Will the latest Bundy clan actions bedevil the GOP candidates?

[Truman_Burbank]

Call it “Action: Occupy Oregon Bird Sanctuary.” I assume the Dem candidates won’t have any trouble denouncing the action, if they haven’t already. But how do the ® candidates respond? Or do they duck and cover?

[GIGObuster]

Remembering what they did about the Planned Parenthood shooter it is likely that they will criticize the taking of the sanctuary, while at the same time denouncing the evil of the government.

The Planned Parenthood Shooting and the Republican Candidates’ Responses

Even basic expressions of sympathy were delayed; none of the major Republican candidates said anything specific until Saturday. Then, Ted Cruz tweeted, “Praying for the loved ones of those killed, those injured & first responders who bravely got the situation under control in Colorado Springs”—a sentence that makes the objects of Cruz’s sympathy somewhat obscure. In the September G.O.P. debate, Cruz called Planned Parenthood a “criminal enterprise,” guilty of “multiple felonies.” He has signed a letter saying that one of the group’s founders, Margaret Sanger, sought the “extermination” of black Americans. (She did not.) “When millions of Americans rose up against Planned Parenthood, I was proud to lead that fight,” Cruz said, in a debate in October.

Also on Saturday, Jeb Bush—after sending out cheerful tweets about college football and the items available at his campaign store—said, “There is no acceptable explanation for this violence, and I will continue to pray for those who have been impacted.” Those are words that demand nothing, including of himself. (Bush has called Planned Parenthood’s practices “horrifying,” and has said that the group is “not actually doing women’s health issues. They are involved in something way different than that.”) John Kasich also tweeted Saturday—also without specifically mentioning Planned Parenthood. Marco Rubio, who seized on the shooting of Cecil the lion as a reason to ask where the outrage was over Planned Parenthood and “dead babies,” didn’t have anything to say about the victims in Colorado. Neither did Chris Christie, who, in one debate, talked about Planned Parenthood engaging in “the systematic murder of children in the womb to preserve their body parts.” (Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders put out statements saying that they stood by Planned Parenthood; President Obama also issued a statement in which he reiterated, once again, his frustration with gun violence.)

Oh yes, I also expected them to be mum until they get the talking points from the right wing media, but that was easy to guess:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-candidates-stay-quiet-on-oregon-standoff/2016/01/03/b8b9806c-b239-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.html

Republican presidential candidates are staying mum as an armed group has taken over part of a national wildlife refuge in rural Oregon — even those who supported the father of at least one of its leaders, who had his own standoff with the government in 2014, and have called for limits on federal control over Western land.

Some of the issues involved in the standoff — constitutional rights, allegations of federal government overreach and individual liberties — have come to the fore in the GOP primary race. And as Western states are poised to play a larger role in the contest, so has the issue of property rights in a region where the federal government controls about half of the land.

And no wonder they are quiet now, they did fan the fires that are making those “patriots” act up in the past.

Legislators in Western states, in coordination with the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, had campaigned unsuccessfully for the federal land to be sold. In his 2015 memoir “A Time for Truth,” Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) described how he and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) bonded over the issue before Cruz began running for the Senate.

“There is no reason for the federal government to own huge portions of any state,” Cruz recalled. “Mike pointed out to me that the value of all that federal land was roughly $14 trillion. At the time, the national debt also happened to be $14 trillion. That suggested to us an obvious and elegant solution for eliminating the debt and moving as much land as possible — other than national parks — into private hands.”

Cruz’s campaign did not comment Sunday.

In 2014, during the Bundy ranch standoff, Paul and Cruz initially argued that an important principle was at stake. Candidates Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump also have expressed sympathy or support for Bundy.

[bobot]

I can see Cruz sympathizing publicly, stopping just short of an endorsement.

[DSeid]

It is possible for them to be supportive of the group on the issues but not on the methods. Most I think are likely to do that. Trump? Not so sure. He may say something outrageous just for the shock value.

[Ibn_Warraq]

Didn’t most of the Republican heavy-weights scatter after Bundy’s “Let me tell you about the Negro” interview?

I imagine most will just condemn.

[adaher]

This is more of a problem for the Democrats, actually, because it could end badly. Right now it’s a Republican issue because some dumb conservatives have done something characteristically dumb and Republican candidates will have to answer questions about it. But once the administration decides on a course of action, THAT becomes the issue.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

This is more of a problem for the Democrats, actually, because it could end badly. Right now it’s a Republican issue because some dumb conservatives have done something characteristically dumb and Republican candidates will have to answer questions about it. But once the administration decides on a course of action, THAT becomes the issue.

That really does sound like Heads, the Republicans win, Tails the Democrats lose.

:rolleyes:

[dalej42]

One thing this action will do is overshadow the Obama gun control announcement tomorrow. The front running GOP candidates are solidly pro gun (except who knows what Trump’s real feelings are) but they probably won’t be able to beat the “Obama is coming for your guns” drum while the Oregon nut jobs are still in the news

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

This is more of a problem for the Democrats, actually, because it could end badly. Right now it’s a Republican issue because some dumb conservatives have done something characteristically dumb and Republican candidates will have to answer questions about it. But once the administration decides on a course of action, THAT becomes the issue.

I doubt this will have much an effect on national politics at all, but this really just sounds silly. Do you really think Obama will order the Feds in, guns blazing?

[BobLibDem]

Won’t be an issue for either side. Suppose it turns out to be Waco II. Big deal. It wouldn’t piss off anyone who wasn’t already pissed about Waco I, and 100% of them already vote Republican. If the Republicans uphold these terrorists as being the guardians of goodness and light, it wouldn’t change a thing. Party affiliation is so ingrained now that mere events can’t change things.

[JRDelirious]

Briefly to answer the thread title: No more than any other freak fringe action has bedeviled GOP candidates before.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

I doubt this will have much an effect on national politics at all, but this really just sounds silly. Do you really think Obama will order the Feds in, guns blazing?

No. He’s probably going to play this one smart.

[TriPolar]

@GIGObuster

Remembering what they did about the Planned Parenthood shooter it is likely that they will criticize the taking of the sanctuary, while at the same time denouncing the evil of the government.

Just this. They’ll talk out of both side of their mouths on the issue. Nothing new for politicians. The newcomers like Carson and Trump may have the most difficult time with this kind of thing.

[BrainGlutton]

@DSeid

It is possible for them to be supportive of the group on the issues . . .

But, why? The Bundys’ “issues” are so outrageous and ridiculous I can’t believe even the Pub base would stand with them.

[BobLibDem]

@BrainGlutton

But, why? The Bundys’ “issues” are so outrageous and ridiculous I can’t believe even the Pub base would stand with them.

From the GOP base’s point of view, they’re pissed off white guys who carry guns, therefore whatever they say must be true.

[BrainGlutton]

@BobLibDem

From the GOP base’s point of view, they’re pissed off white guys who carry guns, therefore whatever they say must be true.

N.B.: The Bundys’ POV is marginal even in Nevada.

[Calatin]

Ted Cruz is starting to distance himself.

I really find this to be a shame, because I’d love it if some of those guys held his feet to the fire, given his earlier remarks about the Second Amendment. I think he sees that this is not going to play out favorably for Bundy and his ilk, both in terms of the actual outcome and public perception, so he’s trying to put some distance between them and him ahead of time.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@BrainGlutton

But, why? The Bundys’ “issues” are so outrageous and ridiculous I can’t believe even the Pub base would stand with them.

Are you kidding? Not only will The Base stand with them, GOP elected politicians want to know how to support them.

[BrainGlutton]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Are you kidding? Not only will The Base stand with them, GOP elected politicians want to know how to support them.

Easy: (1) Resign, (2) pick up a gun, (3) go to that wildlife refuge in Oregon, (4) see (1) to (3).

[lance_strongarm]

If they didn’t have guns, they’d be almost like the “Occupy” movement. Which would be entertaining.