DeLay: "Zero chance" for (Assault Weapons Ban) renewal passing in House

AWBanSunset.com ^ | 5/9/03 | Stuart Roy

[E. Pluribus Unum]

House Majority leader Tom DeLay, through a spokesman, says the recently introduced AW Ban renewal bills (the Senate version, or the significantly more restrictive House version) will not pass in the House of Representatives.

[FairOpinion]

"It appears that many 'conservatives' think that being a RINO is an excellent piece of political strategy. However, where does that really leave us?" I didn't mean RINOs. I hate RINOs. But from what I have seen there is a vast spectrum even inside the Republican party, with RINOs on one end, "purist" conservatives on the other end, and several shades in between from "center-right" to moderate/center to "a shade better than RINOs".

I think the accusations of some that Bush is not conservative enough, is not valid. Bush is in the right to center inside the Republican party, in my opinion, and we should be darn happy that he is president. Who do people want, Buchanan?

And we should apply some common sense. For example, in California, Riordan,-- whom I consider "a shade better than a RINO" politically, but a sensible no-nonsense business man, who was an excellent Mayor of LA -- would be infinitely better than far-left incompetent corrupt idiot Gray Davis. The reason we got Davis, was because the Republican couldn't bring themselves to give the nomination to Riordan.

I think idealism and ideology are all good and well, but that and $1 will get you a cup of coffee, if you are lucky.

It's kind of like a starving man wanting $1M exactly, and won't take a penny less, he would rather starve to death, than to take $500,000. Conservatives want ultraconservative politicians, and rather have ultra left, than support center right, which will get them part way to where they want to be.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

You're looking one right in the eye and I'm sick and tired of our compassionate conservative friend hiding behind someone else's skirt

You shouldn't be allowed to vote. You don't have the brains God gave one of Tom Harkin's dung heaps.

Bush is playing good cop. Delay is playing bad cop.

The objective in politics is to WIN, not say things YOU want to hear.

You don't win by stomping around like Joe McCarthy (who was right about the Commies but made being anti-Communist a joke) giving everybody an easy target to shoot at.

Which would you rather have, genius:

(1) Bush says "WE NO GONNA RENEW AWB" and lose to Hillary, who implements it anyway when she becomes President? or

(2) Bush says "I will sign AWB if it hits my desk," Delay never lets it out of committe so it can't be signed, and Bush gets reelected?

Do you have enough brain cells to comprehend which is the more desirable situation?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

How does that mitigate his promise to betray us?

You shouldn't be allowed to vote. You don't have the brains God gave one of Tom Harkin's dung heaps.

Bush is playing good cop. Delay is playing bad cop.

The objective in politics is to WIN, not say things YOU want to hear.

You don't win by stomping around like Joe McCarthy (who was right about the Commies but made being anti-Communist a joke) giving everybody an easy target to shoot at.

Which would you rather have, genius:

(1) Bush says "WE NO GONNA RENEW AWB" and lose to Hillary, who implements it anyway when she becomes President? or

(2) Bush says "I will sign AWB if it hits my desk," Delay never lets it out of committe so it can't be signed, and Bush gets reelected?

Do you have enough brain cells to comprehend which is the more desirable situation?

[wardaddy]

My man...Big Tom!!!!...the Hammer!!

[Borderline]

EPB

  I am not a nervous nellie! I am one pissed off Republican! The first G. Bush betrayed us all and this one has stated he will too. My Constitutional rights DESERVE to be protected by the jerk I have supported and helped get elected.</p?   

I have NEVER, EVER even criticized Bush for anything else. I have been wildly enthusiastic about him. But playing politics with the constitution does NOT qualify for a President who promised to "Preserve and protect"

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I am not a nervous nellie! I am one pissed off Republican!

You shouldn't be allowed to vote. You don't have the brains God gave one of Tom Harkin's dung heaps.

Bush is playing good cop. Delay is playing bad cop.

The objective in politics is to WIN, not say things YOU want to hear.

You don't win by stomping around like Joe McCarthy (who was right about the Commies but made being anti-Communist a joke) giving everybody an easy target to shoot at.

Which would you rather have, genius:

(1) Bush says "WE NO GONNA RENEW AWB" and lose to Hillary, who implements it anyway when she becomes President? or

(2) Bush says "I will sign AWB if it hits my desk," Delay never lets it out of committe, and Bush gets reelected?

Do you have enough brain cells to comprehend which is the more desirable situation?

[Southack]

"How does that mitigate his promise to betray us?"

It's not a betrayal, for one thing. Bush openly said during his campaign that he would support all existing gun laws, but no new ones. If he signs the renewal, he would be supporting an existing law, not a new one (of course, if the dems try to slip anything additional into the bill, then Bush wouldn't sign it). Keeping an open, public campaign promise betrays no one, as betrayal requires a reversal of an earlier position or promise.

For another, if gun owners are so politically powerless that they can't stop the House or Senate from passing this bill, then our gun rights are already lost and the entire game is long since over.

Frankly, I refuse to believe that we can't stop this bill in either the House or Senate.

But if we can't stop it, then Bush can hardly be faulted (irrespective of his ethical choice to keep his campaign promise).

Moreover, all of this anti-Bush talk lets Congress off the hook. It's Congress that introduced this renewal bill, not Bush, and it's in Congress where this bill should die.

[tpaine]

Which would you rather have, genius:

(1) Bush says "WE NO GONNA RENEW AWB" and lose to Hillary, who implements it anyway when she becomes President? or
(2) Bush says "I will sign AWB if it hits my desk," Delay never lets it out of committe so it can't be signed, and Bush gets reelected?
(3) We throw the Rinos out & elect conservative republicans who refuse to pass ANY more unconstitutional laws, and pledge to not enforce those in place?


Do you have enough brain cells to comprehend which is the more desirable situation?

To bad we didn't back in '64 & '68 when we could see this mess coming, ignored it, and elected tricky Dick instead.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

(3) We throw the Rinos out & elect conservative republicans who refuse to pass ANY more unconstitutional laws, and pledge to not enforce those in place?

You know how to do that? Why the Hell didn't you do it in '92? Why did you allow us to suffer through EIGHT YEARS of Bill Clinton?

How are you going to do it? Magic Wand? LSD?

To bad we didn't back in '64 & '68 when we could see this mess coming, ignored it, and elected tricky Dick ins

You could have changed the course of the elections in '64 and '68 and you DIDN'T???? What kind of pervert are you?

[Total Package]

Preserving the assault weapons ban makes it just that much harder for terrorists to obtain tools of the trade.

Yes I know. Because the guns are all ready made, and a TERRORIST would never ever ever break a law.

[Southack]

"To bad Bush didn't do his and say he "wouldn't" sign any unconstitutional laws and would have those already on the books thrown out."

That's the same as saying that "I wish Al Gore had won, Leiberman resigned, and Hillary was appointed to Gore's VP, followed shortly thereafter by an accident that took Gore out and promoted Hillary into the Presidency."

Why?

Because George Bush was precisely as far to the Right as our nation would allow to be elected in 2000. Even the slightest bit more Right Wing, and those 577 winning votes in Florida would have gone for Gore.

Over 100 million Americans voted in 2000, but 577 people made the difference. The slightest change in policies would have given the election to Gore. There was simply NO MARGIN FOR ERROR.

With Bush, you get what you see. He keeps his promises. Don't fault the first politician in decades for keeping his campaign promises. Disagree with him on that one issue, fine.

But this constant bickering and childish whining about how Bush should be more Conservative than a Southern Baptist preacher at a Church of Christ social function is pure grade A bunk.

Being more Conservative in 2002 was acceptable. In 2004 it will be even more acceptable, but back in 2000 Bush was as far to the Right as we could legally elect.

It was even worse in 1996. Back then our choices were Clinton, Perot, and poor old Bob Dole (hardly a right-winger, as Dole gave us the original 1968 gun control act that registered machine guns, as well as gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act, among other things).

But as Bush piles up success on top of success, you'll see the whole nation shift over more towards the Right. Each year we'll be able to elect slightly more Conservative politicians, presuming that we don't get stupid by jumping ahead of the curve (e.g. Goldwater circa 1968) going after some "ideal" right-wing candidate.

This culture shift will only work if we move the nation in baby-steps. If we pull a Hillary and try to make the right-wing equivilent of her plan to nationalize healthcare, then all bets are off.

[tpaine]

"What kind of pervert are you?"
-epb-

Not the kind you are, bozo. - Calm yourself.

[ozzymandus]

Please tell me how to make an AR-15 fully auto with a flat piece of steel and a few holes. A good machinist could make a functional machine gun out of sheet metal and bar stock easier than the complex machining operations needed to convert an AR to full auto, particularly if he wanted it to work.

[Lancey Howard]

To all the hysterical "Bush betrayed us" Nervous Nellies out there (and you know who you are): Delay will do his job.

The "I'll-never-vote-for-Bush-again" clowns never quite get it, do they?

This has clearly been the plan all along.
A Bush "spokeman" quietly says that Bush will go along with the extension if Congress presents it to him (thereby taking away a Democrat sucker-mom issue), and then DeLay and the House Republicans kill the extension anyway, so it never even gets presented to Bush.

Everybody wins except for the scumbag Democrats.
Beautiful.

[Lancey Howard]

If Bush knew that it was not going to ever cross his desk, then why say anything at all about his willingness to sign it?

(Jeez, how quickly we forget.)

Bush's spokeman said what he said so that the House members would understand that he will not save their rear-ends with a veto. He was telling the House "YOU take care of this."

It was the same gambit with CFR. The House chickened out (or maybe realized that the courts would save them) and Bush did what he warned he would do - - he signed the trash legislation rather than hand the scumbag Democrats a hammer.

And now the House understands that Bush means what he says.
The House will kill the extension.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Not the kind you are, bozo. - Calm yoursel

Of course I'm excited, you wierdo.

You said you could change the course of past elections.

Why don't you do it and get us out of this mess?!?!?!

[Fraulein]

Is it okay to intentionally violate the oath of office -- to sign a bill, like CFR, that the President knew was unconstitutional -- simply because the end justified the means? Bush silenced the dems only at the cost of going on public record as having supported the legislation. There are lots of voters out there who read those headlines, without understanding the so-called 'strategy' behind it, and that may actually end up doing damage to Bush in the long run. At the very least I think that should be a worry.

[Lancey Howard]

You make a good point, but I disagree with your assessment of the intelligence level of the bulk of the ignorant chattering class. Bush believes that the upside of taking issues away from the scumbag Democrats (issues that the rats know will be happily exploited by their slobbering lapdogs in the liberal newsrooms) is greater than the downside of "offending" conservatives who are not smart enough to figure out the game.

I trust Bush's instincts, and with good reason - - he has won every time.

[tpaine]

"What kind of pervert are you?"
126 -epb-



Not the kind you are, bozo. - Calm yourself.
132 -tpaine-




Of course I'm excited, you wierdo.
You said you could change the course of past elections
-epb-


No, -- I said nothing of the sort.

Either take your 'wierd'- 'peverted' crap & lies to the backroom, or better yet, sign off and sober up.

You're out of control.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Either take your 'wierd'- 'peverted' crap & lies to the backroom, or better yet, sign off and sober up.

You're out of control.

Here are two of your bizarre statements:

3) We throw the Rinos out & elect conservative republicans who refuse to pass ANY more unconstitutional laws, and pledge to not enforce those in place?

To bad we didn't back in '64 & '68 when we could see this mess coming, ignored it, and elected tricky Dick ins

Earth to wierd pervert. Earth to wierd pervert.

The past cannot be changed. Talking as if it can be is demented.

And if you can "throw the Rinos out & elect conservative republicans who refuse to pass ANY more unconstitutional laws" then why the HELL don't you use some of your wierd, perverted New Age magic and do it instead of foaming at the mouth because Bush doesn't obey your every wierd, perverted desire?