 After listening last week’s Republican Senate debate, if I had my way, Tom Campbell would be the GOP nominee.
This should not be viewed as an endorsement of Campbell, but rather a commentary on the response made by of his two opponents that were so asinine it should warrant immediate suspension of their candidacies.
If I were king, Assemblyperson Chuck DeVore and former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina, would be eliminated based on the following exchange:
Question: Should people on the no-fly watch list be allowed to purchase a gun?
Tom Campbell: NO!
Chuck DeVore: Yes, if they have not been convicted of a felony
Carly Fiorina: Yes
Campbell: Oh my goodness
Fiorina: That is why Tom Campbell has a poor rating from the National Rifle Association
Campbell: I can’t believe what I am hearing. Wait until they’ re off the no-fly list then exercise your second amendment rights.
Fiorina: The no-fly list is way too large. You are seeing an issue where Tom Campbell is way too close to Barbara Boxer for my taste.
For the record, the remarks made by Campbell reflect not only my position, but also my profound disbelief that I could be hearing individuals who wish to be taken seriously as candidates for the United States Senate, make such irresponsible remarks in light of America’s present climate.
If Tom Campbell’s response to the aforementioned question has led to his poor rating from the National Rifle Association and makes him close to the incumbent the three Republican candidates seek to unseat, Sen. Barbra Boxer, I say great!
Sixty-six percent of the Republican candidates vying for their party’s nomination see nothing wrong with individuals who the government deems too dangerous to fly being able to purchase a gun as long as they have not been convicted.
The debate question was based on Senate Bill 1317 carried by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, which was introduced last week. It was co-sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and supported by Boxer, would ban people who are on the no-fly list from buying guns or explosives.
Not surprising that the National Rifle Association opposes the bill, which translates into candidates who want the NRA’s money must also oppose SB 1317.
According to the Government Accountability Office individuals on the no-fly watch list purchased firearms or explosives 1,119 times between 2004 and February 2010 while 109 were denied during that period.
Less than a week after the Times Square bomb scare, DeVore and Fiorina were concerned that someone who has been placed on the no-fly watch list might have the Second Amendment privileges abridged.
I can only conclude that DeVore and Fiorina are willing to publicly display the lengths they would go to get the senate nomination and that their positions on important issues are up for sale.
The no-fly list is hardly perfect. The list has raises legitimate civil liberty and due process concerns due to the potential racial profiling, as well as religious and ethnic discrimination. And once someone is placed on the list it is difficult to be removed. It was one of the balancing act challenges we face in a post 9/11 world.
Moreover, civil rights icon and Congressman John Lewis, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, and Nelson Mandela was among the names that have erroneously appeared on the no-fly watch list. Its imperfections notwithstanding, it was because of the no-fly watch list that the Times Square Bomber, Faisal Shazhad was apprehended. Should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 tragedy, be allowed to purchase a gun since he has yet to be convicted?
I’m under no illusions about the bipartisan political behavior known as pandering. I also understand when polls consistently indicate you are running behind, as is the case with DeVore and Fiorina, you must seize any available opening to gain ground, but this is so preposterous that it should be beyond the pale for any candidate from either of the two major political parties.
I’m certain to receive emails under the thread: “So, you’re okay with someone losing their civil rights without a trial?”
No, but in the words of H.L. Mencken: “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.”
For candidates who wish to be seen as serious, to simply offer a simplistic response to a very complex issue void of any nuance, all I can do is repeat Campbell’s words from last week’s debate, “Oh my goodness!”
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Post a Comment. 
