I’ve noticed that a lot of the people who vilify the Clintons are also anti gun control. What I’m wondering is, if the only thing to change about them were that they were strongly pro-gun would you change your opinion of them?
If Hillary were a member of, and advocate for, the NRA, would you support her in a presidential bid?
A lot of my NRA friends readily admit that they are one-issue voters, and I’m wondering if this holds true of you guys.
Whaddya say, Ex-Tank? 
Peace,
mangeorge
Well, if the Clintons were only neutral on gun control, like Carter was (anti-handgun, mildly, but pro-hunter) i would feel a lot better.
I knew it, I knew it.
If they were pro-gun all the militia types who think Clinton is planning on hanging on after his term expires would have a lot less to hate him for. It would sure put a whole in their theory about Clinto calling in the UN to disarm America:)
IMHO Clinton would still be scum regardless of his position on guns, but I would feel a WHOLE lot better if I didn’t think Gore is planning on finishing off the job Clinton started if he wins this election.
Freedom2 said:
That’s the long and the short of it, alright.
To answer the question, it wouldn’t matter if Clinton agreed with every political position I have–he’s a corrupt sleazeball, and I would not support him under any circumstances.
? 
?
To answer the OP…
Yes, if Clinton were completely different, I probably wouldn’t dislike him.
In A similar thread I had posted that the dems (including clinton) would have a much wider acceptance across the south if they were pro-gun and anti-abortion.
I was going to say exactly what SPOOFE did, but he beat me to it.
Though, to address the OP, if that was the only thing different about Clinton, I still would dislike him. I would be less worried about gun-control, but still disgusted by his actions.
In my opinion, if the only thing different about the Clintons was that they were pro-gun…they would implode. They’re power-worshipping scum of the worse kind, and that kind of person is always anti-gun (except for themselves and their minions, of course). They couldn’t be pro-gun and still be the people we know and despise today.
[This isn’t to say that all pro-gun folks are good guys, by the way–so don’t assume I mean that. There are folks I wouldn’t trust who might nonetheless be in favor of the right to bear arms. But folks whose raison d’etre is attaining and exercising power over other folks are not going to be fans of “other folks” having the means to say “No,” and make it stick.]
I know I may come off here sounding like a big supporter of the Clintons, but that’s not the case. It’s just that I don’t see anyone on or over the horizon who looks any better.
But what I don’t understand is the vehemence of the tirades against them. Both of them. They’re simply politians in powerful positions, with human failings, in my opinion.
Sure they should be held to higher standards than the rest of us, but failing those standards wouldn’t normally engender such powerful reactions, would it?
Around here there are plenty of people who don’t especially like them, but I haven’t heard the kind of stuff I’ve read on the SDMB, or heard in the media. Well, maybe with the exception of the NRA folks. And they do cite the Clintons anti-gun stance as the primary reason behind their dislike.
The criticism of the Clintons seems worse to me than that of Nixon.
Oh well.
Peace,
mangeorge
Clinton is no worse than Nixon. I’ll give him that. Better? No. If he were ardently pro-NRA I’d still dislike him as much.
If he/she/they were pro-gun, I would be ashamed to admit that I were a member of the NRA, and that I owned a gun.
I would still own guns, of course; my principles and my pragmatism are in lockstep on gun ownership.
I just would be very discrete about it.
And I’m not voting Bush just because he’s “The mouthpiece of the NRA” according to the Dems.
Professor John Lott did a bit of research and concluded that Governor Bush is lukewarm-to-fair on gun issues, at least when compared to the NRA’s “wish list”.
But he is consistent, and seems to seek and achieve the “middle ground consencus” that Clinton/Gore claim they seek.
Al Gore had a better rating than Bush (A-, according to the NRA) before he reverse-stepped on gun owners.
ExTank
“But a little bit o’ somethin’s better than a whole lotta nothin’!”
Mangeorge: I think a big reason for much of the hatred of Clinton stems from incidents early in his administration. He reneged on campaign promises to give the middle class a tax break, and, very soon afterwards, made the proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military. Granted, the proposal would have alienated many religious people anyway, but I think the lack of a tax break in 1993 caused some detractors to sharpen their swords with a vengeance. Less than a year later came the fiasco over health care.
Militias came to prominence in the 1990s, and many of these groups are comprised of natural haters of Clinton. Clinton’s support of NAFTA, GATT, gun control and gay rights are anathema to the militias.
The popularity of radio talks shows in the 90s also plays a role as many of the hosts seem to be intensely anti-Clinton conservatives. I wonder if Rush Limbaugh will be as popular should George W. Bush win the election.
Finally, let’s face the facts, mangeorge. The Clintons have been so sleazy and smarmy that even many of their supporters admit they are not admirable people. If the economy were not so strong and we were not at peace, more or less, I doubt that Clinton would have a 25 percent approval rating in the polls.
However, I think I would prefer either Clinton in the White House to Al Gore. IMO he is the most dishonest politician in the United States, totally lacking in any principles. The Clintons are liars, swindlers and scam artists, but I think they truly believe in the leftist causes they espouse – at least when they don’t have to move to the right to keep their asses in office. I don’t think Al Bore believes in anything but himself.
If the Clintons are monsters, how many hit dice do they have?
Bill Clinton is the epitome of a great politician. And that looks, plainly, unseemly. However, his style works, when he sticks to his principles, however few he has.
mangeorge,
The problem with Bill is that his “human failings” are so serious.
I’m married, and my marriage vows are the most important thing I’ve ever done. When I see someone treating his marriage vows like dirt, and hurting his wife and daughter the way he did, I’m disgusted.
I’m also a lawyer, and one of the most important, basic principles for all lawyers, in all circumstances, is that you never, ever, in any circumstances, mislead the court. You’re an officer of the court, and automatically the court respects your word. When I see another lawyer making statements in a disposition, under oath, that are false, it makes me sick to my stomach. When that lawyer then tries to excuse himself by quibbling about what “is” is, I start thinking “discipline proceedings.”
He may be a good politician, and his policies, for all I know, may be good - that’s for you American voters to decide. But, I can’t stomach the “human failings” he exhibits. At bottom, I think most people judge politicians primarily on those “human failings,” and that is why he arouses such viscereal reactions.
Clinton was being demonized as a murderer, monster & all even before the Lewinsky thing. The Religous Right has always looked on him as the Antichrist. They will demonize Gore just as much.
Gore is antigun now because the polls tell him to be. I am not happy with this, but until the polls change, that’s the way it’s gonna be.
Clinton’s position on guns is irrelevant.
You can’t believe anything he says anyway. It changes every 48 hours. If he announced he was joining the NRA tomorrow, I wouldn’t believe him any more than if he announced he was going to cut taxes.
For heaven’s sake, he bombed Iraq to try to stop himself from being impeached.
We are talking about a person whose first and only question on anything is not ‘Is it true’ or ‘Is it right’, but only ‘Is is politically convenient for me’.
Clinton’s statements have no connection with his beliefs, as he has none. If he changed his positions to the conservative side, I would be as embarassed by him as I was by Nixon, and for the same reasons.
Get off my side.
Slick Willie’s position on gun control would make no difference to me whatsoever. The Clinton’s are in fact very similar to Nixon in that they craved and then flaunted the power of the presidency. OK, Nixon got caught…and went down the tubes, rightfully so. Clinton has been caught with his “pants down” (pun intended 
) several times, but to the great consternation of those opposed, has managed to spin his way clear of it all; the whole while giving the impression he is thumbing his nose at his opponents who dared try to hold him accountable, to the system for believing the rules had to apply to him, and to the American public who will believe ANYTHING he tells them because he is DOING such a good job.
The other thing I greatly dislike about this “teflon” administration, is their practice of leading by poll. Maybe some will think that shows the will of the people being represented, but I, on the other hand, feel that means we have great followers in the oval office… and NOT leaders. My mistrust is quickly raised whenever I see someone who flutters from one side of an issue to the other simply being pushed and pulled by the wind of public opinion. If Gore maintains the lead looks like we may be in for 4 more years of the same…sigh.