An article in Politico yesterday tells us that while McCain has more support from gun owners than Obama does, the margin is not all that great.
According to a Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation poll to be released Wednesday, John McCain leads Obama by a 45 to 31 percent. That’s only about half the 27-point edge respondents say they gave George W. Bush over Kerry four years ago and far short of the 65-to-15 percent margin gun owners gave to Bush over Gore in 2000.It could, of course, be convincingly argued that events have shown gun owners' faith in the "Vote Freedom First President" to have been (badly) misplaced.
Still, when the opposition is Obama, with his record of extremist opposition to private ownership of firearms, how can a Republican candidate fail to be anything less than a vastly better alternative? Gee, I don't know--could it be McCain's support for ending private sales at gun shows--a position on which he is in exact agreement with Obama, Bloomberg, and the Brady Campaign? Or is it perhaps his vote to extend the federal ban of so-called "assault weapons"? Has even Obama ever placed such a vote?
People who care about gun rights should be a sure bet for the Republican Party, but the party instead managed to nominate someone who can't even significantly separate himself on the issue from Obama . . . Obama! That's like a hen running for leadership of the hen house, and finding herself barely leading the fox in polls among the hen house population.
If McCain wants enthusiastic gun owner support--and I would think he does--he has a lot of explaining to do. I can't really begin to imagine what kind of explanation would do the trick, but I suggest he come up with something. Sending this back, after having used it for toilet paper, might be a good start.
Stumble it!
8 comments:
More importantly, how can 31% of gun owners support Obama?
Isn't that more of a pressing concern?
Personally, I'd like to see both candidates getting 0% of the gun owner vote.
None of the Above '08
Our choice is pretty clear cut. You can vote for the self-absorbed guy who could give a shit less about your rights or liberties or you could vote for the self-absorbed guy who could give a shit less about your rights or liberties.
Pick one.
Don't forget about the self-absorbed guy who could give a shit less about your rights or liberties.
We need to be fair, SA.
Or you could not vote for any of the self-absorbed guys who could give a shit less about your rights or liberties.
It's not a required field.
It's not a required field.
Too bad so few primary voters realize that.
Just remember to show up and vote for any worthy candidates for local positions.
In many cases, local politicians are more immediately impactful on you than the national characters.
I've made the mistake in the past of not paying particular attention to local elections. That time is over.
I haven't paid enough attention to local politics myself.
I shall either write in Sam Nunn or J.C.Watts for president and the other for his running mate.
At least my vote won't be wasted.
Of course, the prags and I have very different definitions of "waste".
Post a Comment