This is annoying me, so I’ll copy over what I posted an hour ago on another thread (it pretty much decodes the president’s language)...
Please allow me to indulge myself, as I parse-out this article
President Obama is suggesting that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor listen to the American public on the issue.
This president has NEVER been interested in the opinions of Republicans, so why should Republicans believe him this time. They know its a trap and they know that if the president can separate them from their pro-gun voters, the Republican Party ends that day (at least with Amnesty, it will take a decade or two before the demographics wipe out conservatism). As to the American public, I think there are enough differing polls around so that everyone can make the claim that they are listening. And one other thing, the Republicans in the Congress were NOT elected to listen to the American public, they were elected to listen to their own districts, many of which are VERY CLEAR as to which side of this issue they support.
The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what theyre really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies, the president said in an interview with The New Republic.
Yes, much of the Republican majority is in safe districts, and much of that is due to the 1964 Civil Rights Act that packed blacks into highly concentrated districts so that blacks would get elected to Congress. If there president wants to open up that issue, he is more than welcome to, but he better be ready for really LOUD yelling, at it wont be from our side.
Obama also said he can get 50 percent of public support for many of his upcoming initiatives, but I cant get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed.
Easy solution. Pass a Constitutional Amendment that allows a direct public vote on issue, like Switzerland does. Of course passing such an amendment wont be easy, and other issues, like Health Care and Welfare Spending, might also be put up for a public vote. But, for now, you are STUCK with our system, like it or not. You are a Constitutional Scholar, you should know and accept the rules by now.
I think there is still shock on the part of some in the party that I won re-election.
Its probably best for me not to comment when the president plays the race card, so I wont comment here.
The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations.
So do most Americans. But most Americans also have a profound respect for the Constitution. Note how he omits ANY MENTION of that little detail in these discussions. It is not an accident.
He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.
Then I suggest that you try to apply the lessons from rural areas to urban areas. This would include cracking down on corruption and cronyism and having a court system that is colorblind, rather than having judges (as in New Orleans) simply state that they will not put people of a certain race behind bars, regardless of the crime. Please Mr. President, crime is not a major problem, once you get out of the cities - so how about you try to learn from us, for once.
He said its understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so gun-control advocates also need to do a little more listening than they do sometimes in the debate.
The hunting part is a crock, but hes signalling to EVERYONE that Feinsteins Gun Grab is DOA. Because if it had a chance, he would NEVER say anything about telling his side that they have to calm down. Never. This is GREAT NEWS for us. Its game over on her gun grab, but bad things can still happen.
Obama also said one of the biggest factors in the gun-control debate will be how it is shaped by the media.
That is a message to get on board and stop allowing this to be a fair debate. The media should not be SHAPING anything in the news, they should be reporting on it, and giving both sides. Asking them to SHAPE the news sounds an awful lot like Fascism. By the way, what he means here is that the media keeps reporting on things that dont help him, like the legal use of guns in self-defense (at least at the local level), and the problems that Senate Democrats are having in supporting the gun grab. He wants the media to ignore all that and put the heat on Republicans in whatever ways are possible. But there is only so much power that the media has with Republicans, as no doubt, virtually every Republican that votes for a gun grab will find himself up against a VERY WELL-FUNDED Primary opponent in 2014 (or whenever).
If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then youll see more of them doing it, he said.
No, it wont be Fox or Rush that punishes a Republican member of Congress for supporting a gun grab, it will be his constituents in the next Primary (i.e., the little problem we have in this country called elections), and those office holders know it. Rush can yell all he wants, but its not as easy as the president may want it to be. And by the way, there are probably TWO DOZEN or so DEMOCRATS in the House that are in exactly the same position as the Republicans, except they lose their seat in November, if they vote for a gun grab - and they know it. But youll never anything about them for two reasons...first, there is no way AT ALL they will vote for a gun grab, they didnt vote for it in 1994 and they wont in 2013, and second, it doesnt fit the Fox/Rush template of being the problem.
I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.
All of the above is probably true. You get into leadership through seniority, which means being there a long time. Being in DC a long time almost always leads to compromises and moderation. So, yes, that is the case, which is why we need some fresh blood there, and also why the president is wasting his time talking to Boener.
The president argued that the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word and that party leaders, including Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.
Again - this is the FIRST issue that Ive seen him go after Democrats on, and so it is very interesting. It seems like their base is hell-bent on all or nothing. They either get their serious gun-grab or nothing passes. And its hard to blame them, because the middle ground is simply not somewhere where they want to be - which is being blamed for what might be minor gun control moves, but not winning the big prize. And they know, for lots of them, gun control can easily drive them from office, just as it did in 1994 and just as Obamacare did in 2010 - but to many, thats ok, if the accomplishment is big enough (like Obamacare...in 1994 they had no clue what they were in for). So they are not going to take chump change to give up their seats - either they win the whole prize, or nothing.
Has Obama himself ever fired a gun? Yes, he says, he and others shoot skeet frequently at the presidents Maryland retreat, Camp David.
Scare the crap out of the migratory birds up there, why dont you. This level of sheer disrespect towards the animal kingdom simply CANNOT BE TOLERATED.
The president also said much of the challenge in Washington is to make Americans feel that national politics is indeed connected to their day-to-day realities.
You can say what you want, but that DEFINITELY is not the case with your party. Day-to-day realities say that when you are in debt you CUT SPENDING, and the entire Democrat playbook is to spend more and more, I guess with the knowledge that the country will go broke. So they could start by telling the public this.
And thats not an unjustifiable view, he said. So everything we do combines both a legislative strategy with a broad-based communications and outreach strategy to get people engaged and involved, so that its not Washington over here and the rest of America over there.
No, you DO NOT WANT that. The last thing you want are people engaged - thats one of the main reasons you just took education away from the states (i.e., Common Core Curricula). Also, your party has virtually ended Congressional town halls with your own constituents. The list goes on and on - you ONLY want engagement when it suits your agenda.
That was fun.
Great take apart on O’s comments. Thanks.