Evolution is interesting

From Why Hillary Clinton Thinks Gun Control Can Win in 2016:

Seven years ago, when Hillary Clinton was fighting a grueling Democratic primary battle against then-Sen. Barack Obama, she boasted of duck hunting and championed the Second Amendment. Clinton’s campaign in Indiana sent around negative mailers pasted with rifles, accusing Obama of being weak on gun rights. She talked of learning to shoot a gun as a child.

 

“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” Clinton said in April 2008. “It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are.”

Now she says:

Today, Clinton’s calculus has changed. She has come out this campaign in favor of gun control measures with a vigor that surprised even some Democrats, targeting minorities and urban voters.

 

Clinton is helping shape the national debate about firearms, calling for a “national movement” to “stand up to the NRA” and lambasting Republicans for voting against gun control legislation.

I guess this must be “evolution” in action. I can’t imagine it is because she sees the potential for campaign money in taking a different position.

9 thoughts on “Evolution is interesting

  1. No moral compass and an unquenchable evil thirst for power and control can cause a drift in philosophical positions by politicians.

    More simply, gun control polled better with her focus-groups so that is her position.

    • “No moral compass and an unquenchable evil thirst for power and control…”

      I was going to say “unprincipled opportunist” but you beat me to it.

      Some admire her for it of course, seeing such behavior as clever. Being anchored to principles restricts one’s options, and it’s considered old-fashioned, the result of stupidity or timidity. The unprincipled are more “free” and “adaptable” don’t you know, or as they like to put it, more “evolved”. It can be very seductive, once people’s emotions begin to take over.

  2. May she push it with all the vigor her physically decrepit and morally bankrupt soul can muster. I’d love to see her push it hard, and get the pro-gun vote very riled up and active. I can’t imagine a better place for her than beneath a crushing mountain of votes larger than the margin of fraud.

  3. Maybe she should ask her old friend Terry McAuliffe how it worked for him in Virginia’s election? Terry and Mike Bloomberg dumped 3 Million and don’t have anything to show for it.

  4. What do they have against Ducks? Whenever a lying cheating democrat (but I repeat myself) wants to show how much he or she values the common voter and all of the Constitution (including the parts that would limit their power, not merely the parts they can use to spread their lies) they dress up in a waterfowl jacket with a $4,000 double shotgun and pose for the cameras. Deer never get any respect. Or hogs. Maybe that last is professional courtesy.

  5. “I guess this must be “evolution” in action. I can’t imagine it is because she sees the potential for campaign money in taking a different position.”

    That was before the recent “epidemic” of school shootings, after which Granny Obama got on TV and scolded us for insisting on the right to responsible use of something a small number of people abuse.

  6. The notion of being more anti-gun than communist candidate Sanders really does boggle the mind.

  7. Lardass is evolving, she has evolved so many times I’m surprised she doesn’t both wings and flippers.

Comments are closed.