Why Obama is losing.
Shorter answer: he’s a political incompetent, with no discernible skills at anything other than winning elections. Ultimately, that may be the only thing that saves us from his destructive agenda.
36 thoughts on “Anti-Gun Legislation”
Comments are closed.
Amen, brother! Porkbusters and the natural turnover after eight years gave Obama unspeakable power (Veto proof Majority in the House, Filibuster breaking Majority in the Senate, a Press that couldn’t control their racism enough to actually see the “Sun King”, the permanent government under the control of the democrats, etc.). He was so incompetent that he ran out the clock on his two golden years just getting “National Health Care”, and he couldn’t even do that without kicking the can down the road to the far flung future of 2114 and trillions in bribes, for something the Democrats have lusted after for almost eighty years. Should have taken ten minutes. They were unstoppable. Should have gotten their idiot gun control, should have gotten “Gay Marriage”, should banned air conditioners, so much more. All they got (maybe) was an incoherent “reform” of insurance. For all the doom and gloom, if Obama had been the least bit competent, we wouldn’t even be having our current fights. We really dodged a bullet.
Fact check: the “two golden years” lasted all of six months (from July 7, 2009, when Al Franken was sworn in, to January 19, 2010 when Scott Brown won the MA Senate special election). And even during that “golden” time the Dems often lacked the ability to break filibusters because Kennedy and/or Byrd were too ill to cast votes.
Factcheck: the “two golden years” actually were two years. The Democrats were never more than two votes away from overriding a filibuster. The fact that they failed so often is just testament to their profound incompetence. Given how terrible were the few laws that survived that gantlet, I can’t be bothered to think of it as a bad thing either.
two votes away
This isn’t horseshoes, close doesn’t count.
testament to their profound incompetence
It’s testament to the party discipline of the Senate GOP.
This isn’t horseshoes, close doesn’t count.
Nonsense. Two votes is just not that hard to get and it’s easier to get than say five votes or ten. Ultimately, the Democrats didn’t have anything to offer.
Two votes is just not that hard to get
You must be joking. McConnell made it clear that any GOP Senator who voted to end important filibusters would lose their committee assignments, and would see NRSC support for a primary challenge. There was literally nothing Obama could have done to get two GOP votes for Obamacare, or anything else of significance, after February, 2009.
Yes because no president has ever had to deal with a congress that wasn’t completely and totally controlled by his own party. To expect Obama to actually deal with people he disagrees with is to hold him to a standard no other president as ever been held to.
No president has faced as many filibusters as Obama. Johnson didn’t have a filibuster-proof majority when he passed Medicare, and no one thought he needed one — filibustering that sort of law just wasn’t done. Now it is.
But what about the way the Democrats treated Bush? Why can’t Republicans do the same things Democrats do? QQ
It’s called governing. You make deals with the other guys to lure 1 or 2 over to your side. You treat the other side like legitimate members of the democratic system and not “the enemy”. That’s what every person who ever held that office has had to do. It’s just not something Obama is capable of.
But what about the way the Democrats treated Bush?
Bush was filibustered more than Clinton, and Obama’s been filibustered more than Bush. Both parties are responsible for the increasing dysfunction of the Senate.
You make deals with the other guys to lure 1 or 2 over to your side
Obama did that for the stimulus bill (he made it smaller to appease Olympia Snowe, and put in cancer research money to get Specter). But after that there was nothing he could do — McConnell was determined to make Obama policies unpopular by presenting a united GOP front of disapproval. There was nothing Obama could offer GOP senators to compete with what McConnell could do to punish them for breaking ranks.
The stimulus was a bad bill, Obama should have tried writing good legislation instead of bribery.
The recession ended a few months into Obama’s term. The recovery is still taking place and is the worst performance of any President in history.
The same Al Franken that in all likelihood won because of vote fraud?
No, even though the margin of victory was tiny, it was larger than the number of illegally cast ballots (not all of which went to Franken, of course).
But the Franken race does show how tenuous Obama’s power was. If a few hundred votes had gone the other way in MN, we wouldn’t have Obamacare. Of course if a few hundred votes in FL had gone the other way in 2000, we wouldn’t have had the Iraq war.
Who knows what shenanigans Gore would have been up to, perhaps war with China due to misteps in handling the hostages they took. We could have entered a depression with the disasterous way he handled the dot com bubble burst instead of a recession and rapid recovery.
We know Gore would have been a multi billionaire by the time he was out of office by steering government money to companies he has a financial interest in.
p.s. Obama never had a “Veto proof Majority in the House”, something that doesn’t even make sense (why would he want the ability to override his own veto!?!).
Because, Jim, whatever you do will break someone’s bowl. Any vote will see 10 to 20 percent of your party “vote the wrong way”. If you have a Veto Proof Majority, as the Democrats did, then you don’t need to log-roll and various other means of bribe to get a working majority. You just vote, and win. And really, thanks for proving my point Jim. A competent President would have had his goals ready for when Kennedy and Byrd were able to cast votes. Like they couldn’t handle the ten minutes it would have taken……..
Like:
“Energy Bill’s up. Vote to suspend reading of all bills this session – passes. Vote to pass special rules … passes. Vote to close debate – done. Vote … passes. Now Amnesty. Vote to close debate – done. Vote … passes. LOST treaty …. debate -done … passes. Assault weapon ban … debate closed … passes. Health Care overhaul – debate closed … passes.”
“Barbara, you can stop holding Kennedy’s finger on the button.”
They had the votes to pass all of this stuff -initially-. Before Al Franken was even in there. The R-side was focused on who-can-cave-the-most. Several of these items were considered “done deals”.
Except some farking morons decided that nothing could be worked on other than healthcare. And then proceeded to start wedging every iota of pork and poison into the bill humanly imaginable. Which took time. And got -other- Senators irked “Hey, this upstart got crap in there, I need special pork too!” And the clock is ticking while people outside of Washington are noticing “Hey, that’s moronic.”
They had the votes to pass all of this stuff -initially-. Before Al Franken was even in there.
No, they didn’t. 59 votes is not 60, and it takes 60 to make anything happen in the Senate.
And then proceeded to start wedging every iota of pork and poison into the bill humanly imaginable. Which took time.
Which refutes your point. Those 60 votes weren’t automatic — every one of those 60 Senators had the power to kill every bill that came up, and they used that leverage to shape the bills to their liking. That’s how our system of government is supposed to work.
Like they couldn’t handle the ten minutes it would have taken……..
Read up some on the current rules of the Senate. Even when you have 60 votes it takes days to move a bill forward. You have to file for cloture, wait for it to “ripen”, take a vote, etc. At any point the objection of a single Senator can slow things down further. After the 2008 elections Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) circulated a memo to his fellow Republicans to remind them of all the procedure tools that can be used to slow down the majority party in the Senate. The GOP minority took full advantage of those tools.
To put it another way: what President passed more major legislation in his first two years than Obama?
Well Jim, who put the current rules of the Senate in place? Why, the Democrats. They have shown no shame about changing those rules, why should we pity them now? Again, Obama had everything going for him, and the only “major” legislation he “got passed” was a trillion dollar payoff and a stunningly incompetent insurance “reform”. This is pathetic, given the endless whining by you and yours over BushHitler who was Unstoppable! because he had a one vote majority in the Senate…….
To put it another way: what President passed more major legislation in his first two years than Obama?
What president didn’t? I think William Harrison and James Garfield.
Well Jim, who put the current rules of the Senate in place? Why, the Democrats.
No, the Senate rules were created by both parties.
They have shown no shame about changing those rules
They have shown too much shame. They could have abolished the filibuster, but too many Democratic Senators like knowing that they’ll be able to bring GOP initiatives to a halt the next time the Dems are in the minority.
the only “major” legislation he “got passed” was a trillion dollar payoff and a stunningly incompetent insurance “reform”.
Those two are huge, but you’re forgetting student loan reform, equal pay, ending DADT, ratifying New START, financial system reform, etc.
Indeed. A minority of 34% in each house is all that’s needed to prevent override of a Presidential veto.
Maybe the average American is starting to see Obama as a bit of a drama queen and unwilling to accept his rhetoric at face value. I think the whole sequester event has hurt his credibility. He is certainly capable of rebuilding that credibility quickly, but the timing of the gun control dialog was definitely harmed coming right after the sequester dialog.
In a related note, Obama wants banks to make home loans to people with poor credit.
Some people rave about how smart Obama is but this proves he’s a moron. Intelligence requires the ability to learn from experience. We have amble experience what happens when banks are forced to give loans to people who have bad track records at paying off their debts, but Obama is too stupid to learn from that experience.
I wouldn’t say that Obama is stupid, rather that he’s playing populist games. This will be rejected, then it’ll become a talking point – “Republicans took your house away.” No consideration will be given to the idea that maybe those people shouldn’t have that home loan in the first place.
And they did it out of racism or hatred of X group where Xbis whomever the President is speaking to that day.
There are a number of reason why he’s losing on the gun issue.
People tend not to trust statements like, “…we’ll protect you…”, right after hearing, “…well we have to pass it to find out what’s in it…”, and then they pass it, even though a majority of people didn’t want it.
People are a little suspicious of a ‘government’ [read that as Congress and Executive Branch] that questions the intentions of it’s veterans, but signs the praises of the PLO and Muslim Brotherhood.
The people, or at least many of the people, can read history and see where disarming the populace got that populace before.
Last and most importantly, AMERICANS have a gun history. Even many of the hard core Left will tell you they had a grandfather, uncle, cousin, neighbor who had guns. Even if that person ONLY got them out for deer, duck or small fur bearing animal hunting. And try as they might, they can’t bring themselves to imagine Grampy, Uncle Dave or Old Mr. Thomlinson their 5th grade teacher, shooting up the mall. So when they hear that ALL guns and ALL gun owners are dangerous, it’s a truth they just can’t buy into fully. And given some of the craziness we hear daily, I think the Left is losing the argument, not just the President.
On that last note, my buddy who works in a local gun shop says they are getting lots of walk ins who want to know if there’s a way to buy a gun, but keep their name out of it, because they belong to an anti-gun group, but they’re afraid the group will find out. Some of them are undoubtedly phishing for gun owners doing short cuts. [because everyone will chance going to prison for 20 years and loss of a million dollar business to sell a $300 firearm!]
But the obvious also crops in. Some of the hard core anti-gun Left is moving Right, because they are seeing and hearing how rabid their anti-gun brethren are becoming. I know at least one who wonders what they’ll go after, once they’ve taken the guns.
She asked if I’d ‘loan’ her a gun, because she doesn’t want HER name on a list of gun owners. Given my buddy’s experience over the last few months and mine now, I wonder just how many in the rank and file are only giving lip service to the anti-gun idiocy.
“. . . [Il Dufe is] a political incompetent, with no discernible skills at anything other than winning elections. Ultimately, that may be the only thing that saves us from his destructive agenda.”
“Do not listen to the lies of the pro-freedom Satan! Obama is the most competent president since Bill Pullman! And he’s a more skilled skeet-shooter than Bill Pullman! He even tells a better joke than Bill Pullman!”
–Baghdad Jim
You know, all during the Obamacare debate, I kept seeing these “Obamacare is dead” articles. Then Obamacare passed. I then heard how Obamacare was unconstitutional. Then the Supreme Court said it was constitutional.
This President seems to get a fair amount of legislation passed. More to the point, no legislation has actually even been written yet. Not only is the fat lady not warming up, she’s not even in the building yet.
Fans of Admiral Gerrib can read more of his incisive, logically-argued opinions in his new collection of essays, LIBERTY–IT’S A TRAP!
You must be real proud of the manner and methods used to pass Obamacare. What type of shenanigans will be used to get a gun ban through congress?
What type of shenanigans The same sort of routine deals and compromises used to pass Obamacare or just about any other bill. Deals and compromises are not dirty words.
Criticism of the Dear Leader, or of the Democrat-Farmer-Labor-Intellectual-Community Organizer Party, be raciss.