|
Obama and Gun Laws: Having his cake and eating it too
|
View this Thread in Original format
| HardTranceProd |
Such a shame that an otherwise admirable, reasonable man is pandering to the rural pro-gun armpit of America... this is not how he began. A few years ago, he was so in favor of laws and restrictions on guns that his current "red" positions seem hypocritical. :rolleyes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...id=opinionsbox1
| quote: |
Barack Obama, who informs campaign audiences that he taught constitutional law for 10 years, might be expected to weigh in on the historic Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are pondering whether the 1976 District of Columbia law effectively prohibiting personal gun ownership in the nation's capital is constitutional. But Obama has not stated his position.
Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well regulated militia" in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.
That is a dance that many Democrats do, as revealed in private conversation with party strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid the fate of the many Democratic candidates who have lost elections because of gun control advocacy. The party's House leadership last year pulled from the floor a bill for a congressional seat for the District to protect Democratic members from having to vote on a Republican amendment against the D.C. gun law.
Hillary Clinton has extolled the Second Amendment, though not to the degree Obama has. Campaigning at Iowa's Cornell College on Dec. 5, he asserted that the Second Amendment "is an individual right and not just a right of the militia." He has repeated that formulation along the primary trail, declaring at a Milwaukee news conference before the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary: "I believe the Second Amendment means something. . . . There is an individual right to bear arms."
That would imply that the D.C. gun law is unconstitutional. Mayor Adrian Fenty's brief to the Supreme Court rests on the proposition that the Second Amendment "protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia." Consequently, I concluded in a March 13 column about the case that Obama had "weighed in against the D.C. law."
On March 24, a reader wrote in an e-mail to The Post that "Obama supports the D.C. law" and demanded a correction. That was based on an Associated Press account of Obama's Milwaukee news conference asserting that "he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns." In fact, all he said was: "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution."
That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the "Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures." Though the paragraph is titled "Obama on the D.C. Court case," that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column.
Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an "F."
There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of "A." Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of "Americans to protect their families." He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington.
|
|
|
|
| Magnetonium |
F%#k all politicians. They all lie a lot of the time, one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama ends up losing the presidential battle anyway or ruining the American empire. Reading beautifully written scripts is only part of the battle. It doesnt make Obama a "Change We Can Believe In", other than maybe a change that can once and for all cripple the American empire. Who knows. As far as I can tell, these US elections have the WORST EVER candidates that I can recall since I started following politics. |
|
|
| guerra-monstru |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
F%#k all politicians. They all lie a lot of the time, one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama ends up losing the presidential battle anyway or ruining the American empire. Reading beautifully written scripts is only part of the battle. It doesnt make Obama a "Change We Can Believe In", other than maybe a change that can once and for all cripple the American empire. Who knows. As far as I can tell, these US elections have the WORST EVER candidates that I can recall since I started following politics. |
idiot:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
F%#k all politicians. They all lie a lot of the time, one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama ends up losing the presidential battle anyway or ruining the American empire. Reading beautifully written scripts is only part of the battle. It doesnt make Obama a "Change We Can Believe In", other than maybe a change that can once and for all cripple the American empire. Who knows. As far as I can tell, these US elections have the WORST EVER candidates that I can recall since I started following politics. |
You can't be serious? First of all, Obama wrote those "scripts" that you refer to - they aren't somebody else's ideas, they are his own. Second of all... I'd take Hillary and John McCain over Kerry and Bush any day of the week and twice on Sunday. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Well it's not like he's in the NRA's back pocket either if they're rating him an, "F".
I do have to admit though, even though I lean to the right, I do like Obama other than some waffling on some points such as this. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
it would be a nice "change" to see him take a position on this. of all things, i think americans want to see politicians not playing both sides of an issue.
perhaps they have numbers on this issue, but i would think the people who care about an 'individual' right to guns are the same people who wouldn't vote for him anyway. i could be wrong. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
it would be a nice "change" to see him take a position on this. of all things, i think americans want to see politicians not playing both sides of an issue.
perhaps they have numbers on this issue, but i would think the people who care about an 'individual' right to guns are the same people who wouldn't vote for him anyway. i could be wrong. |
You are wrong. Far more than would vote for Hillary. I actually know quite a few people who support him and either own or support the right to own firearms. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
You are wrong. Far more than would vote for Hillary. I actually know quite a few people who support him and either own or support the right to own firearms. |
while i can definitely appreciate that anecdotal evidence, i would like to know what a larger sample shows. i really have no idea, i'm curious. i thought those people would vote mccain anyway (it wasn't a hillary v obama issue for me). |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
First of all, Obama wrote those "scripts" that you refer to - they aren't somebody else's ideas, they are his own. |
There are bloody threads on this friggin forum which describe in detail certain individuals who write these beautiful scripts for Obama and the like ... no need to be so silly. I am sure he adds a sentence or two, and tweeks a word or two here or there, but the core material is prepared FOR him. Heck, you should know that all important politicians have people employed who write scripts for them for Christ's sake.
Yes, Obama can and does write some of his speeches. Thats what pretty much many politicians are capable of doing from time to time. But then again, most politicians write books, stories and articles or whatever the combination as well - but they still have people who write speeches for them, its only a question for which politicians use these services more or less than others. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
There are bloody threads on this friggin forum which describe in detail certain individuals who write these beautiful scripts for Obama and the like ... no need to be so silly. I am sure he adds a sentence or two, and tweeks a word or two here or there, but the core material is prepared FOR him. Heck, you should know that all important politicians have people employed who write scripts for them for Christ's sake.
Yes, Obama can and does write some of his speeches. Thats what pretty much many politicians are capable of doing from time to time. But then again, most politicians write books, stories and articles or whatever the combination as well - but they still have people who write speeches for them, its only a question for which politicians use these services more or less than others. |
So who are his scribes then? :conf: |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
So who are his scribes then? :conf: |
After spending 2.345 seconds on google, I was able to find this interesting article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7031701306.html
Which Candidate's Speechwriter Will Be the Next Michael Gerson?
| quote: |
Speechwriters are the most exotic of political staffers. Half artist, half operative, they toil almost entirely anonymously in a presidential campaign. But their mission -- crafting the words the candidate speaks -- is critical to a campaign's success.
Michael Gerson, who was President Bush's lead speechwriter from 1999 until mid-2006, redefined the role, becoming not just the president's wordsmith but also one of his most trusted advisers. He has been alternately described as the architect of Bush's "compassionate conservative" governing philosophy and as the most influential speechwriter since Ted Sorenson, who plied his trade on behalf of President John F. Kennedy.
While every 2008 presidential campaign insists that its candidate is intimately involved in crafting his or her speeches, the reality is that each will come to depend on a single individual who can seamlessly express the candidate's vision for the country in words.
Here's a look at a few of the individuals with that responsibility:
? Brett O'Donnell. Before signing on with Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential bid, O'Donnell was the director of debate at Liberty University for 14 years. In 2004, O'Donnell was involved in prepping Bush for his debates against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). He served in the same role for former Virginia attorney general Jerry Kilgore (R) in the 2005 gubernatorial race, which Kilgore lost.
? Jon Favreau. No, the man charged with writing speeches for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is not the actor who played the lovelorn Mike Peters in the movie "Swingers." This Jon Favreau worked a stint as a telemarketer in high school, graduated from the College of the Holy Cross and served as a speechwriter for Kerry in 2004. He signed on to Obama's team after that election and was the architect of Obama's teasing "announcement" during an appearance in December on "Monday Night Football."
? Matt Rees. Rees has written speeches for nearly every Bush administration official of note, including the president. Now he is charged with finding the right words for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R). The campaign is careful to note that its candidate -- an English major at Brigham Young University -- plays an active role in his own speechwriting.
PLAYERS
Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) rarely rises above 1 or 2 percent in national polls relating to the 2008 Democratic field. But his speech last week to the International Association of Fire Fighters received rave reviews, and early word is that his first-quarter fundraising is surprisingly strong. That mini-momentum is seen in staff hires as well; Dodd has added three operatives who have deep campaign experience to his team in recent days. Taylor West will serve as the campaign's Iowa press secretary, fresh off a stint in the same role for Iowa Gov. Chet Culver. Hari Sevugan, who served as spokesman for Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) in 2006, has also joined Dodd's press shop. Scott Arceneaux will be the campaign's national political director. Arceneaux managed Judy Feder's unsuccessful campaign in Virginia's 10th District last year and has previously worked in Louisiana and Maryland.
|
|
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Wow, it took you 2.345 seconds to sift through all the results and find this one interesting article?
Thats some watch you have... |
|
|
|
|
