search
top

All Your Presidents Are Belong to Us

The Bradys seem to be relatively pissed at Robert Gibbs:

Hearing this from someone who speaks daily from the podium in the James S. Brady White House Briefing Room – named after a press secretary seriously injured in an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan – is bizarre.

I agree it’s bizarre.  I sure wasn’t expecting those words to come out of Gibbs’ mouth.

Robert Gibbs’ cavalier response to protesters carrying guns to presidential events was tone-deaf. This isn’t a political issue and it isn’t about the Second Amendment. It’s about open and honest debate, using common sense and protecting the president of United States.

I almost feel sorry for them.  They were handed a good issue on a silver platter, and the Obama Administration basically snatched their toy away from them just as they were figuring out how to play with it.  All will be sacrificed for the sake of the failing health care agenda!  There’s good company under the Obama bus, Brady folks.  Don’t fret too much.  Just remember that the bus does have a reverse gear.

12 Responses to “All Your Presidents Are Belong to Us”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    That statement, more than the Thune Amendment, makes me think that, not only are we winning, but we’re beating the opposition like a big bass drum.

    And now for some words of wisdom from the Wookie’s Best Friend: “That’s great, kid. Now don’t get cocky!”

    • Bitter says:

      I don’t think that’s as strong a signal as the Thune Amendment. I think that comment was made just to try and make the issue go away. The more attention that is paid to these people carrying at rallies (or generally pushing the lines with vaguely threatening signs), the more the story becomes about the protest instead of the President’s message. For now, their strategy is for Obama to be heard. They realize that if they acknowledge anything negative about guns right now, they will switch the issue to something they don’t want to talk about. (Considering they desperately need Blue Dogs to pass this health care bill without Republican support, they cannot afford to start a war over guns. They are already asking these guys to put their seats on the line as it is with health care.)

      However, should the strategy become an effort to turn the attention away from the White House deals and Congress, then it may well come up and the answer may be very different. That’s what we need to watch out for in this situation. There is a risk that this, or another issue, could become a useful distraction for future shenanigans in DC. It’s more likely to be the gun issue if someone does something really stupid. (The organizers of the AZ thing are not only controversial because of their questionable militia involvement, but they also told one outlet that they are 9-11 Truthers.) So we really just have to hope now.

  2. Ian Argent says:

    I mentioned it earlier – there’s only 2 people whose opinions on the subject matter right now (Ok, technically any one of 5, but one 2 who I think might change their mind): Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia.

    And I doubt they’ll let us know what they think.

    I hope the “acceptance” from the White House does calm the waters.

  3. Ed says:

    I don’t think the company under that bus is all that good. Crowded, yes. But so is hell.

  4. Ian Argent says:

    FWIW – I think the road under that bus is paved with good intentions… But we know where that road leads…

  5. 1st Cav Trooper says:

    Check out the Bradys website, they make you sign in for the blog now?

  6. 1st Cav Trooper says:

    Never mind its back.

  7. Carl in Chicago says:

    There’s good company under the Obama bus, Brady folks. Don’t fret too much. Just remember that the bus does have a reverse gear.

    Sebastian, if I might, I’d like to nominate the above for the “Statement of the Year” award.

  8. RAH says:

    Brady group are single issue, Obama is not. Brady bunch feels betrayed,Gibbs statement was very wise not to rile another activist group. Obama tactics on guns will be to regulate under the radar.
    That would avoid the progun sentiment in Congress.

    Bitter is right that Obama does not want to distract from his pro health care with the gun issue.

    Helmke has always wanted to get rid of guns among the law abiding. His position of no guns near the President is echoed by many including some in the gun rights community.

    Helmke has been forlorn at the lack of support. If he can get people upset about the carry at protests he has a new arguement, that people can not be trusted with gun carry.

    That is why we get upset at the gun community sympathy for the arguement about legal carry at protests. It undermines our arguement that citizens should be trusted with guns.

  9. As for Helmke’s title,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    ?

  10. D.W. Drang says:

    I agree with Bitter that the O-Bots are shrugging off the issue, in hopes that it will go away. Note that, previous to this announcement, the Secret Service had already said “It’s no big deal”, so I have a feeling they had said that they did not relish the idea of trying to disarm everybody within a xx meter radius of The One, especially .folks who might be carrying legally.

    Since, frankly, the Obama Machine has done a really abysmal job of communicating on issues–shrill attacks where a simple statement such as “You’re right, the phrase ‘End of life Counselling’ was a poor choice of words” would have sufficed, for example–so their simple statement that Americans who are carrying legally are Not A Problem has to an accident…

  11. Ian Argent says:

    Tone-deafness from the Obama administration? Who’d’a thunk…

top