The first best thing…

We’ve been silent recently on Views from the Edge. The world doesn’t need one more blah-blah-blah pundit.

But when a candidate (we won’t use the name because the media are flooded with it, to his advantage) tells a crowd there would be “nothing you could do” to stop his opponent from stacking the Supreme Court with anti-gun justices, and follows with “although, the Second Amendment people,  maybe there is, I don’t know,” a memory seems worth sharing.

During a 2013 public dialogue (First Tuesday Dialogues in Chaska, MN) to discuss the Second Amendment in light of gun violence in America, a participant proudly cited a Facebook posting that “the second best thing that could happen to Obama would be for him to be impeached.”

The speaker continues, “And we all know what the first best thing would be….”

What was said the other day in North Carolina is not new. Mr. ____ blamed the media for the widespread criticism of his remark. “Give me a break!” he said.

Insinuations of assassinations never deserve a break. It didn’t deserve a break in 2013. t does not deserve a break in  2016. It’s not a joke. It’s not funny!

Enough said. Thanks for dropping by.

  • Gordon C. Stewart, Chaska, MN, August 11, 2016.

 

 

 

6 thoughts on “The first best thing…

  1. It was just this kind of allusion that was being made in Israel before the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
    The bass part of my nature hopes that the Republicans will keep he-who-must-not-be-named as their nominee, and Clinton wins in a landslide, carrying in a majority of Democrats at every level of government. The better part hopes they will replace him and repudiate every one of his statements for which they have been rationalizing or mildly pushing aside, and there is a real contest. (I still hope the Dems win. To those who agree with me, please VOTE. Even if a Hillary landslide is predicted, vote. ) Sorry for this dive into straight politics. I have a difficult time avoiding them.

    Like

    • It should have been Bernie but it’s not. It never should have been “he-who-must-not-be-named.” Hillary has her own issues, and they’re not small ones. One has to wonder what may come of investigative reporting into the allegations of the connection misuse of office as Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation. Regardless of whether the allegations have substance, the mere appearance of impropriety will not play well with the American electorate. The success of he-who-must-not-be-named” hinges on disrespect for politicians like she-who-must-not-be-defeated-by-a-resident-of-a-tall-tower-with-biblical-precedent.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s