Principles vs. Pandering
Can you imagine Hillary Clinton giving a speech in Backwoods, New Hampshire or Smalltown, Iowa, and telling the voters there that she believes it is within the authority of the federal government to confiscate all their lawfully-owned firearms at a time when they would most be needed to defend one's family and community?
Yeah, me neither.
And, not because she doesn't find such a violation of our Constitutionally-protected rights acceptable.
She clearly does.
She simply lacks the courage of her convictions to stand up in front of the American people and be forthright and honest about her candidacy, her positions, and the things she would do as president. So, what the voters end up with can be described as, at best, a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
Case in point.
The bottom line:
America is, as it should be, a nation comprised of a vastly diverse population. No matter what your political affiliation may be, your views and positions on any given issue are bound to run contrary to those held by some smaller subset of that population.
That's called reality.
And, it speaks volumes when a politician like Hillary Clinton - someone more concerned with attaining power than she is with learning about and respecting the wants and needs of real Americans - goes out of her way to avoid having to stake out a position on any issue carrying even a whiff of controversy.
For them, the "answer" will always come by assuming the default position of pandering to, and insulting the intelligence of, whichever subset of the population they're addressing at any given time.
Compare and contrast:
Fred Thompson, in S.F., calls civil unions 'not a good idea'
Taking a stand, adhering to your core principles, and telling the American people openly and honestly what you believe, regardless of the potential for damaging political fallout resulting therefrom.
That's called integrity.
And, it's something Senator Clinton is woefully lacking.
Yeah, me neither.
And, not because she doesn't find such a violation of our Constitutionally-protected rights acceptable.
She clearly does.
She simply lacks the courage of her convictions to stand up in front of the American people and be forthright and honest about her candidacy, her positions, and the things she would do as president. So, what the voters end up with can be described as, at best, a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
Case in point.
The bottom line:
America is, as it should be, a nation comprised of a vastly diverse population. No matter what your political affiliation may be, your views and positions on any given issue are bound to run contrary to those held by some smaller subset of that population.
That's called reality.
And, it speaks volumes when a politician like Hillary Clinton - someone more concerned with attaining power than she is with learning about and respecting the wants and needs of real Americans - goes out of her way to avoid having to stake out a position on any issue carrying even a whiff of controversy.
For them, the "answer" will always come by assuming the default position of pandering to, and insulting the intelligence of, whichever subset of the population they're addressing at any given time.
Compare and contrast:
Fred Thompson, in S.F., calls civil unions 'not a good idea'
"I do not think that they're a good idea," the GOP candidate said of civil unions.
But, he added, "I do think that states have the power under our Constitution to make their own determination with regard to those matters ... (I) think the federal government's powers ought to be limited to what's set out in the Constitution - and states, with regard to matters that are traditionally state matters, ought to be free to make those decisions themselves, even if Fred Thompson might disagree with them."
Taking a stand, adhering to your core principles, and telling the American people openly and honestly what you believe, regardless of the potential for damaging political fallout resulting therefrom.
That's called integrity.
And, it's something Senator Clinton is woefully lacking.
