NRA endorses McCain, snubs board member Barr
posted at 10:13 am on October 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The NRA endorsed John McCain for President today, and Bob Barr has to be steamed. Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, has long-established ties to the NRA and currently serves as member of their board. McCain has annoyed the NRA with past positions on gun-show rules and campaign finance rules which hurt their ability to campaign, but it seems all is forgiven … for now:
The National Rifle Association is endorsing Republican presidential nominee John McCain despite differences with the Arizona senator on gun-show rules and campaign finance restrictions. …
The NRA’s Political Victory Fund has spent more than $2.3 million opposing Democratic nominee Barack Obama. The chairman of the political action committee, Chris W. Cox, says its spending in the presidential race will grow to “eight figures” by Election Day. Besides ads, encouraging battleground-state gun owners to vote will be a key focus, he said.
The PAC was running an ad Thursday in USA Today accusing Obama of waffling on gun-rights issues and challenging his statements that he supports the right to bear arms. Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment but doesn’t think it precludes “some commonsense gun laws so that we don’t have kids being shot on the streets of cities like Chicago.”
The NRA PAC’s future spending will target Obama on gun issues and start publicizing the records of McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, LaPierre said. McCain’s selection of Palin was a plus, LaPierre said.
Palin’s selection probably made the difference between an endorsement and a snub. Palin’s enthusiasm for hunting gives a fresh look for the NRA, and an even more fresh look to John McCain. It’s the best ticket for the NRA in terms of optics in a very long time.
Just yesterday, the Barr campaign hoped they would win the endorsement:
In 2004, the NRA issued lifetime rankings of all members of Congress. Sen. McCain received a “C+”, indicating a mixed record on the Second Amendment.
Bob Barr has an “A+” lifetime rating from the NRA. Bob serves on the board of the NRA. His record on the Second Amendment is without question.
Given the fact that Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox have exposed John McCain as an anti-gun sympathizer, we here at Bob Barr 2008 fully expect that the NRA will announce their support for Bob Barr tomorrow and run ads against both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
I like Barr; I think he’s the most rational candidate the Libertarians have ever fielded for President, and he’s one of the most intelligent men in politics. However, this post reminds me that the Libertarians frequently forget the Quixotic nature of their campaigns and take themselves far too seriously. The NRA wants to play for legislative influence in the next administration, and the Barr campaign has about zero chance of winning the White House. The NRA would only endorse the Libertarian candidate if it wanted to torpedo any chance it has of keeping the ear of people who will actually be working in government in 2009.
The NRA also realizes what a disaster a President Barack Obama would be for gun rights. They want to offer realistic opposition to that outcome, not pointless gestures that will make it more likely.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
-sigh-
Sorry, but you guys don’t only don’t get it, you don’t WANT to get it.
It’s easier for you to stereotype me as some kind of liberal gun-grabber then it is to actually believe that while I see no use for assault weapons, I don’t want to ban them.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Besides being a liar and attempting to put words into people’s mouth – What brand of week are you smoking right now?
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 1:18 PM
(weed)
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 1:18 PM
OK then … I’ll assume that your position of AR-15 tolerance is your position now, and let it be.
Kristopher on October 9, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Question of the year. My guess would be “nobody”.
Just to be clear, he doesn’t deny the right of people to vote for third party candidates. He just demands that anyone who doesn’t vote for McCain be labeled an Obama supporter, even if they support someone else entirely. Sort of like the liberal whackjobs who call Nader voters “Bush voters”.
It’s the malady of crazed fanatics. Vote for my candidate or I spurn you as an enemy.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I wasn’t aware that was even an option. We have to use pens to fill in circles where I vote. ;-0
Frankly, political protests are meaningless unless (like the anti-war effort during Vietnam) the protesters cross political, economic, racial, and other demographic boundries to reflect a widespread societal position. Those that show up to heckle Gov. Palin are just pathetic losers whose efforts are pointless.
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Let’s talk stereotypes. You’ve referred to AK-47s without specifying whether they were auto or not, presumably because you see them as Hollywood props. You’ve talked about hunting with Uzis. You’ve talked about “every yahoo having a gun”. You’ve assumed that people hunting with semi-automatic rifles are no different than those hunting with fully-automatic rifles. You’ve also shown arrogance and condescension with people who repeat what you say.
And you have the temerity to say we “don’t get it”?
That’s about one step above Godwin’s Law, pal.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 1:25 PM
OK, whatever.
-sigh-
Try reading the statement instead of reading INTO it.
Do you have the right to own a nuclear bomb?
Do you have the right to own an ounce of cocaine?
Do you have the right to own a meth lab in your basement?
Of course not.
Stating an obvious, general point does not lead one to particular facts.
Well, that’s YOUR problem.
Yes, your articulate and insightful comments have completely changed my mind on the need for assault weapons.
Oh, that’s right, they haven’t.
On the other hand, I’m not pushing to ban them.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Again, you are hanging on this thing that happened 2 or 3 months ago and hasn’t happened again,
while you are putting words in people’s mouth constantly and misrepresenting what they say on a daily basis.
Nice try, Best of luck next time. idiot.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Sorry, I assume that because the whole discussion is about fully automated assault rifle, that I didn’t need to state the obvious.
So noted.
As a joke, yes.
And…?
No, I said I don’t see the sport in hunting with either automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
Your mileage, obviously, varies.
No, I’ve shown frustration that despite everything I’ve said, people still mistate and misconstrue what I’ve said.
Sure, OK…
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Hm.
Huh.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 1:32 PM
So, yes, Bishop, people can actually be against something without trying to make a law against it.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 1:16 PM
And so the debate comes full circle from your original post:
“Thus, I believe McCain is correct is saying that some common sense needs to be involved in enacting gun laws and restrictions.”
The devil is in the details, and of course in the minds of those who would decide what the definition of “common sense” is in regards to gun laws. No, I’m not saying you are a gun-grabber, but your rhetoric certainly resembles theirs.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Your position is clear and I haven’t misrepresented it one bit- you pompous prick. You are constantly bleating that a vote for a third party candidate (or not voting for McCain) makes one an “Obama supporter” by default. As if the only valid choice one has this election is to vote for McCain. That’s simply your opinion and you don’t have the right to call others “Obama supporters” simply because they disagree with you.
Your behavior is offensive because you are essentially attacking people for legitimately voting for somebody other than the candidate you’ve mindlessly and uncritically supported all along. You don’t have the right to call others “Obama supporters” just because they didn’t vote for your guy! In fact, I’m willing to bet you’d find few Obama supporters among those who cast their vote for Barr.
Likewise in 1992, Perot voters didn’t elect Clinton by not voting for GHWB. They opted to vote for the candidate that wasn’t running on one of the two major parties in American politics. You have no right to blame them for GHWB’s loss. The simple fact is that a third candidate had a message that resonnated enough with some voters they voted for Perot over either Clinton or Bush. They had every right to do so without jerks like you claiming they “elected Clinton.”
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Um, you’ve corrected what you’ve said numerous times in this post. It’s a little hard to keep up with your various nuances.
You claim that we don’t have the right to own “whatever our little hearts desire”. Apart from being a patronizing statement in and of itself, to combine this with the observation that you don’t see a “need” for certain things leads to a reasonable conclusion about the point you are trying to make. If you are not advocating the restriction of automatic weapons, why have you made the following cases:
1. Automatic weapons are designed solely to kill people.
2. We don’t have the right to own whatever we want.
3. You don’t see the need for them.
It’s the metaphorical equivalent of getting in a car, putting the key in the ignition, and turning on the engine, but getting indignant when someone assumes you’re going to drive somewhere.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 1:39 PM
You are right to be able to read this when I agreed with NoDonkey. When you take away a vote that would have gone to the republican, then that’s one less vote to the republican in a race when either the republican or the democrat is guaranteed to win.
You – falsely – claimed that I “He just demands that anyone who doesn’t vote for McCain be labeled an Obama supporter,” which is something that I didn’t say. I said that NoDonkey was absolutely correct. And he is.
Huh.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Well now. That’s so surprising coming from low hopes, not isn’t it.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM
NoDonkey also said that a vote for a third party candidate was pointless, which it isn’t.
aengus on October 9, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Actually, when I wrote that what I had in mind were things like this:
However, I fear that such an admission will now create ANOTHER 2 hour conversation on waiting periods and registration.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 1:47 PM
You’ve said it a number of times before. NoDonkey just said the same damn thing, and you agreed with it. You’re trying to make the same argument that Obama did about Wright.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM
And that’s the where the concept of the “illegitimate” Barr vote comes into play. Like it or not, Barr is a valid candidate and his supporters (I’m not one) have the right to cast their vote without being labeled “Obama supporters” simply because of they didn’t vote for the GOP candidate.
I’m willing to go out on a limb here and suggest that few of Barr’s votes come from people whose second choice is Obama. There is something decidedly un-American about the whole “Obama supporter by default” riff. If John McCain loses, it isn’t going to be because for any reason than he wasn’t able to convince enough people that he was the best choice. Well that reason and voter fraud by ACORN but perhaps I’m overly pessimistic about how much this election is going to be dictated by bogus voting in key metropolitan areas.
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Are you posting that that ISN’T true?
That we DO have the right to own whatever our little hearts desire?
Sorry, it’s not reasonable at all.
More like paranoia.
Hmmm…
…tough question…
…maybe I made the following statements because for 1 & 3 I believe it and #2 is a factual statement?
-sigh-
Again:
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Not familiar with bird hunting or clay shooting then, huh?
doubleplusundead on October 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Yes I am familiar, but I still don’t see the sport in hunting birds with either an automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
And while I love clay shooting, I don’t think I’ve ever seen or heard anyone refer to it as “hunting.”
I could certainly see the fun in it, though.
But wouldn’t that waste a lot of ammo?
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I note the personal attack without any rebuttal to the substance of my post. I’ll take your silence as agreement that you indeed claim voters are wrong when they select a third party candidate or opt not to vote for either candidate from the major parties. Voters have the right to vote for whichever candidate they want (Barr, McKinney, Obama, McCain) without you attacking them for exercising their right to vote.
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 1:59 PM
LOL. A-gain. You are quite the comedian. Like the ‘life-long republican’ in the obama youtube video who is an obama supporter. Sure.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM
You have no substance, low hopes.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM
That’s because it takes way too many of those clay pigeons to make a decent stew! :-0
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 2:03 PM
No, I’m pointing out that that is your stated position, and its proximity to your other stated positions. Sorry if that bothers you.
Right, because the points I listed that you have made are totally unrelated. Again, condescending and patronizing.
See, the problem is that the reasoning you use for 1 is flawed, when applied as a rule. 3 is, as you say, your belief. However, as automatic weapons are not outlawed, to make point 2 and yet claim that you are not advocating they be held within the sphere of point 2 is rather odd.
For the last time, knock off the arrogant, narcissistic attitude. This, combined with your arguments about whether things are “needed” and that “yahoos” can’t own “whatever their little hearts desire” peg you as a model of a person who wants to make laws to get rid of things they don’t like. If this is not who you are, quit creating the image.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Again with the lone weak personal attack without any pretense of defending all the stupid partisan stuff you post. For weeks now you’ve been calling anybody who isn’t supporting McCain with your blind zeal an “Obama supporter.” Now, with less than a month prior to the election, it seems that you can’t even back that nuance up with reasoned thought. By November 3rd I can only imagine the names you’ll be spewing at anybody who doesn’t see the election in the same terms you do.
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 2:06 PM
But it is sport. So you might want to reconsider what is “sporting”.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 2:07 PM
He has a better understanding of politics than you.
aengus on October 9, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Fixed.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 2:10 PM
But it isn’t HUNTING.
Thus I don’t need to reconsider what I think is sporting or non-sporting HUNTING.
And besides, it’s simply a matter of opinion.
You obviously disagree and that’s fine.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Easy, killer. Easy.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Why because he thinks one has to vote for a major party candidate is a matter of pragmatism? That doesn’t give him or you the right to call non-McCain voters “Obama supporters.”
Fact of the matter is that he never talks about politics- just political strategy focused on getting a candidate from a particular party elected no matter what the consequences or what principles have to be ignored for that to happen.
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 2:24 PM
So, is it or isn’t it YOUR position that we don’t have the right to own whatever our little heart desires?
I mean, SHOULDN’T it be your position also since it’s a fact of law?
And proximity does not mean influence.
I’m sorry, I tried straight up man-to-man conversation.
That didn’t work.
You want to see a pattern where I have explicitly stated there isn’t.
Such thought DESERVES condescension and patronizing.
What “rule” am I applying that to?
Oh, that’s right – I didn’t.
You don’t have to convince me that you think it’s odd.
Maybe it even is.
But that doesn’t mean that I’m secretly hiding my true agenda to ban all guns.
As I’ve said repeatedly, one can still see and agree with the right even if they don’t like it or see the need of it.
Your paranoid rants about sooper-sekrit underlying motives or “models” does not put you in any position to tell me to knock off anything.
Grow up and understand that people can disagree with you and still not want to see laws against them.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Sorry, I didn’t mean for that to come off as harsh as it did.
I guess all I was trying to say is that whether something is “sporting” or not is something that has been debated and discussed for centuries and people still hold different ideas and beliefs.
Considering everything else that has been discussed and debated here, I guess I just don’t really see the need to make an issue out of our different views on this.
I don’t mean that in an angry, negative way, but in a “it’s no big deal” kind of way.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I think you may have read me in haste. I was replying to wise_man.
I was saying in effect: highhopes has a better understanding of politics than wise_man.
aengus on October 9, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Such thought proves narcissism. Not really interested in going forth if that’s what you operate on.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 2:31 PM
My bad. Sorry.
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 2:33 PM
McCain and Palin should mention the Brownshirt tactics that Nobama tried to use against the NRA in Missouri.
mtbunji on October 9, 2008 at 2:35 PM
And what or where can we actually go forth from or to?
You don’t believe me despite all of my assertions to the opposite.
Again, you have every right to be wrong.
But I see no reason to treat such paranoid rantings with respect.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I guess I am paranoid. I guess the others who have made the same assertions as I have are paranoid too. Everyone is paranoid but you, right? Everyone is just confused and misconstruing what you say, even though we’re just putting what you said together. You see no need for automatic weapons, you believe they were designed to kill people (like that is somehow not the purpose of any firearm), and you asserted, as a related point, that we don’t have the right to own whatever we want.
The first point is your opinion, the second point is moot because all weapons are designed to kill, including that Roy Rogers .22 from when you were a kid, and the third is only relevant if you are making an argument in favor of adding automatic weapons to the very, very, very small list of things that, by law, we cannot have (my point being that your constant twittering about it “being law” is referring to the exception far more than the rule, because we have the right to private property).
If I were to say I don’t see the need for you to say something I didn’t like, that the words you said are only meant to hurt people, and that, according to THE LAW, not all speech is protected, it would be reasonable to assume that I have an interest in seeing the words you used outlawed. This is an identical situation. Call it paranoid all you like.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I’m going to do a hit and run and get back to work, so don’t bother attacking me, I won’t be here.
RE: Automatic Weapons…
Yes, they serve no real purpose by design other than to kill people. And here’s why all citizens have a right to own one.
If you don’t like it, take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
Catseye on October 9, 2008 at 3:07 PM
“Those who support third parties (I’m not one) have the right to do so without the “a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama” nonsense that some of the trolls on this site keeps spewing. If somebody wants to “waste” their vote by punching the ballot for a third party candidate they should be able to do so without the arrogant condemnation from the self proclaimed “wise men” who are blinded by partisanship.”
You certainly do have the right to vote for a third-party, but you don’t have the right not to be criticized for it on a public message board.
Just like you have the right to criticize me for voting for John McCain.
And I’m not blinded by partisanship. I don’t give a flip about the Republican Party. It could go away tomorrow for all I care, as long as it takes the absolutely worthless Democratic Party with it.
NoDonkey on October 9, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I used to believe that Bob Barr was great BEFORE he aligned himself with the ACLU. It will be a cold day in hell before any true Republican would trust an ACLU toady.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71553,00.html
sinsing on October 9, 2008 at 3:17 PM
I like Barr; I think he’s the most rational candidate the Libertarians have ever fielded for President, and he’s one of the most intelligent men in politics.
If Bob Barr is smart, he’ll know that he hasn’t a snowballs chance in hell of being elected. And if he gives a damn about America, he’ll urge his fellow Librarians (whatever) to vote for McCain. But I don’t think he’ll do that. Know why?…because Bob Barr is all about Bob Barr, not America.
SKYFOX on October 9, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Actually, it’s private, not public. The state doesn’t own this site.
And to criticize someone for it is one thing. To claim someone is a liar about their political views is another, and there have been others who have said much to the effect of “If you don’t vote McCain, you want Obama to win”. Not saying you have, because I don’t recall one way or another. However, it’s a pure polemic and it’s wrong when you’re on a conservative website. Annoyingly wrong.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 3:34 PM
And this is why…
right2bright on October 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Well, as a man who shoots competitions and deer hunts with an AR15(yes, totally legal in my state), I never buy the “no legitimate sporting use” line of B.S. from those who “don’t see a use for them” when there are plenty of uses for them, you just are not aware of them. This is the apathetic position taken by those that wouldn’t protest too loudly when an AWB comes up in congress as long as their bolt-action rifles are left alone……
Well, until the Brady Bunch pushes for a “sniper Rifle” ban on all scoped rifles in common hunting calibers, anyway.
quax1 on October 9, 2008 at 4:00 PM
*coke spew*…..you owe me a new laptop!
grapeknutz on October 9, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Got that right, grapeknutz.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Yeah right. Including his claim that Some otherwise Obama supporters would vote for Bob Barr, the former republican.
Riiiiiiggghhhhhtttttttt.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 5:06 PM
In this case, yes.
You guys are too worried about ferreting out secret motives and “true meanings” then to simply read what I wrote.
You talk about “proximity” and “talking points”, yet you
NEVER.
ACTUALLY.
LISTEN.
And then you pat yourselves on the back and tell each other how smart you are at “seeing through” things.
And yet all you did was smash the strawman that you created.
Yeah.
You’ve taken a clear line of thought, taken it apart per your own preconceived talking points, and put them back together to create a comfortable and familiar strawman.
You simply can’t or won’t believe that someone can really not see the need for them yet not want to outlaw them.
And then you want to put the blame on ME for not being clear.
Yeah, right.
I’ve stated it straight out numerous times.
If you would stop cutting it apart and putting it together in a different order and inserting things I neither believe or support, THEN we could have a meaningful conversation.
-heh-
You are SO hung up about that line, yet you know it’s absolutely true.
We DON’T have the right to own whatever we want.
Do you really not understand that?
Do you really think you can legally own a bag of marijuana or a nuclear bomb or a Cuban cigar?
You need to get over this and move on.
Actually, I said fully automatic assault rifles are solely designed to kill humans.
If you remove the “solely” or “humans” of course it becomes a pretty dumb statement.
And obviously people disagree with me, but I haven’t seen or heard yet a persuasive argument that would change my mind.
Boy, you really are fearful of the simple fact that we don’t have the right to own anything and everything we want.
And again I note that you are attempting to connect things I have no intention of connecting.
Thus, the problem, again, is on YOUR end, not mine.
Stop seeing ghosts where there aren’t any.
It would only be reasonable if you ignore EVERYTHING ELSE that was said.
Which is what you are doing.
You’ve already made up your mind what I think (wow! you’re psychic!!).
But you’re dead wrong.
And you refuse to admit it.
So, yes, that is paranoia – when you think someone is against you when they really aren’t.
Although you ARE beginning to make me rethink my position.
If you are too dumb to understand the words written in front of you, then maybe you’re too dumb to own automatic weapons.
Food for thought.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 5:43 PM
It’s a lot of fun trying to have a conversation with him, isn’t it? Give you more credit that I. And more patience than a zen master.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 5:52 PM
He claimed almost the exact opposite:
*shrug*
aengus on October 9, 2008 at 5:54 PM
You definitely live up to your name. You worship at an altar to yourself.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Quit following me around, please. It’s creepy.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 6:04 PM
And by the way, thanks for confirming that you consider yourself enough of an authority to pass judgment on who the second amendment applies to.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM
You know, I can kind of see why he might think what he does about my posts.
But instead of just saying “hey, sorry about that but it certainly sounded like you were going somewhere else with that”…
…he insists that he KNOWS what I REALLY mean.
-sigh-
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM
No problem.
You keep reading strange and unusual things into what people say and argue against THAT instead of what is actually being said.
BTW – you still haven’t replied on whether or not you agree with the statement that we don’t have the right to own whatever our little heart desires.
But I won’t hold my breath.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I would be inclined to say “I was wrong” if it wasn’t for the fact that every time you claimed you weren’t making that assertion, you re-asserted all the components of said assertion. You come full circle over and over.
And I maintain that as long as you continue to sigh every other post, as well as insult me and others, you bolster a persona that is arrogant and claims to know better than others on matters that, just before, you claim are merely opinions.
It’s mighty, mighty confusing.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 6:16 PM
That’s because it’s a loaded, hyperbolic question. Can you own anything you desire? Not in a literal sense, no. Can you own damn near anything you desire? Yes. Are there things that one person can own, but another cannot? Yes. To make the assertion is the confirmation of an exception, not a rule.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM
So “some” is less or more than “few”.
I wouldn’t think that any would. And, his point was trying to say that people who support Barr don’t want Obama to win, every time there is a spoiler like Perot, it takes votes from the republican. And people who voted for Perot contributed to Bush’s loss to Clinton. And the people who tried to vote for Nader (the ones that the democrats didn’t get around to having their lawyers kick him off the ballot) siphoned votes from Kerry to Bush’s advantage.
To say that this is not a fact flies in the face of logic and analysis. Therefore, his political acumen, as it were is lacking.
wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Voting for a third party candidate is a vote that is neither for McCain nor for Obama. To say that this is not a fact flies in the face of logic and analysis.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Look at it from the perspective of the Perot voters.
The fiscal conservatives who voted Perot got a balanced budget from Clinton/House GOP who were spooked by the possibility of a viable third party. Exactly what they wanted.
The NRA declined to support Bush 41 or Clinton after Bush did nothing to veto Democratic gun control measures for 4 years and when asked about the NRA said “Where else are they going to go?” i.e. who else are they going to vote for. The GOP’s pro-gun stance is now etched in stone.
Similarly if Paul, Tancredo or Nader ever got a huge third party showing their respective agendas would be integrated into the GOP and Dem platforms respectively.
These are just some of the ways that voting third party can be effective. You seem to think that just because McKinney or Bob Barr aren’t going to be President next November their supporters should feel they’re are wasting their time.
Perot siphoning off votes from Republicans may be a defeat for you and your views but not necessarily for his supporters. They don’t lack political acumen.
I’m not saying people should vote third party – especially not with Obama in the running – just trying to explain why they do.
aengus on October 9, 2008 at 6:48 PM
See, there you go again – “components.”
Still looking for a hidden meaning or agenda.
Unwilling or unable to simply admit that my words mean exactly what they say.
I do not back away from any of my individual assertions or “components.”
They simply don’t fit together they way you keep trying to make them.
Again, as long as you continue to attack the meaning behind/between/betwixt my words…
…a meaning that simply isn’t there…
…then you deserve every insult and every condescending word.
And as far as arrogant is concerned…
…I certainly AM arrogant about knowing what I mean.
One might wonder, then, what kind of adjectives should be used toward people who continue to insist that they know what someone else knows and means.
Arrogant, indeed.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 7:47 PM
No. It’s neither loaded nor hyperbolic.
It’s quite a simple question.
Do we have the right to own anything/everything our heart desires?
Again, you dodge the question due to fear about where the conversation might be heading.
The less you dance, bob and weave, the easier this conversation could be and would have been.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Awright, that’s the second time you’ve shown a level of arrogance comparable to Obama. You’re claiming that people who have not insulted you are deserving of insults and condescension?
Buddy, you’re not there, nor will you ever be.
No, it isn’t. For someone who puts on airs of omnipotence, you have severe tunnel vision. I gave you my answers to that complicated concept. If you’re unable to comprehend the depth of the question you asked, that’s your problem, not mine.
Then again, you also boil down one type of firearm as somehow more deadly than another, based on flawed and very uninformed reasoning. I’m here to tell you: there’s a difference between objectivism and willful ignorance. You’re practicing the latter.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 8:07 PM
To directly address your question. No, we don’t have a right to own anything/everything our heart desires. We, don’t have a “right” to own another person. But, I would like for you to consider the obvious counter questions.
1. Who or what has the right/authority to determine what we can’t own?
2. Given the obvious “royalty” attitude of our current political class, where does their “right/authority”, to determine what we can’t own, stop? Automatic weapons? Medical Marijuana? Handguns? Hamburgers and fries? Medical care? Right to not be euthenized? (sic)
3. Once they take away all the guns, who holds them accountable? The people by the ballot box? Who says the elections will stay honest? Hugo Chavez? Jimmy Carter? /sarc
Will “The Zero” be re-elected with 100% of the vote?
We must not allow the government determine these things or eventually, we’ll be eating Taco Bell at formal dinners (think “Demolition Man” analogy.
It’s more than just about automatic weapons.
Catseye on October 9, 2008 at 8:11 PM
If you think you’re not insulting me by continuing to misstate and misconstrue my words, then you need to think again.
This whole “conversation” has been a pain in the neck solely because people like you would rather argue about what you THINK I mean or where you THINK I’m going instead of simply discussing my words.
And then you make it worse by arguing that you know better than I do what I mean and what I’m trying to say.
So, yeah, you deserve every bit of dripping insult and bitter sarcasm.
Yes.
Yes it is.
You WANT to make it complicated by trying to deflect where you THINK I’m going with it.
But the question is still quite simple with a very simple answer.
We do NOT have the right to have or even do whatever we want.
None, absolutely none of our freedoms are absolute. There are limits to every one of them.
Thus the discussion on any ‘right’ isn’t whether or not there should be limits, but WHERE those limits are.
And, by the way, you really shouldn’t be lecturing people about ignorance considering the shear amount of it you have shown in our discussion.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 8:16 PM
I’ve tired of this, so I’ll go back to your original post and start this over and end it simultaneously:
You say “common sense”, right after admitting that guns are treated entirely differently in different parts of the country. Some people’s “common sense” about firearms comes down to “guns are bad and kill people”. There is a distinct lack of common sense in certain areas of this country, and until it’s truly “common”, I think the current thousands of gun laws on the books should be enforced before any new ones are made, and I think the most important gun law, the second law ever established, should precede all of them.
Gun bans occurred, such as the DC gun ban and the AWB. They are not paranoid fantasies. They have happened, and legislators are working to reinstate them and add more to the mix. The “slippery slope” so far has been proven by history.
People who can’t post without sighing need not respond. You’ll get none.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 8:16 PM
PS, it’s “sheer”. It’s been fun having you insult me without provocation, but I’ve run out of time to play with children.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 8:19 PM
I agree with everything you said and none of it counters anything I said.
And yet, the fear of a slippery slope doesn’t invalidate some of the ‘common sense’ limitations that even the NRA agrees on.
To be honest, this is the first decent response I’ve gotten from you.
Now that you’ve stopped seeking hidden strawmen in what I say, it’s a lot easier to have a discussion.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Again, a poster who childishly chides another on a spelling error should be a little more careful about calling people children.
Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 8:26 PM
One of the most effective ads for either party is one against Sarah Cruella De Vil. According to mediacurves.com the following ad is moving Indies, Dems and Repubs over to Obama.
Note to McCain: Voters DO NOT WANT A WINKY HOKEY COLD-HEARTED ICE PRINCESS for VP / PRES!
The ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU
Info and stats on ad:
http://mediacurves.com/Politics/J7011-Anit-PalinAd-WildlifeRecord/Index.cfm
Scores and reactions to other Repub / Dem ads:
http://www.mediacurves.com/PCIS/
Shelby on October 9, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Welcome to Hot Air. You’ll see the clickable “x” at the upper right corner of your screen.
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Awww, I can see you’re glad to see me again!
Shelby on October 9, 2008 at 11:11 PM
You’re not from Wisconsin, by chance, are you?
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Ha!
I have never been there.
Shelby on October 9, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Darn. How is he going to stalk you now?
wise_man on October 10, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Pretty rich coming from someone who enters discussions simply to express your dislike of me.
And as it happens, one of my oldest friends is a Shelby from Wisconsin that rips on Palin. Leave your sexual fantasies at the door.
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 3:52 PM
You have such a high opinion of yourself. The world doesn’t revolve around you, you know. And leave your projections at your door as well, creep.
wise_man on October 10, 2008 at 5:14 PM
You introduced stalking into the discussion. What does that make you?
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3