Billy Currington Pulls Out of Sandy Hook Charity Concert
After a week of controversy, Billy Currington is out as a performer at the July 17th benefit concert for Sandy Hook Promise being held by Tim McGraw at the Infinity Theater in Hartford, Connecticut. Currington confirmed the news to fans late Thursday (4-16) evening.
I’ve never been one to take on controversial issues – I’m a singer. I do feel strongly about honoring and supporting the Sandy Hook community and will be making a donation to a local organization. I appreciate people’s freedom and passion for whatever cause they want to support, however, I am choosing to step aside from this fundraiser and will focus instead on the rest of the tour dates as I look forward to being on the road with Tim and Chase and having a blast with all of the fans.
-BC
The controversy over the event began after conservative news outlet Brietbart posted a story portraying non-profit Sandy Hook Promise as a gun control organization. This caused many 2nd Amendment advocates to attack the charity concert’s headliner, Tim McGraw, and well as Billy Currington, who said he had no idea about the concert being turned into a benefit. Currington had previously agreed to be the opening act on McGraw’s Shotgun Rider concert tour set to start in June.
Though Currington is out, Tim McGraw is doubling down on his commitment to the concert, telling The Washington Post earlier on Thursday,
Let me be clear regarding the concert for Sandy Hook given much of the erroneous reporting thus far. As a gun owner, I support gun ownership. I also believe that with gun ownership comes the responsibility of education and safety most certainly when it relates to what we value most, our children. I can’t imagine anyone who disagrees with that.
Through a personal connection, I saw first-hand how the Sandy Hook tragedy affected families and I felt their pain. The concert is meant to do something good for a community that is recovering.
Adding to the angst over the issue is the fact that it remains questionable whether Sandy Hook Promise should be considered a gun control organization. The non-profit said in a statement:
Sandy Hook Promise supports the 2nd Amendment and is not anti-gun. We recognize an individual’s right to bear arms and support millions of law-abiding citizens in the United States who own firearms.
Our primary focus is preventing children from being harmed by gun violence. Our programs encompass things like community-based prevention, supporting social and emotional learning in schools, teaching Mental Health First Aid, teaching kids how to be inclusive at school, and helping people to know the signs of someone who may be in a mental crisis.
We also believe in gun safety, which you can see in our program “Keep It Safe and Secure.”
Currington pulling out of the concert cauterizes his concerns about any blowback by attending the event, but it also may embolden gun rights advocates that have unfairly portrayed the intentions of Sandy Hook Promise and the charity concert. Tim McGraw has personal ties to the Sandy Hook story. His touring fiddle player Dean Brown is a long-time friend of Mark Barden, whose child was killed in the mass shooting, and who is also one of the founders of Sandy Hook Promise.
READ: Tim McGraw Stirs Gun Debate Over Sandy Hook Charity Appearance
The other named opener Chase Bryant has yet to publicly acknowledge the issue, but has also not faced the same ridicule Billy Currington has. After being attacked on Twitter, Currington responded with vulgarity to one commenter before deleting the tweet.
– – – – – – – – – –
WARNING: Comments will be heavily moderated due to the political nature of this story. Please keep comments on point and respectful to all readers, or the evil hand of censorship will be wielded. America is a free country, but the region of Saving Country Music is a benevolent dictatorship. Discussion and dissent is encouraged, but where it becomes disrespectful or off topic, it goes against the spirit of this post and is subject to being deleted or edited.
April 16, 2015 @ 8:21 pm
I believe this is terrible, terrible news. Basically the hatchet job by Brietbart worked, the people who are going after these performers will be emboldened, and cool-headed common sense loses. I guess I can’t blame Billy, but he should have had more guts.
This is NOT a gun rights issue. This is a performer wanting to help out a friend and do his part to help heal a community.
–The Triggerman
April 16, 2015 @ 8:45 pm
Hatchet jobs are the primary function of that website.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:09 pm
While Billy certainly had the right to perform at this event, I think it was a prudent decision for him to pull out. There is something to be said for singers focusing on the music and not getting entangled with political causes.
And while I do not know the political views of every member of Sandy Hook Promise regarding the Second Amendment, I would not be surprised if many of them would be inclined to support policies that substantially infringe on the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.
Many anti gun Democrats have adopted pro-gun window dressing in recent years, because they know that gun control really isn’t as popular as they would like to believe. I’ve met many theoretically “pro Second Amendment” Democrats who technically support the right to bear arms, if it only meant that citizens should be allowed to keep a .22 in their home, as long as it is locked up so that it can’t be used for self defense. And some of them might even believe that we should have the right to use deadly force to defend ourselves, if a criminal has already killed us first. That is NOT what the Second Amendment means.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:18 pm
“There is something to be said for singers focusing on the music and not getting entangled with political causes.”
This was not a political cause until Brietbart decided to make it one to drive traffic to their website and mischaracterize the mission of Sandy Hook Promise. Nobody cared that Tim McGraw and Billy Currington were playing this concert until someone told them to.
April 19, 2015 @ 11:10 am
The reality is that if you are a celebrity, everything you do is under the public spotlight. If you play an event with political overtones, people will perceive that you are sending a political message, whether or not that was your intention. And even if Breitbart had not written about the event with Sandy Hook Promise, some country music fans would have picked up on the gun control connection by the time the event is done, if not before.
Perhaps Tim could see if Taylor is available that day – I doubt her fan base is concerned about gun owners’ rights …
April 20, 2015 @ 11:50 am
This WAS a political issue, long before Brietbart became involved.
April 17, 2015 @ 8:13 am
Trigger,
Do you have any proof of that? How do you know that this fundraiser isn’t to raise money for political purposes?
April 17, 2015 @ 9:22 am
No, I can’t “prove” that none of the money that will be raised at this function will go to political purposes because I don’t have access to Sandy Hook Promise’s financial records. But nobody can prove that money WILL go to political purposes either. And since this is a Western nation that believes in innocence until guilt is proven, it seems patently unfair to me that Sandy Hook Promise is assumed to be bent on controlling gun ownership in America just because other organizations may have engaged in this activity in the past. This would be just as unfair as saying, “Adam Lanza killed 26 people with a gun, so all gun owners are killers.” If Sandy Hook Promise turns around and proves to be an aggressive gun control organization, then they will have to answer to that, especially since they have gone out of their way to say they are not a political organization, and so will Tim McGraw.
What I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Brietbart attributed a quote to Mark Barden saying that he joined the group “pledging to ”˜dedicate the rest of his life”™ to pursuing gun control.” That quote was a complete and utter boldface lie meant to encite, and it was successful. Mark Barden never said anything close to that, and that is irrevocably provable.
I reached out to Sandy Hook Promise myself. I asked them specifically if they were a gun control organization, and provided me with a statement articulating even further their stance on focusing more on community-based work in the field of mental health. As I have said many times, I DO think that SOME of the things Sandy Hook Promise does could be construed as gun control, fair or not, but that it is not the focus, and nowhere the majority of what the organization has charged itself to do.
It appears that Sandy Hook Promise is having to pay for the transgressions of other organizations that talk about gun safety, yet advocate for aggressive gun control. That’s as unfair as taking everyone’s guns away because Adam Lanza was a crazed lunatic. If Sandy Hook Promise turns out to be liars, then they, and Tim McGraw will have to answer for those lies. But until that happens, you can’t assume this.
April 17, 2015 @ 9:30 am
I looked up their finances – tiny. They’re not affecting much in legislation with what they have. All this outrage is probably directing some contributions there way, though.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:50 am
“What I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Brietbart attributed a quote to Mark Barden saying that he joined the group “pledging to ”˜dedicate the rest of his life”™ to pursuing gun control.” That quote was a complete and utter boldface lie meant to encite, and it was successful. Mark Barden never said anything close to that, and that is irrevocably provable.”
Ok Trigg, humor me. Prove it.
I don’t know much about Breibart, and even less about Barden. But it seems like you just made an assumption, then formed an opinion; the same thing everybody else has done. Actually, your 2 articles could include just as much hatchet work as Breitbart’s.
April 17, 2015 @ 11:02 am
I already did prove this Clint. In the original article. That is what I was referencing. Brietbart attributed words to Barden he never said.
Here is the exact wording from the original article:
https://savingcountrymusic.com/tim-mcgraw-and-billy-currington-stir-gun-debate-over-sandy-hook-charity-appearance
“The quote attributed to Sandy Hook Promise”™s Mark Barden saying that he joined the group “pledging to ”˜dedicate the rest of his life”™ to pursuing gun control” is a chopped-together and presumptive quote that blurs the actual sentiments of Mr. Barden and Sandy Hook Promise.
The actual quote from MSNBC from Mr. Barden reads,
Mark Barden, whose son Daniel died in the shooting, last year said he had the option to do nothing, or to do something. At the recent event at Helen Mills Theater in Manhattan, he said his family remains “shattered,” but that he will dedicate the rest of his life to reducing gun violence.
“If we can do anything to prevent other families from going through this, and we know we can, we need to get the message out there,” Barden said. “I know that we are on the right track.”
The “dedicate the rest of his life” quote did not come from Mr. Barden, but from MSNBC. Furthermore, the terms “pledging” and “gun control” were never used, but glued together by Brietbart to fan the flames of the divisive gun issue.
April 17, 2015 @ 12:37 pm
These “manufactured quotes” in the media are much more common than anyone realizes.
I used to be the mayor of a town that was so small that when I moved away we had to disincorporate because nobody else was interested in filling that office. Lack of people willing to hold offices was the only and only reason we discontinued, but I recently ran across an article quoting a state official as saying that the primary reason we pulled the plug was because we couldn’t pay the debt on our small sewer system. This wasn’t true at all (the payment was easily covered by a portion of sewer fees paid by residents each month), so I called the person quoted and asked him about it. He actually didn’t say it at all, just made a general statement that the operating costs of a municipal sewer system could be more of a burden than some small towns can bear. The writer twisted his words around and added the name of our city herself because she felt it would create more sympathy for the position she was taking with the story.
So, yeah, I’m much more inclined to believe the story presented by a small-time, low-budget non-profit than a media source with a vested interest in stirring up controversy.
April 17, 2015 @ 8:32 pm
Regardless of the quote being by MSNBC or Barden, you don’t have to look very hard to find that Barden wants more gun control. Also, Andrew Breitbart was an awesome human being… And the website that bears his name can be a little salacious often times – but they also have some excellent, well reasoned contributors.
If I were Currington I’d do the same thing out of principle. But if Tim McGraw ever bothered to make some decent music I would still listen to him cause most “artists” don’t share my world view/principles.
And, for those who want more gun control I would say look at Chicago… Strictest gun laws in the country and most gun violence as well.
April 18, 2015 @ 11:14 am
I don’t know if I’d really call that proof, Trigg-dogg. But it is certainly evidence, and I appreciate you answering me.
I honestly don’t think it’s all that presumptive to believe that a group like this would try to push for gun control, but there are enough bad things that secular-regressives do, to be overreacting to something they haven’t actually done yet. And you’re right; time will tell.
I’ll have to say though, if this destroys Tim and Billy’s careers, I’m all for it.
April 16, 2015 @ 8:27 pm
Real men don’t pull out of great causes just because they’re concerned about causing friction.
And what’s with Currington’s “I”™ve never been one to take on controversial issues ”“ I”™m a singer.” – Johnny Cash, Kris Kristofferson, Waylon Jennings & Willie Nelson among others would laugh their asses off about that.
That’s the problem with much music today. It has no causes and therefore has no point.
If Currington can’t support a good charity maybe Tim McGraw shouldn’t support him on this tour?
April 16, 2015 @ 8:31 pm
He really leaves Tim McGraw hanging in this situation. By pulling out he’s ostensible admitting that the controversy here is legitimate as opposed to a smear job by Brietbart looking for clicks on their cluttered website littered with streaming video ads and drop downs.
April 16, 2015 @ 8:49 pm
I also think Travis Tritt’s contributions to this whole thing also played a role in this. Travis will not let it go. (As a Tritt fan I am a bit stunned). Tritt is posting the article and making claims that Mental Health education is not a good reason for them to do this.
First time I actually had to defend an artist I don’t really like over a favorite from my childhood.
I don’t think we can overlook Tritt’s part in the overreaction and hatchet job.
Billy was ambushed.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:17 pm
God bless Travis. Here is a man who is not afraid to stand up for what he believes, who does not let the elites in New York and DC tell him how to think. And who can even carry a country tune, unlike most of the singers played on today’s “country” radio.
And to anti Second Amendment zealots like Mark Barden, let me quote Tritt one again – “Here’s a quarter, call someone who cares”.
April 17, 2015 @ 12:49 am
But he isn’t standing up. He’s taken a passive-aggressive approach and and skirting around it with the childlike “I didn’t do anything” tweets. Very weird. It’s like he wants to take McGraw down big time, but doesn’t have the balls.
April 17, 2015 @ 5:18 am
I had the same feeling as Michael when I read that Travis Tritt jumped into the fray. I love the man’s music, but can’t agree with him on the gun control issue. Yes, he’s entitled to his opinion, but Sandy Hook stands as one of the most horrific tragedies in American history — not an occasion for political attack. The old saying comes to mind: Trust the art, not the artist.
April 17, 2015 @ 6:12 am
You are 100 % correct Michael. Billy was ambushed. First by Tim for not informing him of what the event was before attaching his name to it, second, by social media. The absolute hate that I read directed to him on both Twitter and his FB page was scary. As for Tritt, he is a pompous dickhead. He called out two peers with a sketchy, inflammatory article, then when called on it, played the victim. Saying he has been threatened by Currington and McGraws fans. Whatever Tritt, if you’re going to throw 2 other artists under the bus, be prepared for some backlash from THEIR fans. When you are a celebrity with 30 million Twitter followers and you share an article meant to cause controversy, own it and be man enough to admit why you did it. Even when he posted the Washington Post piece with Tim’s response, he added “Decide for yourself” to it, which he can claim was an honest call for his fans to make up their own minds, but we all know was a sarcastic “yeah right”.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:59 pm
Maybe a charity that wants to further erode our Second Amendment rights doesn’t qualify as “good” to a lot of Americans. Just maybe.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:22 pm
Wanting to “erode the Second Amendment” and stop the senseless deaths of children due to gun violence are two different things.
This concert isn’t about taking anybody’s guns away. Only ignorant people are viewing it that way.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:13 pm
I wonder what additional laws this organization wants passed. Therein lies the erosion. We have lots of gun laws, lots and lots. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you don’t own firearms or know too much about them.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:22 pm
Yes, the gun control supports DO want to take your guns away. They use deceptive terminology to hide their true intentions. They push “assault weapons bans” that low information voters believe would only affect fully automatic weapons, but which in fact restrict semi-automatic guns that are commonly used for self defense. The idea is to gradually expand the definition of “assault weapons” until eventually every gun is considered an assault weapon, because a bad person could use it to commit assault.
Saying that the gun control activists aren’t really anti-gun is like saying that Obamacare isn’t really socialized medicine, because it has not created a single payer system yet.
April 17, 2015 @ 12:51 am
Yeah, but really, one amphitheater concert from a country singer is the least of the worries gun owners should be focusing on – And SHP is a little pittance. Why doesn’t this group focus energy where it really matters instead of stomping their feet like a bunch of children?
April 18, 2015 @ 7:37 am
No one’s saying that gun control activists don’t want to reduce access to firearms.
What we’re saying is that anyone who calls the Sandy Hook Promise “gun control activists” is either lying or ignorant.
No middle ground.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:24 pm
Not every singer has to be involved in major issues.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:29 pm
Sure, and I guess we shouldn’t expect causes from a guy who sings about such important stuff as being pretty good at drinkin’ beer and how his best friend is his dog. We’ll let the artists who actually have something to say have the causes.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:40 pm
There is room in country music for those kinds of singers. Not every song has to be “She Stopped Loving Her Today.”
Besides, isn’t it better than Billy Currington isn’t commenting on issues, he doesn’t sing about?
April 16, 2015 @ 11:24 pm
A guy who is pretty good at drinking beer, in my opinion, is far better than someone who is pretty good at disarming law abiding American citizens. Just sayin’.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:37 pm
Is that what you honestly think Tim McGraw, an avid hunter, is trying to do by performing this concert? Do a little research before you type …
April 17, 2015 @ 12:13 pm
I am a very politically involved person, but I hate the idea of music as a political tool. Politics should be done in prose, and the point of music is to invoke universal emotions.
April 17, 2015 @ 2:04 pm
Tell it to Woody, Pete, Dylan, Baez, et al.
April 17, 2015 @ 8:04 pm
I’m glad you brought those singers up. Despite my deep fondness for the musical style and technical skill in songwriting exhibited by 60s folk singer-songwriters, I still can’t stand those songs due to the in-your-face preaching. I suppose that this is just a matter of personal taste. In my opinion, IF songwriters want to get political, then they should do so through storytelling rather than simple preaching.
April 17, 2015 @ 2:16 pm
That’s ridiculous. A musician should do whatever he/she wants to do with their work. If they want to be political, more power to them. At least they have something important to say (unlike many today). Most of the greatest musicians ever were political in song at least once in a while.
April 18, 2015 @ 7:54 am
“Politics should be done in prose”?? And “the point of music is to invoke universal emotions”?? Are you serious, Eric? Those two thoughts, expressed end to end, have got to be two of the dumbest statements involving music I’ve ever read. Musicians have long had a history of telling political stories, often doing so when the writers of “prose” remained silent about an issue. America, in particular, has a long and rich history of musicians singing about the issues of the day. It isn’t just Dylan or Woody or Joan. It is Springsteen and Tom T. Hall and Steve Earle and Gram Parsons and the list goes on and on.
Enjoy your bro-country, bro, because that’s pretty much what you’re asking for, music-wise.
April 18, 2015 @ 12:47 pm
The idea that political music and bro-country are the only two types of music possible really does take the cake for stupidity.
April 18, 2015 @ 7:00 pm
Yeah, I guess you’re right, Eric. Take any political or social “bite” out of music and I guess you’re also left with nursery rhymes. And Barry Manilow. And elevator music.
April 18, 2015 @ 10:09 pm
Heyday,
I suggest that you spend more time learning about the history of country music and listening to classic country. You are clearly out of your depth here.
April 18, 2015 @ 11:35 pm
Whatever you say, bro. You obviously know everything.
April 16, 2015 @ 8:29 pm
I agree. And for Currington, this is damned if you do and damned if you don’t at this point. What a terrible shame. And Tritt posted that education would not have prevented Sandy Hook and that he thinks there is a hidden agenda. So he’s denying he was being political, but still stirring the pot.
April 16, 2015 @ 8:41 pm
Now I got to go find Currington on Twitter!
April 16, 2015 @ 8:52 pm
Forget about that! Those people are crazy!! There are tweets on his account applauding Currington for not supporting the Sandy Hook Hoax! Reading about a dozen of his fans tweets will give you nightmares.
Earlier, it was just me and Tritt (or whoever runs his account) exchanging tweets. Currington’s got himself a cult!
April 16, 2015 @ 9:22 pm
I fully support Billy Currington. Have been a big fan for a long time. It’s a real shame that innocent GOOD people like Tim McGraw and Billy Currington, two of the very few true modern country artists left, have to be targeted by biased right-wing media as well as all the crazy gun nuts who are incredibly stupid and will believe anything they read on the internet.
April 17, 2015 @ 12:09 am
From my perspective, the political views of musicians should not be important. It should be about the music, first and foremost. And if McGraw were a great musician, I would keep listening to his music regardless of whether or not I agree with his politics. But Tim is not a very good singer. He’s popular, in large part, because lots of girls think he’s a sexy hunk. If I were just going on talent I wouldn’t be buying his albums. I have even less enthusiasm for a below average singer who wants to reduce my Second Amendment rights.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:46 pm
Cowardice. You signed up for it – see it through, for better or worse. Pulling out just makes it worse.
April 17, 2015 @ 6:32 am
Except he didn’t sign up for it. It was a show that turned into a benefit after it was already scheduled. Billy was obviously not informed before the firestorm hit that it had changed.
April 17, 2015 @ 6:49 am
I agree that the charity angle came after the tour sign-up, but at some point before it was announced, he agreed to donate his portion of the profit. So, because he didn’t do his due diligence you can’t really say he was thrown under a bus.
April 17, 2015 @ 7:35 am
You may be right, I don’t know how getting paid as an opening act works. I took it to mean that it was Tim’s agreement to donate the profits after everyone had been paid.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:06 pm
In fairness, Sandy Hook Promise IS an anti gun organization. They are very watered down and benign in their rhetoric, but the group has come out in favor of the assault weapons ban and high capacity magazine ban. If I am not mistaken, I believe currington has been involved in NRA country in the past, though I very well could be wrong.
Not to get too political, but more laws are NEVER the answer and Tim McGraw has alienated his fan base to an extent with this move. That being said, I am all for artists having their own beliefs and standing up for them. I still listen to Steve Earle, Kris Kristofferson, and the Dixie Chicks even though I disagree with them politically.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:55 pm
Holy fuck. So judging by the responses here standing up for gun rights makes you a right wing whack job? I hate to disillusion the dumbasses but this organization is absolutely anti-gun. The whole sandy hook tragedy was SPUN into an anti gun rampage. Remember demand a plan? Almost every famous actor/actress was used in a very direct anti-gun ad campaign. If you think that the tragedy at sandy hook was not fully exploited by every gun ban organization out there, well I guess I don’t know what to say. A small fact that is overlooked here. The ar that Lanza had was found in the trunk of the car after he was shot dead. This is fact. It was on the news. He had four pistols on him and an Ar in the trunk. Look it up. Three days later, the story changed. Now the Ar was in the school and shot all the kids. Now that is the official story, with a medical examiner backing that claim up. Think I am crazy? Do your own research. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the police officers that were interviewed the day of the shooting had their facts mixed up about the guns. Whatever. But if you believe that the antigun movement are not exploiting this tragedy for all that it is worth then I feel sorry for you. You are truly ignorant.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:26 pm
Banner,
With all due respect, I think you are looking to broadly at this issue. First, I haven’t seen anywhere where anyone is characterizing anyone as a “right wing whack job.” I haven’t seen anything close to that.
Second, the facts surrounding the Sandy Hook massacre are not being argued here whatsoever. Who brought up the assault rife? In 143 posted comments on this issue, nobody brought up the assault rifle. You’re the first. Nobody’s arguing the facts of the crime scene. Nobody has even brought up the massacre itself except to lay context.
I appreciate your passion on this issue, but frankly this is the type of comment that can make this discussion descend into reactionary back biting and conspiracy theory. Let’s please keep this on the topic of the concert, and the ramifications of Billy Currington pulling out. We are not going to resolve the gun issue here.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:32 pm
I could not have said it better. The anti gun movement is all about politicizing tragedy, about leveraging the suffering of crime victims for their own political advantage. They are about political power.
Gun control has often been used by totalitarian regimes to oppress their victims. What did Adolf Hitler do to the Jews before he murdered millions of them? He disarmed them, with gun control laws.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:35 pm
What does this have to do with Billy Currington pulling out of the concert?
I’m warning everyone, please keep comments on topic, or they will be deleted. This is too contentious of an issue.
Thank you.
April 17, 2015 @ 4:41 am
Billy has no where near the career that McGraw has to fallback on, if all those making threats of boycotting make good on it. He is still trying to make it as a headliner, and a controversy like this is not what he needs. Besides, Travis Tritt (whom I have lost ALL respect for after seeing how he reacted to bring called out for posting misinformation), I am a bit irritated with McGraw for not running it by the other acts before attaching their names to it.
April 17, 2015 @ 4:46 am
Terrible news. I understand why Currington did it, but doing stuff like this simply gives more power to Breitbart.
Before anyone thinks I am simply attacking the right wing, I would say the same if some of the left wing nut jobs pulled a similar stunt (and I know they do and then some).
A better response would have been for Billy to simply say he is playing this concert for the families of those who lost children and does not believe in taking sides.
I simply do not understand Travis Tritt’s response here either, do we see left leaning artists ranting about how tons of big name singers play NRA sponsored events every year?
There is room for more than one view in Country music.
April 17, 2015 @ 8:42 am
Dude both sides do it. Remember all the musicians being harassed for playing SeaWorld? A bunch of left winged Greenpeace treehugging hippies started spewing so vile stuff.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:06 am
I agree, both sides do it, something I wrote in my original post.
April 17, 2015 @ 7:02 am
Trigger, allow me to edify. I usually think your opinions are spot on. Not here. I disagree vehemently with the premise that SHP is a benevolent organization with no gun control agenda. The reason that I brought up the AR was to demonstrate my point that since it happened, this tragedy has been used to further gun control. It would not have made sense to go after ARs in response to this what with the AR being in the trunk and all. So they moved it (after the fact) to the crime scene. I was watching this all unfold in real time, and really was stupified when they did this. I expected a huge backlash over this, but was surprised when there was barely a whimper. It is because of the way they framed the debate. If you had the sack to stand up to their agenda, you were a heartless bastard who doesn’t care about children. I’m getting to my point, I promise. Currington is getting bashed on this forum for pulling out of a concert that some of the proceeds go to gun control. I guess he is also a heartless bastard that doesn’t care about children. Or, maybe, he would just prefer to not support gun control. By pirating the moral high ground, the current administration has effectively squashed dissent. Don’t believe in gun control? You don’t care about what happened to the children. Don’t like our president? You racist, you. Yes, trigger, this is controversial stuff. My opinion greatly differs from yours on this. But I respect Currington infinitely more because of dropping than if he would have stayed.
April 17, 2015 @ 9:45 am
“I disagree vehemently with the premise that SHP is a benevolent organization with no gun control agenda.”
I never called Sandy Hook Promise a benevolent organization. I have simply attempted to articulate their particular approach to the issue. Whether their approach is smart, and whether it will be successful is yet to bee seen. Also I NEVER said they have “no gun control agenda,” even though this continues to be brought up. I have said, exhaustively so, and reiterated many times, that some of the activities of Sandy Hook Promise could be considered gun control to some people, but that these activities do not make up even close to a majority of efforts, and most of there efforts center around avoiding governmental actions and attempting to craft pragmatic solutions where consensus can be found with organizations like the NRA, specifically in the field of mental health, and specifically to circumvent the need for new laws.
“I guess he is also a heartless bastard that doesn”™t care about children.”
I never said that, I’ve never seen anyone imply that, or anything close to that.
This is where politics is failing us as Americans. As soon as you make a stance, it is immediately painted to the extreme. That is why it has been my attempt to explain that with the Sandy Hook Promise organization there’s too much grey in their mission and actions to paint them as a average go lucky “gun control organization.” If you don’t want to support Sandy Hook Promise or Tim McGraw’s involvement in the concert, I completely understand. But if you’re calling him anti-American, say that he “hates America,” that he’s a “socialist” and call for a boycott of his music for this move, then you are taking an uninformed stance on the issue. That was the only point being made.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:47 am
Thanks for clearing that up. I never said anything bad about Tim McGraw either. I think Currington has every right to pull himself off the ticket. My reasoning for that may have wandered off-topic, but, again, I don’t think McGraw is in any way anti-American. I have no dog in this fight, really, because I am not exactly a fan of either artist. And with that, I am done commenting on this thread. Have a great weekend, folks.
April 17, 2015 @ 12:59 pm
“This is where politics is failing us as Americans. As soon as you make a stance, it is immediately painted to the extreme.”
I fully agree with this. As many of the comments on this posts indicate, people today are more interested in “winning” than trying to find any kind of middle ground where the majority of peoples’ interests are served.
And it’s not limited to politics. One of the main reasons I pay no attention to professional sports anymore is because everyone thinks that his team and every player on it is the best regardless of what the record might indicate. It doesn’t seem like you can engage in a rational discussion about much of anything anymore.
April 18, 2015 @ 3:56 am
Trigger, if you can’t say they have no gun control agenda then how can you still blame Currington for not performing? I personally wouldn’t have anything to do with the event because they are pushing for new laws, as you just stated. We already have too many laws in this country. Starting a witchhunt for people the government decides are too ” out there” or off to partake in the bill of rights seems like a bad idea to me. Not saying I want the mentally ill to be armed but I don,t like the idea of locking someone up or forcing someone into therapy because somebody else thinks they are abnormal. This seemed to be the right wing response to the left’s gun control cries after the shootings. Both measures will make us less free, and freedon isn’t free. It costs $1.05. If the event were simply a benefit for the families I would see this completely different.
April 18, 2015 @ 4:26 pm
“Trigger, if you can”™t say they have no gun control agenda then how can you still blame Currington for not performing?”
Bowing to political pressure in not playing the event sets a bad precedent and encourages people to headhunt musicians for their political beliefs. If Brietbart had never run their story, Billy Currington would have played the even and nobody would have cared.
I haven’t seen anyone propose locking people up or forcing them into therapy. The idea seems to be to figure out pragmatic and consensus-buliding ways to keeps guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and if possible, without government action.
The more massacres that happen, the more the political pressure will increase to pass laws. So working with communities to reduce these incidents seems like a way to de-politicize the issue.
April 17, 2015 @ 7:06 am
Absolutely spineless. Johnny Cash is rolling in his grave.
April 17, 2015 @ 7:09 am
I guess the majority of SCM users missed Tim’s response. I think he sums it up perfectly with his statement. Also, it is Billy’s choice to play or not to play. There is no doubt being on tour with Tim will help his career. I think he should honor the scheduled event out of respect for Tim. He is very lucky to be having an opportunity to play for Tim’s fans. I still like Travis Tritt. I lost no respect for anyone involved. Just leave the politics out of the music, and put country music back on the radio.
April 17, 2015 @ 7:31 am
At least Currington referred to himself as a singer and not an artist. Props to McGraw for coming out and taking a stance and speaking what was on his mind.
April 17, 2015 @ 8:45 am
Sandy Hook Promise appears to be a liberal organization that is not to be trusted–they seem misguided at best. No pro-Second Amendment group uses liberal words like “gun violence,” posts liberal Mother Jones articles, radical New York Times blogs about doctors asking kids about guns in the home, or talk about “mental health” without noting the fact that strong families with fathers in the home would help people’s “mental health” and end rampant violence.
Also, 100% of proceeds go to the Sandy Hook Promise group, NOT the “community.”
April 17, 2015 @ 9:33 am
” or talk about “mental health” without noting the fact that strong families with fathers in the home would help people”™s “mental health” and end rampant violence.”
So the way to end gun violence is to make sure there’s a father in every household? My father died when I was five-years-old from Cancer, and I grew up in a father-less home. How do you ensure fathers remain in households? Some parts of intercity America have incarceration levels for fathers near 75%. I agree a two-parent household is less likely to rear homicidal lunatics, but that’s not a foolproof system, and there’s no way to mandate that. That is why it takes individuals in communities understanding the complexities of mental health issues, disabilities, family and socioeconomic dynamics to make sure an individual doesn’t slip through the cracks, kills their mother, and 26 others before turning the gun on themselves. And that appears to be the type of work Sandy Hook Promise is focused on.
April 18, 2015 @ 11:33 am
Well, normalizing marijuana laws so that non-violent offenders aren’t incarcerated for years for using a substance less harmful than alcohol would be a start!
(especially considering how disproportionately black men are incarcerated for it relative to the demographics of users).
April 18, 2015 @ 1:15 pm
What would that have to do with Sandy Hook? It seems that all these homicidal lunatics like in Arizona, Aurora, and Sandy Hook are all white men with no noted histories of drug use.
April 18, 2015 @ 1:55 pm
I’m talking about the “having fathers in homes would help people’s mental health” thing.
That argument, of course, is totally unrelated to Sandy Hook in any way, shape or form, and is just thinly veiled victim blaming.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:06 am
The most shocking part of this whole fiasco is that Tim McGraw actually has a fiddle player in his band…
April 17, 2015 @ 10:39 am
Well done.
April 17, 2015 @ 11:31 am
Lmao!
April 17, 2015 @ 12:54 pm
I don’t think he actually plays the fiddle, he probably just brings drinks to the band or something. They probably have to call him a fiddle player because of union rules or something.
April 17, 2015 @ 11:58 pm
McGraw has been pandering since “Indian Outlaw”. He is a milquetoast celebrity who basks in the limelight and milks the country music brand for all it’s worth. I might have been willing to let that go, if he could carry a tune in a bucket.
April 19, 2015 @ 12:20 am
Be nice, he’s very good.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:14 am
I guess this isn’t surprising; considering Currington’s “just hearing about it” Tweet.
At any rate, while Currington certainly has the right to pull out, I loathe HOW it happened.
I’m by no means opposed to opinion journalism entirely, but intellectual honesty must be embraced as the fundamental requirement of opinion journalism. And we surely all have aspirations for our versions of social change and policy, and our ideas as to how to promote them, but as a journalist you’ve got to clearly differentiate from that as well. Breitbart is one of many, from all different political persuasions, who either forgets this or shamelessly doesn’t care about the lines between the two…………..and the way he blatantly wrote Barden’s quotation out of context and encouraged a vendetta of sorts against McGraw and Currington.
It’s the exact same issue I have with…………..DailyKos for instance. Much like other netroots that appeal to varying political demographics, DailyKos has its share of users who can more effectively discern journalism and wonking, but much like Breitbart has done and often does, is driven by the notion that the measure of an intention is its rhetorical potency, as opposed to the truth.
And that underscores why I respect this site, among a handful of others, more than ever: because you are self-aware and discerning of this line that is frequently crossed by anti-intellectual palaver. You obviously produce commentary with varying degrees of rhetorical potency, emotionally-charged rants and tag some of your content with phrases like “Down With Pop Country” which clearly reveals you have your own ideas……….but when it comes down to any specific writing assignment, you effectively state which hat you’re donning at that moment in time. And you respect the fading art of parenthetical documentation.
I’ve read a quote from Leon Wieseltier that has long stuck with me: “If you are chiefly interested in the consequences, then you are not chiefly interested in the ideas.” Breitbart and his colleagues are clearly consequence-minded, and at the very least I hope they’re happy with the end result. I highly doubt it, anyway.
April 17, 2015 @ 11:26 am
Of course Trigger has his own ideas – it’s it’s his site isn’t it? You clearly have your own ideas and don’t seem to have a problem ranting.
This is a site about what many of us feel passionate about and that’s real country music. You don’t have to agree with our views, that’s your prerogative.
But, I don’t want to argue with you because you are clearly one of these people that are always right.
If you don’t like this site, or Breibert, or any others why visit? What do you hope to gain?
Just a thought. Again, no response needed. Your always right, I’m wrong.
April 17, 2015 @ 11:32 am
Buckarooguitar.com,
I think you completely misread Nah’s sentiments. I don’t think he was attacking SCM, or being arrogant in any way.
April 18, 2015 @ 4:01 am
Breitbart is dead. He died 3 years ago.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:37 am
Elvis Presley interview at MSG – June 9, 1972
Q: There are a lot of stars today joining politics. Are you campaigning or”¦?
Elvis: No sir I’m not. I’m not involved in that at all, I’m just an entertainer.
When artist where only artist – even the best of the best. I wish more of these current pop sensations can take a note from the greats such as Elvis. Keep your mouth shut, sing, and be a humble individual. That’s what makes people love you.
-Scott
April 17, 2015 @ 11:03 am
Elvis still recorded a handful of political and/or socially conscious songs, regardless.
“In the Ghetto”. “If I Can Dream”. “Walk a Mile in My Shoes”. “Change of Habit” are a few that spring to mind.
Also, according to a memo by Nixon’s deputy counsel, Elvis disapproved so intensely of The Beatles and their anti-war convictions and drug use that he met with Nixon to urge him to ban them from the United States.
At any rate, I love Elvis Presley and his back catalog. But I’ve hardly ever viewed him as immune to political discourse. Might want to try another example.
April 17, 2015 @ 11:17 am
Hated their anti-war stance or their contribution to his obsolescence? Not convinced that was a purely a political play.
April 17, 2015 @ 11:20 am
yourright.org
April 17, 2015 @ 1:03 pm
Most people who are familiar with Presley’s personal life are pretty well convinced that his comments to Nixon were mostly driven by paranoia brought on by his own drug use. Which he didn’t actually consider drug use because he had prescriptions for most of the drugs he took.
April 17, 2015 @ 1:17 pm
I think it fair that Billy Currington dropped out of the fundraiser. Going by what Billy said, I’m assuming that he had no idea about the nature of Sandy Hook Promise, and it was pitched to him that they were a non partisan civic organization, much like the Red Cross or the Salvation Army. I casually looked over the blog section of SHP website, and there’s no question that the organization favors a heavier degree of gun control than most country music fans would favor. Once Billy found out about this, then I think he did what his conscience dictated, and backed out. Now, ad for Tim McGraw, I think everyone knows where he stands politically, and that’s further to the political Left than your average country music fan, so its not surprising he wouldn’t have a problem with the fundraiser.
April 17, 2015 @ 2:30 pm
I’ve perused the Sandy Hook Promise blog myself to look for hints as to specifics that line up with their mission statement…………..and while it’s indeed very gray-area as a whole, here is some of what I deduced.
Firstly, they dedicate a lot of coverage to my home state of Oregon in the debate surrounding SB 941: which would “require private sellers to conduct a background check on firearm sales or transfers, unless the sale falls under a list of specifically exempt transfers, and would close the loophole that has allowed violent felons to buy guns with no questions asked.” They add it would “also require the Oregon State Police to notify local police when a prohibited purchaser tries to buy a gun fails the background check.”
They also devote a lot of coverage to New York’s “NYC Teen Text” program, advocating the Mental Health First Aid Act, stronger criminal charges for reckless endangerment when negligence and irresponsibility surrounding gun ownership affects family members, reflections and condolences on the anniversaries of numerous mass shootings across recent history, and choice statistics surrounding the importance of background checks from their view, to name a handful of choice topics.
I suppose if you consider “gun control” to also constitute the enforcement of strong regulations of gun sales; most notably background checks………..then Sandy Hook Promise can definitely be considered an organization that advocates gun control. But if by “gun control” it is insinuated that they’re about prying guns from the hands of each American demographic one by one, abolishing concealed carry laws, undermining hunting and recreational legalities and “Stand Your Ground” policies, for instance…………..then it would be at the very least a stretch, at most outright falsified, to brand them a “gun control” organization.
*
Now, there are nuances where I can see feathers being ruffled. For instance, on Page 6 of the blog, there’s an entry dated February 4th of this year reporting on a Florida man setting up a shooting range for target practice in his yard because he claimed he shouldn’t have to go to a gun range when he has the right to do this as a form of enjoyment in the confines of his own property; which the organization goes on to say: “It’s sad to think his personal enjoyment is worth more than the safety of the neighborhood and its children.”
I can see where some gun control advocates would take umbrage with that latter statement and readily conclude they are overreaching.
Even still, the plurality of what is presented on their blog is primarily centered around reporting on various shootings, advocating background checks, empowering impoverished and low-income youth and families, mental health research, and other socioeconomic concerns. Thus, unless they have subsequent statements and press releases hinting or asserting otherwise, which I would acknowledge, I hardly view Sandy Hook Promise as an organization that would tarnish Second Amendment rights.
*
As far as Billy Currington is concerned, though him pulling out certainly is most noteworthy any way you look at it, he still cited in his statement that he appreciates people”™s freedom and passion for whatever cause they want to support, and that he feels strongly about honoring and supporting the Sandy Hook community.
Again, while he has the right to walk out, I think it’s important that he offer a second statement that doubles down on his “appreciate people”™s freedom and passion for whatever cause they want to support…” assertion and publicly defend McGraw. I think that’s important because, as it stands right now, Currington’s Facebook page is replete with comments with a tribalistic flavor that praise Currington for seeing the light, while castigating McGraw as the other. It’s the least he can do considering McGraw is providing him the honor of opening for him on his tour. Otherwise, I can’t help but feel he’ll be allowing such needless flames to fan on.
April 18, 2015 @ 12:09 am
Here is a press release from Sandy Hook Promise, in support of a law enacted in Connecticut that “bans the sale and possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines”, regardless of whether the individual purchasing the gun is a law abiding citizen who can pass a background check.
http://www.sandyhookpromise.org/one_year_later_historic_gun_violence_prevention_bill_is_making_connecticut_safer
April 18, 2015 @ 7:22 am
Why would any gun hobbyist need an assault weapon or large capacity magazine? What is the point in owning such things?
April 18, 2015 @ 8:22 am
It’s not a matter of a need, it’s a right. Except in the case where an armed militia becomes a necessity.
April 18, 2015 @ 11:06 am
What people on both sides of the aisle of the gun rights debate fail to interpret from the 2nd Amendment is that it wasn’t just ensuring the right for private citizens to bear arms because it’s some symbol of freedom. There were two specific reasons for the 2nd Amendment:
1) To ensure a well-armed population that could turn back a foreign invader if such a scenario transpired.
2) So that if the government became tyrannical, the people could take their government back by force if necessary.
That is the spirit of the Amendment, and that is why it starts, “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
There are a lot of readers who’ve consumed my coverage of this issue, and have assumed that I’m a left-wing gun control advocate posing as a country music fan, my nickname of “The Triggerman” notwithstanding, and those people will probably never read my site again. Fair enough. But in fact I believe that assault weapons, large capacity magazines, and even heavier weapons should be distributed throughout the private population for the very reasons the 2nd Amendment spells out.
But what gun rights advocates don’t understand is these heavy weapons were never meant to be distributed to everyone’s privates homes, especially if those homes have residents that have mental illnesses or disabilities, and may be inclined to, I don’t know, gain access to these armaments, kill their parents, and then 26 people at a local elementary school. Those armaments should be in the care of “A well REGULATED militia” so if the very unlikely, but possible outcome of a foreign invader or tyrannical government arose, the people of the United States could either repeal the threat, or retake their government.
As we all know, because of the power of the NRA, no new gun laws are going to be passed on the federal level. People can use fear all they want to say otherwise, but the simple fact is it is politically impossible. That was the ridiculousness of Brietbart’s claim of:
“the money McGraw and Currington raise will ultimately succeed in making it harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire and carry the guns they need for self-defense.”
That’s a lie. It is politically impossible, even with a pro gun control President, to make any inroads on the Federal level into citizen’s right to bear arms.
So what to do to help prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook? Sandy Hook Promise is taking the pragmatic solution of circumventing failed attempts at political action, and working with communities in the realm of education in an attempt to keep people who have no business possessing guns from getting access to them. No laws need to be passed, just simply talk to communities on how they could possibly prevent these such tragedies. Have they also championed stronger and sensible guns laws in the past, and will they in the future? Sure, but that in no way illustrates the totality, or even the focus of their mission. It’s the grey area people are unwilling to recognize.
And yes, I understand that the Sandy Hook killer did not use assault rifles. The point remains the same though: He should have never had access to any guns. Gun right advocates will say that there were laws preventing what happened, and it still didn’t stop it. EXACTLY. That is why the work of an organization like Sandy Hook Promise is important, because laws are never going to prevent these tragedies. Nothing can completely prevent them. But working in the private sector, in the realm of mental health, could potentially reduce the amount of these atrocities WITHOUT new restrictive gun laws.
April 19, 2015 @ 11:20 am
Jim, why would any gun hobbyist need the federal government to tell them whether or not the semiautomatic gun they keep at home is an “assault weapon”? Is semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15, commonly used for sport, assault weapons? Is a Glock 9mm pistol, frequently used by law enforcement, an assault weapon?
April 17, 2015 @ 1:51 pm
How does one “heal a community” by giving a concert anyway? Is the aneroxic looking old guy in the plastic hat really that powerful? It IS a political thing and kudos to Billy for pulling out and staying the hell away from it…The chance of a “Hey Girl” – “Truck Yeah” mash up will just have to wait 🙁
April 17, 2015 @ 2:17 pm
I think the issue is the new laws that this organization is supporting and not their mission statement. They supported a law in Oregon that did have some gun confiscation wording in it.
April 17, 2015 @ 2:47 pm
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB941/Introduced
Here’s the link to the unabridged text of Oregon Senate Bill 941.
I’ll stop here since I don’t want to go further off-topic, other than saying I respect we can agree to disagree here, but that I fail to see how this would result in “gun confiscation” upon passage.
April 17, 2015 @ 2:31 pm
Again, if fans could just look into before going crazy, this wouldn’t be an issue. I wouldn’t even call them fans, considering that they hear one thing they disagree with and then boycott an artist they were supposedly a “fan” of.
April 17, 2015 @ 2:52 pm
Reading the comments here on SCM and Currington’s Twitter account since Trig first posted about the concert last night makes me feel scared. I’ve concluded it’s best not knowing other people’s thoughts or beliefs, which the Internet and social media provides an open forum to do so. It’s a scary world out there and I’m thinking I might need a gun after all.
April 17, 2015 @ 4:28 pm
That’s so funny, I feel the same way sometimes. But you have to remember it’s mostly the crazies who come out at times like this. That’s why I like this site – there is always balance and fairness. (but not like Fox)
April 17, 2015 @ 10:50 pm
i agree completely. it’s a damn scary world. and seeing some of the threats i saw over this whole fiasco…..just downright scary man…CRAZY mofos in this world. it makes me sick that innocent people like Billy Currington and Tim McGraw could end up getting SHOT by some crazy gun nut over this shit. This is far from the first time ive heard of someone getting shot from a made up false story. Hell, i know people that someone else made up shit about the person that they never did and the fool went after the person and hurt them. Scary, man. Thats why i choose to barely have any friends i dont trust anyone.
April 18, 2015 @ 6:26 am
I”™ve concluded it”™s best not knowing other people”™s thoughts or beliefs, which the Internet and social media provides an open forum to do so.
So true.
April 18, 2015 @ 12:33 am
Haha. I guess people are crazy. 😉
April 18, 2015 @ 1:02 am
https://twitter.com/Roughstock/status/588429638621343744
Looks like Travis Tritt is calling a truce in the meantime; after Matt Bjorke of Roughstock tagged him in a Tweet to his article:
*
Travis Tritt ”@Travistritt Apr 15
@digrsgirl I sure hope that’s the case. This write up makes a lot of disturbing accusations that I hope are not true.
*
April 18, 2015 @ 6:25 am
Bah. Billy should have shown more spine. If he feels so strongly about honoring and supporting the Sandy Hook community as he claimed, he should have manned up and done the show.
I’ve got a lot of issues with Tim MacGraw, but at least he is standing true to his commitment.
April 18, 2015 @ 1:09 pm
At the risk of sounding like an asshole I’d like to know just how much money has been poured to these people in the form of fundraisers and such? I feel bad for the parents and families but just how much do they want to keep giving to them??? As to the Tim McGraw thing, any musician or performer that opens their big trap about politics (usually they dont’ know shit about it to begin with) immediatly looses and type of support from me or my friends. McGraw and his liberal wife have been out of my ears for years now!
April 19, 2015 @ 12:17 am
It’s a small organization. They’ve only been in existence for two calendar years and tax forms for 2013 are online. Less than $3 million in the first year. Current assets, if I remember are less than a million. Direct assistance included family financial needs, mental health, and computers for the school. Assistance was not just to families, but also to school staff and first responders, etc – direct recipients about$100,000 spent. They also gave $107,000 in grants to other charities (I imagine to a counseling center, for example, who then in turn provided services – they list sleep therapy as one). My guess is this will change considerably in the 2nd year. There are probably still mental health expenditures. Money was also spent on strategic communications and victim services – they coordinated a direct contribution program as part of this matching people in need with donors, estimating about a half a million in direct gifts from individual donors. That sounds like a lot, but you can imagine families flying in for funerals, hotel expenses, funeral expenses, etc. Other expenditures listed are for a fundraiser and awareness programs focused on mental health.
Start-up expenses (furniture, lawyers), fundraising, consultants, training travel – all the usual stuff.
I was on the board of a non-profit counseling center for 6 years that was $5 million in size. This is a tiny org. I doubt it will get much bigger. Still to be seen, how much has been spent on legislative activities. It can’t be much.
April 18, 2015 @ 2:09 pm
Maybe Billy Currington is feeling very unconforable about doing this.
April 18, 2015 @ 3:42 pm
*****Update*****
http://tasteofcountry.com/chase-bryant-tim-mcgraw-sandy-hook-benefit/
I’m not a fan whatsoever of the country/”country” music equivalent of supermarket check-out register magazine gossip that is Taste of Country…………..but this includes legitimate linkbacks and so I’ll just take their word for it this time around.
Unlike Billy Currington, Chase Bryant has announced he will remain an opener for the Sandy Hook Promise benefit, according to the source.
It would be nice to see an actual statement from Bryant or his PR team as opposed to an article claiming this is true, but until further notice this must be construed as a sign of great relief for Barden and McGraw.
April 18, 2015 @ 10:53 pm
I could not have said it better. Many far left organizations and individuals have learned to use incrementalist tactics to achieve their political aims. For example there are many indications that Obama has a far left world view, though his administration has typically pursued those goals by speaking in a “moderate” tone and taking incremental steps. Similarly Sandy Hook Promise could have a strongly anti gun agenda, but pursue it in small incremental steps using watered down language. Recall the “coat and tie radicals” who follow the teachings of Saul Alinsky, which encourage activists to work within the establishment in order to change the system.
April 18, 2015 @ 11:15 pm
I am weary of moving an SCM thread in an overly political decision, but this comment really needs a response:
“For example there are many indications that Obama has a far left world view”
That’s only true if you think half of the country is “far left”. Based on all the evidence from his biography, Obama has always been a rank-and-file Democrat. When he was in Harvard Law School, he won the election for president of the Law Review partly by criticizing his main opponent for being too far to the left. As president, Obama’s economic policies have always fallen solidly in the post-Reagan “New Democrat” mold. The centerpiece of his domestic agenda, Obamacare, was originally Nixon’s plan (if anything, Obamacare is actually to the right of Nixoncare due to the lack of a strong employer mandate). And of course, I do not need to mention the constant pandering to Wall Street by this administration.
If you ask me, the net effect of the Obama presidency has been to stymie the left, not advance its goals even incrementally.
April 19, 2015 @ 10:04 am
Here is an article describing how Obama had believed that a single payer health care system should be the ultimate goal, but had chosen to take incremental policy steps toward this goal:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/
A politician can be leftist in his ideology, but incrementalist in his tactics. Many anti gun organizations have adopted a similar approach, now that they have realized that a blatantly anti second amendment agenda cannot win a majority in this country.
April 19, 2015 @ 12:49 pm
Obama only supported single-payer when he was trying to appeal to the AFL-CIO back in 2003. As the article also states, he has been essentially opposing it ever since 2004. Besides, Medicare for All, which is supported by nearly half of the country, is hardly “far left”.
If Obama had wanted incremental steps toward Medicare for All, he most certainly would not have dumped the public option, which had majority support across the country.
April 19, 2015 @ 5:22 am
Vern Gosdin, please come back.
April 19, 2015 @ 6:21 am
I know this if off topic, but Adrian, as a Briton I can assure you that there is not a single Democrat, let alone Obama, who would be considered a leftist in any European country, there they’d be center-right. Also, the fact that Obama was elected President – twice – really should be a reality check. There is no Left in America.
April 19, 2015 @ 7:32 am
This reminds me of the joke Steve Earle likes to tell. He knows Obama is not a socialist because he hasn’t seen him at any of the meetings.
April 19, 2015 @ 5:30 pm
Trigger, thank you so much for your writing on this subject. You have presented the facts and a reasonable, not sensationalized view where other media outlets failed to do so.
As someone who used to work in TV journalism, I know the line between presenting the facts and manufacturing click bait can get blurred. But the sensationalizing media outlets like Brietbart do, turning ANYTHING remotely related to any controversial subject into a huge left-or-right issue, is ridiculous.
In my opinion, Tim McGraw should be able to support this organization, which seems to be promoting responsible gun ownership (not outlawing guns), if he chooses–without being blackballed. It’s Currington’s prerogative not to play the show, but it adds fuel to the flames.
What makes me angry about this story is the irresponsible journalism, and the people who take things they read to heart and run with them without really looking at the facts.
I definitely appreciate SCM’s effort to report tried and true facts, on this and other subjects. Bravo!
April 23, 2015 @ 12:54 am
As I have seen it put and I agree with it, Tim McGraw has Dixie Chick’d himself. I have read numerous articles on where this money is going to and who is going to benefit from any money raised. Since the Sandy Hook Tragedy 77 different groups have raised over $28 million dollars. At the end of 2014 nearly half of those funds have not been distributed. Sandy Hook Promise reported that at the end of 2013 it had raised $2,262,000, of this money $160,000 was spent on lobbyist who pushed and promoted gun control. In 2014, that number dropped to $20,000,
The vast majority of the organizations have registered as a 501(c)3 charity and applied for non-profit status. Sandy Hook Promise is unique in that not only did they file for a 501(c)3 charity, but they filed for a 501(c)4 for political purposes. In June 2013, the Executive Directors signed a letter to the AG of Connecticut explaining the Sandy Hook Promise organization. Attached at the end was some of their financials, they had raised $793,000, distributed $22,218 to individuals and $328,208 was unspent. The vast majority went to Social Media, Travel, and Fund Raising.
Currently money is flowing in from Sandy Hook Promise to Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen Bingel & Thomas Inc. Which is a large lobbying firm in Washington, DC and when you look at where they put their money, it is Democrats in the Senate to promote gun control.
It is Tim McGraw’s right to play at any concert that he feels like playing. But when a large part of your target audience is gun toting, Second Amendment backing group, who will hold it against him. There will be no reasoning with them that he is on their side and not raising money for gun control. Especially when writers begin to spin it that way, so they can sell the story. There had to be a way to help his friend without getting involved with this Sandy Hook Promise Group. Below is the link to the article where a lot of my information came from.
http://buzzpo.com/tim-mcgraw-just-dixie-chickd-himself/?utm_content=buffer00964&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican
April 24, 2015 @ 8:56 am
Glenn, could you clarify something, please? You say “Currently money is flowing in from Sandy Hook Promise to Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen Bingel & Thomas Inc. Which is a large lobbying firm in Washington, DC and when you look at where they put their money, it is Democrats in the Senate to promote gun control.”
The article does not say that. It says money is flowing to Mehlman, but it doesn’t say from where. The blatantly obvious implication from the author is that it’s from SHP, but it does NOT say that. The linked letter from SHP to the State of CT that the author provides does NOT mention Mehlman at all. I looked at their 2013 tax form and it’s not there either. So I would very much like to see proof of that. I think the author is disingenuous, at best.
The site open secrets shows that SHP gave $20,000 to lobbying activities in 2013. It does not say to whom and I wouldn’t call that flowing.