The NRA made a sensible decision given the set-up. "Town Hall" would not describe this event if the NRA would have attended. It would have changed the focus to the rub between the NRA and BHO. And guess who the media would have attacked?
Did the NRA not participating in Obama's Gun Forum hurt or help?
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Maybe instead they took a strategic look at the situation and gambled that the President would have his butt handed to him and look like a fool -- just because of average everyday folks that would be attending.
Which is more compelling to the viewer at home? That the mighty NRA massive pro-gun lobbying group could maybe show up the President? Or that a wife and mother, county Sheriff, and a bunch of other "average" folks from middle America could yank his drawers down without the big bully NRA there to do it for them?
I think, legitimate gamble or lucky shot, the NRA did exactly the right thing!
3GunEric
Member
It was a Soviet style dog and pony show not a true and open debate/discussion forum.
The NRA made the right choice. You do not knowingly walk into an enemy minefield.
The NRA made the right choice. You do not knowingly walk into an enemy minefield.
savanahsdad
Member
^^^^^^this ^^^^ nailed it ......
if it was held in my backyard ,I wouldn't have gone , good job NRA
I don't think that is what they thought at all. My guess is they made a strategic guess that there risk was better than their reward.
I am going to go against the position I took earlier here. They figured, rightly in the end, that the president and others couldn't do anything to really sway the public opinion one way or another by themselves. There was a risk that they could with the presence of the NRA. In skipping it they though they took the risk that there lack of presence could not be effectively used against them. That's a big risk IMO. But they got away with it.
In the end it probably did not matter either way.
To add to that, they knew their base would fall in line with their decision either way. That is very important.
I dont think they assumed he would get his but handed to him anyway. Doubt thats how they think.
But I do agree that Obama was pretty pissed when he left.
They weren't invited to have a discussion, they were invited so Obama could make them look bad.
... or if not bad, then to force them into a corner and try to dance to keep themselves from looking bad. I imagine either would have suited the narrative.
jm
... or if not bad, then to force them into a corner and try to dance to keep themselves from looking bad. I imagine either would have suited the narrative.
jm
jerkface11
Member
Maybe they should have agreed to go on. Then submitted a powderpuff question that would be easy for him to spin. But ask a totally different one when the time came. Catch him flat footed and make him stutter.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"How often does the NRA get an opportunity to directly confront the President"
The NRA can't confront the president 'in person' --there's way too many of them. At best you'd get a spokesman, who only speaks for a portion of the group, and blah blah blah you know what I mean.
I'd prefer a legit debate-debate, if such things still actually exist, if we are going to play at sending our 'best' to do anything against their 'best' in verbal combat. That's not what this was, though; it was Obama trying to look slightly more legitimate than he did atop a palanquin made out of children (marching over a road made of dead children) the last time he went all-out for gun control.
I've still yet to see a reason for why Obama is finally getting serious now, as opposed to the golden opportunity presented & squandered after Sandy Hook. Am I really supposed to believe a two-terrorist shooting attack of limited scale in Cali was the final straw that caused the waterworks to open, and his phone & pen to twitch to life? Am I really supposed to think I'm the only one who's skeptical of his sudden focus?
TCB
The NRA can't confront the president 'in person' --there's way too many of them. At best you'd get a spokesman, who only speaks for a portion of the group, and blah blah blah you know what I mean.
I'd prefer a legit debate-debate, if such things still actually exist, if we are going to play at sending our 'best' to do anything against their 'best' in verbal combat. That's not what this was, though; it was Obama trying to look slightly more legitimate than he did atop a palanquin made out of children (marching over a road made of dead children) the last time he went all-out for gun control.
I've still yet to see a reason for why Obama is finally getting serious now, as opposed to the golden opportunity presented & squandered after Sandy Hook. Am I really supposed to believe a two-terrorist shooting attack of limited scale in Cali was the final straw that caused the waterworks to open, and his phone & pen to twitch to life? Am I really supposed to think I'm the only one who's skeptical of his sudden focus?
TCB
my initial reaction is he knows nothing he is proposing is going to pass congress....and thats the point.......he wasnt to make congress look bad....more specifically, he wants to make the REPUBLICAN controlled congress look bad.
i feel this is an attempt to make the republicans look bad, trying to make them look like heartless radicals, who do not care about human life, setting the stage for the election, trying to swing voters to vote Democrat in November...putting obama number 2 (aka Hillary) in a better position to win the presidency.
I guess the way I see it is if Anderson Cooper were to set up a town hall for the NRA and Obama could have had a staff member there and ask one question and no chance at a rebuttal, would Obama have allowed it?
My guess is he would have seen it as a farce and said no.
My guess is he would have seen it as a farce and said no.
BobTheTomato
Member
You don't go to their house, play by their rules, against a stacked deck and expect any good to come out of it. You know they couldn't ask a follow up or correct Obama if he lied about something. He said you were less safe having a gun in your house to a rape survivor. Having the questions be prescreened he was ready for any gotcha moment. Or he would have not called on the NRA......and commended them for being there to do something about gun violence.
Carl N. Brown
Member
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/transcript-obama-town-hall-guns-in-america/index.html
Guns in America · town hall with Obama · transcript (full text)· Updated 11:00 PM ET, Thu January 7, 2016
NRA may have conceded the floor to Obama. Reading the transcript, I think he made NRA's points better by talking without NRA present. If the NRA rep showed, it would have been turned into a bash-the-gun-lobby fest.
Obama reads a teleprompter quite eloquently. His answers when thrown a real question by a real person--even a soft ball question--fell apart.
Obama also helped his former U Chicago alumnus fill an article:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...claims-from-presidents-remarks-this-week.html
Obama and guns: Eleven false or misleading claims from the president's remarks this week · By John R. Lott · 7 Jan 2016 · FoxNews.com ·
Guns in America · town hall with Obama · transcript (full text)· Updated 11:00 PM ET, Thu January 7, 2016
NRA may have conceded the floor to Obama. Reading the transcript, I think he made NRA's points better by talking without NRA present. If the NRA rep showed, it would have been turned into a bash-the-gun-lobby fest.
Obama reads a teleprompter quite eloquently. His answers when thrown a real question by a real person--even a soft ball question--fell apart.
Obama also helped his former U Chicago alumnus fill an article:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...claims-from-presidents-remarks-this-week.html
Obama and guns: Eleven false or misleading claims from the president's remarks this week · By John R. Lott · 7 Jan 2016 · FoxNews.com ·
TimSr
Member
Exactly right. Had this been an actual two sided debate, the NRA would have jumped on the chance to participate. The pro-gun citizens telling their stories were far more effective, and because of their stories, were pretty immune from being used as "whipping boys (girls)". Had an NRA spokesman asked a question, they'd have been demonized, and verbally slapped around, totally unable to respond.
I think it was accidedental and a bit ironic that something that was so staged for a certain outcome, backfired so badly. This event turned out to be a big win for gun woners. Regular citizens turned the president into a bubbering, stuttering idiot on live TV, without even being allowed to follow up his lies. That was precious.
Deanimator
Member
Ever see newsreel footage of the Nazis putting the "Valkyrie" conspirators on trial? Remember the guy holding up his pants because the Gestapo cut his waistband so they'd fall down if he let go of them?
THAT is what Obama wanted to do to the NRA.
He failed MISERABLY.
THAT is what Obama wanted to do to the NRA.
He failed MISERABLY.
TomJ
Contributing Member
I believe it was a year or two ago that Obama invited Paul Ryan to one of his talks. He had him sit in the front row, and proceeded to rip him and the Republicans while Paul Ryan had to sit there and take it. Nothing would be gained by putting a representative from the NRA in the same position.
BobTheTomato
Member
For Star Trek fans I will add:
kobayashi maru
Unless we could send Captain Kirk I saw no point.
kobayashi maru
Unless we could send Captain Kirk I saw no point.
P5 Guy
Member
Neither, The folks that hate guns also hate the NRA and in the news cycles following everything the NRA said would be heavily edited. No win all around.
- Status
Similar threads
