search
top

Jilted Again?

Says Gibbs:

“I wouldn’t rule out that at some point the president talks about the issues surrounding gun violence,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said aboard Air Force One on the way to an event with Obama in Wisconsin. “I don’t have a timetable or, obviously, what he would say.”

That sounds committed. Maybe he’ll say something about puppies and kittens too, at some point of the future. Maybe. Yeah. I’m pretty sure there will be a puppy and kitchen speech in there somewhere. Even the Washington Post reporter notes:

Obama’s silence is hardly surprising. Former president Bill Clinton attributes some of the party’s defeat in 1994 to gun control. After 2000, when then-Vice President Al Gore lost states such as Tennessee as he espoused his support for gun control, Democrats completely abandoned the issue.

Fortunately for the the other side, they have the GOP to pick up the slack.

12 Responses to “Jilted Again?”

  1. divemedic says:

    That is why I have long said that the difference Republicans and Democrats is one of degree, not substantial substance. They are both for the Nanny state, the only difference between them is who gets to decide what is best for you.

  2. Soon is such a relative term. To the Bradys, soon means tomorrow. To Obama and Robert Gibbs, soon means after November 2012.

  3. Sage Thrasher says:

    Thanks for the link, Mike.

    The spin at the beginning of that article is amazing: “But throughout the hourlong speech, he [Obama] never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.”

    Hardly neutral reporting is it? I don’t think there’s any basis to support the claim that the public thinks gun control or “firearm-access laws” (sheesh) is the “issue at the core” of this tragedy at all, but it’s there as fact in the second sentence of the article.

  4. Gunmart says:

    Its either a trial balloon or just lip service

  5. kenno271 says:

    On that whole issue of the GOP selling us out:

    I called the RNC at 202-863-8500 to let them know of my dissatisfaction. The person answering was one of the rudest operators I have ever encountered.

    I stated that I was unhappy that the GOP was trying to cut a gun control deal with the Obama Administration. I asked if they actually expected to keep the support of their base, and the American people for that matter, if they did this.

    She said, “Well, I’m not in favor of the excessive use of guns myself.”

    I asked her if that meant that she was one of the 20% who support gun control.

    She hemmed and hawed out a No answer, and then tried to get me off the phone.

    I switched into my “nice guy” mode, and tried to get her to understand from where we’re coming on this. I pointed out that the Clinton Administration had done everything possible to go after gun owners, and that we’d withstood it through peaceful resistance. I compared our *peaceful* victory to that of the 1950s civil rights movement. I asked her whether the GOP recognizes the importance of this accomplishment, or whether it intends to reverse it and go back to the anti-gun era.

    Her response? “Mm-hmm.” She hadn’t listened to a damned thing I’d said.

    I told her, “I asked you a question with two options. Mm-hmm was not one of them.”

    She said she’d relay my message–how, I have no idea, since she wasn’t listening–and hung up.

    Just FYI, I intend to spread this story far and wide.

  6. kenno271 says:

    BTW, kenno271 is the same as “Ken” from up until yesterday. However, there is another Ken posting here now, so I’m changing my handle in order to provide a distinction.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Thanks for calling them.

  8. kenno271 says:

    I wonder if the GOP is doing this as part of the “keep the issue alive” strategy, i.e., get people to keep voting GOP out of fear of losing their gun rights.

    The problem is that that strategy has long since run out of gas. People who vote against gun control expect their vote to have consequences. An example is the Heller ruling: many of the oh-so-clever Beltway types were saying that a ruling against Heller would help the GOP by getting voters to worry about losing their guns. Let’s see; seven of nine judges were appointed by the GOP at the time, and an anti-gun ruling will get gun owners to support the GOP *more*?

    The only person who would believe that would work would be someone so stupid that they couldn’t make it in the private sector. Oh, yeah, right…

  9. Sebastian says:

    I think it’s just that the GOP isn’t really that pro-gun, unless it helps them advance their party interests. If they can use guns rights, say, to stop DC Voting Rights, I think they are happy to do that.

  10. kenno271 says:

    I don’t actually expect them to really love guns and gun owners. I do expect them to know where their bread is buttered.

    Part of the problem is congressional staffers. They tend to be self-important misfits, who view themselves as The Important People. They come up with Wile E. Coyote schemes to Win For Good (such as the Big Tent strategy by the late, hugely overrated Lee Atwater) and then throw hissy fits when the “purists” sink their beautiful plans. (If the plans were so brilliant, why were purists able to sink them?) These guys are mostly a bunch of immature adolescent punks. Come to think of it, most of them still *look* like adolescents.

  11. Ian Argent says:

    As I sadi elsewhere – worth keeping an eye on; but an unnamed aide saying unnamed staffers are meeting? That’s like saying one of my cats is going to shed on a coat.

top