Politico: Why Won’t You Republicans Give Obama His Bipartisan Moment And Pass Gun Control?
And probably other highly partisan legislation Mr. Obama has recommended?
(Politico) A few hours after the deadly Boston Marathon attack, President Barack Obama made an extraordinary, if understated statement: politicians should suspend their state of perpetual conflict to unite against an unknown and deadly new national threat.
“I’ve updated leaders of Congress in both parties, and we reaffirmed that on days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats – we are Americans, united in concern for our fellow citizens,” Obama told reporters on Monday just after twin blasts ripped through a festive crowd in Boston, killing three and grievously wounding over a hundred others.
Well, we do not exactly know what this deadly new national threat is, because it’s “unknown”. No one has taken credit and there have been no follow up attacks. And if it ends up being linked to an Islamist group, that wouldn’t be new. Oh, and let’s not forget that Democrats haven’t really taken the threat from them seriously in a decade.
It was a subtle but unmistakable admission of just how much things have changed since George W. Bush grabbed a bullhorn, earning the tearful admiration of liberals and conservatives alike, as he stood atop the smoldering ruins of Ground Zero.
With all due respect to those killed or injured in Boston, and their families and friends, there is a difference in which 2,996 people were killed, the Twin Towers were knocked down, the Pentagon hit, and 4 planes had been hijacked, and no one really new what was going on or how many were actually dead for a few days. Oh, and let’s not forget Obama was calling for “understanding” and that there was a “lack of empathy” with the attackers on the part of the United States just a few days after 9/11.
Now, despite Obama’s wishes, battle-weary Democrats and Republicans fear just the opposite will happen this time: whatever turn the investigation in Boston takes – whether the killer or killers was foreign terrorist or home-grown murderer – the long-term result is likely to foster a new cycle of finger-pointing, recrimination and political positioning.
Democrats, including Obama, have no one to blame but themselves. Their “good will” towards President Bush lasted only so long before they started attacking him mercilessly. And let’s also not forget that a good chunk of the Democrat voting base were part of the Truther movement, believing Bush either let 9/11 happen or made it happen. They made the post-9/11 era highly partisan and personal. Anyhow, here we go
In fact, one senior Democrat predicted that the most likely political consequence was that some senators would use the attack “as cover” to oppose the bipartisan compromise on guns inching its way through the upper chamber. White House officials, this Democrat said, had no expectation that the Boston attacks would create an “era of good feeling.”
So, Democrats would considering it a post-Boston bipartisan moment if Republicans would roll over and vote for the background checks bill that wouldn’t have stopped most of the mass shooting events, if any. And it’s probably implied that Republicans should vote for the rest of Obama’s agenda in that “bipartisan spirit”.
Let’s also not forget, as the Politico points out deep in the article, that Democrats immediately attacked Republicans in saying that this was a result of Sequestration, for talking about cutting government, elected Dems such as Barney Frank, and also were immediately jumping to attempting to blame people or groups on the Right for this attack. It’s amazing: Republicans immediately think about external threats such as Islamists, and Democrats immediately look to blame their fellow Americans who have different political views. What we can expect once we know what the attack was about:
- If it was an Islamist, Dems will immediately proclaim that the person(s) was a lone wolf and not representative or part of the Islamic world in the least, and if you try to link the even to Islamic terrorism, Sharia law, etc, well, you’re an Islamophobe. They’ll also say that we should have more spending and federal government because of this 1 off incident.
- If it was a domestic plot, they will immediately look to portray the person(s) as far right, and will keep that narrative up despite any evidence to the contrary, and will make this about the Conservative movement/Republican Party as a whole, demonizing all, attempting to destroy all on the Right, despite Conservatives disowning these fringe groups. Oh, and call for more government and spending and liberty restrictions.
- If the person is easily known as a liberal (Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Black Bloc, some environmentalist, etc, groups that Liberals rarely disown), the media will either completely downplay the link and still find a way to blame Republicans or let the story quietly die out while also mentioning that this was an aberration and means we need X (gun control, more spending, bigger government, higher taxes, etc).
But, don’t forget to give Obama his bipartisan moment, because he has done so much during his time in office to….well, demonize and slam anyone who doesn’t agree with him.
The latest feminist obsession with rape has reached the point where false accusations are now being thrown around loosely. It has resulted in a negative stigma toward men on college campuses, and...Read More
It’d be great if this ended up being played on all the TV stations nationwide, particularly right before the news
Over at Forbes, Brian Wingfield writes about something I noticed yesterday, as well, while listening to the Jason Schnitt Show
These days, I’m not so sure that it’s a BAD thing to be a target of the White House –