Yes, nothing says courage like refusing to allow a vote on a bill. And again, this was a bill about background checks, not a gun ban. You were saying something about the scrupulous accuracy of the NRA, aceplace57?
Courageous? What did they risk by pandering to the NRA and the money of the gun lobby?
With the obvious implication that all the whiny liberal angst over this great victory for the side of freedom is childish, albeit funny.
Mean old Republicans wouldn’t let us have our way. WAH!
ROFLMAO.
As we say in WoW, cry moar pls.
They courageously did what rich fundraisers and PACs told them to do.
There was a vote. Your side lost. And I am very happy about it.
Yes, blocking a vote is the courageous approach. How about they allow the vote to happen and face the consequences?
The anger is not simply that an issue I feel passionately about didn’t go my way (which is a legitimate feeling- every negative feeling isn’t infantile), but that the process was subverted by the Republicans simply because they could. It’s playground bullying.
Boblibdem seems to think they’ve risked their political future.
To boldly go where no colonoscope has gone before
You know what- the OP said he doesn’t want yet another gun control debate. I’m pretty sure that includes mocking “wiberals” as well as this:
And these:
So let’s try to keep this on the topic since that’s more novel than yet another gun debate. I think there are at least two of those in Great Debates right now.
You misspelled “effective political strategy”.
ETA: Posted prior to seeing the mod instruction above.
I’m just confused by todays political climate. The harsh rhetoric isn’t new but it’s more shrill these days. Like it or not gun control will be a hot button topic for years to come. The passion and anger on both sides reminds me of the abortion debates. There’s no middle ground and tempers flare very quickly.
I can’t ever recall such a broken government in all the years that I’ve followed the news. I’ve lived through some pretty ugly moments. Starting with Nixon and Watergate. But at least budgets got passed and basic legislation often had bipartisan support. It wasn’t always pretty and there were political battles. Somehow important work still got done.
I know we’ll get through the current political battles. I wish the rhetoric was a little more civil. 
We still have a great country and things have to get better eventually.
It certainly does look like two things happened here:
-
Obama miscalculated on this one and waded in without a path to victory. This failed.
-
Obama is very frustrated by this failure and is angry about it.
His comments definitely seem NOT to be calculated and don’t seem to do him or anyone else much good. He is bitter about it not passing and lashed out.
I’ll actually reserve my outrage about this one because you know what? I like it when we see some personality from politicians. Every time Romney gave a candid answer to a question he would be ripped to shreds by the media for another “gaffe” and the same thing happens to Obama. I’d rather have politicians that speak their minds a bit more freely, even if sometimes it’s in anger or frustration. The alternative is what we see way to much of: Robotic, scripted, teleprompter reading politicians who don’t give any actual clues what they are really feeling.
As far as “lying” during this gun control debate there were lies and exaggerations on both sides I’m sure. But the biggest whopper leading up to the vote was certainly Obama’s claim of 40% of purchases being done without a background check. It’s based on an old, flimsy study and there’s no way of knowing what that percentage actually is today.
The NRA claiming the bill had a registration element might be a simplification, but the underlying concept is true: The only way universal background checks would be possible is with universal registration. You can’t have one without the other. So despite language in the bill prohibiting registration, it’s still logical to oppose the bill if you oppose registration.
Obama might actually believe this is a lie by the NRA, but it’s not. It’s what they actually believe and I think they are right.
Politicians from parties get elected by telling people that if the other guy wins, everything’s gonna suck. People from both parties get elected to federal office and voters don’t understand why they can’t work together. Every few terms, voters get convinced that if they try the other party, this won’t be a problem anymore. Generally Republicans have taken this a lot further than Democrats, but you can find lots of examples on both sides. Does it seem confusing if you look at it that way?
You summed that up really well Marley. Clarity at last.
The next step in this process usually involves drinking until it doesn’t bother you too much.
I totally agree. I’m a Democrat, but I thought Alan Grayson’s comments about the Republican health care plan being “poor people should die faster” was an egregiously unfair comment. I was happy when he lost re-election, and think it is unfortunate that he won election to a new seat in 2012.
I don’t understand why you think that the President is under a higher obligation than other elected leaders to maintain civility. There are scores of elected leaders who say things that are simply unacceptable, like Allen West saying that a Muslim serving in Congress is “the antithesis” of our nation’s principles, and it’s pretty clear that he was referring to his religion (though he later said he was misunderstood); he called Obama supporters “a threat to the gene pool,” accused several dozen Democrats as being card carrying Communists, accused Democrats of wanting to keep African-Americans “on the plantation,” and said that Nazis would be proud of Democratic talking points. Thank GOD he lost his seat.
Congressional leaders need to take responsibility for civility. If members of their party say such patently outrageous and offensive things, there should be consequences. We know that several Republican congressmen lost their seats on important committees for things they have said: but it wasn’t because what they said was offensive or outrageous, it was because their statements broke with the leadership line on key issues.
If party leaders can enforce discipline on members who won’t get in line on a political message, they should be able to enforce some type of code of conduct on very basic standards of civility in debate. However, we know that isn’t going to happen: if the Speaker’s response to a congressman who calls people “wetbacks” is a mild chiding, as opposed to some actual consequences, there’s very little hope for civility in Washington debates.
The bottom line is that H.L. Mencken was right: democracy is based on the notion that the people know what they want, and they deserve to get it good and hard. We’re voting for elected officials who far too often don’t know the meaning of the word compromise, and the country is suffering for it.
I don’t mind the harsh rhetoric per se, but I do think politicians should be called out for throwing such tantrums. Usually, these kinds of statements are made when someone loses or thinks they are losing. Which makes it whining.
Too bad when you were in there editing it, you just didn’t delete then…
Anyway, I find it interesting to have the President’s actions described as a “tantrum” when it seemed that he was expressing frustration and anger in a very specific, controlled way. Being negative isn’t inherent’y wrong- it becomes a problem when it is unfounded and becomes character assassination. However, it seems the President has concrete and legitimate complaints about how the message is being manipulated.
Well given that it was a filibuster vote with the odds stacked in the obstructionists favor, it would be more accurate to say that our side won but failed to beat the spread.