Bill Clinton warns Dems on Gun Control

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Clinton Warns

ill Clinton Warns Dems: Don’t ‘Patronize’ and Look ‘Down Your Nose’ at Gun Culture

(Photo: AP)

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton spoke with top Democratic donors at a private meeting on Saturday where, according to Politico, he warned the group to treat gun control differently than other political issues.

“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,” Clinton reportedly said. “A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things…”

He proceeded to explain how, though polling data is certainly useful for politicians, it doesn’t measure the emotion and enthusiasm associated with an issue. And it’s the passion associated with gun control, Clinton argued, that makes it so delicate.

Politico continues:

Clinton dedicated a substantial portion of his 40-minute address before a joint meeting of the Obama National Finance Committee and a group of business leaders to the issue of guns and gun control, saying that it was

a test-case for President Barack Obama’s grass-roots movements…

“The way the Obama campaign won Florida, won Ohio, won this election by more than projected was the combination of technology, social media and personal contact,” Clinton said.

That’s “the only way that our side will ever be able to even up the votes in the midterms and as these issues come up, really touch people and talk to them about it.”

[...]

But he said that he understands the culture that permeates a state like Arkansas — where guns are a longstanding part of local culture.

“

A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing

,” he told the Democratic financiers. “Or they’re living in a place where they don’t have much police presence.

Or they’ve been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all

.” [Emphasis added]

In the opinion of the former president, those who are patting themselves on the back for their “brave” efforts on gun control may not be seeing the full picture.

“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you [are] for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A man of principle, which Bill Clinton was not, would worry less about repercussions in a future election, and do now what he thinks is best for the American people.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Oh, I get it. We only quote Clinton when he's saying something we like. Otherwise, we spend our time judging him on his personal life in the 90s.

[Pooky 3,784]

Oh, I get it. We only quote Clinton when he's saying something we like. Otherwise, we spend our time judging him on his personal life in the 90s.

It works similar to the way Democrats quote Fox News.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Oh, I get it. We only quote Clinton when he's saying something we like. Otherwise, we spend our time judging him on his personal life in the 90s.

I am pretty sure the other day when the father of the year post was made, I defended him.. So who you talking to ? Obviously you only think you get it

Clinton Warns

ill Clinton Warns Dems: Don't 'Patronize' and Look 'Down Your Nose' at Gun Culture

(Photo: AP)

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton spoke with top Democratic donors at a private meeting on Saturday where, according to Politico, he warned the group to treat gun control differently than other political issues.

"Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them," Clinton reportedly said. "A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things…"

He proceeded to explain how, though polling data is certainly useful for politicians, it doesn't measure the emotion and enthusiasm associated with an issue. And it's the passion associated with gun control, Clinton argued, that makes it so delicate.

Politico continues:

Clinton dedicated a substantial portion of his 40-minute address before a joint meeting of the Obama National Finance Committee and a group of business leaders to the issue of guns and gun control, saying that it was

a test-case for President Barack Obama's grass-roots movements…

"The way the Obama campaign won Florida, won Ohio, won this election by more than projected was the combination of technology, social media and personal contact," Clinton said.

That's "the only way that our side will ever be able to even up the votes in the midterms and as these issues come up, really touch people and talk to them about it."

[...]

But he said that he understands the culture that permeates a state like Arkansas — where guns are a longstanding part of local culture.

"

A lot of these people … all they've got is their hunting and their fishing

," he told the Democratic financiers. "Or they're living in a place where they don't have much police presence.

Or they've been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all

." [Emphasis added]

In the opinion of the former president, those who are patting themselves on the back for their "brave" efforts on gun control may not be seeing the full picture.

"Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you [are] for being for this" gun control push, he said. "The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.

Notice not one comment on the substance of the story. How quick they dismiss poor Bill. Typical Liberal situational politics.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I didn't dismiss Clinton at all. I think he's very intelligent and one of my favorite politicians. I just remember the election season, and Bill Clinton campaigning for Obama ... and the things said about him were pretty ridiculous. I've yet to see anyone on "the other side" post a positive thread about Clinton - until, of course, he says something they like.

As for what he said, I agree just as much as I disagree. I don't want to see people stripped of their guns, yet I'm not willing to just be okay with the way things are because the way things are isn't working.

You need to stop thinking everything is about you just because you're the one who posted the thread.

It works similar to the way Democrats quote Fox News.

There's no use in quoting Fox News. Unless it's to mock them because they make it so easy.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Evylin

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you [are] for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.

there's a reason bill points this out. arkansas has a large ammo manufacturing company there.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

there's a reason bill points this out. arkansas has a large ammo manufacturing company there.

You would think New York might respond the same way given Remington has been located there for what? 200 years?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

You would think New York might respond the same way given Remington has been located there for what? 200 years?

this is the one i was referencing: Lonoke Ammunition Plant - Lonoke, AR

according to my neighbor, who worked at that plant, bill clinton was instrumental in getting them to locate to arkansas.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Oh, I get it. We only quote Clinton when he's saying something we like. Otherwise, we spend our time judging him on his personal life in the 90s.

He saw the result of passing a non-ban ban in 1994. It was quite an election, I remember it well. Made the 2010 Democrat debacle look like a garden party. The Democrats that need to get elected again will nto forget it either. Obama does not need to et elected and he has become so much more "brave" on this issue after the election. The congress people that will stand for election again are not so brave.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The health care effort and the taxes that were raised in 1993 had obviously nothing to do with the 1994 mid-term results. It was all about the guns.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

A man of principle, which Bill Clinton was not, would worry less about repercussions in a future election, and do now what he thinks is best for the American people.

Congress people are not men of principles. You are relying on them to do this?

The NRA is not politically impotent like, say, racial minorities. They have not been gerrymandered into their "safe" districts rendering their influence over just a few members of congress. The NRA learned long ago you do not need to be a "majority" to "win". You only need to be able to throw the results in challenged districts, which is the majority of them. Where 3-5% margin decides who wins, the NRA can crush opponents all day long. And as long as that is 50% +1 of the congressional district makeup, OR 50% +1 of the congressional makeup are concerned about it in at least ONE house of congress ...game over.

This proposed federal legislation will not make it to Obama's desk.

NRA membership will jump 30% before the end of the year

firearms sales will be up 40%

Thank you.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The health care effort and the taxes that were raised in 1993 had obviously nothing to do with the 1994 mid-term results. It was all about the guns.

Doesn't matter. There are always other issues. The NRA campaigned in New Jersey to get Governor Florio tossed out on the issue of taxes. The NRA does not care WHY you do not vote for their opponents. Christine Todd Whitman was elected, with NRA support, on the issue of TAXES. NOT gun control. The NRA does not care, they got what they wanted.

The point is, and always has been, that there are challenged districts, disputed districts. They are challenged for many reasons and the NRA does not care why. Such challenges and issues make cindiadates vulnerable for a swing of 3% or 5%. Florio was ripe for picking on the issue of taxes and Whitman only need another 3-5% to clinch it. The NRA handed it to her and Florio got booted.

ALL issues "count". And when the other issues add up to a tight race, like so many of them are...that is where the NRA comes in and throws the election and congressional make up. They did it with precision and perfection in 1994.

No influnecial democrat, not Bill Clinton, not Howard Dean, Not even Chuck Schumer has ever questioned the influence firearms owners had on the 1994 election outcome. NEVER. If you wish to doscount it and devalue it, then by all means carry on.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Doesn't matter. There are always other issues. The NRA campaigned in New Jersey to get Governor Florio tossed out on the issue of taxes. The NRA does not care WHY you do not vote for their opponents. Christine Todd Whitman was elected, with NRA support, on the issue of TAXES. NOT gun control. The NRA does not care, they got what they wanted.

The point is, and always has been, that there are challenged districts, disputed districts. They are challenged for many reasons and the NRA does not care why. Such challenges and issues make cindiadates vulnerable for a swing of 3% or 5%. Florio was ripe for picking on the issue of taxes and Whitman only need another 3-5% to clinch it. The NRA handed it to her and Florio got booted.

ALL issues "count". And when the other issues add up to a tight race, like so many of them are...that is where the NRA comes in and throws the election and congressional make up. They did it with precision and perfection in 1994.

No influnecial democrat, not Bill Clinton, not Howard Dean, Not even Chuck Schumer has ever questioned the influence firearms owners had on the 1994 election outcome. NEVER. If you wish to doscount it and devalue it, then by all means carry on.

The NRA got a lousy 0.83% return on their 2012 election investment. Lets take a look at all the races where they spent $200K or more (the top 7) and how they did. Where they spent the most - opposing the President - the NRA got its ####### handed to it. Second largest expenditure of the NRA? Support Mitt Romney. Again, NRA's ####### handed to the NRA. Third major expense - oppose Sherrod Brown or OH. The NRA got its ####### handed to it in this contest as well. The they supported Richard Murdock in IN - another fail. They opposed Sen McCaskill in MO. How did that turn out again? Oh, right, Sen McCaskill was re-elected despite the NRA opposition. Bill Nelson of FL - another candidate that the NRA spent more than 200K against - won handily. The only contest where they spent significantly that went their way was the election of Tim Kaine of VA. One out of the top 7. And these top 7 account for 95% of their 2012 election spending. They lost all but one of their important causes.

I'm sorry but the NRA while worshipped by you doesn't amount to much of anything in the real world. Fact of the matter is that one Michael Bloomberg has more than neutralized the NRA election spending in 2012 in contests where pro gun control candidates were targeted by the NRA. That single individual is so wealthy and committed to the cause of gun sanity that he has and will continue to more than neutralize the NRA election spending. The man's got more money than the NRA will ever be able to get their hands on. And he has made it one of his goals to neutralize that organization's influence on elections. He'll do it.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I didn't dismiss Clinton at all. I think he's very intelligent and one of my favorite politicians. I just remember the election season, and Bill Clinton campaigning for Obama ... and the things said about him were pretty ridiculous. I've yet to see anyone on "the other side" post a positive thread about Clinton - until, of course, he says something they like.

As for what he said, I agree just as much as I disagree. I don't want to see people stripped of their guns, yet I'm not willing to just be okay with the way things are because the way things are isn't working.

You need to stop thinking everything is about you just because you're the one who posted the thread.

There's no use in quoting Fox News. Unless it's to mock them because they make it so easy.

I was very positive about him in other posts. Now why would I think a post I made in which you responded was about me ? Silly me