Okay… Let’s cut to the chase. These are the exact words that came out of Obama’s mouth. Conservative or liberal let’s analyze what was said here and stop making assumptions and putting words into Obama’s mouth. I’m sick of everyone trying to get into the mind and thoughts of Barak. Everyone is over analyzing his statement. He is clearly stating that as a result of lost jobs and economic struggles small town America turns to or strengthens their bond between them and church and/or firearms. Is it true? For some people, absolutely, for most absolutely not.

My grandfather, from a small town in West Texas called Dumas was a devout Christian and a proud member of the NRA and did not cling to these values as a result of economic demise. He did it because of the values instilled in him by his father and his father before him.

The mistake that everyone is making is the assumption that small town Americans turn to religion as a result of politics and economy. When a person like my grandfather went to vote it was because he was driven by his Christian values, not the economy.

The assumption that “they” (a.k.a. small town America) are running to the church and a rifle as a result of the economy is ludicrous.. I had a 12 gauge shotgun before I even knew what the economy is. I myself have never been a devout Christian, but if someday I am saved it will not be because I lost my job. Shame on Barak Obama and anyone else who think the my grandfathers conviction and anyone else like him is that way because of the economy.

Not to me. Some of my best friends, and family, are hard-core leftists.

So, does sponsoring legislation with a Republican (who is somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun) make you a moderate? Is this the yin and yang approach to moderation? A negative plus an equivalent positive makes a neutral?

The one time in the last six months (maybe more but that’s as far back in the record as I can research at the moment) when Obama didn’t vote with the Democrats was on the proposal to establish an earmark moratorium (S Amdt 4347 to S Con Res 70: To establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal year 2009). How ironic that on this particular issue I agree with him.

Something wrong with being a hard-core leftist?

Nothing.

But one would be surprised to find Tom Coburn (R-OK, and somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun) cosponsoring legislation with one.

Accuracy in labeling is all I’m after here.

Also, it appears that in the last six months or so he did vote in opposition to the Democrats (and Republicans) once – counting “Not Voting” as being neither for nor against.

I stand corrected.

Has he sponsored “big tent” or moderate legislation?

The Obama-Lugar Bill, to name one piece of important bipartisan legislation.

In fact, almost every piece of legislation he’s worked on (both in the US Senate and in Illinois) has been with a Republican co-sponsor.

But, really, if you want to paint Obama as a hard-core leftist, no amount of actual evidence is likely to sway you.

He wants you to believe he’s a big tent sort of guy, and he’s fond of using soft and engaging, rather than confrontational, language, but I think an examination of his political record tells a different story: that he is as reliable a liberal/progressive as there is in the party. I don’t have a problem with that, I have a problem with the lie that is his claim to a politics that transcends partisanship.

Even the word “cling” belies the notion that he is happy to make common cause with those with whom he disagrees by implying their beliefs are illegitimate. He misspoke only in the sense that he said publicly what he privately believes.