This is really MPSIMS to me, but I’ll put it in GD since it’s political in nature.
My friend received an e-mail (I think from the NRA) about the Virginia Democratic candidate for Senate, Jim Webb. In the e-mail there was a bunch of talk about how Webb supported gun rights, and a link to a NRA survey that Webb filled out by hand: http://www.webbforsenate.com/nrasurvey.pdf
In fact, you can’t even find the words “firearms” or “NRA” on Webb’s site. The word “guns” appears twice, but not in the context of describing Webb’s position on gun rights. These are Google site searches for those words
So Webb chose to de-emphasize the gun issue, probably for good reason. The fact is that the gun issue is small potatoes next to the stuff that actually has to be fixed after the last six years of Republican misrule. There’s no law that says that every single issue (especially issues in which the two candidates are essentially identical) has to be addressed on the campaign’s homepage. If I lived in Virginia, I think I’d be more concerned about things like “macaca”, spitting on women, stuffing deer heads into black family’s mailboxes and sending goons to batter and assault a constituent who asks relevant but embarrassing questions than I am about who’s more likely to send Charlton Heston a gift basket.
Why should Webb emphasize a position that is virtually identical to his opponent’s? It seems like the way to win the election is to focus on areas where he’s different from Allen.
Glancing at the two campaign web sites … Webb has a section where he clearly states his position on Israel. Allen doesn’t. Does this mean that Allen is trying to HIDE his position on Israel from his Republican visitors? :rolleyes: