Unfortunately for Barack, his choice of words will come back to haunt him.
I have a suggestion for Barack on how to help fix this problem; Go turkey hunting. That's right, turkey hunting. What the rural folks want from you is the guarantee of a seat at the table and a little respect. That's not asking much. I believe "city mouse" people have a very different opinion about guns than their "country mouse" counterparts. This comes from the fact that city people rarely see guns used for anything other than crime, while country people only see them used for hunting, sport, or home protection. You could simply say that you don't have much of a reference point for fully understanding rural people, and therefore, you've decided to make an effort to better understand them; by goin' huntin'. You don't have to shoot a turkey (in fact, I'd recommend you don't try), just spend a little time at the pre-hunt sighting in. Take a couple shots for fun, and then head into the field. Don't pretend that your a great outdoorsman, don't even carry a gun, laugh at yourself a few times and enjoy the camaraderie. When you come back, be respectful of your hunting partners and honest about what you thought about the experience. Remember Barack, it's not so much whether your one of them, as much as it's respecting them.
Hillary's problem with guns is that her history doesn't back up her position. Therefore, she's been trying to choose her words carefully. In responding to Baracks "bitter" comment, she's careful to say that, "You know, Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it’s a matter of constitutional right. Americans who believe in God believe it’s a matter of personal faith. Americans who believe in protecting good American jobs believe it’s a matter of the American dream.” But notice she doesn't say she believes in these things.
At the Democrat debate she made two statements that give me great pause as a believer in the Second Amendment. (both of which went uncontested by the moderators; George Stephanopolis, an ex-Clinton advisor, and Charlie Gibson.) The first one was, "We need a way to track illegal guns." How in the hell do you do that? GPS tracking systems in the handles? What's going to stop criminals from disabling it? They're illegal gun owners, Hill. By definition they're not following the rules. I personally would have liked to hear her expand on that one. The second statement that went unchallenged was, "We don't need a Federal gun law that applies to all the different regions of the U.S.." Um.....I think we have one now; the Second Amendment. Is she saying she wants to do away with it? Where are the questions, Charlie and George????
Hillary once said in 2000, when she was running for the New York Senate seat that she currently holds, "The moms who are marching in Washington this Sunday [the Million Mom March] have it right" Well the MMM was sponsored by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Their interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it does not apply to the individual, only to government regulated militias. If the Brady Center "has it right", then we need to hear her say, from her own lips, whether or not she supports an individuals right to bear arms. So far, everyone has given her a pass on this question.
For the record, Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama have both made it clear that they believe the Second Amendment applies to the individual.
In this clip, you'll see Bill Clinton caught in several lies in just one statement. That's the problem with the Clintons; they just can't seem to answer a simple question or make a statement without lying or evading. My analysis of this past week is that Barack made a real bad gaffe that will most likely haunt him along with the "Reverend Wrong" statements. But the real damage, I believe, is on Hillary. She has, along with her husband Bill, proven once again what her critics have been saying about her; that she will say or do anything to get elected....no matter how dishonest. I'm closer to being Dennis Rodman than Hillary is to being Annie Oakley. These sad attempts are looking increasingly desperate. A drowning person will grab at anything and the Clinton's are now drowning in their own lies and grabbing for straws. That will only hurt the Dems chances in November along with the whole Clinton legacy. H.C.
4 comments:
bravo, good advice to obama on how to handle the brouhaha.
nice handling of some of her more absurd comments during the debate too.
the one that made me damn near throw the remote at the TV though was when she said she wished the republican's wouldn't even field a candidate for november, just concede to the democrats (read, HER). after hearing her position on the supremacy of superdelegates for their ability to make sure the right person is nominated in case the public goes wrong with the popular vote it just confirms how power mad she is. i think dubya has taken us down an incredibly dangerous path with the unpatriotic act and government surveillance and greater power put in the hands of the executive branch. i believe hillary would likely stay on the same path and augment her powers even more. i really do.
Hey Lime,
Thanks, and thanks again. (H.C. does his best Cowboy impersonation) "Just doin' my job, Ma'am."
I think you struck on a very good point. Since Dubya came into office there has been a push to increase the scope and power of the Executive Branch. As you know, I advised keeping the "Sunset Provision" in the Patriot Act. However, it seems there wasn't enough Congressmen (or women) reading my column. Very disappointing. Hillary most certainly would be the kind of President that would continue that trend. One interesting fact about politicians that have a more socialist,(Hillary)or autocratic (Dubya)agenda; they all, without exception, push for a stronger Executive Branch. That seems contrary to the idea of empowering the people and I agree, it is incredibly dangerous. It seems they both have one thing in common; They know what's best for us. I guess us silly voters should just go back to watching "American Idol" and stop trying to be so involved. Thanks for your comments.
...For the record, Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama have both made it clear that they believe the Second Amendment applies to the individual...that may be true but he still doesn't want the individual to have any
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43_080328_obama_iviquestionaire_091096.html
(question 35)
interesting how liberal some of his other views are that he won't admit to now
Hey Fishman57,
I've seen and followed the document you referenced. You make a good point worth considering for the voters who are concerned about gun issues.
Barack Obama has contended that he never (himself) filled out the form. He claims that it was filled out by an aid. However, he admits he ammended it himself to be more in line with an interview. (therefore the writing on it is his). It should be noted that this was in 1996 when he was first starting his political career. Positions do change. From what I can gather, here is how I would define Barack's position on guns; Obama does believe the Second Ammendment applies to the individual, (this is consistent even back when he taught Constitutional Law). Hillary won't make her position clear and I believe she DOES NOT. However, Barack also believes that the right to own a gun can be severely restricted. His issue seems to be with handguns (he always makes it a point that he's unconcerned with hunting long guns.) I would describe him as "unfriendly" towards handgun owners. He also is on record as supporting the "Assault Weapons Ban" which was initiated by the Clinton Administration and is also supported by Hillary. If the Second Ammendment is your #1 issue, I wouldn't recommend voting for Barack. I myself rate it as one of many issues. On this issue I rate him negatively- D+ at best. Thanks for your input!
Post a Comment