Thursday, April 17, 2008

The Pandering Show

Last night's Democratic debate was a case study on political pandering of the worst sort, and on the part of both candidates. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were obviously trying to undo their bad images-Hillary already has one, and Barack Obama has managed to create one for himself and may have fashioned the political noose on which his campaign will hang in November:

He said he was attempting to say that because voters feel ignored by government, "they end up being much more concerned about votes around things like guns where traditions have been passed on from generation to generation. And those are incredibly important to them."

"People don't cling to their traditions on hunting and guns" out of frustration with their government, Clinton said. She added that Obama had a fundamental misunderstanding on the role of religion and faith.


I don't disagree with Hillary's statement that Barack Obama has a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the role of religion and faith, and its importance in American life. She is being disingenuous, however, because Barack Obama simply made the mistake of voicing in such a public setting the widely-held opinion of the intellectual Left that faith is unimportant and is only used as a "wedge issue." The Left fails to grasp that the decline of Christianity in America as the leading spiritual and cultural force is at the root of most of our country's social problems, and that the simple folks that they demean-intentionally or not-by thinking them "bitter" actually have a deep understanding of this reality. This understanding is the reason why the de-Christianization of the country at the hands of the Left is an issue for people in small-town America. Hillary Clinton shares Obama's view, of course, but she isn't clueless enough to say so publicly. Here is Hillary's real attitude about Middle America:

Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.”

“‘Screw 'em,’ she told her husband. ‘You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them.’ The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, ‘The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House’ -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching ‘Reagan Democrats.’”

Further, she is shameless enough to misrepresent her own ideas to the people in order to try and gain a political advantage over Obama.

Clinton's sudden embrace of the Second Amendment is truly laughable. Both Clinton and Obama's language where firearms are concerned belies the Left's fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment and the right to own a firearm. Yes, hunting and shooting are extremely important parts of the American tradition, but those things are not the reason that the founders guaranteed Americans a right to their weapons in the Constitution. The real purpose of the Second Amendment is that those weapons serve as Americans' ultimate check of last resort against overbearing and tyrannical big government, and the state that attempts to remove that right is taking the first step toward tyranny.

Since Obama and Clinton both embrace the idea of overbearing government, they cannot conceive of the reality that our guns are in our own hands to protect us from the excesses of government.

Labels: , ,

3 Comments:

At Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:29:00 PM, Blogger groetzinger said...

They seem to playing right into your hands!You do want McCain to win?

 
At Friday, April 18, 2008 10:10:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

David,
Uh, I hate to once again be a bum kick but ... private gun ownership in America is NOT able to prevent anything except isolated incidents of self-defense against crime.
Think about it; the Army of the AntiChrist is bearing down on White Plains TN - what are you going to do? You with your deer rifle and hadgun? Do you have a viable logistical resupply program? A viable medavac? A viable, organized defensive strategy? NO!
All you will do is die when they unload on you with automatic weapons, heavy weapons (20mm and larger), air support and artillary.
You do not have a trained and disiplined force backing you up or anything like that.
Yes, it's romantic and heartwarming to think of defending liberty and all that but realistically all you'll be is speedbumb, an annoyance and you'll accomplish, all you'll do is die. And they'll roll right over you.
The whole notion of what you're saying, "defense of freedom" is, in practical terms, complete and utter nonsense.

SteveMule

 
At Friday, April 18, 2008 4:12:00 PM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Steve;
I love you, brother, but as usual, your political ideas are wrong, and as we have before proven in these very pages, your ability to pontificate and prognosticate successfully in a political sense is quite non-existent.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map