Axelrod blames chicago death toll on nra

[GURPS]

AXELROD BLAMES CHICAGO DEATH TOLL ON NRA


[video at link]

Former Obama senor advisor David Axelrod on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” discussing gun control...






yeah the NRA, not failed Liberal Policies

 

[Larry Gude]

And where is the national GOP? Where is Boehner?

 

[bcp]

And where is the national GOP? Where is Boehner?

out back practicing his crying.

Did you hear Axlerod say that its extraordinary to have all of the citizens on one side and congress on the other?
WHAT??? did he just wake up from a 5 year sleep? does he really think the the U.S population supported obamacare?

 

[Larry Gude]

out back practicing his crying.

Did you hear Axlerod say that its extraordinary to have all of the citizens on one side and congress on the other?
WHAT??? did he just wake up from a 5 year sleep? does he really think the the U.S population supported obamacare?

Ok, where is ANYONE on the right???

What is more noteworthy, that a Sleezstack like Axelrod is making points for his side or the deafening silence coming from the right?

The Speaker? The Senate? GOP national spokesmen?

 

[bcp]

Ok, where is ANYONE on the right???

What is more noteworthy, that a Sleezstack like Axelrod is making points for his side or the deafening silence coming from the right?

The Speaker? The Senate? GOP national spokesmen?

cant answer that Larry, and its why I am no longer registered with the right.
They no longer have my support. I gave them a few years to turn around, they didnt, I moved on.

 

[Larry Gude]

cant answer that Larry, and its why I am no longer registered with the right.
They no longer have my support. I gave them a few years to turn around, they didnt, I moved on.

Then change 'GOP' to opposition. It's probably wise to support SOMEONE to fight back.

Who? Whom?

 

[SamSpade]

Ok, where is ANYONE on the right???

What is more noteworthy, that a Sleezstack like Axelrod is making points for his side or the deafening silence coming from the right?

The Speaker? The Senate? GOP national spokesmen?

I don't get you Larry. I try, but I don't.

The first is, the GOP is not the spokesman or defender of the NRA. If Axelrod blamed the Republicans, it would be his job to step up. Contrary to popular opinion, the NRA is not a branch of the Republican Party. If they're insulted or maligned, they're big boys - they can stand up for themselves.

But the second is, it's the old adage of don't wrestle with a pig in the mud - you only get dirty, and the pig actually likes it. He has positively nothing to be gained by playing word games with Axelrod; not politically, not factually. The kind of nitwits who will BELIEVE that the NRA is responsible for deaths in Chicago - and not, say, Chicago political leaders or law enforcement - will not heed one word spoken by the Speaker of the House.

Frankly if someone said such things about my own FAMILY, I would still likely ignore them. David Axelrod has no political position whatsoever any longer - his job is to flap his gums on a network no one watches. It's a waste of time to draw attention to it.

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't get you Larry. I try, but I don't.

The first is, the GOP is not the spokesman or defender of the NRA. .

Boehner is the highest ranking GOP'er in the land.

The second amendment is under assault from people like Axelrod and his boss, President Obama.

The GOP is a pro second amendment party. At least, I though we were. Among other things, I would expect the GOP to be pro free trade without specifically supporting the position of specific free trade groups, pro small government without being specifically support specific groups and so on and so forth.

Boehner, as the leader of the party, should be rather vocal, in his role as leader of the loyal opposition, in opposing the things our party disagrees with that the other guys are for.

Why is that hard to get?

If Boehner is silent on a political issue his party supports, what, again, is his role????

 

[Lurk]

Axlerod's claim must be true, here's proof

...

 

[SamSpade]

If Boehner is silent on a political issue his party supports, what, again, is his role????

I just don't see that it is his job to address every little thing that some wag on a TV show says.

Years ago, I used to debate this liberal sports writer online. Every time Pat Robertson said something colossally stupid - which was rather often - he would INSIST that there was tacit agreement among Republicans, because they did not condemn it, either vigorously or even marginally. And that THAT extended to all the conservatives he knew as well. We all had to be continually on our toes against the Robertsons out there who said incredibly stupid things.

At last I just told the guy, I don't have time to clarify the position. He should know what I think by now. If he can keep painting me with that brush, it's a game I don't want to play.

-
-
-

I remember some time back, Boehner got *REAMED* for not openly condemning "birthers". He made it abundantly clear he believed that Obama was an American citizen, fully qualified to run for President, and that he did not concur with the birther point of view. But he wouldn't condemn it, because - and I agree with this - that's what you're supposed to do in America. LET people with strange ideas say what they want.

What did he get? Broad accusations of being in league with birthers. He couldn't repeat his point of view often enough. They weren't listening.

Axelrod is now just a mouthpiece on TV, and not even that widely seen. Addressing it at ALL would be to draw attention to a man most people are ignoring already.

I am sorry, but if the NRA won't stand up for themselves, there's no reason for Boehner to do it for them.

 

[bcp]

I just don't see that it is his job to address every little thing that some wag on a TV show says.

.

I dont think Larry is saying that Bohner should address anything that someone says on a TV show.
What I think he is saying is, why isnt Bohner more vocal in his position as Speaker of the House when it comes to the minority party trying to limit the constitutional rights of the citizens.
Bohners silence would cause me to think that he is perfectly ok with whats going on. and he should not be.
He should be rallying the republicans in office to stand up and fight for the peoples rights instead of sitting back and letting everyone walk all over the constitution.
The only difference I see between him and Pelosi is that Pelosi came up with the lame ideas, Bohner just agrees with them.

 

[Ken King]

I just don't see that it is his job to address every little thing that some wag on a TV show says.

I am sorry, but if the NRA won't stand up for themselves, there's no reason for Boehner to do it for them.

BTW what bill or resolution, if there are any, has had floor action in the House regarding banning firearms, magazine capacity or any such infringement? Seems like Boehner is actually doing his part. Let the NRA speak for itself.

 

[SamSpade]

I dont think Larry is saying that Bohner should address anything that someone says on a TV show.

That IS however, what I am talking about.

No, I think Larry has got issues with Boehner in general, and is using this issue to bring it up. Ok, talk about THAT. Talk about defending the issue of gun rights. Axelrod is basically a chump right now. It doesn't matter what he says.

But I don't think Boehner even sees himself the way Larry does. Lots of Republicans in the House would like to replace him - he's not their darling champion. They just don't see a reason to do it yet, since splitting the vote right now would only give it to Pelosi.

I also think Boehner sees himself as Speaker of the House - not, speaker for the conservative part of the nation. It may have escaped everyone's notice that the man has never run for anything but the House. Prominent or not, he's not run for President, Governor or Senate. He's not a spokesman. He's not this great statesman, and honestly, I don't think Speakers are supposed to be the voice of their party. Not unless the party is fairly muted. Who was the voice of the Democrats in the 80's? Tip O'Neill? Or Kennedy?

 

[kwillia]

Oh please... Chicago has a long history of being high-crime/death city... I know know this because Daddy was a cop On the east side of Chicago Back in the U S A Back in the bad old days.

In the heat of a summer nightIn the land of the dollar billWhen the town of Chicago diedAnd they talk about it still.

When a man named Al CaponeTried to make that town his ownAnd he called his gang to warWith the forces of the law.

I heard my mama cry I heard her pray the night Chicago diedBrother what a night it really wasBrother what a fight it really was, glory be.

I heard my mama cryI heard her pray the night Chicago diedBrother what a night the people sawBrother what a fight the people saw, yes indeed.

And the sound of the battle rangThrough the streets of the old east side'Til the last of the hoodlum gangHad surrendered up or died.

There was shouting in the streetAnd the sound of running feetAnd I asked someone who said'Bout a hundred cops are dead.

I heard my mama cryI heard her pray the night Chicago diedBrother what a night it really wasBrother what a fight it really was, glory be.

I heard my mama cryI heard her pray the night Chicago diedBrother what a night the people sawBrother what a fight the people saw, yes indeed.

Then there was no sound at allBut the clock upon the wall... Then the door burst open wideAnd my daddy stepped insideAnd he kissed my mama's face And he brushed her tears away.

It was crazy, man.

 

[Lurk]

Is that one guy on the right your daddy?

 

[Larry Gude]

I dont think Larry is saying that Bohner should address anything that someone says on a TV show.
What I think he is saying is, why isnt Bohner more vocal in his position as Speaker of the House when it comes to the minority party trying to limit the constitutional rights of the citizens.
Bohners silence would cause me to think that he is perfectly ok with whats going on. and he should not be.
He should be rallying the republicans in office to stand up and fight for the peoples rights instead of sitting back and letting everyone walk all over the constitution.
The only difference I see between him and Pelosi is that Pelosi came up with the lame ideas, Bohner just agrees with them.

EXACTLY.

Axelrod is not 'some wag'. He is a leading spokesman for the President, a critical, integral part of the PR part of shaping and moving legislation.

All we have is Rove and he spends all his time defending the horrible mistakes and failures of the Bush years.

It is, in my view, critical and indispensable for the Speaker of the House, be it D or R, to be an integral part of the national agenda of his or her party. That is not to say it is their job to comment on everything, every day but, in such an enormous leadership role, the silence is deafening.

 

[Larry Gude]

That IS however, what I am talking about. As I say, Axe isn't some stiff on MSNBC's afternoon shows.

No, I think Larry has got issues with Boehner in general, Absolutely and is using this issue to bring it up. Ok, talk about THAT. Talk about defending the issue of gun rights. Axelrod is basically a chump right now. It doesn't matter what he says.Could not disagree more. I am stunned you would say that.

But I don't think Boehner even sees himself the way Larry does. Gotta agree there. I see him as the highest ranking GOP'er in the land. I have no idea how he sees himself. Lots of Republicans in the House would like to replace him - he's not their darling champion. All the more reason to make myself known as Mr. GOP, Speaker of the House Boss Man They just don't see a reason to do it yet, since splitting the vote right now would only give it to Pelosi.

I also think Boehner sees himself as Speaker of the House - not, speaker for the conservative part of the nation. Speak of the House. Or Representatives. Of The Unites States of America. It may have escaped everyone's notice that the man has never run for anything but the House. Prominent or not, he's not run for President, Governor or Senate. He's not a spokesman. He's not this great statesman, and honestly,Oh, OK. He sucks at this therefore, enough with the expectations. At least that makes sense. I don't think Speakers are supposed to be the voice of their party. Not unless the party is fairly muted. Who was the voice of the Democrats in the 80's? Tip O'Neill? Or Kennedy?

That last blows me away!!! Tip O'neill was an enormous figure in national politics FOR the D's! As was Peslosi as was Jim Wright as was Newt as was Denny freaking Hastert.

One ONLY becomes Speaker of the House IF the party in power, typically, YOURS, votes you in.

My gosh, Tip and Reagan, battling out, day to day. You don't recall it that way?????

 

[SamSpade]

My gosh, Tip and Reagan, battling out, day to day. You don't recall it that way?????

On Congressional matters? Yep. Certainly on matters of defense and spending. Matters that pertain to the House. On anything ancillary to that, being the standard bearer for the Democratic Party? Nope. That's why he didn't run for President. Or Governor. Or Senate. The party didn't run him, because he wasn't their de facto leader. He didn't speak for the party.

Who's the leading standard bearer for the Democratic Party? Without question, the President. No one else in the party even really tries to take issue with him . Who is it in the Republican Party? Well, no one, actually. Can you think of someone so respected, that everyone falls in line behind him? You WANT it to be Boehner, because he is highest in the presidential order of succession. But he's not. It doesn't work that way.

Leadership doesn't follow position. It follows action. That's why Marco Rubio or Rand Paul are more likely candidates than Boehner. That's why Joe Biden isn't the second highest ranking Democratic spokesman even though LITERALLY, he is the second ranking Democrat. He doesn't do anything.

People follow what leaders DO. Obama has the bully pulpit - and USES it.

 

[Larry Gude]

On Congressional matters? Yep. Certainly on matters of defense and spending. Matters that pertain to the House. On anything ancillary to that, being the standard bearer for the Democratic Party? Nope. That's why he didn't run for President. Or Governor. Or Senate. The party didn't run him, because he wasn't their de facto leader. He didn't speak for the party.

Who's the leading standard bearer for the Democratic Party? Without question, the President. No one else in the party even really tries to take issue with him . Who is it in the Republican Party? Well, no one, actually. Can you think of someone so respected, that everyone falls in line behind him? You WANT it to be Boehner, because he is highest in the presidential order of succession. But he's not. It doesn't work that way.

Leadership doesn't follow position. It follows action. That's why Marco Rubio or Rand Paul are more likely candidates than Boehner. That's why Joe Biden isn't the second highest ranking Democratic spokesman even though LITERALLY, he is the second ranking Democrat. He doesn't do anything.

People follow what leaders DO. Obama has the bully pulpit - and USES it.

We just recall the Tip and Newt and Nancy era's differently. None of them were running for potus.

 

[SamSpade]

We just recall the Tip and Newt and Nancy era's differently. None of them were running for potus.

We must. Newt DID see himself as the flag-bearer not just for the party but for a whole different way of running government. He orchestrated the House takeover in '94, wrote books like the Contract with America, To Renew America and To Save America. And he did run for President. I watched his lectures back then - he absolutely did see himself that way. Frankly, that tended to turn me off about him.

And he did this because - well - Bob Dole did NOT fill in those shoes. Bob couldn't. And THAT is part of the problem YOU already see with the GOP - they nominate their highest ranking member rather than their best leaders. You've commented on this extensively - but apparently you also expect the highest ranking members to actually BE the charismatic leader types. They don't. Good leaders TAKE the job.

Speakers, to my recollection, never spoke for the party any more than VP's do. It's not their job. If you actually do have to reach back 25 years for an example, it proves the point - they don't.