Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Whoever you support, it must be agreed that Sen. Obama GRABBED the "third rail."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 08:58 AM
Original message
Whoever you support, it must be agreed that Sen. Obama GRABBED the "third rail."
I have RAILED against the inclusion of the "Gun Issue" in Democratic Party Politics for decades now.

It's a meaningless "rally point" that the conservatives and the Republicans take 9 times out of 10, and we almost always lose: It's a third rail carrying 800 volts at 200 amps, guaranteed to kill you dead.

(YES this is a "gun site")
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Ownership
* Private Firearm Ownership in the U.S. as of 1993/1994:

Households With a Gun 49%
Total number 47,600,000

Adults Owning a Gun 31%
Total number 59,100,000

And if you think that's gone DOWN since then, you're delusional.

This was a mistake not only for Sen. Obama, but for the entire Democratic Party. The Gun Issue has not been mentioned once in this campaign, and now, it looks like the "latte liberals" want to "...take away our guns!" Again.

So now, instead of Health Care, instead of the War, instead of the Economy, We have to deal with fallout from the GOD DAMNED GUN ISSUE. AGAIN.

Discount me as a Sen. Clinton Supporter if you want, but if you are honest, you will admit that the inclusion of the Gun Issue in this campaign has had the effect of placing three hyperactive ferrets with diarhea in you living room: you are NEVER going to get that shit out of there, and it will keep showing up for MONTHS.

You can have as much faith as you want (I have none, so that lets me out), but you must agree that the only solution for ANY Democratic Candidate to have some degree of success is for Sen. Obama to bite the "bullet" (so to speak) and do an immediate mia culpa, or everyone with a "D" after their name on the ballot will have some "...'splainin' to do..." in November.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. The "gun" issue always comes back to bite us in the ass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PoliticalAmazon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. Many Democrats own guns. They just don't build shrines for them. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
27. And....this matters how?
We can't afford to lose ONE VOTE. I don't know why everyone seems to think the Democratic Party is going to "Sweep the South," but it ain't happening, kids, and BOTH our candidates have "Redneck Drawbacks," so pissing anyone off with the "Gun Issue" was a dumb thing.

This is going to be a squeaker, no matter WHO we nominate, and we'd better get used to "Proactive Campaigning" as we can not afford any damage control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #27
42. Obama's not going to have a problem with this.
He supports the 2nd amendment. He is also an artist at disarming people, not by confrontation but by talking to their common sense and treating them with respect. He can do this with any issue. I think people are going to be amazed by his GE campaign and the fall election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #42
60. I'm not the one you have to convince...
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 11:29 AM by Tyler Durden
However, I'm to the point of just voting "D." I think, as I've said elsewhere, both of them are full of shit, one of them marginally less.

It doesn't reduce either's stench any, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #42
62. he has a LONG record of voting for gun control. And this problem is HUGE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #62
127. Even most gun owners are in favor of some kinds of gun control, obviously.
So it's a matter of negotiation, and compromise, and figuring out what works best for EVERYBODY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #42
67. Newsflash - he's ALREADY got a problem with this.
Not just the bitter thing, but his support of a bill banning handguns and support for numerous other laws expanding restrictions already sits poorly with many people who own guns. I, by the way, have never owned a gun, but I've seen quite well how the issue affects the vote. Obama is a huge loser on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #67
73. I think you're wrong. Time will tell.
People do cling to divisive issues when they are being talked down to. When they are genuinely respected & understood, they become more reasonable and willing/able to compromise. When they are able to see that the welfare of others affects their own, or their children's, they are more willing to compromise. This is a compelling talent of Obama, to use reason. He can do this because the respect is genuine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #73
104. You think I'm wrong that he has an issue with gun owners? Really?
NRA and Gun owners of America both gave him an F rating. I'm sure they gave Hillary the same rating but you know what? She doesn't have a big ol' "bitter" gaffe to explain or ready for use in a thousand 527's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. I think it is an issue that can be overcome, yes.
I think many people are going to be surprised. my opinion

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #105
110. That was not the POINT.
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 01:26 PM by Tyler Durden
The POINT was, why make the remark in the first place? Was it Politically Important? Was it in response to a direct question at a news conference?

Or was it an "off the cuff" remark, made lightly and foolishly?

The POINT is, OUR CANDIDATES SHOULD WATCH THEIR MOUTHS.

AND, if it had not been SAID, there might not be anything to waste time and money we can't afford overcoming: THAT IS THE POINT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #110
121. The point he was making was valid, if "inartful" -- which is that issues like guns and religion
become politically & socially divisive issues over time -- one, because they are exploited by politicians ("Dems want to take your guns away") and two, because when people feel economically invisible and helpless, they naturally become angry and/or bitter.

Their anger is exploited by corporate funded politicians who want their votes but don't give a shit about helping them economically, also don't give a shit about their guns or their religious beliefs.

He was making the remark in response to a question from a financial supporter at a fundraising meeting. He was attempting to explain his understanding of a specific political dynamic.

His words were taken out of context and disingenuously distorted for political purposes.

Having to "watch their mouths" is a fear-based perspective. We are so afraid that the RW is gonna get us. This comes from not really understanding that there is common ground, and that people respond when they are genuinely respected. People do have common sense, and they like it. They like being respected. Most people are really sick of politics as usual; and when Obama explains himself, people listen and overwhelmingly respond positively... unless they are already predisposed to hate him, as some are.

Because believe it or not, many of those "bitter" people are thinking people, they're not stupid, and they do have a conscience, and therefore they recognize honesty when they hear it.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 01:44 PM by Tyler Durden
Henry L. Mencken.

This. Did. Not. Have. To. Happen.

Do you see any rational reason why he ABSOLUTELY HAD TO SAY WHAT HE SAID?

I don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #123
126. I don't understand why you are fixated on this.
Have you ever said something that was misunderstood or taken out of context? It's not a huge deal. He's doing a good job of clarifying his remarks and will continue to do so.

This is worth watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88wMPAWc90
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #110
128. A question
This morning I saw the old clip of Hillary saying "I could have stayed home and baked cookies."

Do you think she should have watched her mouth?

I don't. I thought then, and still think, that people made a big stupid deal out of what she said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #67
85. Shit, I had no ideas.
GOD this election is going to suck .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Craftsman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #42
130. Wrong, the gun issue has cost dems election in the past
2000, 2004, and this might do it again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #130
132. Yeah, but that was the past. I don't think it's going to happen this time.
I really don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Craftsman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. Why?
If anything there are more gun owners now then there was back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. Because neither guns nor gun owners is the enemy.
What Obama's about is a new kind of politics. "Ending the mindset that got us into war."

Give it some thought if you don't know what I'm talking about.

I know many gun owners. If you treat them as adversaries they may give angry unreasonable arguments about guns and gun control. If you treat them as human beings, which they are, you can have a rational discussion and find common ground.

Most gun owners are in favor of some kind of regulation, obviously. They don't want the wild west any more than anybody else. They just want their freedom and civil liberties protected. They don't want "big government" telling them what to do, any more than I do.

The us vs them mentality is the real problem. This can change.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
137. But we sure as hell don't want our guns banned, either. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bensthename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. At least he showed that he knows people value their gun rights..
He made no assumptions that he thinks they should be banned, just the opposite..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. He RAISED THE ISSUE.
Democrats NEVER look good when the issue is raised, EVER. We should avoid words beginning with "G" !!

NOBODY ever believes us when we say "we don't want your guns," and if you think the HEALTH INSURANCE lobby is big:

Lobbying
* The National Rifle Association is the largest gun rights lobbying organization in the United States. From 1997 through 1998, their political action committee gave $1,330,111 to Republicans and $285,700 to Democrats. (10)

* Handgun Control, Inc. is the largest gun control lobbying organization in the United States. From 1997 through 1998, their political action committee gave $136,892 to Democrats and $9,500 to Republicans. (11)

10. "Gun Rights PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates, 1997-1998." Viewed in February of 1999 on the Center For Responsive Politics web site, http://www.crp.org /
11. "Gun Control PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates, 1997-1998." Viewed in February of 1999 on the Center For Responsive Politics web site, http://www.crp.org /

We fucked up. AGAIN. Elections are too close to bend over and offer the opposition a tube of "Astroglide."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
44. he raised the issue in a private meeting in San Fran
it was not meant to be heard by the general public.

I think overall you are 100% correct, we lose on the gun-rights issue everytime. But Obama did not intend to start a national debate - his comments were supposed to be off the record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #44
58. Is ANYTHING off the record anymore?
ESPECIALLY in politics?

If he really thought that, then he needs to shut up and let his surrogates talk for him. He isn't doing himself or the party any favors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #58
95. yea I know what you mean
I'm sure going forward he'll be a little more guarded. Just wanted to point out he didn't purposefully raise this as a campaign issue like you were making it seem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #95
98. He didn't have to. And I'm certain he didn't mean to.
But I do think he was "Making points with the troops," commonly called "shooting off your mouth without noting who's listening."

One or two more of this level, and I think we can just start planning for 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
84. Its not the money as much..
The money that the NRA lobbies isn't the real problem. The issue is the problem. I have long argued that Democrats just back of on guns and support existing laws.

Instead they should go for a pro-active "Roots of Crime" strategy where they state something of the effect of:

We have looked at working with regulation of firearms for some time and it seems that there is only so much that can be accomplished doing this in regards to protecting our citizens from violence. To this we have to come back full circle to addressing the socioeconomic and social roots of crime and violence and so, as Democrats we are moving back to mainstreet and going back to fighting poverty, the one thing that seems to be most useful in reducing crime rates.

To comabat school shootings, we will be offering education, to combat street crime we will be offering universal healthcare and stability, to combat violence in the home we will be offering fair working wages and childcare to all families and adults that need them.

There are some that believe that the problems that haunt our society can be solved with an arms race amongst our citizenry, we just don't feel this way, but we are no longer going to justify these merchants of fear and death by attempting to regulate their products. We are just going to work hard to create a world where fear is not so compelling that people feel driven to crime or driven to prepare against it.

We are here to try to solve the problem before it becomes a problem. To build levies before the storm, to strut up the infrastructure of society before the bridge to the next generation collapses under us.



Or something like that with fewer tangled, tortured, metaphors and better more isnpiring language...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
88. A few things....
1. he has a very very long record of voting for gun control, including a handgun ban.

2. he has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to guns, hunting or hunting culture... like when he said "on a duck blind"... you don't get "on a duck blind" you get IN a duck blind. That doesnt help either...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. yeah. what you said.
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 09:04 AM by Tuesday Afternoon
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Let McCain handle the guns. He shoots from the hip.
the only way he can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. Hello and welcome to DU and
thanks for kicking the thread ;)

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. Mark my words: he won't have to say ANYTHING.
The rePukes, Neocons and their fellow travelers won't have to say ANYTHING.

Right now, I'll bet McCain can hardly keep from giggling like a school kid about this. Who is advising this man? They ought to be SHOT.

So to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
5. from a historical perspective
the only thing people fear more than taking their guns away, is Negros with guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:15 AM
Original message
You said it...I didn't.
And I wasn't going to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
6. Controllings Guns in U.S. Cities - Today - Monday on C-SPAN3 at 2pm ET
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 09:08 AM by Breeze54
Controllings Guns in U.S. Cities

Today

The Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bi-partisan coalition, is holding a 2008 National Summit
to adapt their federal legislative agenda and hear from gun policy experts. Coalition co
chairs NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and Boston Mayor Tom Menino (D) make remarks at the
close of the conference.



--------------

This issue will ALWAYS come up, as will religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
7. Not a good path to go down. That's for sure.
I'm not sure it's the third rail. But it has the potentail to be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
9. The dangerous third rail of truth?
I'm glad that a Democratic candidate finally had the courage to touch on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. When the fuck was this campaign about TRUTH?
NEITHER Dem is addressing the WAR, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, or even the ECONOMY. They are too busy pissing on EACH OTHER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. This is a fact.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Thank you. NICE to hear someone other than me say it out loud.
When is ANY political campaign about "TRUTH" anyway? None that I've seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #25
38. But the amazing thing is
...the extraordinary systems and conviction true believers develop as they suspend all sanity and judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CK dexter Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #17
30. They've addressed all of these issues--and cowardice is failed politics
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 09:42 AM by CK dexter
They could give more detail on all of them, but it's silly to pretend they haven't made these three issues their PLATFORMS.

As for the gun issue, the implied strategy here (don't mention anything controversial, don't offend anyone, don't take a strong position on anything) has lost us the last two elections--two elections that should have been a breeze.

It doesn't work. First, it doesn't work because those who believe such things (that Dem want to take their guns, or ban the bible, or force everybody to get gay married) will do so, already do so, regardless of whether the candidates bring it up, so it doesn't do that much harm. Second, because people see through BS and can't help admiring forthrightness and sincerity. That's why Obama manages to come out of these things fine, again and again, while Hillary panders and still doesn't come out ahead.

It may or may not work for Obama in the GE this time--but the only hope for democrats in the long run is to grow a spine and start standing up for what they believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. Or...put up with McCain.
There are many of us who see ZERO "forthrightness and sincerity" in EITHER Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton: we merely see less bullshit in one or the other.

If this election is about IDEALISM for you, fine. For me, it's about the war, the economy, and the SCOTUS. Nothing else is on my radar, because nothing else will be addressed.

Both Health Care Plans SUCK, one slightly less, but both could have been written by SIGNA or KAISER PERMANENTE.
Neither addresses Equal Rights the way the Constitution demands.
Neither says "We will have those troops out of that Hell-Hole by EASTER 2009!"

ETCETERA.

"Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here." Melvin Udall
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. The only hope is to change the damned system.
But I've become convinced that nothing will really change until "...all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
138. That wasn't the position that was (unwittingly, perhaps) taken '94-'04.
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 05:43 PM by benEzra
As for the gun issue, the implied strategy here (don't mention anything controversial, don't offend anyone, don't take a strong position on anything) has lost us the last two elections--two elections that should have been a breeze.

That wasn't the position that was (unwittingly, perhaps) taken '94-'04.

The position that was taken '94-'04 was, promise to protect the guns of hunters (1 in 5 gun owners), while promising to outlaw the most popular target and defensive guns in America.

That is NOT a "don't mention anything controversial, don't offend anyone, don't take a strong position on anything" position. Now, maybe gun-404 party strategists thought outlawing nonhunting guns would be a noncontroversial position, but it wasn't.

A WINNING strategy would be the strategy used in '06: drop all support for new bans on currently legal guns, and focus on issues that are supposedly more important. It worked; pro-choice-on-guns Dems beat repubs in enough swing states to turn the Senate blue.

My governor here in NC is a pro-gun Dem; so is my lieutenant governor, my state attorney general, and most of the state government. Our (D) governor won this state 55/45% even as Kerry/Edwards lost it 45/55%, and Edwards is a North Carolinian. There are lessons there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #17
39. The two that were actually addressing those very important issues were kicked to the curb.
x( Had to get them out of the way so we could have an "historic" election. :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #39
46. And thank you too!
Another taboo subject heard from: got your "kevlar" on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damonm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
106. Haven't been paying attention, have you?
They HAVE talked about all these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #106
112. AND, in my not so humble opinion, both have done a piss poor job.
But that is not the point here.

Is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
10. The minute Obama goes off script he always gets into trouble.
Then it's two weeks of trying to explain that he didn't mean what he said & supporters defending what it was he did say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
100. YA. ALWAYS!! 2 or 3 times during 15 months of campaign is 1 to 5 times TOO MANY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #100
120. 3 occurances at 2 weeks wasted each...6 weeks.
1.5 MONTHS wasted on silly shit.

JESUS what a crock. He needs to listen to his handlers, or if he gets nominated we will get CREAMED in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
11. well it depends. is the third rail inbetween rails 1 and 2 or is it lateral to either rail 1 or 2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. Oh give it a rest, you literalist. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
13. Now I don't have to agree with your negative assessment of Obama's
actions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. This just didn't have to come up.
I don't care WHO you support, and you don't have to care about my opinion either; but nobody had to raise this shibboleth. AGAIN.

We are close enough to losing MICHIGAN this time; Nobody had to alienate 500,000 deer hunters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
16. It was more like grabbing four "third rails" simultaneously
As if pissing off the bitter people as they cling to their guns wasn't enough, in the same paragraph he dragged those who are clinging to their religion. Just in case enough rural blue collar voters didn't get the message, he then expanded the net to insult those for whom unregulated immigration and globalized free trade are a problem.

I can be "inartful" at times. But to piss off everyone I have to hold views which piss off everyone.

I dont think it was a huge mistake simply because he said we were bitter. I don't think it was a huge mistake because he thinks we cling to our guns or religion. I don't think it was a huge mistake because he perceives us to dislike people that are unlike us. I don't think it was a huge mistake because, along with being bitter, religious, bigoted gun nuts, he also thinks we're against free trade.

I think it was a huge mistake in its totality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Hey, this should cheer you up! He doesn't believe any of those things. Don't buy into spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Who cares what Clinton or Obama BELIEVE?
Frankly, I think they are both full of shit, one MAYBE less than the other with the gap widening/narrowing on a weekly basis.

My POINT was nobody had to even say the word "gun." Nobody had said it YET. Now the genie is out of the fucking bottle, and at the very BEST, the party and candidate (WHOEVER) will have to waste irreplaceable time and money FIGHTING the perception that "...Democrats want to take away our guns!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. im right there with you...
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 09:36 AM by datopbanana
if someone says something the least bit open to interpretation, the media is gunna make people believe whatever the media wants them to believe.


oh and the media get their interpretation from drudge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
20. Most people obsessed over the issue but don't
have anything to worry about since its largely a manufactured issue, are republicans using identification politics. Obama's talk didn't change any landscape or decrease chances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Whatever you say, boss.
Why don't we raise ANOTHER divisive issue while we're at it? This did not need to happen, and the Party is already wasting time and money refuting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
28. And Hillary held his arm to the track, instead of helping him out
Obama did give the mea culpa you said was required. He acknowledged that his choice of words was poor.

This whole thing could have blown over quickly -- But Hillary has chosen to amplify it and keep it in the headlines as more than a one-day wonder story.

So you should give her an equal share of the blame for bringing this issdue back to life....And if you think the hard-core gun voters are going to believe she is their champion, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. His choice wasn't POOR, it was FUCKING STUPID.
And if Senator Clinton had said it, I would be saying the same thing, and if she had said and Senator Obama DIDN'T hold "...his arm to the track..." he should have been a DAMNED FOOL not to do the same thing.

This has degenerated into POLITICAL WAR, with both camps firing for effect. There no longer is any point to wishing for niceties: they won't happen.

And if you think that the RIGHT was going to let this slide, you're kidding yourself. Plus, we aren't TALKING about the "hard core gunners," a pejorative that you ought to rethink by the way, we are talking about INDEPENDENTS and FENCE SITTERS. I used to know a guy who had his entire retirement investment in firearms to the tune of over $200,000. Hell, my two Mausers are now worth 20 times what I paid for them, and my .357 is a commemerative. I'm not stupid enough to believe that my fellow Democrats want to "...take away my guns..." but there are THOUSANDS out there who just got their doubt level raised.

Stop trying to justify bone-headed campaigning. This was a dumb move, not "...a poor choice of words..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #31
45. I am not referring to the fence sitters and independents
Anyone who is stupid enough to vote against their own larger self-interest out of an imagined fear that anyone who supports some degree of gun control is going to "take away my guns" is going to vote Republican. Period.

If this is the worst mistake Obama is capable of, then we should count ourselves lucky.

Personally, just so you know, I'm a complete libertarian about the whole gun issue. I think it should be a non-issue. I agree with Howard Dean, who basically said "leave it to the states because the situation is different in each state."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. Which is what he should have done, and didn't do.
Can you give us back the last few days both campaigns have spent unnecessarily bloviating about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #48
54. I wish we could take back the last few days
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 11:22 AM by Armstead
I basically agree with you that resurfacing this issue was a mistake.

I guess my basic disagreement is the degree to which Obama's misplaced remarks (surreptitiously recorded in a private gathering of supporters) will be damaging in the larger picture.

My otehr point is that it is inexcusable for Hillary to intensify the damage by amplifying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. And Obama would have been an Idiot not to jump on it if Clinton said it.
This has become a war of attrition, and both sides are saying things that make me sick to my stomach.

You have no idea how hard it's becoming to think of even staying a Democrat.

The current problem is to stop making MISTAKES. That seems to win a lot of contests, wouldn't you say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #56
75. I don;t think EITHER of them should deliberatly help the GOP that way
Obama made a mistake.

Clinton made a calculated decision.

The problem is that Clinton's decision is going to amplify Obama's original mistake in a larger sense against ALL Democrats. She is helping the GOP by reinforcing the elitist meme. She may think she's only hurting Obama, but it will blow back against ALL Democrats the more she puts this lie out there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #75
78. The both have done this before; this is not a "first"
It is a "first" of this magnitude.

A co-worker usually sympathetic came up to me this morning and said if both Democrats were that stupid, he'd have to sit out the election, because he didn't like McCain, but didn't dislike him enough to vote for an idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #78
86. I wish I was as much of an idiot as Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. You may be saying that in the minority in November.
This isn't the country we wish it was, and seeing our candidates, it shows little chance of getting there in my lifetime.

We have to play this thing smart, and they have both alienated people TRYING to do that so far to marginal success at best. This one, however, was a no brainer. Now it's an issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. In a nutshell...
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 12:17 PM by Armstead
Obama made a mistake. We all do that, including big-time politicians. I think he can get over it. Fuck the gun nuts (NOT reasonable gun owners, but the gun nuts who buy the whole CONservative package over an imagined fear of being disarmed by the Liberal Commie Gubernment) becauase they are going to vote republican no matter what.

Clinton CHOSE to intensify the damage by repeating it, lying about it, and pushing the elitist meme in a way that hurts ALL Democrats and progressives.

She could have let it blow over. But she didn't, and that's what is so disgusting about her behavior.

Yes politics is war. But you don't shoot your own troops as the enemy advances over the hill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. I don't think Obama or Clinton see the other camp as "..your own troops..."
Which is, of course, part of the problem.

BOTH are grabbing at every chance to piss on the other: I think you can agree with that.

But I will say there are "...reasonable gun owners..." that will look at his past support for banning handguns and take this as step 2.

I repeat, if he doesn't SAY something like this in the first place, how can it be responded to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #96
107. It can be ignored by Hillary -- That's how it should be responded to by her
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 01:09 PM by Armstead
It is really difficult to assesses right now how much damage -- if any -- Obama's mistake will ultimately cause in the big picture on its own terms.

But rather than helping to minimize it, Hillary has chosen to make it worse.

Our side does need unity. But when a candidate does what Hillary is doing, it divides rather than unites us.

I look at mistakes as forgivable. I look at intentional harm done to your own side as unforgivable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. As I said, I don't think either side sees the "other" as "theirs"....
Otherwise Sen. Obama would not be saying "SHAME on her. SHAME on her" and denigrating "Annie Oakley" or "a shot and a beer."

Both of our candidates are showing their asses. Frequently. On both sides of any given faux pas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
29. No - it must NOT be agreed upon.
That is pretty f-in arrogant to think that we must all agree with your view point.

Quit being so afraid of the issues.

I know plenty of gun owners that are logical and willing to comply with certain regulations.

Not all gun owners are crazy NRA nutjobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. Keep it up.
This isn't about "Gun Nuts" and "NRA Nutjobs," and thank GAWD most gun OWNERS will not be reading what you wrote.

This about Fence Sitting Independents who happen to own guns and like them. We didn't need to alienate a single one of them, and we didn't need to be wasting time and money on this.

How much time could Senator Obama have spent on other issues if he hadn't said this? How much did it cost to refute this, as lamely as he did?

THAT is the point. NOT the issue. FUCK the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #32
134. let them read my comments
like I said quit being so GD afraid of the issue. There is a middle ground and I am not going to be intimidated by you or the NRA or anyone to discuss it.

And check yourself. I'm surrounded by gun owners. Not one of them is as intolerant as you would like to paint all gun owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
33. Mistake or not, its minor due to the fact that he handles it amazingly and makes it work for him
...he turns stuff like this into gold. His response at Indiana town hall, covered by CNN, was fantastic. His choice to fight instead of run scared from Clinton and McCain's opportunist attacks ended up making him look good and them look like idiots.

He made a mistake in mentioning specifics in his quote. But the reason he is such a good candidate is not because he doesn't make a mistake, but because he is so damn good at dealing with them. Which is why he is the most ELECTABLE PERSON we have running. Contrast him with clinton, fucking up and continuing to fuck up the sniper thing - even her attempt at clean up of that mess was a fuckup. Then there's bill.... my god...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #33
77. Oh, everything he does is just so amazing isn't it?
and brilliant and golly gee genius.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #77
129. Not everything, but enough so that he is winning.
Which is more than I can say for your candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
34. The objective voice of Tyler Durden.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
36. #'s 33 and 34? You're on IGNORE and I can't read you.
You might not want to waste your time. Just being polite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smiley_glad_hands Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
40. Is this in reference to his bitter comments?
If it is then you are reaching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #40
49. The GUN portion of his comments.
You know the one: the one we can't ever WIN? The one better left completely alone?

The one we have to spend time and money explaining our remarks about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
41. Yeah -- I know the gun nuts in my neighborhood are taking down their Obama signs
Puh-leeze. The knee-jerk pro-gun voters weren't going to vote Dem anyway -- unless they buy the "I Was Annie Oakley" crap from the leader of the Million Mom March Against Guns.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #41
50. If you can't be objective about a serious problem....
Then perhaps you should cheerlead on another thread? Or perhaps you have a better explanation for the rabid posturing and time/dollars wasted on this one stupid little issue over the weekend?

Do you REALLY think EITHER Democrat can afford to alienate even 1% of the electorate, especially one who makes a point of voting? Single Issue Voting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. Uh, do you even read your own trash?
You make this thread, stating EVERYONE -- Obama supporters or not -- should agree and then bitch when someone doesn't?

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. Actually, they are making excuses. and so much for you.
One more rude person for my IGNORE list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #55
72. I'll return the favor.
Kinda funny you essentially tell people what they think and then get mad when they don't conform to your crap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #55
80. What part of "IGNORED" didn't you get? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #50
57. Cheerlead???
Maybe you should try being objective. What did I cheerlead for? I only said that the gun crowd doesn't vote Dem, and pandering to them really doesn't work, since the GOP can out-pander on this issue.

Also, the gun issue is just another wedge issue the fascists use to keep a large segment of the population on the ranch.

The fascists aren't in favor of people having guns, and if they didn't need this issue at the moment to dupe the gun owners into voting for them, guns would all be seized tomorrow.

Gun owners have this enduring fantasy that a pop-gun will protect them against a rogue government. However, we know from Iraq (which had universal gun ownership) that it didn't protect them against Saddam and it hasn't protected them against Bush. The only thing that is working for the Iraqis are IEDs and mortars.

That's why the fascists will coddle the NRA and let the people keep their pop-guns, but won't let people have IEDs and mortars. If you really want to protect yourself against a rogue government, then you need to stockpile IEDs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #57
63.  "Yeah -- I know the gun nuts in my neighborhood are taking down their Obama signs"
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 11:33 AM by Tyler Durden
"Yeah -- I know the gun nuts in my neighborhood are taking down their Obama signs

Puh-leeze. The knee-jerk pro-gun voters weren't going to vote Dem anyway -- unless they buy the "I Was Annie Oakley" crap from the leader of the Million Mom March Against Guns."

This was an issue thread, not a candidate thread. If Clinton had been stupid enough to say something like that, AND ASSUME SHE WAS OFF THE RECORD, then I would still be here bemoaning that one of our two "prize winners" had said something colossally stupid.

You're the one who jumped in as an "Obama Booster." Frankly I'm starting not to care anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. Not a candidate thread? Then, why is Obama's name in the title?
P.S. I'm not an "Obama Booster," but Hillary supporters are doing their damndest to push me in that direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #65
69. Because it wasn't "an unknown Democratic Candidate."
I would be saying the same thing if Clinton had pushed the "Gun, Religion, and Elitist" buttons, ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

We are SO going to lose this election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #69
74. But she did push all those buttons -- just in different ways
She morphed from Million Mom March leader to duck hunter

She called someone else elitist -- forgetting her own multi-millionaire status

And she hasn't seen a religious group yet that she won't pander too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #74
76. And as I said, if Clinton had said it and Obama had not replied...
...exactly as Clinton did (and he HAS) then he'd be a naive political neophyte.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
43. he didn't just stick his foot in his mouth
he shoved his whole goddam leg in there...

It's not just the gun issue, either - the "cling to religion" bit is going to go over like a lead balloon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #43
51. He might pull out the "religion" bit...but the guns? Never.
The very mention of the word was stupid. He should know better, and if he doesn't, then his handlers should tell him to stay on script.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #43
108. All that pandering to the fundies gone to waste
WTF was he thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #108
113. Whatever one says, it cost us time and money from both campaigns.
Something we don't have to waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bensthename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
47. He didnt say anything that we dont believe. And was said in private.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #47
53. No, he just said it in the middle of a dangerous campaign, in public.
Do you think I have any other agenda than NO MCCAIN?

But I will tell you this: Obama had better quit trying to fly by the seat of his pants. It isn't working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bensthename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #53
68. It was not in public. It was a private meeting with a Clinton/Rove decoy sitting in to record it.
That is the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #68
70. Saying "Rove" in regard to one of the candidates is on Skinner's list.
Care to rephrase that?

And just for the record, anyone Naive enough to think while running for president that ANYTHING they say is truly off the record needs a big wake up call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bensthename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #70
79. rephrase it? No, I think it was accurate.
But I agree he needs to be aware all the time of such things. I bet this won't happen again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. I'm just sorry you felt the need to say it in the first place.
Neither one of "Our favorite Bozos" is without sin. And it was colossally naive to consider something so potentially inflamatory as being "off the record." In his position, I would have passed up making the comment, but if I felt it necessary I would be damned certain no one was present who would repeat it.

You know this could have been repeated by someone who thought it was a "Great Quote!" you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bensthename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #82
91. Agreed.
I'm sure this is one of those times that will stick with him for the rest of his life and campaign. It is too bad that we live in such an electronic information age that our candidates can be exposed and exploited for every small thing they have said since childhood.
And also living in a world that the media hypes every word for their gain mainly. 24/7 news stations have killed legitimate politics.
I for one spend too much time watching this crap and it sends me over the edge more then it should. Have a good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
59. Well.....Let's see.....
I'm a Democrat and a gun owner and I think you're full of shit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #59
64. Well...Let's see....
I'M a Democrat and a gun owner and I think you're ignoring the problem for Candidate Partisanship.

This isn't a CANDIDATE issue, it's a "Let's not make any more BONEHEADED mistakes, no matter WHICH Candidate we are, shall we?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #64
89. Awright, I can go with that.
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. Excellent. Now how do we talk the chief "Head Cases" into keeping trap SHUT?
Remember the Bush "Pie Hole" thing that was going on for a while? Seems our candidates have each grown one a little EARLY. You have to wait until you get ELECTED before you can safely say boneheaded things.

Ask George if you doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
61. he reinforced the idea that the dems are anti-gun, anti-god and think they are racist xenophobes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #61
66. Strike three.
Maybe we can keep from doing the same damned thing NEXT inning.

Everyone's political memory is SO FUCKING SHORT. 2004 has just faded off into what's left of the ozone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
71. Valid points. It was a completely unnecessary sideshow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #71
87. And now it's back out of the "Midway Freak Show" and back in "Center Ring."
I hate the circus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wowimthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
81. this is a change election...That won't fly this time. I discount your judgment...
You think things are still the same and that politics hasn't changed but you are wrong. The only reason why Obama and Clinton are on the top of the ticket is because things have changed.

Young people are voting in droves. And if you think old school politics is gonna prevail this time... think again. Obama was supposed to be GONE by Super Tuesday. Then the goal post got pushed back by the Clintons. Conventional poltics is not gonna work this time.

This Bitter argument is a ploy for PA voters who want the status quo but the rest of the country is beyond this kind of silly political football.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. You don't live in Michigan, Florida, New York, California.....
I could keep going. This is a very, very close race, and if you don't think this is going down the wire in November, you're kidding yourself.

As for "Old School Politics," I'd say both Clinton and Obama were doing a FINE job of THAT. I'm disgusted with BOTH of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wowimthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #83
94. it doesn't matter where I live... I'm looking at the candidates and this race isn't close...
That is a mirage the media is painting for you. They will have you believe that this race is separated by 800,000 votes. Guess again. They have yet to include the caucus state votes. Everyone has forgotten about that. She has less than a 10 percent chance of winning and everyone accept the poor folks of PA know this.

And another thing. The "bitterness" dust up has been taken out of context by people who no doubt work on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Watch the next debate. Everything will be crystal clear that Obama is the only candidate. Clinton and McCain are non-starters in a change election because they represent "more of the same". Ask Bill per 1991.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wowimthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. The media is leading you down a dark alley! Caucus states still go to the Convention...
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 12:23 PM by wowimthere
Obama leads by no less than a million representative caucus votes. Add that to the 800,000 votes. She doesn't have a chance of winning unless Obama steps down. The media wants this fight to go on and on and on. The reality is... Obama has already won.

This is just POLITICAL theater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #97
101. Whatever you say....
I try not to debate with fanatics, and besides you're off topic. This is not a CANDIDATE DISCUSSION, it's an ISSUE DISCUSSION.

As I don't see either one as "JESUS" (as so many seem to) then the issue is moot except for the win in November. If you want to hand it to McCain, or at the very least give him a "handicap" to our "scratch," well I don't think I can argue with that madness.

Neither Candidate should be making stupid remarks; just not smart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wowimthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #101
103. the comments weren't stupid...they were true and the issues should be the economy and health care
This "bitterness" issue is a side show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #103
114. I'm certain you can volunteer to steer the country's opinion.
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 01:40 PM by Tyler Durden
It seems to have worked so well for both of our candidates at this point.

Please excuse MY bitterness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alter Ego Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
99. I laughed really hard at this sentence.
"Discount me as a Sen. Clinton Supporter if you want, but if you are honest, you will admit that the inclusion of the Gun Issue in this campaign has had the effect of placing three hyperactive ferrets with diarhea in you living room: you are NEVER going to get that shit out of there, and it will keep showing up for MONTHS."

I have to give you props for a hilarious analogy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #99
115. Unfortunately true, isn't it?
GOD I hate it when democrats get cocky and slit their own throats. We have to school the next generation to stop believing their own press releases, so they stop almost drowning when they try to walk on water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wowimthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
102. The funny thing is... He told the truth... No one is taking away the 2nd amendment
People don't have anything else so they latch onto the issues they know they still have a say in. Hillary has really started to overplay her hand by giving them those very same Republican talking points.

Politicians won't do anything about NAFTA or the War and you know she won't so she'll placate people about guns and religion. This is the Republican mime and I say shame on anyone who falls for it at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #102
117. You need to stop thinking "Clinton." She didn't say it.
Granted, she could have given him a break, but at this point? Has he?

Forget Clinton, and try to think how we salvage this debacle. The idiots running both campaigns are like a road show version of "The 3 Stooges go to Mars."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goldcanyonaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
111. Is someone gonna try to take away my gun?
:scared:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #111
118. You aren't stupid enough to believe someone will, are you?
But there are THOUSANDS, HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS who won't think past this, like there are HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS who won't think past Abortion, or School Prayer, or Evolution, or Tax Cuts....

Why should we hand them ANOTHER issue to beat us up with, gratis?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
116. Gun Control. Stupidest. Plank. Ever. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. You're fuckin' "A" right.
Doesn't matter WHO you support. Really. Stupid. Shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
122. Many guns owners loathe the idea of Chicago-style or Illinois style gun control going national
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 01:43 PM by aikoaiko
So when Obama speaks disparagingly of owning guns or fighting for gun owning interests, he embraces a stereotype.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #122
124. EXACTLY. So why did he have to say ANYTHING?
No one had brought it up. Was he PISSED OFF at the Pennsylvania "HICKS?" What possessed him to make such a colossally stupid remark.

Whatever one thinks about him, he's not that stupid. Maybe he ought to muzzle his arrogance a little. Clinton could too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
125. It's ok
He's cool enough to be a superconductor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #125
131. Big mistake to take on the gun-owners across the country...
a local weekly tabloid here in my small rural city just came out with the latest issue. The front cover showed a pic of a man in Union Uniform holding a rifle aimed at the camera. Lead statement in very large letters on the front page was: God! Guns! Guts.

This is a hunting and fishing community. Probably 98% of the people here own guns...and use them regularly.

Klamath Falls, OR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. We've got to be honest here.
If we get a Democratic president and a 60 seat majority in the Senate, gun control is going to happen.

We can downplay that so as not to encourage sad-sack republicans to get off of their demoralized asses and vote for McSame, but we sure as hell can't lie about our intentions either, regardless of whether or not it's the rights second favorite wedge issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-14-08 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #133
139. If it does, then the House and Senate will turn red. Again.
Edited on Mon Apr-14-08 09:25 PM by benEzra
We've got to be honest here.

If we get a Democratic president and a 60 seat majority in the Senate, gun control is going to happen.

It had damn well better NOT happen.

In 1994, merely raising prices on replacement magazines for popular pistols, and requiring minor cosmetic changes on some civilian rifles, cost the House AND Senate in November 1994, and unseated the sitting House Speaker for the first time since the damn Civil War. Support for that asinine bait-and-switch is now at least ten percentage points lower than it was in 1994, when passing it turned both houses of Congress red--and the 1994 law didn't even ban any guns at all. Do you really, really want that to happen again?

More people own "assault weapons" than hunt, and something like THREE TIMES as many people own handguns as hunt. If the repubs at the Brady Campaign get their way and get the most popular rifles in America banned, or slap pre-1861 capacity restrictions on 40+ million lawful gun owners, what do you think will happen next, politically? Well, think of the backlash you might get from outlawing hunting, and multiply it by two or three.

The danger of pushing/passing new gun bans isn't alienating the Right. It's about alienating working-class DEMS. Bans on nonhunting guns simply will NOT fly in most of America, whether red or blue. Here's how lesser proposals faired in rural Virginia in the '90s through '04:

Alienated Rural Democrat (2004)

We've got a very good shot at winning in November. But if you want to KEEP the trifecta, you have to leave the gun issue to the states. 2006 showed that that is indeed a winning strategy; stick to it.



----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Thoughts on Gun Ownership
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC