Say Anything Blog

And they use his stance on the Second Amendment to do it.

The Obama tidal wave is growing larger by the day. I’ve been asking myself just what it is this guy has, what kind of magic or charm or force of personality is causing people to flock to him the way they do. Even faint in his mighty presence, for pete’s sake. I don’t get it. I don’t think this guy is the Anti-Christ, but I don’t think he’s quite the Messiah he’s being prematurely anointed as, either.

So…what’s the deal? Why the rock star worship?

An interesting article in the Wall Street Journal may have part of the answer. He’s doing what all politicians wish they could do - he’s being all things to all people. He’s a master of the Holy Grail of the political world. He has mastered the art of Doublespeak and the article uses his statements on the Second Amendment in great illustration of this:

More important for the race ahead, Mr. Obama has the unique ability to offer doctrinaire liberal positions in a way that avoids the stridency of many recent Democratic candidates. That he managed to do this in the days before the Iowa caucuses—at a time when he might have been expected to be at his most liberal—was quite striking.

His rhetorical gimmick is simple. When he addresses a contentious issue, Mr. Obama almost always begins his answer with a respectful nod in the direction of the view he is rejecting—a line or two that suggests he understands or perhaps even sympathizes with the concerns of a conservative.

At Cornell College on Dec. 5, for example, a student asked Mr. Obama how his administration would view the Second Amendment. He replied: “There’s a Supreme Court case that’s going to be decided fairly soon about what the Second Amendment means. I taught Constitutional Law for 10 years, so I’ve got my opinion. And my opinion is that the Second Amendment is probably—it is an individual right and not just a right of the militia. That’s what I expect the Supreme Court to rule. I think that’s a fair reading of the text of the Constitution. And so I respect the right of lawful gun owners to hunt, fish, protect their families.”

Then came the pivot:

“Like all rights, though, they are constrained and bound by the needs of the community . . . So when I look at Chicago and 34 Chicago public school students gunned down in a single school year, then I don’t think the Second Amendment prohibits us from taking action and making sure that, for example, ATF can share tracing information about illegal handguns that are used on the streets and track them to the gun dealers to find out—what are you doing?”

In conclusion:

“There is a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected that is not mutually exclusive with making sure that we are shutting down gun traffic that is killing kids on our streets. The argument I have with the NRA is not whether people have the right to bear arms. The problem is they believe any constraint or regulation whatsoever is something that they have to beat back. And I don’t think that’s how most lawful firearms owners think.”

Nice flip in there, don’t you think? He just managed to tell both sides of the issue exactly what they wanted to hear in such a way that it either leaves them satisfied with his stance on the issue or walking away befuddled, not sure of what they just heard. But….they did hear their side expressed, so, just maybe…....

Read the article.