Americans shifting right on some issues ... why?

In addition to the shift in the prolife direction mentioned here:

We see shifts on other issues in the right-wing direction.

Support for gun control is at its lowest level in 40 years of polling.

Four different polls recently point to declining support for gun restrictions as the answer to crime. In October, a Gallup poll found that fewer Americans than ever favor handgun bans, based on Gallup's 49 year history of polling on the issue. Support fell from a high of 60% in 1959 to a low of less than 30% in 2008. The same trend repeats itself in a question on whether more restrictions are needed on the sales of all firearms, not just handguns.

In addition, three different media polls taken in April reflect plummeting support for gun control. CNN found support has fallen by double digits to less than 40% while an ABC News-Washington Post poll found that more than 60% support enforcing current laws against criminals rather than passing new laws restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found that support for a ban on rifles has fallen by a third in the last 18 years.

All of these polls show what peaceable gun owners already know - that support for the Second Amendment is the dominant belief in America today, and the fallacy that restricting the rights of honest citizens will impact crime has been exposed for what it is.

What the heck is going on? How could Americans get so gung ho over the second amendment and life while supporting the most leftwing candidate in history? Maybe you didnt notice during Obama's magnificent campaign last year, but he did the Kabuki dance on multiple issues:

  • He opposed gay marriage and the Cali Prop 8
  • He forcefully denounced deficits and promised to go after wasteful spending

If he didn't have the track record of the most liberal Senator in the US Senate, you'd might confuse him with a conservative. THAT WAS PROBABLY THE INTENTION. He fooled many uninformed voters into sounding more moderate/open than he really was.

What this has done is make it safe to be pro-life, pro-2ndA, pro-tax-cuts and still support Obama. Since these things in the past were associated with Republicans, people may have been dissuaded from saying they were prolife. They might have thought 'only Republicans hold that position'. This will lead to seeming contradictions, such as many pro-life, pro-2ndA people expressing support for a President who is in reality a pro-abort President and has members of his party eager to ban guns.

Now here's the hard part - come 2010, when the pro-life, pro-2ndA, pro-fiscal responsibility folks who got gulled into voting for Obama in 2008 look at the fruits of the Democrat Congress.... will they still vote for Democrats? Not if they push their gun banning, taxpayer-funded abortions, trillion-dollar deficits and huge boondoggle spending agenda.

Crossposted at Travis Monitor:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)


Blah, blah, blaaaahhhhhhhh.

Blah, blah, blaaaahhhhhhhh.

Newsflash: Lib-troll left stuttering and speechless


He's starting to make sense . . .


Same BS, different day

It's the same old BS that Freedoms Truth spins a hundred different ways.

Conservatives need to focus on their own party, and stop trying to fight battles you lost during the election.

It's pathetic how many battles you still want to fight from the election. Nothing's ever wrong with your own party, people were just stupid and fell for Obama's charm.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

The most liberal senator in Congress

According to the NRO. This is absolutely unbiased and factual, just as it was for John Kerry in 2004. Bernie Sanders, the socialist, is nowhere near as liberal as Obama.

Here's the thing; Obama was never a liberal, a progressive, or a socialist. He's been a pragmatist ever since he got into Chicago politics, and I think that that's a good thing, since pragmatism both makes it easier to change your policies when they're proven wrong, and it makes you open to new ideas.

So, looking at the stuff Obama's done, it's pretty centrist. The stimulus was a Keynesian idea implemented down the middle; half tax cuts, half money to the states to keep up benefits in the face of falling revenues, with a few bucks for infrastructure left over. He closed Gitmo, but is in support of military tribunals. There has been no movement for gun control, or for more abortion rights. I don't see how worries of socialism are anything more than irrational fears, based on how the administration has acted so far. Yes, he hasn't done things the conservative way, but is that really surprising?

the problem for the Right is

the problem for the Right is that the more successful Obama's rebranding of the Left becomes, i.e. pragmatic competent government, the Left becomes harder to defeat.

the Right is better off with Obama being a Raging liberal. Unfortunately a pragmatic opponent is much more harder to defeat than an irrational.

Obama is lying

he is not delivering pragmatic nor competent.

Obama has a credibility gap that is starting to form. His actions and his words do not match up.

 The Left and MSM allies will try to keepthe debate about Obama' words.

Obama's words mean nothing - they are the distraction in his magic act: It's his actions that count.

The result of his policies is killing jobs and hurting the long-term growth of the economy. That's the key point.


except that most economists would disagree with you.

we tried Friedmanianism. it Failed.

Ben, remember him? Tried the next option. That's keynesianism.

remember we hadn't had a chance to try pushing to ZIRP before this.

not tried ... recently!


"we tried Friedmanianism. it Failed"

No we havent. source and cite please.

Free-market economics, school choice vouchers and hard money have NOT been tried in the US recently. If they were, we'd be beter off.

You dont need to believe in Friedman to acknowledge GAO reports that tell us that cap-and-trade will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and that the 'stimulus bill' will actually LOWER 10-year economic growth in USA.


I'm sorry, I have failed to make myself clear

and you are willfully misunderstanding me.

Friedman had some policy prescriptions that he claimed would ward off a second Great Depression.

Ben Bernanke tried every single one of them, down to ZIRP.

They didn't work.


Yeah, lowering economic growth by .2% No, sorry, I don't believe it (mostly because much of our stimulus money went into cost savings and technology improvements, which are notoriously hard to extrapolate).

The accusation that the president is lying is a serious one, so

The accusation that the president is lying is a serious one, so why don't you provide the specific instances?

I look forward to your detailed list, complete with links to the original sources.

Obama is lying (Yes, he can!)

Yes it is a serious charge, but then its not a hard case to make. He's borken multiple promises and has said one thing and done another on multiple occasions.

I will lay it out this weekend.

As an appetizer, here's one misdirection:

In his Notre Dame speech, Obama endorsed "sensible conscience clauses"--- yet his HHS has abandoned their enforcement of the conscience clauses already passed by Congress (the Church Amendments, Coats Amendment, and the Hyde/Weldon Amendment). Isn't it "sensible" to enforce the conscience measures our elected representatives have approved over the past 35 years?


Will all the claims of "borken" promises be as lame as this one?

So, tell me - where is the promise that he has broken in what you just posted? He is "lying" because he doesn't side with you about  the Bush Administration's ridiculous add-ons to the conscience exceptions?

For your listening pleasure . . .

from your hero, Rachel Maddow.

You'll be the last to figure it all out.