Lauer to Rudy Giuliani: Did Obama Miss An Opportunity to Push for More Gun Control?
It appears NBC's Matt Lauer is not happy about Barack Obama's failure to exploit the Tucson shooting to push for more gun control as on Wednesday's Today show, he seemingly expressed disappointment to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani that the President "missed" an "opportunity" to address it in his State of the Union speech.
Lauer's anti-gun question to Giuliani came on the heels of his pushing White House senior advisor, on yesterday's show, to reveal if Obama would join current NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg in making a push for more gun control. On this morning's Today show, Lauer went even further, as he, in addition to throwing Bloomberg's words in Giuliani's face, also read directly from a Brady Center press release, as seen in the following January 26 exchange:
(video, audio and transcript after the jump)
MATT LAUER: One of the things he did not mention was gun control. In the wake of the Tucson shootings a lot of people had wanted him to take a strong stand there. Mayor Bloomberg of New York said, he thinks it was a missed opportunity the President didn't mention it. The Brady Center for Prevention of Gun Violence released a statement saying, "How can President Obama tell us 'the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our children, and that all deserve the chance to be fulfilled,' without talking about the gun violence that destroyed those dreams." Did you think it was a missed opportunity?
RUDY GIULIANI: I thought, actually, that probably would have gotten him into a lot of bipartisan bickering. Even on his own side, there's a tremendous amount of opposition to that. The place where he missed the opportunity was - the big issue in this country is our debt and our deficit. And he showed no leadership on that. I think those are the first words of the USA Today editorial, and I kind of agree with that.
In the very next segment Lauer's co-anchor, Meredith Vieira, brought up the gun control subject with former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw, however Brokaw, demonstrating a little more political savvy than Lauer on the topic, noted that Obama was wise not to bring it up as the issue could hurt "rural Democrats."
MEREDITH VIEIRA: Given the fact that this speech was made against the, the, the backdrop of the Tucson shootings, as Matt pointed out to Rudy Giuliani, he could have addressed gun control. He chose not to. Was it a mistake or was he smart to avoid that kind of bipartisan bickering that Giuliani said would have been the result?
TOM BROKAW: Well I think the mayor was right. That would have given it a whole different political dimension. It is a very radioactive issue even among western and rural Democrats, obviously.
—Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here
- Geoffrey Dickens's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Yes, let's add another law so Giffords would have been protected
Submitted by JeffC... on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 1:42pm.
Pass a law to impose a five year sentence on anyone convicted of possessing a firearm with 1000 feet of a federal official. For the sake of justice, the five years can be added to the prison time applied to the federal attempted murder of a federal official conviction and the six death sentences for the state charges of capital murder.Matt is Living in OZ.
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 1:55pm.
Lauer is living in a world where "gun control" still has merit outside hitting your target.
Matt Lauer, would you support a legislated requirement, at a cost to you of course, in order that you may be allowed to speak here each morning?
Matt Lauer, would you support a limit on how days a week you could speak? How about a limit on how many words you can speak each day?
Matt Lauer, would you support limitations, decided by local sherriffs solely, regarding who may or may not be granted a permit establishing such parameters?
Matt Lauer, would you support an entire state of people being disallowed totally the ability to speak any day - by legislative action - and be punished as felons if they dare do so anywhere but within their own home (and sometimes even then)?
Give me two minutes with Matt Lauer and I will have his tongue so tied he will be begging for a commercial break.
Gun control is not an issue
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 2:57pm.
Gun control is not an issue any more, liberals. Let it go. Bloomberg can't think on a national level.
Chuck Schumer in 2008(might
Submitted by Zippy on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 4:18pm.
Chuck Schumer in 2008(might have been 2004) said talk about guns and you will get no money from the DNC.
One Congresswoman out west talked about guns. She got no help from DNC and was disowned. She won anyway.
Lauer's Blatant Agenda
Submitted by Boil It Down on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 4:31pm.
Wow! Matt Lauer has been beating that gun control drum pretty hard. His activist reporting has dropped any pretence of objectivity on this issue. If he were a real life, honest to goodness journalist, he'd have a balanced panel on his show to thoroughly debate the gun issue and educate his audience(and himself). That, of course, wouldn't necessarily serve to skew the message toward his views. It's just too dangerous a thing to do when you can't predict the results. To me that's gutless and dishonest, neither of which describe a good journalist.
So if there was one more law
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 4:34pm.
So if there was one more law aginst shooting someone, that would protect them, right?
Where is it that liberals get the notion that there is a law they can pass that would stop shootings, killings or even hate?
What is this magic law that would wipe out crime as we know it today? If one more gun law will stop all this killing and shooting, why not pass this law, but not limit its scope? This magic law should be passed aginst all crime! After all, why just make it illegal if you use a gun?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
I know one law that would
Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 4:49pm.
I know one law that would work. Years ago NC could declare a crook an outlaw. He was fair game. If you see a gang banger with a weapon allow a law abiding citzen to drop him. In Chicago citizens can't have guns. So if you see someone with a gun drop them on the spot. After awhile I think they will put down their guns knowing they can be shot on sight for carrying.
our guns are not the federal governments business
Submitted by igor1136 on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 5:29pm.
our constitution if what our government is suppose to use as an outline of what they cant do. our right to keep and bear arms comes from God not from government. when God takes away my guns ill give them up but not a moment before that. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED needs to be sent to all the gun grabbin libtards. you want my gun come get it ill give you my bullets first.
And what if Justice Scalia
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 5:44pm.
(who also believes the Second Amendment "right" is not absolute) shows up? Gonna shoot him, too?
Jer
Nah---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 6:31pm.
he ain't a liberal.Jer,
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 10:59pm.
Not Absolute? Interesting. Do you mean I cannot exercise my right to keep and bear arms on your property against your declaration?
You mean I can't shoot you because I disagree with your political positions or the fact that you voice them openly?
You mean I can't point my gun at you and command you to hand over your wallet?
You mean I cannot force you to work my fields at the point of my gun?
Or do you mean you and a large number of voters can declare that I cannot carry a firearm in case of confrontation?
Or that I cannot defend myself, my family and my property from aggression?
Or do you mean that you and those same voters can decide how many firearms, of what kind, I am allowed own and when I can buy them?
Or that I must gain permission from some government entity in order to inherit a firearm, buy ammunition or simply possess a stripped lower?
Jer, please explain the "not absolute" you allude to. I would love to hear it.
Forget gun control.
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 6:54pm.
What we need is Obama control.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Gun Violence????
Submitted by Emil on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 11:22pm.
What the EFF! is gun violence. Loughner would not have been able to buy a gun legally if the Leftist Sheriff Dupnik had done his job. Loughner had made death threats, he had been arrested, he was a known drug user. If the LEFTIST Sheriff had reported this info to the FBI's crime computer system, Loughner would not have been able to buy the gun!. So, once again the DEM/LIBS want to hammer the law abiding citizen for something they had nothing to do with. Thank God the Republicans have taken control of the House. Remember, if they could, Obama and the DEM/LIBS will take away your guns if they get a chance. Vote Republican/Conservative if you want to keep ypur guns.
I have to admit, I really
Submitted by misterbee241 on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 1:01pm.
I have to admit, I really like the 1000 foot rule. If I were a politician speaking at a public gathering, I would feel so comfortable and at ease knowing there would be no one around me with a gun for a 1000 feet to protect me when the bad guy ignores the law and breaks through that "barrier" to stick a gun in my face and pull the trigger.