Sometime ago I blogged about how the enviro-whackos cited a poll that states that most sportsmen agree with the premise of human-induced global warming. But one thing you have to understand about democrats, there is not a genuine bone in their body, at least when it comes to public rhetoric. They will, for instance,
try to court the religious vote, try to court
the 2nd Amendment voters, and even try to
court the pro-life lobby. But in each case, those whom they try to court see right through their game as easily as it is to spot a 65 year old 350 pound guy in a crowd wearing a speedo.
Truth is, the democrats don't give a damn about any of these special interest groups nor their special interests, except to the extent to which they can grab a vote or two. And deep in their heart of hearts, they probably know this (although they may be loathe to admit it). But never let that fact get in the way of scoring a political point if they can; even spurious political points are welcome in a world where democrat support is about as common and as welcome as
Michael Newdow is at a tent revival meeting.
This article from the Star Diaper is no exception:
Dennis Anderson: Sportsmen might be off DFL's radar
Maybe it's frugality, but Republican politicians will be out in force courting voters at Game Fair while their major-party rivals will have a much lesser presence.
Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune
Recently, the National Wildlife federation published results of a poll it said indicated hunters and anglers -- "sportsmen" -- are as concerned about global warming as anyone else. Maybe more so.Whether that finding was the federation's primary intent in publishing the poll results, or whether its main point was somewhat more complicated -- to highlight, for example, that a majority of sportsmen nevertheless voted for President Bush, which the NWF implied was a contradiction -- is open to interpretation.
It's no secret, after all, that members of most environmental groups -- and the NWF is more of an environmental organization than it is a habitat conservation group such as Ducks Unlimited -- often support Democrats, while members of hunter and wildlife groups usually support Republicans. This last is due in part to Republicans' typically laissez-faire attitude about guns, and Democrats' greater penchant for gun control.
The democrats are wise to steer clear of a voting bloc who wouldn't vote for them if their lives depended on it; actually, quite the opposite is often the case--they know that their lives may often depend on
not voting for democrats.
Given their record of
poor support for the second amendment, their
soft record on national defense and their
perennial defense of America's enemies, democrats may fare better if they were to run in countries
more suitable to their causes, say France or Iran.
|