Big Sky Cairn

In the past, Obama has said that he believes in an individual right to possess a firearm. However, Obama’s position on the constitutionality of Washington D.C.’s gun law, which fully bans ownership of handguns not registered prior to 1976 and forces long guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled (so helpful in an emergency), is less clear.

In November, 2007, an Obama aide told The Chicago Tribune that Obama “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.”

The Obama camp is now disavowing that statement as an inaccurate representation of the Democratic Presidential hopeful’s views. According to the Obama camp the aide misrepresented the Senator’s position on the constitutionality of the DC Gun Ban.

Okay, I can see how that might happen. So, what does the candidate himself have to say?

In the past, Obama has “artfully side stepped” the question, telling ABC News’s Charlie Gibson:

“Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”

Really? I haven’t read the briefs? What a cop out. Bob Novak was also unable to get a definitive answer.

Obama believes that a municiplaity has the right to enact common sense gun laws. But when he was asked if a 32-year complete ban on the possession of handguns and the requirement that long guns be kept inoperable was a common sense regulation, the Senator demurred.

However, Obama has been very supportive of a Chicago city ordinance that includes a complete ban on handgun ownership. While in the Illinois State Senate he voted against legislation that prevented Chicago from prosecuting city residents who used handguns to defend themselves in their own homes arguing that the city had a right to impose these restrictions for public good. But now that the Supreme Court has called DC’s handgun ban unconstitutional, Chicago will be next on the block.

Shortly after the Heller decision was handed down, Republican presidential candidate John McCain came out with a statement praising the courts decision. He also put out a statement saying that in light of the Heller decision, Chicago’s ban is unconstitutional.

As for Barack Obama’s position on this morning’s decision, we’re three hours in and there is nothing from the Obama camp. My guess is that they’re reading Scalia’s opinion trying to figure out how to defend his chronic support of Chicago’s laws in light of Heller. I’ll post a link to his statement when and if his camp releases it.

On a related note, Cody asked me earlier if the Heller decision means D.C. residents can run out and buy guns today. The answer is no, they cannot. The District government will take several weeks to announce what its new (SCOTUS compliant) regulations will be. Until then, residents will be governed by the old rules.

And just because it’s funny, here is D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty’s quote on the Supreme Court decision.

“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.”

So, he concedes the point that the ban has done nothing to keep criminals from having guns, which I’m guessing was the reason for the draconian laws in the first place. So, this big city Mayor admits that the ban is a failure but wants to keep law abiding citizens from owning guns anyway. Awesome. I can’t wait to see what this guy thinks is a”common sense” SCOTUS compliant regulation.

**Update** Obama’s statement.  He does little sidestep…

Some Governors from the liberal coasts - whose populations expend more energy than the interior states as a result of their larger populations - have stated opposition to off-shore drilling in their back yards.

Governors in some coastal states promised to fight attempts to tap offshore petroleum reserves, citing concerns about the environment and tourism. Others agreed with President Bush’s call to lift a 27-year-old federal ban on offshore drilling but said states should decide whether to allow it.

The tree-hugger governors, pockets lined with tree-hugger dollars, are worried that a bunch of oil rigs off-shore will spoil the scenic perfection of the American coast. Here, now, with the magic of Photoshop, I give you a before and after perspective of the pristine California coast looking over the Pacific Ocean.

Imagine watching the beautiful sunset as sea gulls frolic in the waves and butterflies fliter about. You can almost smell the sea water can’t you? This scene of perfection is the Pacific Coast right now - completely devoid of drilling.

Now, steel yourself for the horrendous consequences of off-shore oil exploration. Heed this warning to click at your own risk. What you are about to see is the result of John McCain’s off-shore drilling proposal.

Read the rest of this entry »

John McCain just took a big step toward earning my vote by sticking it to the tree huggers and advocating the opening of the U.S. offshore regions for oil exploration and development.

Yep, I’m still on the drill, drill, drill kick. I just filled my tank again.

The article explains that John McCain made the environmental groups angry with his pronouncement. Good.

The only way those groups will be happy is if McCain agreed to handicap our economy with global warming policies, and even then, the Goracle has already endorsed Obama so I don’t think the tree hugger lobby is going to support John McCain no matter what he does.

I’m guessing McCain’s pollsters told him the same thing, so if he can’t get the environmental vote, he might as well get the “I’m tired of paying $4 for a gallon of gas vote.” That vote has a lot more people in it anyway.

On October 26, 1967, John McCain was shot down while flying over Vietnam. McCain parachuted into a lake, breaking both arms and a leg before he nearly drowned. After he was pulled from the water, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him. But his nightmare was just beginning.

McCain spent nearly six years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. And despite being tortured and beaten on a regular basis, McCain turned down a 1968 offer of repatriation unless the North Vietnamese would release every American soldier taken in before him was released as well.

Due to the injuries that he received in service to his country, McCain has been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Administration. So, when I read an article in the LA Times saying that McCain is not fit to be president because of injuries, I wanted to scream. Luckily, I have an electronic soapbox.

By any measure John McCain is a hero, who suffered unspeakable torture in service of his country. He then spent the next three decades in public service. And arguing that the injuries he sustained in Vietnam disqualify him from the presidency is abominable.

McCain is hardly the first person with disabilities to enter politics. Max Cleland and Tammy Duckworth are both 100% disabled, and they are both excellent public servants. Should their injuries make them ineligible to be president?

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the hero of the Democratic Party, was horribly disfigured and disabled after contracting polio but he served as President for 12 years. His disability didn’t get in the way of his accomplishments, and they certainly didn’t hinder his ability to bring his country out of the Great Depression and lead us to victory in WWII.

So, if these politician’s disabilities don’t hinder their ability to serve, why is McCain different? Because he’s a Republican? Because some moron at the L.A. Times who is neither a doctor nor a therapist says so?

Anyone who has ever volunteered on a statewide campaign can tell you, the trail is a grueling test of the candidate’s physical and emotional health. And in the last 25 years, McCain has breezed through three campaigns for the House of Representatives, three campaigns for the Senate and two presidential campaigns. Not to mention the travel and schedule he had to maintain in order to become one of the nation’s most heralded and powerful politicians.

If he can do all of that despite his injuries, I have no doubt that he is healthy and strong enough to serve as president.

But perhaps the most deplorable part of the LA Times article and the constant speculation about how McCain’s disability impacts his health is what it says to the thousands of young disabled veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank you for serving your country and putting yourself in danger to protect my freedom, but you are no longer qualified to be president. So, if you aspired to a life of public service in government, be advised that your aspirations will be limited to only certain offices. What kind of message is that to send to the brave men and women who have sacrificed more than many of us can imagine in the name of freedom?

McCain’s doctors say he is in great health. And his performance on the campaign trail over the past several months should silence the naysayers. But even if you think that he’s too old and frail to be president, don’t start insinuating that the brace men and women disabled in combat aren’t fit to hold public office. Because anyone who can survive the pain of his injuries, the grueling recovery therapies and the stigma of being disabled while rising to a position of prominence in the unkind world of politics is tougher and more qualified to be president than most of us will ever hope to be.

Democrats have been eager to convince Republicans that their vote doesn’t matter in today’s primary elections. Missoulapolis and Montana Headlines have already done an excellent job of disproving this misrepresentation, so I’m going to take a different tack and suggest that contrary to what you are probably reading in the Montana media, voting in the Democrat Party’s primary probably isn’t going to matter that much either.

Here are five reasons the Montana Democrat’s Presidential Primary is irrelevant on the national stage.

1) Super Delegates - Surprise, you’re voting in an elitist Democrat Party system that is designed to reign in the unpredictable vote of the people - your vote if you dare to buck who The Party thinks you should vote for. In Montana, unless you’re one of eight super-delegates whose single votes can cancel over 100,000 opposing plebiscite ballots, the Democrat Party doesn’t really care who you think should be the Democrat Nominee for the Presidency. Hope you vote correctly!

2) The Democrat Party already knows what you want - In Michigan, no votes were cast for Obama because - well - he wasn’t on the ballot. Hillary Clinton was on the ballot - against the will of her party - and earned 55 percent of the vote. The Democrat Party decided to award Obama the majority of Michigan’s delegates anyway because, well, they already know how the people of Michigan were going to vote so why actually go to the trouble of counting their votes? If Montana gets it wrong, well, thank God super delegates can save Montana Democrats from their own ignorance.

3) Puerto Rico - So even if Montana minds it’s p’s and q’s, and does what it’s supposed to do, it doesn’t matter. The Democrat Party doesn’t really care that much about what Montana thinks anyway. See, there are 50 states (unless you’re Obama) and the Democrat Party has determined that what the people of Puerto Rico think is more important than more than half of them (27, to be exact). Puerto Rico has 55 Democrat delegates. Montana has 25 or less than half of Puerto Rico. Really want to the Democrats to listen to you? Avoid U.S. citizenship - and all hail the international community!

4) It’s already over - It’s really gotta be hard on the Montana Democrats who have been so excited about their votes making a difference today. There’s got to be some frustration that Hillary couldn’t keep a lid on her plans to concede for 24 itsy-bitsy more hours so they could have their fun (and for that matter, she spoiled the fun for Andrew Hammond too). Not that her exit is really that important since pundits have been calling her challenge mathematically impossible for months now.

5) McCain wins Montana anyway - Doesn’t matter who gets the Democrat nomination. McCain beats ‘em both in Montana - land of the bitter gun-clinging racists.

The balance of the United States Senate majority hung on 3,562 votes right here in Montana. For some reason - probably because national media decided to focus on the 8,805 margin of victory in Virginia which is closer to Washington, DC and easier to cover - this story hasn’t been told.

On November 7, by a margin of 3,562 votes, Montana replaced Republican Conrad Burns with Democrat Jon Tester and in doing so gave Democrats the one seat they needed to put them over the 50-50 mark and into the majority.

So when the question is posed, can Obama win in Montana? Yes, he can. Or more accurately, McCain can lose like Burns did. In the waning months of the 2006 election, I did some volunteer work for the Burns campaign that included some unpleasant phone calls. I lost track of the number of people I talked to who considered themselves conservative Republicans, were proudly voting for Rehberg but were not going to vote for Burns. Statewide, this sentiment was enough to cost Burns the election.

I hear a lot of the same comments from Montana conservatives about McCain - they will never vote for him, they’d rather not vote. This is a serious problem for McCain, just like it was for Burns. I’m not saying that voters did anything wrong here - the truth is, it was Burns’ fault that he lost these voters and he should have been more careful.

At the same time, the stubborn refusal to vote for the more conservative candidate had real consequences. 3,562 of them gave Harry Reid the Senate Majority. The consequences for the Presidency over the next four years are going to be even more profound.

The questions therefore, are whether McCain can win back support from the conservative base or, barring that, whether he can pick up enough votes from the independent center as he loses from the right.