We're back. Let's catch up on a very newsworthy 48 hours.
NIU And Guns
First, the fatal shooting of five students at Northern Illinois University saddens us deeply. We hold the families and the community in our prayers. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/15/university.shooting/index.html
I guess it's no surprise that there hasn't been even a whisper of re-examining gun control in the wake of this latest tragedy. The NRA, backed by a multi-billion dollar firearms industry, has officially won the debate. It's not even a shock that we've heard nary a peep to shut down the website that sold the NIU shooter and the VA Tech shooter their cache of weapons; no one buys the theory that easy access to guns creates more tragic shootings. In fact, most folks have meekly accepted the NRA's rationale that you'll be safer if you own a gun. It doesn't matter that every law enforcement official in the country disagrees; their lobbyists suck. If I were a drug cartel in Colombia, I'd hire the NRA to prove that easy access to cocaine doesn't create more addicts. They're that good. So, now, the only gun debate left is whether carrying concealed weapons should be legal everywhere, such as National Parks,
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Guns-National-Parks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
or on college campuses. That's right, on college campuses. http://www.newsweek.com/id/112174http://keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=2/15/2008
Politicians understand that one side of this issue is poison. Barack Obama, a Constitutional lawyer, states flatly that he believes the Second Amendment clearly confers the right for individuals to bear arms. He knows any other position means 'adios' to those Repubs and independents he's courting. Mike Huckabee, of course, unabashedly advocates for concealed weapons. Clearly, he wants to be able to protect himself against those zealots who believe in evolution. They're a dangerous lot. All I know is that I've lived in three crime-ridden cities--NY, LA and DC--and never owned a gun. And I never had an incident where I needed one. But that's just me.
Will You Be Mine?
Valentines' Day and the Morning After created some interesting political bedfellows:
Mitt Romney kissed and made up with John McCain in a sunny endorsement that had both guys metaphorically holding their noses. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15campaign.html?ref=politics
Two large unions, The United Food and Commercial Workers and the Service Employees International Union have endorsed Barack Obama. The SEIU may be the most dynamic and politically active large union in America. Once John Edwards' ally, it will now provide Obama with a massive national organizational tool. As if he needed another one. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15obama.html?ref=politics
He loves me? He loves me not? Iconic civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) confused everyone by saying he would vote for Obama as a Super Delegate, even though he wasn't recinding his earlier endorsement of Hillary. Okaaay.
David Wilhelm, onetime campaign manager for Bill Clinton endorsed...Obama. Ouch, if you're a Hillary supporter.
And as I reported two days ago, the Governor of Puerto Rico, Aníbal Acevedo-Vilá, endorsed Obama. Double Ouch, if you're a Hillary supporter.
FISA Friction
There's no interesting way to report this. We're talking FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is the instrument by which the government can legally wiretap communications from foreign sources through this country to other sources. The goal, obviously, is to intercept messages between terrorists. That's the hope, anyway. But before the last passage of the Patriot Act, the government obtained private citizens' personal communications records from Verizon, ATT and others. Some folks thought that was taking it a bit too far. Perhaps because it was illegal. In any event, with the current statute about to lapse, the Senate passed a new version last week that granted telecomm companies immunity for complying with the government in those illegal efforts. The House rejected that portion of the bill, opting instead for an extension to work out a compromise. As he has done before, Pres. Bush pledged to veto the House version of the bill and the extension. He then demonized opponents of the Senate version for endangering the lives of Americans--even though he was rejecting the extension that would keep the current rules in place. On top of that, he knows (but the general public does not) that any surveillance order under the existing statute is legal for six months after the statute lapses. This is how you change the tone in Washington? Now, I will agree with the President that it's going to be hard to obtain cooperation from these large companies in the future if they think they're going to be sued. But there remain radical folks in this country who believe that if you break the law, you need to be accountable--even if you're a President or a huge corporation. Sheesh, some people.http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/13/fisa.bush/index.html?iref=newssearch
Speaking of Changing The Tone...
Yeah, it's getting ugly on the campaign trail. Hillary ran another ad accusing Obama of ducking a debate in Wisconsin. And her stump speech is now taking clear aim at his aspirational approach, with the new unofficial slogan "solutions not speeches". You can't blame her, of course. She's tried everything else. And to her credit, she's held off as long as she can. But now it's crunch time and highlighting the negative aspects of your opponenet is a tried and true formula. If the American people want less negative campaigning, now would be a good time to stop rewarding it. Until that happens, candidates will continue this approach. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/13/2008.hopefuls/index.html
John McCain tried to negate Obama's fundraising advantage in the general by shaming him into honoring an unofficial pledge Obama made last year to forego private campaign financing in lieu of public financing. This would limit each rival to about $85 million or so and insure a level fundraising playing field.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23187794/
The problem I see with this approach is that it will increase the involvement of the 527s, those privately funded advocacy groups who operate with little regulation. They often turn campaigns into negative slugfests. The problem Obama sees with this approach is that it takes away his huge organizational advantage. Stay tuned.
Questions: would Presidential campaigns garner more interest using less money and less negativity? More money and more negativity? More money and less negativity? More negativity and less money? Talk about this or anything else by clicking "comments", by passing the Google sign-up and hitting the 'nickname'or 'anonymous' button.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It's terrible, what keeps happening in this country on college campuses, in high schools, in malls, and in so many other places where people shouldn't have guns. I agree though, I think it's a losing battle with the NRA and the Republicans. They'll always misuse and misquote the 2nd Amendment and they've yet to listen to reasonable arguments supporting gun control. The 2nd Amendment....which says in it's very first sentence "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state". A 2nd grader can understand what that means. And a 2nd grader could understand that everybody shouldn't be allowed to carry concealed weapons into state parks and onto school campuses. I pray for those victims who had no chance and for those yet to come that have no chance for the right to safety and freedom that the constitution is supposed to give them.
Post a Comment