James Taranto's Take on Obama's Gun Control Speech

"This isn't about me, but rather pushing my statist agenda while standing on the backs of slain children."

Sorry. I've been side-lined with a stomach virus and also closely watching the gun debate in my state of Oregon. I'm also making contingency plans on moving to Texas-- and that may not be a joke.

Anyway, check out James Taranto's column from The Wall Street Journal on Obama's puerile gun control speech. Why any thinking human being gives him a pass for standing on the graves of dead children is beyond me. I guess it's the message of disarming law-abiding American citizens that's really important.

From Taranto:

The guys at CBS News have a sense of humor. The Web headline on their story about President Obama's antigun speech yesterday in Hartford, Conn., reads: "Obama on Gun Debate: 'This Isn't About Me.' " That reminded someone on Twitter of the same network's headline from July 20, 2009: "Obama on Health Care: 'This Isn't About Me.' "

Try to imagine how soul-ravagingly tedious an Obama speech would be if it were about him. We dare you.

Obama's speech, at once demagogic and pathetic, reminded us of Mayor Michael Nutter's efforts to censor a different kind of magazine, which we noted last month. Like Nutter, Obama is seeking to restrain law-abiding individuals from exercising their constitutional rights in ways the liberal left disapproves. And like Nutter's effort, Obama's is unlikely to succeed.

Here's an example of the president's demagogy:

Ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks. Think about that. How often do 90% of Americans agree on anything? And yet, 90% agree on this--Republicans, Democrats, folks who own guns, folks who don't own guns; 80% of Republicans, more than 80% of gun owners, more than 70% of NRA households. It is common sense.

And yet, there is only one thing that can stand in the way of change that just about everybody agrees on, and that's politics in Washington. You would think that with those numbers Congress would rush to make this happen. That's what you would think. If our democracy is working the way it's supposed to, and 90% of the American people agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy you'd think this would not be a heavy lift.

And yet, some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms. Think about that. They're not just saying they'll vote "no" on ideas that almost all Americans support. They're saying they'll do everything they can to even prevent any votes on these provisions. They're saying your opinion doesn't matter. And that's not right.

At this point, the audience boos, and Obama leads them in a chant of "We want a vote!" So let's see if we have this straight: 90% of the public agrees with Obama's position, yet it can't get a vote because opponents are playing politics? One or the other of these statements may be true, or both may be false, but they can't both be true.

Hmm. Obama seems to believe that 90% of Americans agree with Obama on just about everything, from centralizing health care to the economy to betraying Israel. Yet, he never bothers to show us any polls. Color me skeptical at this guy's statistics. I wonder if he meant that 90% of the screened Obama supporters that he ships to these rallies agree with him?

By the way, doesn't "demagogic and pathetic" accurately describe Obama's administration in general? Oh, and just about every academic Leftist I've met in the last five years?