller government and seems committed to not letting his ego upset that goal. "People ask me what legislation I'd sponsor," Corder said. "I'm confident in my answer: None. We have more laws than we can afford to enforce now."

Tim Corder needn't worry about keeping that promise. His ambition to serve has been shot to hell by his honesty.

I worry about people who vote based on a single issue.

Now, Popkey can be quite the "erratic" commentator, to say it nice. But it's truly amazing how extreme some of the NRA's stances are. Review those three things that got this guy a D.

Sheesh.

Me too. Outside of the Boise Metro area, there's quite a few of them.

I lived on the Mountain Home Air Force Base as a kid.

Should anyone even bother to take the NRA seriously?

I mean, Heston ran it.

Enough said.

But I'll continue anyway.

It is nothing but a lobby for gun manufacturers. It has NOTHING to do with sportsmen and the common person owning weapontry.

It has EVERYTHING to do with making sure there are NO LAWS restricting the PURCHASING of any weapon (and assult weapons are expensive).

It is about money, not hunting.

Utter bullshit.

I'd take the NRA seriously, they're one of the most powerful lobbies in existance.

Add: "unfortunately"

and I quite agree.

the whole gun issue is for an outsider like me ridiculous, why would you be against getting assault weapons out of the hands of general public, as a matter of fact why be pro guns?

First of all, it is my FREEDOM and RIGHT to own whatever the hell I want. Yes, I own guns....NO, I do not own nor do I want an assault weapon...why do I need one? However, when you say someone cannot own an assault weapon, where does it stop? Are we gonna outlaw Toyotas because more people may possibly be killed in/with one? (nothing against Toyota...I do own one of those...used only for argument's sake).

Should you have the right to own one of these?





In order to drive a Toyota, you must have a license to do so, because not being properly trained can result in danger towards public safety. Surely the same can be said of guns.

I don't think there will be a "slippery slope" here.

This is similar to the argument that if gay marriage is made legal, people will start marrying their pets or children, etc.

Could be wrong, but I just don't see that happening in this case.

I'll side with law enforcement on this one. If the police support a ban because they have evidence that a non-ban makes their job of keeping us safe more difficult, then I go with the cops on this one.

People will still be able to hunt and own handguns.

What is the beef with that?

Yes, I should have the right. I don't have the means or the need/desire to own one though. But why can't I have the right?

And in order to drive a Toyota I do not need a license or the proper training to operate one. To be legal I do. There will ALWAYS be those out there that will not abide by the law. Does that mean that those who do should be punished?

Also, is it illegal to own bombs or to make your own bombs?

Why should it be "your right" to possess bombs?

It is kind of dumb when you think about it.

The same thing goes for assault weapons.

Why, outside of the military, are they necessary for the common person?

Are you expecting an invasion?

Are you expecting an angry herd of armed deer?

Rifles and handguns are plenty.

Beside the point.

Just opinion.

Delorted.

Was that a bomb? Or a rocket?

And why should it not be my right? Animals have rights....gays and lesbians have rights...illegal aliens have rights....why can't american citizens have rights?

And I never said that they were necessary...I can't think of one single reason why I would need a "bomb" or an assault weapon. But on the same token, I can't think of why gays and lesbians "need" to be married?

But in the end...that is just my opinion...........

I was trying to imply "nuclear warhead". Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Still, I think it works for rockets of that size, as well.

But you do have a right to own weapons....just not the extreme varieties.

And yes, homosexuals and heterosexuals have the right to get married (well, both SHOULD anyway)....but we don't allow said couples to have their wedding night sex in public places.


We all have rights, but there are also common sense laws that prevent us from taking said rights WAY too far.

I think it works out for our advantage, but yes I know how you feel. It can be a tricky subject.

Does that mean tha NASA or wanna be NASA scientists shouldn't be allowed to own rockets of such proportions?

They do not possess nuclear warheads


Again, protections from going too far with good ideas.