Mark Pryor ... The Piñata

leaningright

leaningright

Moderate Republican
Staff member
Ok, I live in SE OK as most of you know, so my "local" stations are all out of Arkansas, which I hate because I have a difficult time getting OU/OSU news and more importantly, sports...but I digress. Anyway, Mark Pryor is getting targeted from both sides with TV ads. A conservative group is targeting him because of his support of Obamacare and some liberal mayors organization is targeting him for his vote on background checks. I sat here watching the "local" news and there were no less than 7 commercials during the 30 minute newscast.

Now I can understand the perceived benefits of a conservative group attacking him to the republicans, but not the liberal one. The republicans can conceivably pick up a seat here, but with the further leftist mayors group attacking, they're making it likely that there will be an R instead of a D in the senate from his district after the next election.
 
leaningright said:
Ok, I live in SE OK as most of you know, so my "local" stations are all out of Arkansas, which I hate because I have a difficult time getting OU/OSU news and more importantly, sports...but I digress. Anyway, Mark Pryor is getting targeted from both sides with TV ads. A conservative group is targeting him because of his support of Obamacare and some liberal mayors organization is targeting him for his vote on background checks. I sat here watching the "local" news and there were no less than 7 commercials during the 30 minute newscast.

Now I can understand the perceived benefits of a conservative group attacking him to the republicans, but not the liberal one. The republicans can conceivably pick up a seat here, but with the further leftist mayors group attacking, they're making it likely that there will be an R instead of a D in the senate from his district after the next election.
Click to expand...

Not much makes sense to me in politics, lately, well come to think of it in my lifetime. I cut my political baby teeth campaigning for Nixon.
 
I get why they would want to go after Pryor for his gun vote but I can't imagine they realistically think they'll get someone anti-gun to win in Arkansas. A Democrat can obviously win in that state but an anti-gun Democrat? I wouldn't put a lot of money on that bet.
 
leaningright said:
Ok, I live in SE OK as most of you know, so my "local" stations are all out of Arkansas, which I hate because I have a difficult time getting OU/OSU news and more importantly, sports...but I digress. Anyway, Mark Pryor is getting targeted from both sides with TV ads. A conservative group is targeting him because of his support of Obamacare and some liberal mayors organization is targeting him for his vote on background checks. I sat here watching the "local" news and there were no less than 7 commercials during the 30 minute newscast.

Now I can understand the perceived benefits of a conservative group attacking him to the republicans, but not the liberal one. The republicans can conceivably pick up a seat here, but with the further leftist mayors group attacking, they're making it likely that there will be an R instead of a D in the senate from his district after the next election.
Click to expand...

Because principals matter.
 
cawacko said:
I get why they would want to go after Pryor for his gun vote but I can't imagine they realistically think they'll get someone anti-gun to win in Arkansas. A Democrat can obviously win in that state but an anti-gun Democrat? I wouldn't put a lot of money on that bet.
Click to expand...

Cawacko don't take this as me picking on you okay? But don't you think your post is incredibly simplistic? The guy voted against expanded background checks. Cawacko people who want background checks in all cases and don't want guns in the hands of you know, men who have 10 restraining orders for beating the shit out of their wives, are not "anti-gun". They are "anti-lunatics having guns".
 
Darla said:
Cawacko don't take this as me picking on you okay? But don't you think your post is incredibly simplistic? The guy voted against expanded background checks. Cawacko people who want background checks in all cases and don't want guns in the hands of you know, men who have 10 restraining orders for beating the shit out of their wives, are not "anti-gun". They are "anti-lunatics having guns".
Click to expand...

It may be simplistic but I think it's the reality. I don't believe a candidate can win a Senate seat in Arkansas being perceived as somehow being against guns. This is just my opinion of course. If I actually knew what I was talking about I'd probably be on national TV and not JPP. And if someone to the left of Pryor on the gun issue beats him in the primary and wins the Senate seat or if Pryor changes his gun position during his re-election campaign and still wins I will be proven wrong and it wouldn't be the first time.
 
cawacko said:
It may be simplistic but I think it's the reality. I don't believe a candidate can win a Senate seat in Arkansas being perceived as somehow being against guns. This is just my opinion of course. If I actually knew what I was talking about I'd probably be on national TV and not JPP. And if someone to the left of Pryor on the gun issue beats him in the primary and wins the Senate seat or if Pryor changes his gun position during his re-election campaign and still wins I will be proven wrong and it wouldn't be the first time.
Click to expand...

It may be easy to portray someone who is pro-background checks as anti gun, but not of that person has half a brain and knows how to fight back. I believe that Senator Manchin in W VA is showing everyone how it's done.
 
Darla said:
It may be easy to portray someone who is pro-background checks as anti gun, but not of that person has half a brain and knows how to fight back. I believe that Senator Manchin in W VA is showing everyone how it's done.
Click to expand...

except that people with at least half a brain understand that background checks already happen where they can. The private sale side is where the gap is currently. It is there because they would have to give access to the database to everyone, yet they can't give access to the database to everyone. The other option is to force everyone to go through a licensed dealer, yet there are not enough licensed dealers to make that work either.

a solution on this board has been to have everyone go through the background check at the DMV and have their license coded as 'eligible' or not. The problem here is that licenses are typically issued for 4/5/10 years at a crack. So while it would be better than the current system, it still would have inherent flaws.

Unfortunately most people simply don't know the above, because they either don't care or because they are gun grabbers that want to mislead the rest of the populace.
 
Superfreak said:
except that people with at least half a brain understand that background checks already happen where they can. The private sale side is where the gap is currently. It is there because they would have to give access to the database to everyone, yet they can't give access to the database to everyone. The other option is to force everyone to go through a licensed dealer, yet there are not enough licensed dealers to make that work either.

a solution on this board has been to have everyone go through the background check at the DMV and have their license coded as 'eligible' or not. The problem here is that licenses are typically issued for 4/5/10 years at a crack. So while it would be better than the current system, it still would have inherent flaws.

Unfortunately most people simply don't know the above, because they either don't care or because they are gun grabbers that want to mislead the rest of the populace.
Click to expand...

I'm not a gun guy. I don't know all there is to know about guns and I don't know all the details of the proposed legislation that didn't pass. I do know thought there was more to that legislation that simply 90% of Americans want background checks and this bill was simply about background checks. And as SF stated above I think most gun owners know that as well which is why if I was forced to bet I'd put my money on the bet that someone to the left of Pryor on guns won't win a Senate seat in Arkansas.
 
I get the "principles" thing ... I really do. I think that every time I hold my nose and vote for a republican for president because of abortion. And before we go to the man vs. woman on the abortion issue, my wife, my sister, my nieces and millions of other women have done and likely will do the same thing. It is a matter of principle as well ... and I get that in the Pryor situation.

I just don't get it from a strategic standpoint ... If the strategy is indeed to keep the guy who is closest to your political thinking in office. I mean, he votes with Obama and the rest of the democrats over 95% of the time. Strategically, it isn't going to get much better. They could have an Inhoff or Colburn instead. To me, that's the alternative.
 
The thing that we're collectively telling the populace these days is as follows: if you want to get into politics, you have to be crazy. Sorry about that.
 
Lorax, that does seem to be the case. You have to be 100% this way or 100% that way or we'll come get you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top