Quote:
Originally Posted by scbelle
In this interview, Obama does a much better job of talking about how the people are "bitter" about government... the gist of his argument is that people who have had labor jobs that are going away face an uncertain future, and that because of this uncertainty, and because the government is not giving them a plausible economic package, they are voting issues.
|
This I can buy. It makes sense. It is actually a good thing. If more people voted for government based on their economic needs instead of social issues then we would have a much better government that was keyed in on addressing matters that a government can reasonably manage.
The trouble is that Obama went a step further and pretty well stated that such people cling to guns and religion for solace.
Compounding the problem is that Obama has not presented himself and his positions in clear terms compared to the other candidates, and he has also run on some notion of hope and change for America- which should presumably include the hopes and dreams of these gun-toting Bible-beating rural folks he disparaged.
If the average voter had a clearer idea of what Obama is about, then it would be easier to put these comments in an appropriate context. The fact he has not provided such a context is in itself a big worry.
As it stands, one has to assume that he is a far left liberal who believes government is the answer. Not all liberals are far left, mind you. But Barack's comments speak to a very far left position that believes religion is inferior to government as a guiding influence in life, and also that the Second Amendment should be restricted- if not repealed.
Smart people are perfectly rational to assume the worst about what Obama said- especially since his comments very neatly fit into two key arguments for far left liberalism, i.e. the danger of religion and the necessity for gun control.
Threaded Mode
