Decrying Direct Democracy

Everyone is thrilled pink that Obama called out those who lied about what was in the gun control bill. He said that the liars claimed that it created a “permanent registry,” when in actuality it contained a clause which prevented such a thing. But this whole discussion, in reality, makes very little sense. Not that that’s all that unusual in politics.

So, what was the real issue here? Who were the liars aiming their lies at?

Obama was saying that the Senators voted against the bill “because people lied about the bill.” So, did the Senators not read the bill they were voting on? Did they get the information upon which they based their votes from people outside the Senate who were talking about the bill? Seems to me it would be easier to read the bill.

Did the Senators call the NRA and ask the NRA to read the contents of the bill to them? They might have called the NRA and asked how they should vote, but that would not be consistent with Obama’s statement that they voted because someone lied about the content of the bill.

The only way Obama’s claim makes any sense is if the Senators are not reading the bills upon which they are voting and, additionally, are getting their information about those bills from gossip. In that case the criticism should not be the votes themselves, but the utterly idiotic manner of their decision making.

The unstated way in which it makes sense is if the liars lied to voters, who called their Senators and told them to vote against the bill. That’s called “direct democracy” or, perhaps “undue influence,” depending on which side you’re on. It’s also what Obama is trying to get his side to do in favor of the bill, and we can only presume that he is not also lying about it.