… a candidate for president that has his own dirigible.  Fred needs his own dirigible, if you ask me.  Preferably one with this message.
Category: 2008 Election
NRA Gets Involved in Dem Primary
Well, it’s not an endorsement, but the NRA appears to be preparing to do a mailing for Bill Richardson. Good! Richardson is the only Democrat in this race who has done good things for us. I doubt this will push him over the top, but I think Richardson has, so far, been running a brilliant campaign for Vice President.
“Facts are Stubborn Things”
Yes, Mitt, they are.
As you know, Mitt got caught lying about being a “lifelong hunter” and winning the NRA’s endorsement. However, for those of you who are just following the gun news, there are a few new nuggets to add to his collection of stories that the NYT says have showed his talent for being “prone to exaggeration.” Well, when he made his big religion speech, he claimed that he saw his father march with Martin Luther King. A little research proves it never happened, and well, you just have to watch how he pulls a Clinton trick out from his ass.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up60e-ygalU[/youtube]
The NYT even caught him in Iowa, and he now blames journalists for their ignorant reporting on his claims on getting tough on drugs.
On Thursday, for instance, at a campaign stop in Indianola, he ran into trouble when talking about his record on illegal drugs while governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Romney had been airing ads in Iowa attacking his rival, Mike Huckabee, for his record on clemencies while governor of Arkansas and for reducing penalties for methamphetamine-related crimes.
“I’m very proud of the fact that we, my state, when I was governor, we made it tougher for people with meth labs,†he said, echoing his commercial in which he claimed that he “got tough on drugs like meth†in the governor’s office.
“We cracked down on crime and on meth in particular,†Mr. Romney added. “It’s a very important topic. I want to make sure we do everything we can to keep our kids off of this terrible, pernicious, captivating drug.†…
Mr. Romney’s office proposed legislation that would have toughened penalties on those in possession of the drug and chemicals to manufacture it, but the bill stalled in the state legislature.
After The New York Times pointed out Mr. Romney’s misstatement in a posting on its politics blog, he made sure to correct himself before taking questions from reporters at his next campaign stop here.
“If I said this morning that we ‘got tough’ on methamphetamines, I proposed we get tough on methamphetamine and I’ve corrected that right here for all of you,†he said. “You don’t need to make any error of reporting that somehow Governor Romney actually got it done.â€
You see, if you interpreted his statement that “when I was governor, we made it tougher for people with meth labs” to mean anything other than “when I was governor, we thought about making it tougher for people with meth labs,” then Mitt wants you to know that it’s an error in your judgment.
You can see that if Romney is elected, we get to go back to the good old days of debating what the word “is” means, along with a very public debate on reasonable interpretations of common phrases. You’ll sleep better at night knowing that your tax dollars are funding some recent college grad to look through every copy of every dictionary in every language to find obscure interpretations of words like “saw” and “endorsement.” Who doesn’t look forward to those important debates?
Late to the Party, and Not Right to Boot
[ Bitter and I were talking about this last night, and I decided she had a lot more to rant about than I did, so I asked her to put it all down, and I’m thus posting it here. – Sebastian]
Facts, timeliness, context, facts – those are things best left to others when sending out ALERTS!
Oregon Firearms Federation posted this alert yesterday about an endorsement announcement that’s weeks old. David Keene endorsed Mitt Romney. Woo-freakin-hoo. Who is David Keene, you ask? According to OFF, the major news about Keene is:
That’s bad enough, but now a prominent NRA board member has endorsed an openly anti-gun candidate for president. NRA Board member and second vice president David Keene has endorsed Mitt Romney in spite of Romney’s repeated attacks on gun owners and his promise to do so again if elected.
As Governor of Massachusetts Romney supported and signed a ban on semi-auto firearms. …
David Keene, according to NewsMax, will automatically become president of the NRA in three and a half years.
So, before I dig into every bit of news that’s wrong in this alert, how about we look at who Keene really is in the context of Republican politics:
David A. Keene Has Been The Chairman Of The American Conservative Union Since December 1984. Keene, a major national conservative spokesman since the seventies, has worked in the White House and the Senate, writes a weekly opinion column for The Hill and his articles have appeared in National Review, Human Events and the American Spectator. He has held senior positions in the past presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and former Kansas Senator Bob Dole.
Context of Keene’s background and his role in a Republican primary paints a different picture, now doesn’t it?
Now, factual problems. As you all know from my blog, I hate Mitt. I am the last person who will get up and say something nice about Romney because I actually lived under his rule in Massachusetts and wouldn’t wish it upon anyone in this country – not even the Massachusetts residents I was so happy to leave behind. However, as I’ve beat my head against the wall trying to tell you people for years, Mitt did not sign any assault weapons ban or even a provision to make it permanent. If anyone was in Massachusetts at the time analyzing the current (at the time) law and the bill (as it passed the House and Senate), they would clearly see that the state law had no sunset clause to begin with. (NOTE: His statements at the presser/signing ceremony should still damn him when it comes to gun owners, but the bill he signed should not.)
Perhaps the most important problem that I have with groups like this that look for any reason at all to attack NRA is that they don’t actually know jack about NRA. For example, no one automatically becomes president of NRA. There’s this pesky little thing called an election. The Board of Directors votes for the officers. Tradition dictates that they serve two years in each position and move up. So by traditional standards, Keene will become president. However, tradition has been bucked before and it easily could in the future.
Maybe OFF leaders have an unusually short memory, but there was that whole Charlton Heston dude. You know, the one who did the dead hands thing? Or maybe you remember him as freakin’ Moses? Yeah, he served for an unprecedented number of terms. He even “jumped” in line, so to speak. And there’s always the possibility that the board members decide that Ron Schmeits shouldn’t be trusted in their minds after running to the WaPo with stories about how other forces can further divide the gun movement on outdoor issues to vote Keene straight to the top after Sigler’s reign. (NOTE: I’m not saying this would happen, just throwing out hypothetical based on any number of reasons – real or imagined.) Point being, it’s patently lying to say that the direction of NRA’s leadership is 100% secure. What it all comes down to are who the members vote on to the Board of Directors. As members, people can change the direction and make up of the Board.
However, the root of the problem with this alert that really gets things wrong is that Keene’s personal endorsement means a damn thing regarding current legislation and/or the presidential primary vote for NRA members. NRA volunteer leaders who in no way represent the organization’s stated positions are allowed to make their own endorsements. There are former staffers working for McCain. There are folks volunteering for Giuliani. There are people volunteering for Fred. Sometimes they make these endorsements based on the gun issue, but more often than not, they are already politically active on other issues and sometimes it’s the entire package they look at to select their candidate.
The best part is that if NRA didn’t allow their volunteers this freedom to support whoever they wish based on any number of personal issues important to them, then groups like OFF would continue to bitch. Really, it just goes to show that ALERTS like these are nothing more than mud slinging for the sake of getting dirty.
To close this already insane long post, anyone who is concerned about how Keene’s personal endorsement might be misconstrued by the campaign or mainstream media to constitute an NRA endorsement should note the campaign release. I noticed something immediately. Go take a look. I’ll wait…
Done reading? Good. Did you see what I didn’t? That’s right, Keene did not allow Mitt to even mention his background with the NRA. David Keene is a smart man, and he knows conservative politics. He knows what even a mention of NRA next to Mitt’s name would cause, and that’s why he isn’t letting them talk about it or talking about it himself. For that, I applaud him. And Keene has my endorsement the next time he’s up for the Board.
The Paul Problem
Club for Growth’s President Pat Toomey has a pretty good bit that strikes some chords with me on Ron Paul:
“Ron Paul’s record contains some very laudable components,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “On taxes, regulation, and political speech, his record is superb. His spending record is impressive, though Paul has recently embraced pork-barrel projects in direct contradiction to his vociferous opposition to unconstitutional appropriations by the federal government.”
Unfortunately, his stubborn idealism often takes Ron Paul further away from achieving the limited-government, pro-growth philosophy he advocates. This is certainly the case with school choice, free trade, tort reform, and entitlement reform, in which he votes against vital free trade agreements, competitive school choice initiatives, and tort reform proposals.
“While we give Ron Paul credit for his philosophical ideals, politicians have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul votes against making progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect,” Mr. Toomey continued. “In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation. Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited-government policies, but his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.”
Pat Toomey is the man the Pennsylvania GOP threw under the bus to save Arlen Specter (the wisdom of which I question almost every day). Pat understands politics is not a game of principle, but a horse trading game, the key being always making sure you’re getting a better horse than you had before. Ron Paul is holding out for the winning thoroughbred, which though admirable, isn’t likely to help much when you’re riding a mule.
UPDATE: War on Guns has a different take on it:
I guess if you allow the Club for Growth to be the arbiter of what is “good,” they might have a point. But if “good” is defined as allowing government to assume undelegated powers just because they’re doing your bidding, it should be obvious to all what a dangerous and destructive path that is. How much more evidence–aside from the sorry mess we’re in now–do we need?
Given the Club for Growth praised Ron Paul’s impressive record in many areas, I didn’t really take their report to be a huge ding against him. As I said, I admire Ron Paul’s dedication to his principles and the constitution, but the politicians people keep voting to send to Washington have created a political culture where people like Paul are marginalized. I’m an advocate of working within that system the voters in this country have given us, to move to a more classical liberal order, but that’s not to say I like having to do things that way.
Quote of the Day
Just as the President said, he would have, he would have signed [the assault weapons ban] if it came to his desk, and so would have I.- Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney on Meet the Press 12/16/2007
I will not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstance. If the choice is between Mitt and Hillary, I stay home. We must defeat Mitt in the Primary. It’s an imperative. Scroll down on this post to the part titled “On Gun Control.” Mitt was singing a different tune in October. I’m guessing these latest shootings have made him think that it’s better for him to support a new assault weapons ban.
Folks, this guy has to be stopped. He’s truly a weasel and no friend of honest gun owners. He will turn on us in a minute if the polls tell him he should. I urge everyone to get behind a real friend like Fred Thompson or Ron Paul.
UPDATE: He’s also bragging about an NRA endorsement he never received.
UPDATE: Bruce has more.
Fred’s Zinger
“My goal is to get to Mitt Romney’s situation where I don’t have to worry about taxes anymore.”
Mitt responds, by saying he’d like to be in Thompson’s situation.
“Well you’re getting to be a pretty good actor actually,” Thompson quips
How is this guy not doing better?
Quote of the Day
If I was Brady Campaign, and had any hair, I’d be pulling it out just now.
Dave Hardy updates on Obama’s retreat from earlier positions on gun control, in response to Hillary trying to out gun nut him.
This Old Hag
It looks like Bob Vila is shilling for Hillary in Iowa.
You’ve Got to be Kidding?
Hillary attacking Obama because he’s unelectable on guns would be like if Joe Stalin argued that Hitler was unelectable because he’s “Just not a people person like me.”
Dave Hardy says: “Two candidates with an “F” rating on an issue, fighting out which of them is more un-electable on it.”
Wait a minute, I could swear last week she was criticizing Obama for dodging votes on important gun control bills.
Mrs Clinton sneered at Mr Obama for dodging difficult votes on abortion and gun control when he was a state senator and mocked him for a lack of experience and over-reaching ambition.
Obama has an over-reaching ambition? I’d say Obama’s ambition can be measured in kilometers in terms of how far it overreaches. We’d have to get to parsecs before we could measure Hillary’s overreaching ambition.