Yeah, this explanation is too definitive..... doesn't leave room for an artful act of slithering like a slippery snake on the issue.
Dealing with this guy is like dealing with one of these:
Posted on 06/26/2008 8:18:19 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
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.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
Today’s “this is not the gun ban I’ve known for 20 years” bullspit ...
That’s not the gun statement I once knew
what is an “inartful” attempt” anyway?
He is anti-gun. His record proves it. There is no 'inartfullness' about it.
Keep talking Hussein. Every time you open your mouth you lose another section of voters.
Inartful my rosy Irish bum. The statements about religion and guns he made earlier this year reflect his true position on the 2nd Amendment.
inartful = just plain wrong. Just say it.
Honestly, I have never heard so many adjectives applied as excuses for bad choices in my life as I have heard from the Obamites.
Obama? He's anti-gun, he's lying about it, and he's claiming to be inartful. The media will protect him -- there will be no trouble.
Yeah, this explanation is too definitive..... doesn't leave room for an artful act of slithering like a slippery snake on the issue.
Dealing with this guy is like dealing with one of these:
Did Obama's people get that press release out before the Supreme Court ruling was made public this morning? Perhaps they got a heads up that the ruling was going against Obama's publicly stated position, so they had to hurry up and get Obama onto the Supreme Court's side of the issue. After all, Obama is all but incapable of error, so it wouldn't look good for him not to have decided this case correctly. He's an expert on the U.S. Constitution, dontcha know?
and its not even a word...they should try number 9 below and say ‘in reality’, we were wrong again..
From the Miriam Webster site..
The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Suggestions for inartful:
1. inner tube 2. artful
3. in return 4. unnatural
5. artfully 6. Oriental
7. in-wrought 8. Orientals
9. in reality 10. unreality
11. in light of 12. ailurophobe
13. enrooted 14. ailurophile
15. arrantly 16. orientalize
17. orientally 18. Oriental rug
19. Orientalia 20. inner light
Oh right. It’s Obama’s fellow travelers on the Supreme Court who were in the dissent. Who does he think he’s fooling?
Obama throws self under the bus.
They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning,
No one you see, is smarter than he,
And we know Flipper, lives in a world full of wonder,
Flying there under, under the sea!
Everyone loves the king of the sea,
Ever so kind and gentle is he,
Tricks he will do when children appear,
And how they laugh when he’s near!
They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning,
No-one you see, is smarter than he,
And we know Flipper, lives in a world full of wonder,
Flying there-under, under the sea!
And everyone said that John “Francois” Kerry was a flip-flopper. Obama is the new champ.
The media should be ashamed of themselves. The campaign released this in November of 2007, and apparently not a single member of the media ever thought to ask Obama about it again.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
Another Obama Statement Reaches Its Expiration Date, This One on Guns
The Heller decision comes down today from the Supreme Court, either upholding or striking down the Washington, D.C. gun ban.
In preparation for the decision, it appears that another Obama statement is reaching its expiration date:
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.’”
All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.
UPDATE: As noted by the guys at RedState, if today’s decision is 5-4 or 6-3, we can take an educated guess on how it will come down, no? And Obama cites Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter as his models for Supreme Court justices. Funny how Obama says he doesn’t agree with the decisions of those three on cases like yesterday’s ban on the death penalty for child rapists, but they’re still his models.
ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader reminds me that Obama said during the Pennsylvania debate that he couldn’t comment on the D.C. gun ban case because he hadn’t read the briefs. Also, during yesterday’s press conference, he said he didn’t want to comment on the case until the decision came down.
All of this for a fairly simple yes or no question: Do you think Washington, D.C.’s ban on gun ownership violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution?
06/26 08:58 AM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.