Does anyone think semantic squabbling over the Second Amendment will make a decisive impact on this election? In election years, cultural (read: wedge) issues tend to fade from the foreground as the economy hits a recession. And I'm inclined to agree with the conventional wisdom on this one.
I see through Rove's realpolitik. The Second Amendment issue is the Grand Ol' Party's attempt at rallying the rank and file, still tentative in their support of McBush, instead galvanizing them against Barack Obama.
They've been fawning the fears already rampant among the more conspiratorial minded reactionaries, those suspicious that any attempt at regulating handguns in overpopulated urban areas is the first step toward socialist insurrection that their "well-regulated militia" will be ill prepared for, now stripped of their makeshift incendiary devices and semi-automatic shotguns.
But these poor white voters have already started deserting the party en masse. The Values Voter values one value above all else: money. Guns won't make much of a dent in Obama's electoral map when Jed Clampett has to sell off his granddaddy's Confederate-era bayonet rifle at the local pawn shop (at a sorely diminished return) just to make ends meet.
And the ones who haven't, hell, they're already scared about Obama being an elitist Muslim who is repulsed at the very sight of Old Glory. At best, the issue is fodder for those who would never considered voting for the man anyway.
But a few seconds in the 24-hour cable news spin cycle would leave even the most even-keeled voter reeling. The real issue, or so we're being told, is Obama's perceived "flip flop" on the issue.
First of all, that's not really true. Certainly, his position on gun rights is a bit more complicated than McCain's NRA certified answer, but, can we expect a Constitutional law professor not to have a nuanced view with regards to a major Constitutional issue?
It should be noted that he has never disagreed with the fundamental premise behind the court's decision, that Americans have the right to bear arms. We also must consider context, as a Chicago resident and community organizer, he has to deal with the second most instances of gun violence in the country, and has witnessed the enabling effect among street gangs that easily accessible firearms provides.
But once Fox News' propaganda trickles down to the other major media outlets, it might as well be a reality.
What can be extrapolated from this, and Obama's refusal of public campaign financing, is a question his integrity and judgment, defining his candidacy along more negative terms to the public at large, who to them, we're told, Obama is still a relative unknown.
Furthermore, it taints his image as a transcendent politician.
This screed has also found resonance with the DailyKos crowd, but for entirely different reasons. We've raked Obama for his inability to follow up on the pledge to filibuster any FISA bill which ensures retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. Obama contends that the bill he supports only protects telecoms from civil, and not criminal, litigation.
I've come to agree with the Pelosi/Reid logic on this one. Now, I admire Feingold's temerity in placing a hold on the bill, in fact, I support it, but it is important for Obama to distance himself from, what would be played in the mainstream media as, a Far Left position. And as much as I love standing on principle, its politically expedient for Obama to take this issue off the table.
Now, I'm not saying that we should continue on the path of kowtowing to the Republicans on issues of national security. We should question their logical strength of the their arguments and not blindly submit ourselves to their assertions.
How exactly does a permanent military occupation in the Middle East, which was the original cause for inciting fundamentalist aggression, protect Americans here at home? This is a question that needs to be answered.
We should not accept the manner in which Republicans frame this argument, along such stark terms as victory and defeat. We must assert that our presence is a destabilizing force contrary to any purported notion of democracy that the Neocons assail us with.
With all that being said, we, as liberals, have to understand this is a no win issue for Obama. Arguments about the Constitutionality of warantless wiretapping and government surveillance do not resonate with the public at large when baited by Republicans into believing that the ghouls of Islamic fundamentalism lurk behind every corner.
Alas, it is beyond most American's comprehension that the government could use such information could be used for somewhat unsavory (read: political) purposes. This is a either a testament to their faith in the system or their naivety in how the world really works.
Yes, Obama already took the political hits on the issue, but the sooner he concedes the point, the less play the issue will get in the media.
As much as it pains me to say this, the smart call was for Obama to forfeit this win to the Republicans. Its a tactical decision - the best Obama can do is to take the issue off the table for the general election and deal with criminal litigation when he arrives at the White House.
I want Obama to play hard, but we also don't mind if he plays it smart.
A note for those of you keeping track at home, here's a convenient list of issues McCain has switched positions on over recent years:
- Torture
- Gay marriage (For then against within 15 minutes of another in a Hardball interview)
- Abortion (1999 election McCain stated he was against immediate repeal of Roe v. Wade)
- Offshore drilling
- Immigration
- Bush's tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans
- Religion (Stated he was Episcopalian, now claims to be a Baptist)
- Religious Right (Compared Falwell unfavorably to Sharpton in 1999 campaign, then buddied up to him by giving the keynote address at Liberty University)
- The Confederate flag
The only issue McCain has been steadfast on is the surge and its supposed success. I thank him for this, as I feel that as the next few months in Iraq will reveal, such assertions condemn his presidential aspirations to certain failure.
posted by binijuktyasen 
