Thank you for further making my case that ignorance prevails.
Quote:
|
As far as Bill Clinton, who "wasn't hurt by his position," did you happen to notice the result of the '94 election? It will be hard to downplay that upheaval, but I'm sure someone here will try.
|
The Brady bill ban on assualt weapons passed in 1993 with bi-partisan support.
(Its reauthorization had bi-partisan support and Bush's support 10 years later. It failed in 2004 as a result of parliamentary procedures in the House.) The 94 upheaval was the result of the
Contract with America (brillilantly conceived and promoted, I admit, but nothing to do with gun control)
Show me any analysis that ties the 94 election results to gun control.
Quote:
|
Is that his position this week? I can't keep track of it.
|
Obama stated his position that race based affirmative action was divisive and outmoded in his book, The Audacity of Hope.
From an article in the conservative
National Review:
Race-based affirmative action policies, he recognizes, have polarized the races, while race-neutral or “universal” programs unite them. “Rightly or wrongly, white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America; even the most fair-minded whites…tend to push back against suggestions of racial victimization — or race-specific claims based on the history of race discrimination in this country.”
Advocates of “class-based” or “race-neutral” affirmative action have been around a long time — even then-Governor George W. Bush supported “need-based” government contracting set-asides, as did many congressional Republicans in the 1990s. But, for the most part, no recent Democratic presidential aspirant has been as bold as Obama in discussing the problems with race-based affirmative action: “An emphasis on universal, as opposed to race-specific, programs isn’t just good policy; it’s also good politics.”
.
Quote:
|
As an aside, your entire post was weak/worthless/a straw man argument.
|
SO where are YOUR facts?