LaPierre challenges Cokie Roberts re: Clinton & lying

Kilroy

New member
On the Sunday morning ABC program, This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, Wayne LaPierre followed Clinton who spoke about Gun Control. Clinton touted the success of the Brady Law, citing numbers. I was glad to see LaPierre challenge Roberts to use the resources of ABC to find out that facts and number of actual prosecutions under Brady. Roberts tried to change the subject by aksing LaPierre to debate Clinton, which he accepted and then, in the same sentence, asked her to find out who was telling the truth about Brady prosecutions.

Good work by LaPierre.

Kilroy...
...was here
 
Roberts also asked LaPierre about the NRA's opposition to a ban on "cop killer" bullets then interrupted as he tried to respond. He eventually was only able to say (before George Will asked him another question) that the NRA helped draft the legislation to ban armor piercing bullets. However, we know that there was a *lot* more that could have been said about the NRA's opposition to bans on "cop killer" bullets (as in every rifle bullet is by definition a "cop killer" bullet since they penetrate soft body armor easily). Clinton got the softball and LaPierre got the hardball questions. I don't guess we expected anything else. Roberts was fairly openly hostile to LaPierre. Clinton got a *lot* more time to talk than LaPierre seemed to.

When asked if he would debate the issue with Charlton Heston, Clinton dodged the question and said that the issue should be brought up in Congress. At the end of the segment, though, Sam Donaldson said ABC would approach Clinton to again ask him to debate the NRA over these issues. I hope this happens because Clinton will get his ass torn up with the facts against his bull**** lies. I really hope the NRA continues to publicly call for a debate with Clinton over these issues even if Clinton continues to decline. That only makes Clinton look likes he's trying to avoid the NRA which helps them and us in the long run.

[This message has been edited by pbash (edited March 12, 2000).]
 
LePierre doesn't do well in such areas as debate. WE still need a national spokesperson that can hammer the facts home and not have the deer in the headlights look on their face. I would think Tom Selleck would be a natural for that. He is liked and smooth and can make a point. Ask Rosie.
 
There was also an NRA commercial last night on CBS. It featured Charlton Heston, who basicly called slick Willie a liar. It was late, but I don't think I dreamt it. Either Heston or Selleck would be a better debater.
 
I am shocked! Calling our noble President a liar! We know that he never tells lies. If you don't believe me, ask Monica Lewinsky.
 
pbash, Cokie Roberts has always been hostile to the NRA. Nearly twenty years ago, when she was on NPR, she made a reference to the "NRA's strangelhold on Washington." After that, my wife was _never_ allowed to donate money to public television or radio.

Dick
 
Cokie is also family connected to Washington politics....her brother and maybe her Dad.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Heston in a debate?!?

What are you guys thinking? He gives great speeches, but he can't think fast enough on his feet to do well in a debate. Cokie Roberts knows that. That is why she would choose Heston to give our side. I have seen Heston blow great chances to make points and stumble around making others right on the "This Week" show. LaPierre would be a lot better debater even if he doesn't come across as the likable type.


Joe
 
nralife: You're right about Heston. At first glance I _really_ like the idea of LaPierre debating Clinton, but I'm trying to find a downside. Obviously, the choice of moderator could make a difference as to the outcome.
Clinton would have to rely on emotional arguments rather than factual, and he's good at emotions. (Imagine his eyes tearing up as he talks about some kid his staff researched). Any "factual" info Clinton might use would be the junk science out of the Violence Policy Center or the CDC, so it could turn into a my-source-is-more-reliable-than- yours argument.

Still, though, I think LaPierre would win. Maybe we should put pressure on Kookie Roberts to get a debate going.

Dick
 
Why should anyone be shocked when Clinton tells lies? He is a self admitted liar who perjured himself under oath in a Federal court. He does not have the slightest hesitation in telling lies for his political advantage.
 
If memory serves, Cokie's father was Hale Boggs a US Senator(?) from Louisiana and was succeded in office by her mother. Cokie has been a DC'er for most of her life.
I agree thar Heston would not be ur best bet. I also like Tom Selleck. Face it, most people would be intimidated by olslick.

Of course our own DC would tear him a new one. So she is my choice.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
I'd like to know why no one from NRA or pro-gun pols never, ever goes after that "500,000" number of "felons, fugitives and stalkers" stopped by NICS. Everytime Clinton or an anti says that number people believe it and its ingrained and they think all these BS laws are working.
They have to discredit that!!! That is killing us with the average non-gunowner.

Ed...I would relish a public debate with His Billness, I'm a carnivore and always hungry

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
A debate between ANYONE here and Clinton would be better than Heston v. Clinton; They just can't program Heston with enough pre-written lines to counter everything Slick Willie could come up with. LaPierre isn't much better; He's got a better grasp of the facts, but can easily be caught up on the contradictions between the NRA's former stands, and it's current moderation.

Larry Pratt, that's the man I'D like to see Clinton locked in a room with; Forget the debate, just close the door, and see who emerges alive 24 hours later... In fact, could we suggest it to celebrity deathmatch?

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Wayne did ok...not great, but ok. I'll buy him a drink if we ever meet just for the line: (paraphrased, not quoted) "President Clinton needs gun violence to promote his agenda". I loved that...it is now out on the table.

But he was either weak or overwhelmed in areas....and so are we....we need to hone our facts and skills... so, please check and contribute:
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25632

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
I saw parts of the Show, and I feel the ABC and clinton were there just to pat each other on the back. The questions and answers seemed quite scripted. As far as clinton in a debate? Get real, that man wouldn't have the guts to stand up and face facts. or hear another person's side to an argument. Just look at the impeachment hearings for heaven's sake!

------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
 
Clintoon claimed that the 500,000 rejections from NICS were felons...

Clinton, NRA Fire Live Ammo
President Demands Gun Show Regulations


By Sascha Segan

March 12 — President Bill Clinton and an NRA official
unleashed some pungent rhetoric on gun control on
ABCNEWS’ This Week, with the National Rifle Association
bizarrely accusing the president of trying to keep crime rates
from dropping.
“He needs a certain level of violence in this country. He’s willing to
accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda,” NRA
executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told Sam Donaldson and Cokie
Roberts.
The president said the NRA is unwilling to listen to reason. “They
basically win through intimidation,” he said. “People are scared of
them.”

Debating Gun-Show Restrictions
President Clinton presented a moderate and thoughtful face on the
program, reflecting on how he has owned a gun since he was 12 and
sounding frustrated at the NRA’s hard line against gun restrictions.
“I’m not anti-gun, I’m not anti-sportsperson, I’m not against the
legitimate use of guns. [The NRA are] domino theory people. If you do
one little thing that ... requires any effort on the part of gun owners they
think it’s the end of the world,” he said.
In this case, the debate is over the scope of background checks for
buyers at gun shows; the president wants a 72-hour waiting period when
criminal or mental-health records aren’t easily accessible. The NRA
opposes such a waiting period, but backs bills containing only instant
background checks.
“Closing the gun show loophole is really important, because now a lot
of people who know they’ll be checked in gun stores can go to the urban
flea markets,” the president said.
He said that in limited circumstances, the 72-hour background checks
are necessary — and said that Congressional leaders are working to come
to a compromise, but slammed the NRA for preventing a compromise
from being reached.
“What we offered them was, okay, 24 hours for everyone you can
check within 24 hours. Over 90 percent you can check in 24 hours, but for
those you can’t check in 24 hours, we should be able to hold them for
three days,” he said.
The president also spoke about the 6-year-old killer in the recent
Michigan school shooting.
“Human nature being what it is, he’ll probably end up punishing
himself as time goes on. He’ll know, and one of two things will happen.
Either he will grow up with no conscience because he won’t be able to live
with it ... or he’ll grow up consumed with guilt. That child is going to need
a lot of help,” he said.

NRA: Enforcement Is Solution
LaPierre focused on slamming the Clinton administration’s record on gun
prosecutions, claiming that gun crimes are not a problem in the suburbs,
but that the government has been weak on enforcing gun laws in “pockets
of poverty.”
The violence in this country is an issue of pockets of poverty and the
people who are committing this violence are drug dealers with guns, gangs
with guns, and violent felons with guns. The only way you are going to get
rid of that problem is by prosecuting ... if the president would enforce the
law against drug dealers with guns he’d stop things like that crack house
in Michigan,” he said.
Clinton and LaPierre agreed that gun regulations would be a central
issue in this year’s presidential campaign.
“I can’t even pass a bill closing the gun show loophole ... if the people
want more done, I think that should be heavily debated in this presidential
election. It’s one of the things that will become the shape of 21st century
America,” the president said.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/thisweek_000312.html

hopefully we will have a transcript on ABC by next week http://abcnews.go.com/onair/thisweek/ThisWeekIndex.html
 
Person I would MOST like to see in a "Blame the Guns Debate"=Darrel Scott.
Mr. Scott, after losing his daughter in Littleton, has denounced gun control. He askes a lot of pointed questions, devoid of fluff, and back by his having paid more than his dues. The for the children clap that WJC spouts would have zero impact in such a situation. I would bet everthing I own that WJC would not be able to make eye contact during such a question and answer session. I am firmly opposed to him being a spokesperson for the NRA though. He is and should remain outside of the Slick vs the NRA debate. This man has the potential to be the hammer of thor to the tired retoric of for the children. Imaigne the impact of:
Slick "Well Mr. Scott, nothing I've done to date, and nothing I propose would have saved your daughter from the hands of a murderer. Nothing before congress addresses the issues behind the school violence that has become increasingly deadly during my administration. However, I call on the country and congress to pass more ineffective restrictions and unenforced laws. It's for the children. And after all, the life we fail to save tomorrow won't be your child's."
 
What's with their new set? They look like they're sharing a schooldesk! They looked ridiculous.

I noticed her obvious "leanings" and unwillingness to allow a structured response. Truth is a bit much for their preconceived ideology to handle.

And by the way, Heston as a debater? I think not. He has twice, that I have witnessed, stated that there are twelve amendmants to the Bill of Rights. It's pretty sad when Bill Maher has to correct you on a Constitutional point.

Now, I know that there were originally twelve amendments but only ten were ratified but I don't think CH is quite that old.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited March 13, 2000).]
 
Back
Top