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?
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.
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:
And no wonder they are quiet now, they did fan the fires that are making those “patriots” act up in the past.
I can see Cruz sympathizing publicly, stopping just short of an endorsement.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Briefly to answer the thread title: No more than any other freak fringe action has bedeviled GOP candidates before.
No. He’s probably going to play this one smart.
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.
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.
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.
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).
If they didn’t have guns, they’d be almost like the “Occupy” movement. Which would be entertaining.