Dan wrote an article backgrounding Obama’s terra firma, if you can call it that, on the recent Supreme Court 5-4 decision to interpret the Second Amendment–that most of us gun owners assumed allowed guns in homes anyway–to mean that it was not a right merely granted to us when we’re acting for the government but to individuals who can keep guns in their home for protection, hunting, or whatever.
Beware of anything Schnur says. While he was the national communications director for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2000, he cozies up to the NY Times elitists and writes in such a way that it is never unacceptable to the liberals (Full biography). http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/contributor-dan-schnur/
Listen to Schnur for a moment:
“The Obama campaign Web site’s ‘In the News’ section, which chronicles Barack Obama’s recent statements on the 36th anniversary of the passage of Title IX and the June tenth holiday celebration, does not include his reaction to the United States Supreme Court decision last week to strike down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns. Though I couldn’t find it on the Web site, the campaign did issue a statement — albeit a fairly tepid one — on the Court ruling.”
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms,” Mr. Obama is quoted as saying. “But I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures.”
Schnur says that if Charlton Heston were still living, he could have comfortably uttered the same sentences. Maybe the words, but his sentiments wouldn’t be clouded with undertones of duplicity, a trademark of Democrat Obama. Heston was a “straight shooter.”
“Partisans on both sides will argue about whether Mr. Obama’s equivocation represents a clarification or a reversal of his previous statements on the subject. But the truth is that it doesn’t matter. Far more important is that the gradual disintegration of the gun control movement that once drove Democratic politics is now pretty much complete. For decades, the true meaning of the Second Amendment has been the subject of wrenching public debate. But last Thursday, when the Court expressly and historically extended the right of gun ownership to private citizens, the Democratic Party’s nominee for president merely shrugged.
“Certainly, there were others who spoke out forcefully against the decision: some big city mayors (most notably Richard Daley of Chicago), a few dedicated congressional voices (like Senator Dianne Feinstein of California) and the long-time voices of the professional advocate community rushed to battle stations. But Mr. Obama, the preferred candidate of the nation’s most committed gun control proponents, did not offer a syllable of protest. If his judicial nominees will be sympathetic to more stringent gun control measures than judges appointed by George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or John McCain, there was no evidence of that sentiment last week.
“Some of the reasons for Mr. Obama’s reticence have been a result of his own unique political circumstances. His campaign is targeting western states like Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, where questions of gun ownership resonate differently than on traditional urban Democratic turf. And his well-chronicled statement this spring about gun owners and their bitterness is indicative of the struggle he has had in attracting working-class and rural voters. As a result, both demographic and geographic political realities demand that Mr. Obama tread especially lightly on the gun issue.
“But his muted response is also the culmination of a long-developing trend in the national Democratic Party: to tiptoe away from a policy discussion that they believe has caused them great political damage…
“Most of the Democratic Party base is made up of fierce gun-control advocates. But after eight long years in the political wilderness, they want to win, badly. So it’s easy to understand why they’re willing to tolerate a little bit of strategic silence from their standard-bearer, even on an issue so close…”
That’s what Schnur said, but I wrote three graphs and submitted it to the Times as a comment, which they refuse to print, knowing I’m a conservative, mainly taking issue with his comment: “it doesn’t matter.” See if you agree.
By Don White: In the larger view “it does matter” if politicians flip flop. Dan Schnur said, “Partisans on both sides will argue about whether Mr. Obama’s equivocation represents a clarification or a reversal of his previous statements on the subject. But the truth is that it doesn’t matter.” WRONG!
It matters a whole lot to gun owners. A flip-flop is a flip-flop. It represents the fragile nature of one’s convictions. Congressmen and other elitists can change their positions every day if they want but they won’t get my vote. How can you trust them? If they say, or indicate by their actions, that they are not against the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision and go ahead and load up the court with anti-gun jurists, then it becomes obvious that “it does matter” that they flip flopped to get elected. And that’s precisely what Obama plans to do.
Basic Harry Truman-style conviction you can count on is what the rank and file American is looking for, despite what the elitists do or say. We can detect insincerity and there is much of it in the camp of the donkey party today. They’ll do and say anything to get elected, even if it’s a flip-flop of major proportions as this one is for Obama.
I would encourage you to read the entire Schnur Op-Ed piece.