Governor Romney then took the podium to make a few remarks before signing the bill. Although the Governor did make mention of being a “sportsman” and the reforms in the bill that would help other sportsmen, he spun the bill as a ban.
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts ,” Romney said. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
When asked by a reporter if he supported the renewal of the federal “assault weapons” ban and if he had spoken to the senators about it, Governor Romney replied that it was not really his job to lobby on federal legislation, but that he shared Senator Kerry’s and Senator Kennedy’s position on the issue!
FROM AN ARTICLE
“Suddenly, a heavyset man wearing a bright-orange cap entered the room. “Mr. Romney,” he called out. “Eric Orff—I’m a hunter.” It was a potentially awkward moment. Earlier this year, Romney claimed that he’d “been a hunter pretty much all my life.”
A few days later, he said in a statement, “I’ve hunted small game numerous times.”
Four days after that, Romney told W. Gardner Selby, of the Austin American-Statesman, “Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.”
Still, he couldn’t resist. “You’re a hunter?” he said to Orff. “Well, same here. Good to see ya.”
Thanks! It was fun to read and something he should be embarrassed with but the great deceiver is OK with.
...and hence the problem. It is MUCH HARDER to oppose a president of the same party than it is to oppose a president of the other party. If Romney demanded a ban on these weapons, the Dems would all go along, and he’d likely pick off enough Reps to get it through...in the name of party unity.
Now Obama has to be able to do the same, but it will be harder. A lot of Reps (that would felt it necessary to support Romney) will oppose him, as there’s no political cost to opposing the president, when he’s of the opposite party - so Obama will now have to get virtually every Democrat in the House to support him. Clinton could not come close to doing that in 1994 and I doubt Obama can either. Back then, the Dems had a huge majority in the House, but the ban didn’t pass until Clinton was able to pull enough Reps to his side, by shaming them. The Dems voted 188 to 64 in support of the ban - nowhere close to the 218 votes needed to pass. But 46 Reps voted for it.
The Dems had 258 seats back then (some didn’t or couldn’t vote). They now will have 201 seats - and there are dozens of Dems that simply will not vote for it...so they have the job of trying to pull an even larger number of Republicans to their side. Not going to happen.
(don’t get me wrong, I still voted for Romney...no one, of course, saw this shooting coming)