Well here's Willard Romney's, the presumptive nominee, record. And it is all about gun control and limitations [which I agree with].
I'm curious how the gun lovers and NRA will deal with this issue. Will they accuse Willard of "taking away our rights!" as they have knee-jerkedly accused Mr. Obama? Or will they pretend that Willard's past support of gun control and limitations doesn't matter?
Washington Post:
“He was never endorsed by the NRA, and didn't have their official support during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign... Mitt Romney as a candidate received a respectable B grade rating from the NRA, ... Romney's Democratic opponent in the governor's race, Shannon O'Brien, was given a more than respectable "A" grade by the NRA, according to its website.“The issue of guns has repeatedly dogged Romney, who as a U.S. Senate candidate in 1996 was in favor of several gun control measures.”
"We need a president who will stand up for the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and those seeking to protect their homes and their families. President Obama has not; I will," Romney said. "And if we are going to safeguard our Second Amendment, it is time to elect a president who will defend the rights President Obama ignores or minimizes. I will." --Willard (Mitt) Romney
Romney is a blatant liar on this issue. He has a record of supporting and voting for gun control and gun limits. Although PBO did support gun control and limits while an Illinois state senator, [something I agree with] he has done NOTHING to curtail gun rights since becoming POTUS. What he supported and proposed in Illinois was a state issue [don't the conservatives revere "states rights"]? But since taking office, Mr. Obama has not proposed any legislation on gun issues for the country. But that doesn't stop Willard from pandering to the ignorant who haven't the inclination or the ability to seek out the truth.
President Obama's record on the Second Amendment:
Lasting Effect of Obama Administration
"While the final chapter of the Obama administration’s impact on gun rights will not be written until the president leaves office in 2013 or 2017, the story through much of his first term in office was a neutral one. Congress did not take up serious consideration of new gun control laws, nor did Obama ask them to. When Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm, chances of far-reaching gun control laws being enacted were essentially squashed."
Wayne LaPierre, NRA president:
"Either we defeat Barack Obama and retain all the benefits of our pro-gun victories over the past 30 years-from the Firearms Owners' Protection Act and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, to the Right-to-Carry revolution, Castle Doctrine, hunter protection and landmark victories in the U.S. Supreme Court-or we lose this election and lose it all," LaPierre wrote. "Everything you and I, and gun owners across America have fought to achieve over the past three decades could be lost as a result of just one presidential election."
Obama Record: Not Gun Rights Restricting
"But the president's record offers scant evidence to support such ominous rhetoric. Obama has not moved to restrict gun rights, despite suggestions that he would tackle the issue after a shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona during which former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ari., was shot in the head."
Obama also signed a bill with an amendment permitting people to carry firearms in national parks."
So what's happening here? The head of the NRA is going after PBO who has not proposed any legislation, as president, to restrict or overturn any gun rights. But LaPierre is supporting Willard Romney who has a solid record of being in favor of gun control legislation.
Are the conservatives so deranged in their hatred of Mr. Obama that they don't see the what is in front of their noses?
Further reading from "The Liberty Zone," a pro-gun rights post, about Romney vs. Obama on gun control issues:
"Whom does Mittens think he’s fooling?
Sh*t, Obama has assailed gun rights less than Romney has in recent years.
"Governor Romney has a solid record of pursuing gun control measures to control crime and increase safety. He is vocally supportive of the assault weapons ban, supported a waiting period, and supports registration. While Governor he continued Massachusetts’s history of gun control advocacy.
In 2002, Mitt Romney stated in a debate that he supported the tough gun laws in Massachusetts and that he believed they help protect us and keep us safe. He vowed not to chip away at those laws.
While in office, Governor Romney supported the Brady bill and a waiting period because it was necessary to complete a background check. More recently, he has stated that with the advent of instant background checks, a waiting period is no longer required."
More recently, eh? Would that "more recently" be when he decided he needed the endorsement of the NRA?
Will conservatives make excuses for Romney by saying he supported gun control and limits when he was an unformed "young man" of only 55 years [and seeking to be a leader in traditionally liberal Massachusetts]? LOL! Or will they acknowledge his flip-flopping and pandering to the NRA and unlimited gun ownership advocates?
What does his record show?
25 comments:
Romney -- "RomneyCare", Massachusetts healthcare/insurance law complete with mandates.
Romney -- Supports gun control laws.
Now Shaw, I'm not making judgement, however, there is a reason I call Mitt "Obama Light."
If you keep pointing out the similarities It might play to Romney eventual election. After all Romney does have more executive experience, both government and private. Particularly private.
jUST SAYIN...
Romney does not have 4 years experience of being the president of the US, which is more important than his government experience of one state.
His business experience, when studied carefully, is one of firing people to enhance the bottom line for billionaires.
When he was governor of Massachusetts, our state ranked 47th in job creation.
Romney has changed his core beliefs so many times that it's difficult to determine if he has any core beliefs at all.
At least with Obama you know what you are getting. With Romney you can find him on both sides of most issues.
I suppose that at best he is Obama-light and at worst he is Santorum-light. That's why most of his supporters are voting against Obama instead of for Romney.
what does his record show?
that he's a flip-flopping opportunist at best and a bald-faced liar at worst. IOW, the conservative dream candidate.
Shaw - More democratic hyperbole. And Obama has NOT had four full years, has he now? Basic arithmetic.
Besides, he had O relevant experience prior to assuming the oval office big chair. Other than state office for awhile, a couple of years as US Senator, most of which was spent preparing to campaign for president, and voting absent.
Romney was, and remains NOT my candidate. But in reality, looking at his record he is "Obama Light."
And Jerry is absolutely right. Many will vote for Romney because he is "not Obama."
So much for principled politics and governance. A truly sad state of affairs.
Shaw - More democratic hyperbole. And Obama has NOT had four full years, has he now? Basic arithmetic.
Besides, he had O relevant experience prior to assuming the oval office big chair. Other than state office for awhile, a couple of years as US Senator, most of which was spent preparing to campaign for president, and voting absent.
Romney was, and remains NOT my candidate. But in reality, looking at his record he is "Obama Light."
And Jerry is absolutely right. Many will vote for Romney because he is "not Obama."
So much for principled politics and governance. A truly sad state of affairs.
Mitt Romney is a pure politician. The only thing that gives me hope is that he has proven to be malleable. With a GOP congress he may do alright...
RN, the "experience" meme is irrelevant, since Mr. Obama will have been president for 4 years, way more experience on domestic and foreign policy than Romney has.
That's why running against an incumbent is so difficult.
SF, you're correct. Mitt will shape-shift into whatever he thinks will get him into the WH.
However, he will never escape the fact that he whole-heartedly, along with Sen. Ted Kennedy, embraced universal health care. And I commend him for that very liberal idea.
He also has some problems with his record on the Second Amendment. But, like the New England weather, we only have to wait a minute for him to change.
You are right Shaw. I'll vote for Mitt with the words of Jerry Garcia ringing in my ears:
"Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil."
Such is life in America today...
Shaw, the flip flop meme ain't gonna be the deciding factor either, even given there is some truth on it. I think you know that intuitively.
Obama is going to be in serious trouble unless the economy and the job market improves significantly between now
... and then. I'll be voting Gary Johnson, should he be the libertarian nominee.
Principles matter.
The Romney of 1994 and 2002 would have probably been a formidable general election candidate. Of course the Romney of 1994 and 2002 would have never gotten the nomination and here we are again with the flip-flopping....And, while I agree with Jerry and George Soros and think that a Romney-Obama distinction isn't all that great of a one, I'll probably vote for Obama for the courts (not that I expect Romney to nominate another Clarence Thomas but you never damn know).
Come on, Will. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said "That a Romney-Obama distinction isn't all that great of a one". I said at best Romney is Obama-light. I see a clear distinction between them.
@silverfiddle Getting back to GOP Congress is what got us in the mess we rae in.
Romney can change his mind, but Obama has changed this country to a debt-filled pit that will be the end of the the US as we know it. Liberals are quibbling about tiny nonsense news bites trying to distract people from the fact that Obama hates America and everyone in it.
Lonely Conservative
Lonely, what objective proof can you offer that President Obama hates America?
He may not do things like you want them done, but if a President who does things that piss folks off is a sign of hate for America and her people, I dare say, with your logic, every past President in our history has hated America.
Let's remember that many said Lincoln hated America and her people too... didn't make it true did it?
Lonely said: "Romney can change his mind, but Obama has changed this country to a debt-filled pit that will be the end of the the US as we know it."
While I strongly condemn Obama for choosing to increase the national debt 50%, he most certainly did not change the country to a debt-filled pit. If you can say that about anyone, it is Reagan, the man who sharply increased the national debt and first made it the burden it still is today.
Dmarks,
Where do you get your 50% number?
Dave, you can't reason with someone who wrote something as wildly absurd as what Lonely Conservative wrote.
I can't count how many times I've encountered that sort of rubbish on conservative blogs.
"Obama hates America!" "Obama hates the Constitution!" "Obama hates Christians!" ad nauseum.
It's idiotic, but that's the only rhetoric many conservatives fall back on when they haven't the ability to argue a point.
And those who use that as an argument--it's really a baseless whine--never, never, never link to anything that backs up the ridiculous charge.
And you are correct. Probably every president, save George Washington, was accused of hating or destroying America.
People probably don't read history, otherwise they'd feel foolish repeating the same damn nonsense that has been repeated throughout the history of this country.
"The more things change; the more they remain the same."
Lonely, if you want to add to the discussion, fine. But if you come back with more troll behavior, you'll be deleted.
Willard is severely conservative with a side order of liberal gun control and pro-choice leanings.
He's anything you want him to be, and less!
OK, Jerry, then I only agree with George Soros then.
Jerry
Where do you get your 50% number?
He was wrong it is not 50% increase
National Debt 2008 5.8 trillion
National Debt 2011 10.9 trillion
Depending on your math skills that is 47% increase
Skud,
Not only are your debt numbers wrong, you did not calculate the percent increase correctly.
Let's start with your arithmetic. Using your numbers, the increase from 2008 to 2011 is $5.1 trillion (10.9 - 5.8) for an increase of 88%, not 47%.
Even worse than what dmarks said.
But, of course, your numbers are wrong. The correct numbers for the total federal debt are:
2008 $9.99 trillion
2011 $14.76 trillion
Increase = 48% (close to 50%)
However, there is an error in these calculations. While it is true that Obama took office in 2009, the 2009 budget belongs to Bush. It was passed during his term. Obama's first budget was 2010. There for we should start with the debt at the end of 2009, not 2008.
2009 11.88
2011 14.76
Increase = 24%
Still, a pretty healthy increase for only two years, but he did come into the office with a huge deficit budget already in place and a crashed economy. At least now the annual deficits are going down...slowly.
How does he compare with republicans, I ask...and I shall answer.
The Bush budgets increased the total federal debt by 106%.
The Reagan budgets increased the total federal debt by 188%.
I wouldn't call that being particularly fiscally responsible.
Post a Comment