This is the second run for @TheWayWithAnoa and I. We are here to regulate this evening. The use of death and tragedy for political gain is too much. We can’t let this slide. Prepare for facts, indignation, and plenty of shade.
After a decisive win for Senator Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign decided they will end the Sanders Campaign by taking the gloves off in the battle for the Democratic nomination. This means they are planning to play hardball to shake off the pesky upstart. One problem- Bernie Sanders is growing in popularity. He is cutting into her support from minorities- her base. He has rattled off wins in seven of the last eight states by large margins. Bernie plans on taking his show all the way to the convention in July.
Now the former Secretary of State and First Lady has officially gone negative. The first shot across the bow was an attack on his allegiance to the Democratic Party. “Dem-come-lately” was the phrase being floated across the internets. Besides the inherent corniness of the expression, the tone deafness elicits laughter in those that know that the Dem brand is failing. The only one that can save it is the Jewish Socialist and his perpetual bad hair days. He has the youth and independents. Loyal Democrats will vote for whomever the party selects. The Clinton baggage seems heavier by the minute. The FBI email investigation is still unresolved. The coming iceberg that is the Panama Papers cannot be ignored. A May reveal just before the convention would be an epic disaster. As they say, “tick tock.”
The second attack was bad. Blaming Senator Sanders and the tiny State of Vermont for the illegal guns in Greater New York City. The ATF says that is incorrect. Most came from the southern part of the I-95 corridor and Upstate New York. An additional issue is an uptick in the drug trade around heroin. That may be a little too nuanced for the Clinton fan club.
The third attack. The third… Attack. Blaming Bernie Sanders for Sandy Hook was a bridge too far. Even for the Clintons. The campaign could have used any of the far too many mass shootings to get her (shaky) point across. She chose dead children. The children of Sandy Hook Elementary. The tragedy that should have broken the stranglehold of the NRA on our government is the one she chose. This was not happenstance. It is cold, calculated political malevolence. It is despicable. That is why it will backfire. The sheer transparent nastiness takes this fight to a whole different level. Gloves come off on both sides.
Here is where Hillary makes her biggest misstep. Bernie Sanders seems like a kindly old grandfather, which he is. But, Sanders is a cagey old Brooklynite that knows how to set a trap. He knew all he had to do was just stick around long enough and get a few wins. That would be more than sufficient for the frustration to set in. His statements on guns in the Daily News have been taken out of context. Trap sprung.
This is exactly what was said, in context and unedited:
Daily News: Do you think that the discussion and debate about what defines a legal product, what should be a legal product, hence AR-15s, these automatic military-style weapons…which is the grounds of this suit at the moment is that this should have never been in the hands of the public.
Sanders: Well, you’re looking at a guy…let’s talk about guns for one second. Let’s set the record straight because of…unnamed candidates who have misrepresented my views. You’re looking at a guy who has a D, what was it, D minus voting record from the NRA? Not exactly a lobbyist for the NRA, not exactly supporting them.
But it’s interesting that you raised that question. If you’ll remember this, if you were in Vermont in 1988 [gestures to Vermonter in the room], three people were running for the United States Congress. We have one seat, Vermont. Two of them supported assault weapons. One candidate, Bernie Sanders, said, in 1988, “No, I do not support the sale and distribution of assault weapons in this country.” I lost that election by three points. Came in second. And that may have been the reason, that I was opposed by all of the gun people, okay? So to answer your question, I do not believe, I didn’t believe then and I don’t believe now that those guns should be sold in America. They’re designed for killing people.
Daily News: So do you think then, with that in mind, that the merits of the current case are baseless?
Sanders: It’s not baseless. I wouldn’t use that word. But it’s a backdoor way. If you’re questioning me, will I vote to ban assault weapons in the United States, yeah, I will.
*Note: Senator Sanders is not totally against immunity in some form for manufacturers. But, he is for undoing the ironclad immunity as it stands today.
All of it seems reasonable. The NRA has no love for Senator Bernard Sanders. Now you need to ask yourself who lied to you about this and why. Rethink those relationships.