Is there ANY evidence to support that other than random hopeful speculation?



And while I don't recall Obama refusing to "accept his endorsement" (not that candidate usually personally accept or refuse personal endorsements), the campaign did return his $4350. Of course, his endorsement came in July '08 and the money was returned in April '09, a week before Spector was convicted.



In the end, the point is this... candidates have no control over who supports them, though they are free to denounce them. The fact that Nugent is a pedophile OR an NRA favorite isn't a surprise to anyone reading here on the DU, and the fact that he's a pedophile is probably only 6th or 7th on the list of reason's why most people here hate Ted Nugent. There's a billion good reasons to dislike Romney, but "Romney got an endorsement from the NRA, and a prominent NRA member is an admitted pedophile" is, while accurate, still a pretty weak argument against Romney. It will be no more effective than the repukes "Bill Ayres" argument. People who know who Ayres was had already formed their opinions. Those who didn't care already will continue to not care, those who were already looking for a reason to attack Obama jumped on it, those who were supporting Obama already dismissed it as irrelevant.



The NRA doesn't need the Ted Nugent association to make it look bad, it's own policies do that just fine. Along the same lines, Romney doesn't need the NRA association to make him look bad, his own policies do that.