Decision ‘08

Did Pinocchio’s Nose Grow Because He Was ‘Inartful’?

Oh, dear, me…we appear to have a pattern here.

“I support the FISA bill except for that terrible bit about retroactive telecom immunity that unfortunately is in the bill I support - only I don’t support that part of the bill, and I promise to filibuster this bill while campaigning for the Democratic nomination, and not a moment longer.”

“I support invoking the six-month opt-out clause from NAFTA, except (wink, wink) I don’t really intend to do it, I just support the concept of doing it, as opposed to the actual execution”.

“I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”*

Except - surprise! I didn’t REALLY mean it - not when I can raise so much dang money! Whooo, hooo….

And now -

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, “Court to Hear Gun Case,” the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote “. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’”

Inartful? INARTFUL?

Ay, caramba…I said this blog wasn’t going to turn into a “slam Obama” blog, and I meant it…but this is getting to be ridiculous…let’s return to Obama’s ‘position’ and do a little parsing:

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls “common sense laws.”

Hmmm…well, I’m going to proceed from the premise that words have meaning, something that’s a bit dangerous to do with Obama, apparently…so let’s see if we can figure out what his words mean. I think a fair reading would be, “While I GENERALLY support the 2nd Amendment, I do not believe that it is absolutely meant to be followed at all times, even though it’s in the Constitution, which is the ultimate law in America. I furthermore believe that local communities are free to ignore the Constitution when it defies ‘common sense’.”

Now, since the context was the D.C. handgun law, which community and which common-sense law would you gather he was referring to?…

*actual Obama quote

UPDATE 9:35 p.m.: More from Ben Smith of The Politico, who notes that Obama declined to deny he thought the ban was constitutional under direct questioning…

UPDATE 9:49 p.m.: Reading the quote provided by Smith (see above link), it’s even worse than I thought:

I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people – law-abiding citizens use if for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets, we are going to trace more effectively, how these guns are ending up on the streets, to unscrupulous gun dealers, who often times are selling to straw purchasers. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. Those are all approaches that I think the average gun owner would actually support.

Sure, Barack, I’m with you - let’s stop the ILLEGAL handgun usage. And here’s an idea on how to do it - let’s enforce the laws that make it illegal! But the DC bill was not aimed at otherwise “illegal” usage or any of the supposed loopholes Obama refers to - it banned all ownership of handguns, period.

Now, personally, I HATE guns. Hate ‘em, hate ‘em, hate ‘em…I don’t like hunting, I don’t like having them around me, and I’m certainly not the typical Texan when it comes to gun culture. But this is not about guns, per se - it’s about a politician once again trying to weasel out of the implications of his statements…and it’s getting to be a daily thing with this campaign…

UPDATE 10:08 p.m.: Another thought occurs to me - I don’t want ‘artful’ responses from politicians - leave that to the novelists. I want a straight answer…

UPDATE 10:12 p.m.: Alright, another one - Kenneth Vogel of The Politico, again:

Barack Obama has crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. But since securing the Democratic presidential nomination, when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric.

Faced with tough choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to take bold stands and make striking departures from customary politics. Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes that will ensure his campaign a cash edge and minimize damaging blowback on several highly sensitive issues.

12 Responses to “Did Pinocchio’s Nose Grow Because He Was ‘Inartful’?”

1 Chris J. Breisch Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 7:28 am
John McCain now has another weapon in his arsenal.

On John McCain’s side:
* Energy Independence (not that he’s a knight in shining armor here, by any means, but Obama’s positions are held by only a very small minority of Americans)
* Earmarks and Government Waste (ok, let’s face it, earmarks are nowhere near as bad as entitlement programs, but they make for better TV, and people are tired of hearing about “bridges to nowhere”–McCain is a knight in shining armor on this one)
* Guns (the fact that Obama could not make a statement of unequivocal support of the Heller decision should strike terror into the hearts of any gun owner or someone that wants to own a gun, or frankly, anyone who believes in the Bill of Rights)
* Supreme Court Justices (obviously, this is important to either base, BUT, this might finally be something that McCain can use to energize the conservative base, without whom he has no shot. Yes, I know that with a Democrat controlled Senate McCain will not be able to nominate a Scalia or Roberts or Thomas, but at least anybody he appoints will have to be more appealing to conservatives than a Ginsburg or Breyer)
* Obama’s “positions of convenience” as you’ve noted above.

McCain needs to hammer on at least two of these points in every speech he gives between now and election day, no matter what the main thrust of the speech is.
2 Ryan Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Yeah, this particular Obama supporter is starting to feel a little dispirited. He needs to right the ship fast before I turn cynical again.
3 mikebdot Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
You should get some more sleep after being sick. It’s clouded your brain.

Did Obama lie about anything here? Why the reference to Pinocchio? Has he changed his views on the gun control matter?

I’m sick of this “gotcha” politics crap, regardless of how many in the media believe it made Tim Russert some sort of saint. blech
4 too many steves Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I think this owes to Obama’s (relative) inexperience in the hot lights of a national campaign and to his need during the primaries to find some way to differentiate himself from his competitors among the Democrats.

Many voters, especially the core supporters, will understand these incidents in that context and give him a pass. His biggest risk is among swing voters (independents), but only if these sorts of things continue to occur.

I’ve said many times that I won’t vote for him, but I respect his abilities as a campaigner enough to believe he will recover from this latest series of missteps. Also, while watching a McCain piece on one of the channels last night I had a strange feeling of deja-vu in that he reminded me of Dole: good guy, good(ish) message, earnest, well-motivated, but, ugh, uninspiring!
5 mikebdot Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
tms: he’s even taken to referring to himself in the third person on occasion…
6 Strongbow Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
The other day, when Obama flip-flopped on accepting public financing for his campaign, the centrist Mort Kondracke was moved to exclaim about St. Barack: “Liar, liar, pants on fire!”

Thus is it always with the man who hasn’t much of a resume. But he’s got that audacious hoping for change thing going, so who are we to question his ~~lies~~ “inartful” statements?
7 peter Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I don’t think it’s anything more than a Presidential candidate moving towards the center after the primaries. Clinton did it in 1992, Bush did it in 2000, and both McCain and Obama are both doing it now. The best thing which could happen to Obama is to be attacked by kos and its ilk — it would defuse McCain’s ability to portray him as a hard core leftist. Of course, one man’s wiggle room is another man’s flip flop. Still, I don’t see this as anything more than what happens every four years.
8 Ryan Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
The best thing that could happen to him politically would be pissing off kos. The worst thing that could happen to the country would be for him to start saying and doing the sorts of things that piss off kos. His capitulation on FISA is disturbing to say the least.
9 peter Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Ed Koch said something like this: if there are twelve big issues and you only agree with me on six of them, you shouldn’t vote for me. If you agree with me on nine issues, I should get your vote. If you agree with me on all twelve, then you should see a shrink.

I don’t agree with Obama on everything, but I have his bumper sticker on my car because (among other reasons) I agree with him much more often than the other guy.
10 Ryan Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Peter, I think you’re right. As I calm down, I realize more and more than I was freaking out over nothing.

One, he’s still got my back on the war, energy, climate change, and health care. Those issues matter more than most anything else, and he’s still hands down better than McCain. On health care, in fact, he’s still among the very best when it comes to national politicians. That’s no small thing.

Second, I need to stop listening to Republicans. I’m watching David Gregory’s show and one of his panelists points out that Republicans aren’t really angry that Obama’s a real politician - they’re angry that he might be better at it than their guys. George Bush and John McCain have made their careers out of lying through their teeth and hoping Americans are too stupid to know better. Now they’re furious to find out that Obama can play some hardball. Good on him.
11 Mark Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Mike, he lied about FISA (he didn’t filibuster), he lied about NAFTA (he swung left for the primaries, but had no intent of following through), and he most definitely lied about campaign finance reform, an issue that lay at the very heart of his entire campaign rationale…and you ask me why the Pinocchio reference?

And it’s not ‘gotcha’ politics to point out inconsistencies, obfuscations, and lies - it’s called actively paying attention when you’re getting sold snake oil…

Ryan, I have to laugh at your assertions sometimes - at least I backed up my post with numerous sources, and I notice no one disputed the substance of what I posted on, just my characterization of Obama…but for you to say John McCain made his career out of lying through his teeth and hoping Americans are too stupid to know better - what on earth? An Obama supporter has a helluva nerve making that charge, after what he just pulled with campaign finance and the supposed “people power” he serves…

John McCain may not be the best candidate for President, and he may not get your vote, but he made his career on (a) an outstanding record of public service, including time spent as a POW who chose to stay put in the Hanoi Hilton rather than give propaganda points to the Vietcong soldiers torturing him, and (b) his reputation as a straight shooter - the EXACT OPPOSITE of your baseless charge.

Has McCain also lied, obfuscated, and been inconsistent from time to time? He’s a politician, ain’t he? But he’s hardly ‘built his career’ on it…
12 Mark Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Peter - moving to the center is one thing (please, God, let him move to the center) - but trying to be all things to all people, or answering the same question differently depending on your audience - that’s not moving to the center, that’s opportunism…