Obama: Liar
By Mitch Berg
One of the frustrating things about Obama (and the thing that may well earn him the Tic nomination, if not the presidency) is the fact that he is so vaporous on the issues. What does Obie believe, really, behind all of that rhetoric about “change”? Well, you have to do some digging.
And Clayton Cramer has – and finds that behind Obie’s palaver, he’s lying about his approach to the Second Amendment:
It isn’t just that he supports bans on semiautomatics, and more possession and purchase restrictions. He claims that he wants more laws to keep guns out of the inner cities. Why? Does he think black people lack the sense that white people have?
The roots of gun control in America have always been racist; America’s first gun ban, in the late 1860’s in south Texas, was aimed at disarming blacks, many of whom were Union Army veterans who gave the early Klansmen a lot of nasty bloody noses. The resurgence of gun control in the late sixties was a knee-jerk response to inner-city crime (and the RFK assassination) – and to the left and the media, “inner city” is always a PC synonym for “people of color”.
Obama may be able to triangulate on faith – but he’ll polish the turd of his anti-gun past into a perception of being gun-friendly over my dead body. And I think I can name about four million NRA members who’ll go along with me.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:41 am
When Angryclown recalls your previous love affair with gun-control champion Rudy Giuliani, he is impressed with your, um, flexibility. (“Lack of principle” seems a little harsh.)
It always entertains Angryclown when Republicans lecture black people about what’s good for them. Funny they don’t seem to be buying it at the polls.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:51 am
They never “buy it at the polls”. That’s where they go wrong.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Having more than one principle can make standing on any single one difficult, angryclown. I won’t fault you for not knowing that.
And I see that angryclown thinks it’s entirely fine when Democrats “lecture black people about what’s good for them”.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:08 am
”Lack of principle” seems a little harsh.
I’d substitute “baked wind” for “harsh”.
Either you know darn well that that was one of the issues over which conservatives were holding Rudy’s feet in the fire, or you get your news from The Klown Times and never question a word of it.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Zat so? I’m not finding your “Rudy: Liar” blog entry. Also “Giuliani and (turd w/2 polish!)” comes up empty. Your search function must be malfunctioning.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Heehee! OK Troy, I’ll play. What particular “principle” is Mitch standing on at the moment? He tends to hop from one to the next like somebody crossing a stream full of human excrement, so you may want to answer quickly.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:13 am
If you’re in Chicago you “sell it at the polls.”
Ruby: either a liar or someone who changed his mind and was at least consistent in his story. (Unlike Dean, who flopped the other way and wasn’t hurt by it in the Tic opinion polls.)
Obie: both a liar AND someone who’s still changing his story on guns. As Cramer showed, he’s still in the active process of trying to come up with a self-consistent message on the issue. His fumbling will be an easy target in the election if he’s the nominee.
A choice between the two is easy. Throw JMac into the mix and an NRA member has a trivial choice.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:26 am
I don’t recall Mitch giving Rudy a free pass for his — disgraceful — history of support for “gun control.” Maybe I’m missing it, but I doubt it.
Of the remaining candidates, only Huckabee has a good record on gun issues. Given that he’s — at best — almost vanishingly unlikely to be a nominee, gun rights voters, this year, are going to have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
It’s easy for those of us in Minnesota; since Minnesota will go for the Democrat, we’re free to cast protest votes without consequence.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:47 am
For the most part, Obie can’t lie too much what all I ever hear him say is “Change” and “Work together”.
Mitt was on Laura Ingram a few minutes ago. Talked about how the gov’t makes it hard to be in business, especially small business. That we have long term concerns with in economic matters. It’s nice to hear someone who has a clue about what it’s like to be something other then a career politician. I would like Obie to go open a business in Minneapolis. Try to run and grow it for 4 years…and no outside money or freebies…then come back and run for President in 2012.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Did I say Mitch was standing on principle, angryclown? No, I’m not omniscient. Thanks for assuming so though. 🙂
Your “lack of principle” slam implies a voter should only vote for or support someone with whom they agree on every matter. Is that correct, angryclown? I assume so, but then I take you for a fool. *shrug*
February 5th, 2008 at 10:34 am
chuck blathered:
“It’s nice to hear someone who has a clue about what it’s like to be something other then a career politician. I would like Obie to go open a business in Minneapolis. Try to run and grow it for 4 years…and no outside money or freebies…then come back and run for President in 2012.”
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story Chuck. Obama is not a career politician.
Also, I find this whole “run a business” thing laughable. Are you trying to find someone like Bush who completely failed at cherry picked jobs?
February 5th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Replace the word Obama with Mitt Romney and there is not much difference.
Mitt has supported gun control, restrictions and bans his whole career,
now he say “Trust me, I don’t want to take your gun”
February 5th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Wait, guns only give bloody noses?! Man, I’ve been wrong about them killing people all this time. Thanks, Mitch!
February 5th, 2008 at 11:21 am
fulcrum maundered:
Also, I find this whole “run a business” thing laughable.
yeah the idea of having someone running a country with a $3 trillion annual budget who has a rudimentary knowledge of market economics does seem unnecessary doesn’t it? the two folks who do demonstrably lack that knowledge are McCain and Obama – conversely Hilary and Romney both understand economics, but one of them doesn’t believe in the invisible hand stuff.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:32 am
fulcrum, maybe that is why Bush is so liberal on many policies.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Kel, I’ve said this a million times (mostly to Angry Clown)…..most Democratic policiticans…and a good number of Republicans, are economically illiterate. I always remember George McGovern’s quote…..after he retired from politics (as a full time job) he opened a bed and breakfast. He said that he never realized how difficult the gov’t made it for a small businessman to survive. That he would have done things differently while in congress if he had known.
And yes, corporate welfare is just as bad.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Sure, cause Dubya definitely put that MBA to good use. And Romney was a consultant. If you want to nominate one of the Bobs from “Office Space,” you go right ahead. But he’s not going to win.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:56 am
“one of the Bobs from “Office Space,”
I’d vote for the Bob that plays Dr. Cox on Scrubs. Press conferences would be a hoot.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I’m gonna have to go ahead and agree with you there, Master.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Sam Donaldson: Are you going to cave into Democratic demands to set a time table for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq?
President Cox: Well Dorothy, let me just say this. No, Nine, Nada, Nyet, No, Way Jose, and my favorite, man falling of a cliff…. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopoof.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
President Dwight Schwrut:
“Mr President, will you smile for the cameras?”
“I never smile. Smiling is a sign of weakness.”
Let’s see Hugo Chavez deal with that.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“But he’s not going to win” says angryclown.
You may turn out to be correct, but advice from a fool should be given the weight it deserves. That is “not much”.
angryclown also said:
“Sure, cause Dubya definitely put that MBA to good use”
Or “Blah blah he’s dumb blah”. Yeah, keep singing. I know the tune, heard you sing it many times.
“And Romney was a consultant”
Or “I have this bridge for sale…”. Olympics. Governor. This is a new tune, angryclown. Good luck selling it.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“It always entertains Angryclown when Republicans lecture black people about what’s good for them.”
It must also amuse angryclown when people surrounded 24/7 by armed security lecture poor & middle class folks on the 2nd amendment.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
President Angryclown: “I’d answer that question David, but it was stupid. So are you. So is the entire Press Corps now that you don’t have Bush to criticize. And that tie is ugly.”
February 5th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I have my doubts about both McCain and Romney. Mitt has “converted” on to many positions. McCain is ready to sell out conservatives at the drop of a hat if the Media will give him air time. Rudy’s “conversion” on the Second Amendment also seemed far to conveinient.
However, I have no doubts about either Clinton or Barry’s position on the 2nd Amendment. They are both devout gun banners. Their staffs will be full of people who believe as they do that the only Amendment that does not apply to the people is the Right to bear arms.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:14 am
jpmn observed: “Their staffs will be full of people who believe as they do that the only Amendment that does not apply to the people is the Right to bear arms.”
Preferable to wingnuts, who believe it’s the only one that does.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
“Preferable to wingnuts, who believe it’s the only one that does.”
Not true! I’m a firm believer in the amendment that guarantees a woman the right to abort a fetus.
Is it the 9th or the 14th amendment? Damn! Turns out that it’s not in there.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:19 am
Mitt has supported gun control, restrictions and bans his whole career,
now he say “Trust me, I don’t want to take your gun”
If we start rejecting conservatives who came to conservatism later, you lose a lot of them – including Ronald Reagan and, lest we forget, me.
Preferable to wingnuts, who believe it’s the only one that does.
It’s been observed that conservatives – especially shooters – are better stewards of civil rights for all than, say, liberals.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:26 am
I’m not finding your “Rudy: Liar” blog entry.
It wouldn’t be appropriate. He never said he wasn’t for gun control – or abortion, for that matter. He never pulled any punches about what he believed; merely said he’d govern on those issues if elected in a matter that’d work for conservatives, at least as far as the Presidency actually affects them., by appointing non-sucky judges.
It didn’t fly with nearly enough voters, apparently.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:40 am
[…] Conversely, ODS sufferers miss no opportunity to deem him an “empty suit” and a “liar“, often putting themselves through remarkable rhetorical contortions to slam Obama for what they would never bat an eye from any other candidate. Those who support Obama are dubbed “cultists” bereft of either intelligence or integrity. For example, blogger Larry Johnson spent the better part of a week spreading colorful rumors of a tape where Michelle Obama was caught using racially explosive rhetoric. Unable to actually prove the existence of the tape, Johnson turned away to focus on other anti-Obama tall tales with no apparent loss of his link-ability in the blogosphere. Truth of the charges, it seems, is secondary to maintaining the endless hateful drumbeat. […]
June 25th, 2008 at 10:40 am
[…] Conversely, ODS sufferers miss no opportunity to deem him an “empty suit” and a “liar“, often putting themselves through remarkable rhetorical contortions to slam Obama for what they would never bat an eye from any other candidate. Those who support Obama are dubbed “cultists” bereft of either intelligence or integrity. For example, blogger Larry Johnson spent the better part of a week spreading colorful rumors of a tape where Michelle Obama was caught using racially explosive rhetoric. Unable to actually prove the existence of the tape, Johnson turned away to focus on other anti-Obama tall tales with no apparent loss of his link-ability in the blogosphere. Truth of the charges, it seems, is secondary to maintaining the endless hateful drumbeat. […]