So, wanting to do my part and vote for pro-gun politicians, I  look at the NRA sheets and they seem to have  avery high amount of democrats being recommended OVER similarly rated republicans.  For example:

Tim Walz (D) over Randy Demmer (R).
Colin peterson (D) over Lee Ryberg (R).
Jim Oberstar (D) over Chip Cravaack (R)!!!!

Now, since Oberstar is my district (8), I know what a liberal moderate dem he is...and I don't vote for him....I am amazed that the NRA endorsed him.

AS FAR AS SHERIFF's and JUDGES:  where to get the info one needs to make a decision about how they will represent us?

It has been said that the NRA only looks at the candidate's previous history on firearms legislation.

Not at their parties general position on firearms, nor their policies on any other topic.

They also often times endorse the person they see as being "most-electable" at large, which is often the incumbent.

For example, MN US House of Reps, District 1.
Demmer (R) vs Walz (D)

Both are Rated A (Solidly pro-gun candidate. A candidate who has supported NRA positions on key votes in elective office or a candidate with a demonstrated record of support on Second Amendment issues.)

NRA endorses Walz as he is the incumbent. Walz is a true A on firearms, but is also a liberal on many issues. He is supported by the NRA, but also SEIU, UAW, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Teamsters, EduMinn. He believes in green energy (like T-paw and McCain) and supports 'jobs programs.'

Check your local paper, they usually have a voter's guide that will be your best bet for relevant information; even if 95% of it is directly from the candidate.

Also, don't vote for someone you don't have an opinion on.

A lot of the Republicans are not incumbants, and haven't been in office yet so they get an AQ which means they don't have a voting track record.  Click AQ and it'll say what their views are.

Even (R) politicians like Norm Coleman, though A rated by the NRA, were big time RINOs in other aspects.

The NRA is not the republican party.  Their job is to elect solidly pro-gun candidates that will advance the agenda of gun owners and RKBA.  

In my district, technically, the NRA has no endorsement.  Incumbent Keith Ellison (F rating) is running against Joel Demos who filled out the NRA survey and got an A, but has no voting record whatsoever.  The NRA is not going to endorse Demos even though Ellison is a proven gun grabber due to the fact Demos has no record.  The NRA leaves it to the individual member to decide who to vote for in this case.

A judge doesn't represent you.  A judge's job is to be an impartial figure in the courtroom and apply the law, whether that law comes from the a constitution, statute or precedent.  I personally won't vote for a candidate that claims they will "represent" any particular viewpoint as judge.  That's not what they are there to do, and if they don't get that, they shouldn't get elected.  Just my opinion.

That is the ideal, but not the reality from what I can see.  The most silent are the hardest to "judge" if worth voting for.  Like Jessie Ventura.

a little off, police enforce the law, the judges INTERPRET the law. so yes their general viewpoints are very important.  in addition, the view points and opinions of judges and ranking LEO's carry alot of weight when new laws and ordnances are drawn up or changed and votes are cast.

I think we’re both right, because it’s a distinction that doesn’t really exist.  Motions for summary judgment, pretrial motions, bench trials and all kinds of other matters require judges to apply the law to facts.  Interpretation is part of application, and a judge's personal views have no place whatsoever in that process.  I initially wrote a long response about the code of judicial conduct, but deleted it because I remembered why I hate doing anything more than just reading the forum occasionally.  The code is an interesting read, however, and it is available online.

My personal view, and it’s just that, is that I don’t want judges or judicial candidates to be identifying themselves as affiliated with one party or another.  I just want to know if they are qualified (education and legal experience), respected in the legal community, and will properly carry out their duties if elected.  They aren't put into office to fulfill any political agenda, just to do their jobs.

an impartial judge... that's fucking rich...