He's never exactly been an anti-gun candidate anyway either. Despite what the NRA would have us believe.
Even if he was, it's a terrible time to bring it up. He'd lose all the goodwill he gained from rising above the pettiness after Tuscon; there'd be no way to talk up gun control without looking like he was trying to politicize the tragedy to his own ends.
He's never exactly been an anti-gun candidate anyway either. Despite what the NRA would have us believe.
Even if he was, it's a terrible time to bring it up. He'd lose all the goodwill he gained from rising above the pettiness after Tuscon; there'd be no way to talk up gun control without looking like he was trying to politicize the tragedy to his own ends.
he could have said something like, "after this tragedy, I'm aware that many Americans have started asking why we have so much gun violence in this country, and whether we need to enact more gun control laws. I stand firm as a defender of the 2nd amendment, but at the same time I recognize that we need to fight gun violence, and I will continue working with both sides to find solutions".
That doesn't really say anything, but it would be nice to hear him acknowledge that he's listening.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited January 2011
It doesn't say anything productive, but it has the cost of the words "gun control" coming out of his lips.
Climate Progress has a good analysis of why Obama needed to specifically address climate change:
4. This rhetorical approach fails to build a consensus to address climate change: The Obama rhetorical approach is both intellectually dishonest and short sighted. Climate change poses an immediate and growing threat to human populations around the world. Yet this threat is completely ignored, and the public is given a thin and uncompelling rationale for transformation of energy systems. As numerous analyses have shown (IPCC and NRC), a real approach to effectively dealing with GHG emissions will require substantial transformations of both our economic and energy systems. This will involve the implementation of politically unpopular actions, such as a carbon tax. Rather than attempting to start the process to build a public consensus to undertake these meaningful actions, the Obama administration has adopted the short term strategy to gain political advantage by advocating a popular but ineffective approach to dealing with climate change. Thus this rhetorical approach continues to maintain the cultural delusion that we can continue business as usual, and that climate change does not require substantial and politically painful actions. While this strategy might prove to be advantageous in the short term, it just delays the inevitable necessary actions, and saddles future administrations and generations with a heavy political, economic, and environmental burden.
No, he won't be able to pass any strong climate change legislation in the next congress. But he has the power to make it part of the national discourse, and potentially an issue for the next congress. If the Dems manage to retake the house in 2012, that would be the time to take action. However, if he just plays it safe right now and never even mentions the subject, there won't be enough political will to do anything for a long time.
There's a kind of high profile event to change public opinion before the next Congress is chosen...
It can take a long time to change the focus of public discourse, though. One big speech isn't going to be enough. He needs to get people to recognize it as an issue, first, so that he can campaign with specific solutions in 2012. If nothing else, it would be a better issue to talk about than "should we repeal Obamacare" nonsense or "lets eliminate the deficit but not cut anything major from the budget".
He's never exactly been an anti-gun candidate anyway either. Despite what the NRA would have us believe.
Even if he was, it's a terrible time to bring it up. He'd lose all the goodwill he gained from rising above the pettiness after Tuscon; there'd be no way to talk up gun control without looking like he was trying to politicize the tragedy to his own ends.
he could have said something like, "after this tragedy, I'm aware that many Americans have started asking why we have so much gun violence in this country, and whether we need to enact more gun control laws. I stand firm as a defender of the 2nd amendment, but at the same time I recognize that we need to fight gun violence, and I will continue working with both sides to find solutions".
That doesn't really say anything, but it would be nice to hear him acknowledge that he's listening.
If nothing can be done, then why bother wasting political capital on a dead end?
This is one of my major problems with my fellow progressives. Everyone wants their pet issues handled even when there are bigger priorities on the table. We tend to be good on the policy but bad on the politics.
Bringing up gun control is unimportant; the last thing we need is to invite a culture war heading into 2012. Better to focus on defending the health care bill, continuing to bolster the economy, etc. (i.e. BIG STUFF) so Obama is re-elected with better numbers in Congress.
Gun control is a second term, scorched earth, "who the fuck cares if I leave office with a 23% approval rating" thing.
First term stuff is supposed to be nondivisive. Which is what makes all the wins we've got even more impressive.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
Gun control is a second term, scorched earth, "who the fuck cares if I leave office with a 23% approval rating" thing.
First term stuff is supposed to be nondivisive. Which is what makes all the wins we've got even more impressive.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
Allegedly, Obama is having a press release focusing on gun control soon. According to some dude in the know on MSNBC Tuesday night.
Gun control is a second term, scorched earth, "who the fuck cares if I leave office with a 23% approval rating" thing.
First term stuff is supposed to be nondivisive. Which is what makes all the wins we've got even more impressive.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
And besides. I've already stocked up on full capacity magazines after the old ban ran out.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
Keep in mind that many gun owners are heavily focussed on this one issue. Probably not as much as the pro life crowd is with abortion, but close.
For example, Obama might very well lose my support over stricter gun control alone. Is it really worth the political cost?
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
Keep in mind that many gun owners are heavily focussed on this one issue. Probably not as much as the pro life crowd is with abortion, but close.
For example, Obama might very well lose my support over stricter gun control alone. Is it really worth the political cost?
This is a sad commentary on the priorities of gun owners. Being a single issue voter is stupid enough, but to have your vote revolve around gun restrictions is up there with voting based on a candidate's religion/non-religion.
Gun control is a second term, scorched earth, "who the fuck cares if I leave office with a 23% approval rating" thing.
First term stuff is supposed to be nondivisive. Which is what makes all the wins we've got even more impressive.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
Touching gun rights at any level at all would whip the right voter base into a frenzied mob howling "OBAMA IS COMING FER OUR GUNS!!!!!!111ONEONE" to a point you can't even imagine right now. Think of all th people who insist that Obamacare is about death panels. Now try to explain with calm, cool reason to those people that you're not trying to reduce their right to bear arms, just limit their access to certain ammunition requirements.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
No way there's a 'moderate' for republicans regarding this issue. They are very concerned about getting an "A rating" and endorsement from the NRA.
Gun control is a second term, scorched earth, "who the fuck cares if I leave office with a 23% approval rating" thing.
First term stuff is supposed to be nondivisive. Which is what makes all the wins we've got even more impressive.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
Touching gun rights at any level at all would whip the right voter base into a frenzied mob howling "OBAMA IS COMING FER OUR GUNS!!!!!!111ONEONE" to a point you can't even imagine right now. Think of all th people who insist that Obamacare is about death panels. Now try to explain with calm, cool reason to those people that you're not trying to reduce their right to bear arms, just limit their access to certain ammunition requirements.
They already believe he's "comin' fer ur guns" anyway, and have shown themselves over the last two years to be completely, utterly and unrepentantly willing to lie about what he's doing. I say just roll with it. You think I'm taking your guns? Might as well take them then.
They already believe he's "comin' fer ur guns" anyway, and have shown themselves over the last two years to be completely, utterly and unrepentantly willing to lie about what he's doing. I say just roll with it. You think I'm taking your guns? Might as well take them then.
That's the thing. So far Obama has me convinced that he's not coming for my guns. No mean feat for a Democrat. Why waste that?
They already believe he's "comin' fer ur guns" anyway, and have shown themselves over the last two years to be completely, utterly and unrepentantly willing to lie about what he's doing. I say just roll with it. You think I'm taking your guns? Might as well take them then.
That's the thing. So far Obama has me convinced that he's not coming for my guns. No mean feat for a Democrat. Why waste that?
Whoa, so the default mental state is "omgomg they're coming for my guns"? That doesn't sounds like any way to live.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
No way there's a 'moderate' for republicans regarding this issue. They are very concerned about getting an "A rating" and endorsement from the NRA.
Republicans shouldn't even matter for Obama. They're not going to vote for him- no matter what he says. They already proved that by filibustering new START and RomneyCare. What matters for him is the voter turnout of his base, and pandering to republicans and gun nuts is not going to incrase that turnout.
This is a sad commentary on the priorities of gun owners. Being a single issue voter is stupid enough, but to have your vote revolve around gun restrictions is up there with voting based on a candidate's religion/non-religion.
Actually wwtMask, I think liberals are happy to vote based on a candidates religion/non-religion, but for different reasons than conservatives. Conservatives vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/going to hell. Liberals vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/bloody idiot.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
No way there's a 'moderate' for republicans regarding this issue. They are very concerned about getting an "A rating" and endorsement from the NRA.
Republicans shouldn't even matter for Obama. They're not going to vote for him- no matter what he says. They already proved that by filibustering new START and RomneyCare. What matters for him is the voter turnout of his base, and pandering to republicans and gun nuts is not going to incrase that turnout.
That's the thing. So far Obama has me convinced that he's not coming for my guns. No mean feat for a Democrat. Why waste that?
Whoa, so the default mental state is "omgomg they're coming for my guns"? That doesn't sounds like any way to live.
That's not how I meant that to come across. I meant something along the lines of "gun control is part of the 'typical' Democrats agenda." Not every Democrats obviously.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
No way there's a 'moderate' for republicans regarding this issue. They are very concerned about getting an "A rating" and endorsement from the NRA.
Republicans shouldn't even matter for Obama. They're not going to vote for him- no matter what he says. They already proved that by filibustering new START and RomneyCare. What matters for him is the voter turnout of his base, and pandering to republicans and gun nuts is not going to incrase that turnout.
Thing is, lots of democrats like guns, too.
Yes but you rarely see democratic voters turning away from a candidate just because they half-heartedly endoursed extremely moderate gun control measures like the ban on 30-bullet pistol magazines. If Obama is smart about it, he could turn the Tuscon shooting into a major political boon for democrats\.
Gun ownership/regulation is pretty much a lost cause. Even in your second term, aggressively going after it is telling your entire party to sell you out in their re-election campaigns. It's simply become too polarizing to even have basic conversations about restricting concealed carry in some areas or addressing gun show sales or how trivial the background check is on gun purchases.
Dems have to just accept that the second amendment fight is over for now, and requires a major public opinion change to be anything but a way to lose seats.
edit: Trying to turn Tucson into a gun control debate is just.. not going to work unless you can prove the man wasn't crazy and actually was part of a greater shift towards stocking up on high capacity or concealable weapons in order to murder people on a large scale. Otherwise it shifts the conversation from "we need to work on our mental health facilities/tone it down a notch on the violent rhetoric" to "YOU WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS YOU COMMIE"
Which will not end well, since it has pretty much no support from the courts, no support from congress, and will bleed/polarize support in the electorate.
This is a sad commentary on the priorities of gun owners. Being a single issue voter is stupid enough, but to have your vote revolve around gun restrictions is up there with voting based on a candidate's religion/non-religion.
Actually wwtMask, I think liberals are happy to vote based on a candidates religion/non-religion, but for different reasons than conservatives. Conservatives vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/going to hell. Liberals vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/bloody idiot.
Well, I'm more talking about people who explicitly say "I won't vote for Candidate X because he is/isn't religious/Christian/Muslim/etc.". It's just stupid for your decision to rest solely upon this point.
This is a sad commentary on the priorities of gun owners. Being a single issue voter is stupid enough, but to have your vote revolve around gun restrictions is up there with voting based on a candidate's religion/non-religion.
Actually wwtMask, I think liberals are happy to vote based on a candidates religion/non-religion, but for different reasons than conservatives. Conservatives vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/going to hell. Liberals vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/bloody idiot.
Well, I'm more talking about people who explicitly say "I won't vote for Candidate X because he is/isn't religious/Christian/Muslim/etc.". It's just stupid for your decision to rest solely upon this point.
In the past I would have agreed with you. These days, it seems like things are so partisan that you can look at how someone feels about any single issue, and then predict their political party, and then predict everything else about them. Me personally, I'd have a hard time voting for anyone who describes themself as a republican, no matter how awesome that person might be during interviews.
This is a sad commentary on the priorities of gun owners. Being a single issue voter is stupid enough, but to have your vote revolve around gun restrictions is up there with voting based on a candidate's religion/non-religion.
Actually wwtMask, I think liberals are happy to vote based on a candidates religion/non-religion, but for different reasons than conservatives. Conservatives vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/going to hell. Liberals vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/bloody idiot.
I'll vote for an evangelical Christian if he's a good Democrat. There just aren't many of those.
This is a sad commentary on the priorities of gun owners. Being a single issue voter is stupid enough, but to have your vote revolve around gun restrictions is up there with voting based on a candidate's religion/non-religion.
Actually wwtMask, I think liberals are happy to vote based on a candidates religion/non-religion, but for different reasons than conservatives. Conservatives vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/going to hell. Liberals vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/bloody idiot.
I'll vote for an evangelical Christian if he's a good Democrat. There just aren't many of those.
This. A candidate's religion is less important than his or her political and social leanings and how much closer they are to my own compared to the opposing candidate(s). I understand that religion plays a part in that calculation, but I think the nature of the Democratic party makes it possible for religion to not be the primary way to define a candidate.
Yes but you rarely see democratic voters turning away from a candidate just because they half-heartedly endoursed extremely moderate gun control measures like the ban on 30-bullet pistol magazines. If Obama is smart about it, he could turn the Tuscon shooting into a major political boon for democrats\.
No. No, no, no, no, NO. You cannot, and should not, attempt to turn Tuscon into a political thing. There's no "smart" way, it will just blow up in your face.
What happened there was a tragedy, but has far more to do with our failure as a nation to help the mentally ill than it has to do with gun control.
Trying to play it for points is flat out disrespectful, and thus is political suicide.
They already believe he's "comin' fer ur guns" anyway, and have shown themselves over the last two years to be completely, utterly and unrepentantly willing to lie about what he's doing. I say just roll with it. You think I'm taking your guns? Might as well take them then.
That's the thing. So far Obama has me convinced that he's not coming for my guns. No mean feat for a Democrat. Why waste that?
Whoa, so the default mental state is "omgomg they're coming for my guns"? That doesn't sounds like any way to live.
we need more guns to protect ourselves against them
Yes but you rarely see democratic voters turning away from a candidate just because they half-heartedly endoursed extremely moderate gun control measures like the ban on 30-bullet pistol magazines. If Obama is smart about it, he could turn the Tuscon shooting into a major political boon for democrats\.
No. No, no, no, no, NO. You cannot, and should not, attempt to turn Tuscon into a political thing. There's no "smart" way, it will just blow up in your face.
What happened there was a tragedy, but has far more to do with our failure as a nation to help the mentally ill than it has to do with gun control.Trying to play it for points is flat out disrespectful, and thus is political suicide.
How is that not a political thing? Half the nation wants to improve health care, including mental health care. The other care wants to restrict it so that only rich people can have health care. Of course that ignores the larger point that having a mental illness doesn't necessarly make someone dangerous, but nevermind that. This could a catalyst to save lives.
If we find out later that he was Certifiable, you could, yes, cautiously and respectfully use Tuscon as evidence of the need for better Mental Health Care. Not for gun control.
If we find out later that he was Certifiable, you could, yes, cautiously and respectfully use Tuscon as evidence of the need for better Mental Health Care. Not for gun control.
since when do facts have anything to do with politics? The important issue is that someone used a weapon which would have been illegal just a few years ago to assassinate a member of congress- shouldn't that be illegal again? A lot of Americans think so. Very few Americans are going to stand up and passionately defend extended handgun magazines right now, or restricted mental health care. That's why Obama should have at least mentioned the subject in the SOTU.
I'd be willing to bet that a moderately-sized, and very vocal, portion of Americans would stand up and throw a fucking shit-fit if you try to take away anything that has to do with guns. Extended magazines included.
Democrats must be cautious and respectful about suggesting that when someone shoots several people, including a federal judge and a member of Congress, and has deranged rants on youtube and paper, maybe we should think about doing something about mental health care in this country. Republicans take a couple of days off, then immediately scream that we should speak just as we have been, and the bitch deserved it, and shame on those Democrats for exploiting this tragedy.
Democrats must be cautious and respectful about suggesting that when someone shoots several people, including a federal judge and a member of Congress, and has deranged rants on youtube and paper, maybe we should think about doing something about mental health care in this country. Republicans take a couple of days off, then immediately scream that we should speak just as we have been, and the bitch deserved it, and shame on those Democrats for exploiting this tragedy.
Posts
A man who, I'm sure, already hates Obama.
Even if he was, it's a terrible time to bring it up. He'd lose all the goodwill he gained from rising above the pettiness after Tuscon; there'd be no way to talk up gun control without looking like he was trying to politicize the tragedy to his own ends.
he could have said something like, "after this tragedy, I'm aware that many Americans have started asking why we have so much gun violence in this country, and whether we need to enact more gun control laws. I stand firm as a defender of the 2nd amendment, but at the same time I recognize that we need to fight gun violence, and I will continue working with both sides to find solutions".
That doesn't really say anything, but it would be nice to hear him acknowledge that he's listening.
Maybe he should mention his pro-infanticide stance, while he's at it; I'm sure that wouldn't distract from more pressing issues, either.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
It can take a long time to change the focus of public discourse, though. One big speech isn't going to be enough. He needs to get people to recognize it as an issue, first, so that he can campaign with specific solutions in 2012. If nothing else, it would be a better issue to talk about than "should we repeal Obamacare" nonsense or "lets eliminate the deficit but not cut anything major from the budget".
If nothing can be done, then why bother wasting political capital on a dead end?
This is one of my major problems with my fellow progressives. Everyone wants their pet issues handled even when there are bigger priorities on the table. We tend to be good on the policy but bad on the politics.
Bringing up gun control is unimportant; the last thing we need is to invite a culture war heading into 2012. Better to focus on defending the health care bill, continuing to bolster the economy, etc. (i.e. BIG STUFF) so Obama is re-elected with better numbers in Congress.
First term stuff is supposed to be nondivisive. Which is what makes all the wins we've got even more impressive.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I think this really underestimates the support for moderarate (very moderate) gun control measures. A ban on extended handgun magazines would have a broad range of support right now. Yes the NRA would oppose it, but the NRA is not a majority. And giving the issue at least some lip service would increase his turnout from the base- much more than insulting us would, anyway, by complaining that we're unreasonable.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
And besides. I've already stocked up on full capacity magazines after the old ban ran out.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Keep in mind that many gun owners are heavily focussed on this one issue. Probably not as much as the pro life crowd is with abortion, but close.
For example, Obama might very well lose my support over stricter gun control alone. Is it really worth the political cost?
This is a sad commentary on the priorities of gun owners. Being a single issue voter is stupid enough, but to have your vote revolve around gun restrictions is up there with voting based on a candidate's religion/non-religion.
Touching gun rights at any level at all would whip the right voter base into a frenzied mob howling "OBAMA IS COMING FER OUR GUNS!!!!!!111ONEONE" to a point you can't even imagine right now. Think of all th people who insist that Obamacare is about death panels. Now try to explain with calm, cool reason to those people that you're not trying to reduce their right to bear arms, just limit their access to certain ammunition requirements.
No way there's a 'moderate' for republicans regarding this issue. They are very concerned about getting an "A rating" and endorsement from the NRA.
They already believe he's "comin' fer ur guns" anyway, and have shown themselves over the last two years to be completely, utterly and unrepentantly willing to lie about what he's doing. I say just roll with it. You think I'm taking your guns? Might as well take them then.
That's the thing. So far Obama has me convinced that he's not coming for my guns. No mean feat for a Democrat. Why waste that?
Whoa, so the default mental state is "omgomg they're coming for my guns"? That doesn't sounds like any way to live.
Republicans shouldn't even matter for Obama. They're not going to vote for him- no matter what he says. They already proved that by filibustering new START and RomneyCare. What matters for him is the voter turnout of his base, and pandering to republicans and gun nuts is not going to incrase that turnout.
Actually wwtMask, I think liberals are happy to vote based on a candidates religion/non-religion, but for different reasons than conservatives. Conservatives vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/going to hell. Liberals vote on religion because they think the guy belonging to the other religion is an immoral bastard/bloody idiot.
Thing is, lots of democrats like guns, too.
That's not how I meant that to come across. I meant something along the lines of "gun control is part of the 'typical' Democrats agenda." Not every Democrats obviously.
Yes but you rarely see democratic voters turning away from a candidate just because they half-heartedly endoursed extremely moderate gun control measures like the ban on 30-bullet pistol magazines. If Obama is smart about it, he could turn the Tuscon shooting into a major political boon for democrats\.
Dems have to just accept that the second amendment fight is over for now, and requires a major public opinion change to be anything but a way to lose seats.
edit: Trying to turn Tucson into a gun control debate is just.. not going to work unless you can prove the man wasn't crazy and actually was part of a greater shift towards stocking up on high capacity or concealable weapons in order to murder people on a large scale. Otherwise it shifts the conversation from "we need to work on our mental health facilities/tone it down a notch on the violent rhetoric" to "YOU WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS YOU COMMIE"
Which will not end well, since it has pretty much no support from the courts, no support from congress, and will bleed/polarize support in the electorate.
Well, I'm more talking about people who explicitly say "I won't vote for Candidate X because he is/isn't religious/Christian/Muslim/etc.". It's just stupid for your decision to rest solely upon this point.
In the past I would have agreed with you. These days, it seems like things are so partisan that you can look at how someone feels about any single issue, and then predict their political party, and then predict everything else about them. Me personally, I'd have a hard time voting for anyone who describes themself as a republican, no matter how awesome that person might be during interviews.
This. A candidate's religion is less important than his or her political and social leanings and how much closer they are to my own compared to the opposing candidate(s). I understand that religion plays a part in that calculation, but I think the nature of the Democratic party makes it possible for religion to not be the primary way to define a candidate.
No. No, no, no, no, NO. You cannot, and should not, attempt to turn Tuscon into a political thing. There's no "smart" way, it will just blow up in your face.
What happened there was a tragedy, but has far more to do with our failure as a nation to help the mentally ill than it has to do with gun control.
Trying to play it for points is flat out disrespectful, and thus is political suicide.
we need more guns to protect ourselves against them
so we can all feel safe
How is that not a political thing? Half the nation wants to improve health care, including mental health care. The other care wants to restrict it so that only rich people can have health care. Of course that ignores the larger point that having a mental illness doesn't necessarly make someone dangerous, but nevermind that. This could a catalyst to save lives.
since when do facts have anything to do with politics? The important issue is that someone used a weapon which would have been illegal just a few years ago to assassinate a member of congress- shouldn't that be illegal again? A lot of Americans think so. Very few Americans are going to stand up and passionately defend extended handgun magazines right now, or restricted mental health care. That's why Obama should have at least mentioned the subject in the SOTU.
Yes moral superiority does suck.