PDA

View Full Version : Politicians: Grade on the curve


Peaceful John
01-11-2012, 9:33 AM
I understand these will not be popular comments. Asbestos suit on.

To a politician, the most important thing in life is to get elected again and again, perhaps to ever higher office. To do that he needs to find the biggest cause in town, the biggest parade, and jump in front of it. When, over time, sufficient portions of the crowd drift from one parade to another, and the cause starts to lose public interest, the astute politician changes parades.

Fringe politicians, those who lead small parades, are seldom electable. See R. Paul. And politicians who gain a seat do not do so by campaigning from the fringe. It is true that once in office they may reveal their true colors, but that precludes them from ever again leading a significant parade. See B. Obama.

In the past the pro-gun parades have been small. That's not to say that most people were anti, just that they either didn't think being pro-gun was important or no part of the entire concept really rose to consciousness. But that is changing.

Thus the anti-gun politican who, a few years later, suprised that the pro-gun parade has grown larger than he remembers, observing that more folks are joining all the time, ponders whether he's leading the wrong parade.

Our job is to grow our parade, if we don't do that nobody will be interested in us and the hope of quickly expanding gun rights becomes dim. Our job is also to vote for the most electable person nearest our point of view. If our guy is not elected, we've lost ground. More important than ground, we've given time to the opposition. Whoever we vote for, he has to be a contender. Even if it's Romney.

Cross posted on Maryland Shooters.

John.

cfusionpm
01-11-2012, 10:48 AM
That's how Democrats felt about Kerry in '04. Maybe this dysfunctional field and out-of-touch front runner that most people don't really like anyway will be different against the unpopular incumbant this time?

That said, you really think Romney will be any kind of savior for gun control? Or even any better than Obama in that regard?

http://www.issues2000.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm

QQQ
01-11-2012, 11:05 AM
Our job is also to vote for the most electable person nearest our point of view. If our guy is not elected, we've lost ground. More important than ground, we've given time to the opposition. Whoever we vote for, he has to be a contender. Even if it's Romney.

Cross posted on Maryland Shooters.

John.I don't consider Romney "our guy". To compromise with the devil is the same as letting the devil win.

jwkincal
01-11-2012, 12:07 PM
That said, you really think Romney will be any kind of savior for gun control? Or even any better than Obama in that regard?


I don't think he would appoint Sotomayor or Kagan...

It's about the SCOTUS appointments. It's the whole friggin' ball game and ANYONE the GOP puts up will be better than BHO

Peaceful John
01-11-2012, 12:16 PM
I don't consider Romney "our guy". To compromise with the devil is the same as letting the devil win.

Do you *really* think Romney is worse than Obama?

Cordially,
John

mdimeo
01-11-2012, 12:57 PM
That said, you really think Romney will be any kind of savior for gun control? Or even any better than Obama in that regard?

Obama has a near-zero chance of making a pro-2A supreme court pick, and wouldn't sign a pro-gun law unless he had to (amendment to a must-pass, law, for example).

Romney is at least 50% chance of a favorable court pick, and would probably sign a pro-gun law.

It's not even a close call who's a better choice on 2A.

Anyway, if you're in California, vote for whomever you want. If you live in a swing state, suck it up and vote Romney.

cfusionpm
01-11-2012, 4:01 PM
Do you *really* think Romney is worse than Obama?

Cordially,
John

Care of On The Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm)

Obama:
- Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
- Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
- FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
- April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
- Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
- Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
- 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
- Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
- Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
- Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
- Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
- Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
- Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)


Romney:
- 2008: "Lifelong" devotion to hunting meant "small varmints". (Jan 2010)
- GovWatch: 1994: did not “line up with the NRA”. (Feb 2008)
- Support the 2nd Amendment AND the assault weapon ban. (Jan 2008)
- I support the work of the NRA, but disagree sometimes. (Dec 2007)
- Ok to ban lethal weapons that threaten police. (Dec 2007)
- Compromise MA gun bills were net gain for gun owner. (Aug 2007)
- Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban. (May 2007)
- Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill. (Aug 1994)

I don't like Mitt Romney for a number of other reasons, but he's certainly no big fan of guns either.

QQQ
01-11-2012, 4:41 PM
Do you *really* think Romney is worse than Obama?

Cordially,
JohnNo, I don't.
However, while some folks believe that the lesser of two evils is good- that robbing a man is a viable alternative to murdering him- I disagree.

To be fair, though- nobody's vote in California for President is going to matter anyways during the general election. So my vote for a third party will be as meaningless as your vote for Romney.