Check the facts first…

by 1115 at 7:44 am on November 24th, 2003 in Politics

You just have to love the right.

One right-wing blogger tracked back to one of Jason’s posts about the RNC. This guy must be a real prize; he even has a timer on his site counting down the seconds until the assault weapon ban expires. Sorry, we just can’t pass up the opportunity to slam people who think that the second amendment was written to give them Uzis, AK47s, rocket launchers, and Streetsweepers. How will you feel when the ban expires and someone air-conditions your head with an automatic rifle?
we’ll shed few tears. Way to misinterpret the 2nd amendment, chief.


A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of “well-regulated” is throwing you?

But back to the point.

Many people have complained that the new RNC ads try to paint the Democrats
as weak-willed and perhaps unpatriotic. Mr. Uncle disagrees, calling our
take on this issue as “scaremongering”. He says:

“The authors are intimating that the GOP is questioning patriotism of Dems (which wasn’t done); that the GOP is accusing the Dems of supporting
terrorism (not done), and the GOP is intimating that opposition to the war
is disloyalty (not done). Somehow, they see this in that sparsely quoted NYT
article.”

Well, we can’t speak for others, but we didn’t base our views simply on a single NYT article. If you do the research, you’ll find that these initial ads are only the first shot of a larger campaign undertaken with the full authority and approval of George Bush as head of the party, and carried out by RNC chairman Ed Gillespie.

The strategy will involve the dismissal of Democrats as the party of “protests, pessimism and political hate speech,” Ed Gillespie, Republican
National Committee chairman, wrote in a recent memo to party officials — a
move designed to shift attention toward Bush’s broader foreign policy
objectives rather than the accounts of bloodshed. Republicans hope to
convince voters that Democrats are too indecisive and faint-hearted — and
perhaps unpatriotic — to protect US interests, arguing that inaction during
the Clinton years led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Boston Globe 11/12/03

The ads that are running play to the fear (created by the administration) of terrorism, and continue a theme (painting Dems as weak and indecisive on foreign policy) that Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie has been pushing for a few months now on every talk show that will have him. Mr. Uncle maintains that it is an important point that it is the RNC that is running the ads and not the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. 1) we’re sure that the Prez doesn’t think the Dems are weak and indecisive and 2) Is it rocket science to understand that an incumbent President controls his party?

“Second, they will continue to pursue a weak and indecisive foreign policy. They are opposed to preemptive self-defense and prefer an aftermath policy. If we don’t wage the war on terror in Baghdad and Kabul we will be forced to fight it in Boston and Kansas City,” said Gillespie in an RNC press release on 10/24/03

We’ve been hearing this more and more lately. The fact that the press passes this on without calling bullshit is further evidence of their complacency. The enemies of this country will attack us when they want, where they want. It’s not an either/or situation. The fact that the RNC and the administration are trying to justify their mistakes with this flypaper theory is lower than low.

There’s an old saying:

“If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts. If the law is on your side, bang on the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, bang on the table.”

There has been a whole lot of table-banging going on lately. But, that’s better than psychos with assault weapons…

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Say Uncle on 24 Nov 2003 at 8:18 am

    Attack Ads Redux
    Seems someone doesn’t like my take on the RNC ads. Go here and you can read about other articles regarding the ads. They link to…

Comments

  1. SayUncle wrote:

    Speaking of facts, the second amendment reads:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Notice where the commas fall, they’re kind of important as they clearly indicate that the section from the beginning to the second comma is a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying militia. Notice also the militia is what is to be well regulated, not the right to arms. And well regulated isn’t hyphenated.

    And some more facts for ya, since you claim to be big on those: the assault weapons ban only bans features, not specific guns nor rocket launchers (the latter being regulated since the 1934 NFA). The same semiautomatic guns capable of holding 30 round magazines are still commercially available, they just can’t have flash hiders, bayonet lugs collapsable stocks, or grenade launchers (already regulated since 1934). Speaking of facts, show me why i can’t have assault weapons using constitutional scholarship and not your feelings. Oh, you can’t because it doesn’t exist. But I digress, I’m that way with facts.

    If you didn’t base it on one NYT article, then why was that what you linked to? Oh, because thats what your moveon talking points told you to do, I suppose.

    But thanks for the links to other articles. You should note that in my comments I agreed with bubba’s assessment that this is a wink wink, nudge nudge attack on the Dems but that you folks were jumping the gun a bit.

    And for the record, I’m a small l libertarian who has no intention of voting for dubya.

    Adieu.

  2. jamie wrote:

    move on?! not sure matt has ever even given a second thought to move on. maybe other lefties swear by it, but, maybe you should stick to the facts, unc, or do you at least do your research.

  3. matt wrote:

    So you take a strict constructionst interpretation of the Constitution. Way to parse it for your own views.

    Who cares what a gun is called if it shoots 50 rounds per second? What exactly do you need that for again? Or is it the good old slippery slope argument…?

    I’m not a member of moveon, and do not condone much of what they do. I don’t rely on talking points or interest group emails. The weight of the evidence shows that the RNC has been doing just what we said they have been doing. Quotes are in this post with links, look at them.

    As for jumping the gun, do we have to wait for the ads when the administration and the RNC have been using free media spouting off the same message for months now?

    You should really understand the phrase “distinction without a difference”. It works for the ads and it works for the assault weapons ban.

    Simply because you are a small l libertarian doesn’t get you off the hook. It just means you can live in fantasy land utopia and keep quiet abut your differences with the Prez (few) while he works to enact the things you want (many).

  4. SayUncle wrote:

    Who cares what a gun is called if it shoots 50 rounds per second?

    The assault ban doesn’t regulate automatic weapons. They’ve been regulated since 1934. More of those facts you’re big on.

    What exactly do you need that for again?

    It’s a bill of rights, not a bill of needs. I don’t need a house (i can have an apartment), my car (i could take public transportation), or my dogs (i don’t need pets), but i have them. They are statistically more likely to hurt someone than my AR15.

    And i love the irony: you spend a paragraph saying your not affiliated with moveon. Then try to minimize the fact that i tell you i’m not a supporter of Bush. This is pot to kettle, come in, over.

    Adieu.

  5. matt wrote:

    Interesting sleight of hand. Comparing cars and houses to assault weapons isn’t going to cut it here. I see you’ve received your NRA talking points.

    Think your AR15 can hold off the ATF in armor trucks?

    We love the irony too. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  6. SayUncle wrote:

    Then maybe i should have said: i don’t need free speech. After all, I don’t really and more people have been killed due to whackos spewing rhetoric than guns and crime.

    And i’m not a member of the NRA, so you’ve done it twice now :)

  7. matt wrote:

    Funny, I don’t recall saying anything about you being a member of the NRA. I did say that you got your talking points from them, directly or indirectly.

    I’ve done lots of things twice, but i didn’t say you were in the NRA (they probably don’t go far enough for your tastes, damn pragmatists), and i didn’t say you were a republican.

    more people have been killed due to whackos spewing rhetoric than guns and crime

    Where can I find statistics like this? Does the Cato Institute have some data?

  8. SayUncle wrote:

    You still haven’t addressed your materially false statements and keep changing the argument to a new issue, likely in an attempt to avoid admitting facts interfere with your opinion. Or you don’t even acknowledge your materially false statements. For example, you misquoted the second amendment and haven’t even acknowledged it; and you implied the ban affected automatic weapons and rocket launchers, which it doesn’t. I suppose including the commas yeilds my strict constructionst interpretation of the Constitution.

    And then accuse me of sleight of hand.

    I’ll leave you to your world of facts, ad hominem attacks, and misinformation.

    Adieu.