Thursday, July 26, 2012
[image from http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=2324&page=2 ]
Digby puts up the following post:
The thing is, the actual business of being a legislator involves rational analysis of the conditions that pertain for reelection. This analysis is done in a scientific-ish fashion, using various poling techniques together with a serious and detailed attempt to understand the meaning of election outcomes. Thus, when a candidate is defeated, his defeat is eventually "understood" by the professionals who must run campaigns as reflecting truths, at least of the moment, about the views of the electorate. And once those truths are accepted, the sort of situation described by the professional in Digby's post pertains. This is simply logical--sensible. And of course now and then someone decides to test the pertaining theory, and if they succeed then the theory is shaken. And if they fail, the theory is even more "confirmed."
One faint hope is to start out by trying to reframe the conversation, as Mr. Obama did last night at the Urban League's conference, where he simply stated some things that, indeed, most people, including gun owners, surely would agree with--such as that "most gun owners think AK-47s are weapons for soldiers on a battlefield, not people on the street" (I paraphrase). Mr. Obama's argument last night was so commonsensical that were it restated again and again, it might eventually turn the body of public opinion enough to undercut the current common wisdom which Digby reports.
But this happy turn of events leaves out--of course--the fact that there is an ongoing, relentless, full-tilt propaganda campaign aimed at raising the fear-level of at least all "gun lovin' voters" to the degree that they will be certain to vote against anyone who might suggest any sort of gun legislation. The NRA, for example, has already suggested that the Aurora shooter was actually a hypnotized operative of gun control forces who want to get new international gun treaties ok-ed--"the timing is rather convenient," one apologist suggested yesterday, raising his eyebrows and winking at his listeners.
The world must indeed cringe at the spectacle of us'n. Mr. Romney's pathetic response to Aurora was remarkable--a 16th century astronomer who'd seen the rings of Saturn could surely have done no better when questioned by the red-robed Vatican authorities, assuming he wished to save his head.
And as a tangential note appros of nothing much beyond my continuing homage to Mr. Peckinpah, of course Bishop Pike carries a 1911-A on his hip, as is noted with interest by the German military advisor aiding Mapatche in his campaign against Villa. Just sayin'. It's a fact merely historically accurate, even if the movie is "really" about Vietnam. And what is Vietnam "about," if not, in the end, us.
Sunday Update: From the Rude Pundit no less:
He do have a point.