arma virumque cano (et alia)
Well he kinda already did, but he didn't have ANY votes in Congress.You forget all his talks to renew the AWB in his first Month in office?
You do realize, I hope, that the "gun lobby" is simply composed of millions of civic-minded Americans concerned with protecting a vital civic right, don't you?
Probably correct that it's beneficial for him. I believe the reason for the declining approval rating is a failure to listen to what the public is asking for. He promised 'change' and he's pushing change through, regardless of whether the public agrees or not (claims that it's just a few dissenters riled up by Fox/Beck/Limbaugh is not supported by the approval ratings).So, according to the same study, only 39% believe stricter gun control laws are needed...making it a pretty low priority at the moment. If he DID address it, he'd be facing a large coalition that would be angry with his actions...and more angry that he's not focusing on what's important.
The problem is the election bubble. All of those dead and paid voters that ACORN dragged to the polls, all of the people that registered and voted for the first time ever just so they could vote for Obama, and all of those that just voted against Bush by voting against McCain are not active in the political cycle. They are not grass roots supporters. They are not answering polls.The Obama Administration has never had the support that the election would make one think they had. It was vapor-support and is gone now.The Dems hold the majority in the house, a filibuster-proof Senate and the Presidency yet they cannot get anything done. Why? Because there are a significant number of them that want to get re-elected in 2010. They know that they at least have to appear to represent their constituents and they also know that there will not be near the voter turn out, manufactured support or otherwise, that there was in 2008. They know that their grass roots are largely conservative and they are afraid of a 1994 style backlash.
"The Obama Administration has never had the support that the election would make one think they had. It was vapor-support and is gone now."Never mind the various groups that supported him based on his promises that he's since thrown under the bus.
I was an unabashed Obama supporter. Now, although it still may be a bit early to say, I have serious doubts. I'm disappointed that he didn't take on the gun lobby, but compared to the gigantic mistake of an escalating war in Afghanistan, the guns are small potatoes.I'm also suspicious about the handling of the torture business and the past administration's criminal players.
"I'm disappointed that he didn't take on the gun lobby"First up, you don't take on ANY lobby, you take on the issue that may or may not have a lobby supporting it. People who claim to "Take on the Gun Lobby" like the Brady Camp, have NEVER proposed legislation banning or restricting the NRA, GOA, JPFO, or any other Lobby group. They go after GUNS and GUN RIGHTS.That being said He did! He was CRUSHED, and he decided it wasn't the hill he was going to die on.He's now taking on Heath Care, and he's being CRUSHED, but not as strongly, but this WILL be the hill Obama dies on. He'll either fail completely, or push through a bill that in no way represents his goals, and for that his approval numbers will continue to crash.
Um--Mikeb? First, there is:I say, good thing Obama hasn't taken on the gun lobby.Followed by . . . I'm disappointed that he didn't take on the gun lobby . . . Is it fair for you to demand that he take an unequivocal position and stick to it, when you seem to be pretty bipolar on it yourself?Or are you going to try to argue that it makes sense to be "disappointed" by something you consider to be a "good thing"?
If anybody here is old enough to remeber the early glory days of Saturday Night Live, Mikeb reminds me of a sketch.It featured Buck Henry as a radio talk show host, sitting in front of a bank of phones. He starts out with a topic he wants to discuss, but the phones don't ring. So as time goes by, he gets more and more frantic, making more and more outrageous statements, goading people into calling in. Alas with no luck. His final attempt is something along the lines of "I think we should KILL PUPPIES! That's right, kill them all!!!".Mike's blog here is eerily reminicent of Buck's skit.
TomB, I think you just might be onto something there. Whaddya' say, Mikeb--where do you stand on the "kill puppies" question?Even Buck Henry might not have managed anything as entertaining as Mikeb disagreeing with . . . himself, though.
beowulf pointed out the following:"Um--Mikeb? First, there is:I say, good thing Obama hasn't taken on the gun lobby.Followed by . . .I'm disappointed that he didn't take on the gun lobby . . "You must be learning from Bob S. how to pick at things and invent discrepancies.The first quote means very simply that if he had taken on the gun lobby he'd have suffered in the polls. "Good thing" in the sense that the decision not to fight the gun crowd (yet) has helped him.The second quote expresses my personal disappointment that he hasn't. Maybe his advisors know better than I do what he can withstand, but I think he'd survive the battle. Those two are not incompatible, but it's worrying that you took the time to write it up as if they were.Please don't turn into a nit-picking pain-in-the-ass. I promise to keep giving you plenty to argue with me about so you won't have to stretch like that.
TomB, I'm glad you took my advice and brought your sense of humor today. That was pretty good.
Well, Mikeb, excuse me for not realizing that by " . . . good thing he didn't take on the 'gun lobby'" you didn't really mean "it's a good thing he didn't take on the 'gun lobby.'"In my defense, though, I would like to opine that quite a few people would find your . . . novel use of language more than a little confusing.
Fair enough, beowulf. I plead guilty to sometimes being ambiguous.
TomB, I'm glad you took my advice and brought your sense of humor today. That was pretty good.We aren't laughing with you, Sparky, we're laughing at you.Creating a blog which is essetially a clown's body with the face cutout so you can put your own mug in it from time to time so we can throw pies at it isn't really anything to be proud of.I was trying to explain this place to someone and the only reasonably close description I could come up with was, "well, it's kinda like clubbing baby seals."But you keep posting your erudite defense of gun confiscation, and we'll keep ramming it back down your throat.
"Creating a blog which is essetially a clown's body with the face cutout so you can put your own mug in it from time to time so we can throw pies at it isn't really anything to be proud of."Analogy of the century! Good call!
By the way, Mikeb--I know you think that Obama would "survive" a fight with the "gun lobby" ("gun lobby" being forcible citizen disarmament lobbyist codespeak for "freedom loving citizens unwilling to give up their fundamental human right to keep and bear arms"), but do you think his political relevance would survive ramming through measures supported by only 39% of the population?Just 39% of Americans now say the United States needs stricter gun control, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review the constitutionality of state and local anti-gun laws.Even if you do think he could, do you think he should be able to inflict upon the American people a curtailment of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, when said curtailment is supported by such a small (and dwindling) minority?Are you so in love with an all-powerful government that you believe it should be able to overrule the wishes of the very people it ostensibly serves?
beowulf, Thanks for that link to the 39% nonsense. I posted about it today, basically to say I don't believe if for a minute.You can keep using it around here though. It's funny how you put so much stock in that one, but not in the Mayors' or the Bradys' polls that show numbers totally different.
Actually, I don't put all that much stock in that poll, either--for reasons I'll get into in a minute--I just wanted to see how you would respond to it (about as I would have expected)The reason I don't put much stock in polls about how popular is the idea of imposing more citizen disarmament tyranny on the population is that it's irrelevant. Minorities have the same rights as majorities.If the figures were 99% for more "gun control," and 1% against (or 97% vs. 3%?)--well, I'll bet each of us has over 99 rounds on hand. Wanna dance?
beowulf, Thanks for that link to the 39% nonsense. I posted about it today, basically to say I don't believe if for a minute.OF COURSE you don't. I have a feeling (to coin and oft-used phrase around here) that there isn't much you allow to permeate your worldview that doesn't march in lock-step with it.Anyway, OF COURSE the poll is reasonably accurate. We know that because there isn't a remotely sane person in DC that will even touch gun control right now. And it has nothing to do with the NRA and it's mythical power you've decided on imbuing it with. People don't want more gun laws, 20,000 is enough.
It is certainly interesting for me to read the post. Thanx for it. I like such topics and anything connected to this matter. I definitely want to read a bit more soon.
Thanks, Anonymous. Come back anytime.