Thank you.
Posted on 05/09/2003 2:27:22 PM PDT by 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.
As for the Senate, I think you've seen from the posts I've made what I think about them, in particular the pair I have. Carl Lenin and Debbie Stabusall. Worthless. Not a damn thing I can do about them either until 06.
As for the house, I already talked to Mike Rogers about it.
Thank you.
The Talking heads have been beating the anti rights beat for years. My hometown paper endorsed the whole dem ticket. They also wrote 3 anti editorials. The joke here is that whoever gets the endorsement of the Livingston County Press loses. It's a negative to have. I doubt my county is the only one like that with papers.
Options Bush had on this.
1. State he's for it. That's what he did. Firestorm from his base. Media gloating and loving it.
2. Say that he'll wait and see what bill goes to his desk to replace the old one. - Media will gripe. Gunowners thing he'll go their way. Strong Anti-gunners think he's an NRA pawn already. Most of them won't vote W anyway. Most anti's also have this as a 2nd tier issue to other issues.
3. Say he'd veto it since it didn't work. As much as I'd love for him to say it, that wouldn't be smart, although I think it would be smarter than what he did based on what states swing election time. Anti's wouldn't be surprised. Media would gripe. Bill is dead. Gunowners remember and go to bat for him in 2004.
The gun issue swings up to 5% in each election(State level). That swing goes either way, but I much rather have an election strategy aimed at trying to win the upper Midwest, than the East Coast, strictly on dem/GOP numbers alone.
I understand. Bush's strategy is grander, however. He's going to win in 2004 with a landslide, taking New York and being competitive in California.I say this not just based upon his current 71% approval, nor simply because the Democratic candidates all have sub 30% approval levels (even if Gore/Hillary jumped in), but because Bush has demonstrated leadership in the face of constant media criticisms, as well as success after success, in addition to a rally-to-the-flag post 9/11 factor, and also Bush's fundraising ability.
GWB's public election plan is to spend $200 million in 2004. In reality, GWB can raise over half a Billion if he needs it.
And there's more. The Dems have been carping on and on about the economy. Bad idea. The tax cuts are kicking in. Interest rates are low. Productivity is high. Inflation is dead.
And then there is the stock market. The NASDAQ is up over 30% since October. Ameritrade has reported that 26% of its clients' funds are still in cash. Dick Grasso of the New York Stock Exchange has said that there is now $6 Trillion Dollars sitting on the sidelines in money-market funds, just waiting to get back into the game. Moreover, the corporate bad news has already been aired. Oh, and the Dollar has dropped 25%, making our exports far more price competitive and making our imports far costlier (thus driving buyers to more American products).
Boom! What do the Democrats have if they can't demagogue Bush?? What, tax increases?! Their plan to nationalize health care?! They want to make more of our land be off limits?! Shoot, the Democrats haven't had a new idea in 40 years. If they don't have mud and scandal, then they've got nothing.
And Bush is clean. They can't paint him as a far right radical. They can't get traction criticizing his carrier landing (hint: it will actually backlash against the dems). They can't catch his daughters in anything major, either. They've got squat. No issues. No anti-Bush scandals.
It's easy to see, too. After all, the desperation on the part of Dems is becoming a widepsread joke. They stand to lose 6 net Senate seats. They are losing on the tax cuts. They are losing on abortion. They are losing on tort reform (e.g. immunizing gun manufactures from lawsuits). They lost on arming pilots. They lost on Iraq and Afghanistan. Everywhere they turn, the Dems are losing.
Bush is frustrating the Dems at every turn, and their increasing rhetoric against him only proves my point.
My, but aren't you the sweet one. You know, before you run around casting aspersions at others, you might just want to learn to read a newspaper. We went through this exact same "good cop/bad cop" BS with CFR, and it passed. Luckily, SCOTUS granted cert, and luckily, they struck it down as unConstitutional. However, all that does is allows the Lefties to rewrite the language and try it all over again in a few years, only this time, they can point back to the support that the Right gave it and use that to help sway the sheep-like voters. Gee, what a brilliant strategy! Send the message that we like violating the Constitution with repeated Comngressional acts, that the Oath of the Presidency means nothing because schmucks like you prefer to play politics than to have principles, and that banning entire classes of guns is something that conservatives will sign on to. Sheer genius.
But, of course, you're the one who doesn't mind your wife coming home after trying to cheat on you and upon reporting her lack of success, you're happy to exclaim, "Well, she's just tryin' to strengthen the marriage by making me appreciate her more by playing 'bad wife'! It would be silly of me to chastise her for that!" And yet somehow you think that everyone else displays inferior intellectual prowess, eh cuckold?
The objective in politics is to WIN, not say things YOU want to hear.
Well, he will have a tougher time winning if he doesn't say what we want to hear. Gee, I thought that was called "politics", but what do I know? I apparently must pass an IQ test before being allowed my God-given right to vote. That's funny, but I recall that such tests were used before in the Jim Crow South, and that they were held to be yet another unConstitutional "reform" that you apparently support... well, at least you're conisitent.
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?
Yes, I do. I have enough brain cells to realize that one man's political ambitions are not worth scrapping the Constitution. Apparently, you don't have the requisite brain cells to realize that choice (2) has already failed as a strategy (CFR passed, using the exact same moronic arguments), choice (1) features you whining about Hillary probably signing it and simultaneously features you admiring the "good politics" of President Bush promising to sign it (no hypocrisy there?), and that you're failing to include choice (3), because you lack either the honesty or the intelligence...
(3) Bush says that banning large classes of weapons that are readily available to authorities is wrong, points out that the language of the law gives the authority to change the definitions of the law to an unaccountable and unelected Bureau (which can vioate Due Process's requisite notice element), reminds the country that the Second Amendment says "shall not unfringe" (a ban would be an infringement, just in case you don't have a dictionary handy), and reminds the voters that the Right does not like A) blaming weapons for crimes committed by people, B) making felons out of people who own a hunk of metal and have never done anything wrong in their lives, C) leaving open-ended laws that, at the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats, can further infringe on our rights, and D) passing legislation under the guise of "reduncing crime and gun deaths" when it demonstrably does nothing of the kind.
Applying my cheating wife analogy:
"For another, if the husband is so powerless that he can't stop the his wife from leaving the house, then he has already lost and the entire game is long since over."
I agree, and it explains why so many here threaten to not vote for him in 2004 for this bad policy/promise. I won't stand idly by if my spouse were to break, or promise to break, our Wedding Vows, and I won't stand idly by and vote for a man who promises to break his Oath to support and defend the Constitution, the one function of the Office that means the most to me. Cite all the political gamesmanship you want, I'm not buying the idea that one man's political future is worth more damage to that already-tattered Founding Document. (Gee, wasn't that Clinton's forte? Political genius coupled with a callous disregard for the Constitution?? We screamed bloody murder when he did it, but applaud when GWB does it?!? Sorry, I just can't hold on to that kind of hypocrisy after I see it for what it is.)
Good catch. However, I disagree with his judgment here. There is no guarantee that SCOTUS will grant certiorari to address a bill that has been passed TWICE by the Right, when the Right will be the party claiming it is unConstitutional. That's playing dice with my beloved Constitution, and I don't like it.
He chose the best forum to make the final judgment and not the temporary stopgap of the veto.
Even IF SCOTUS grants cert, and even IF they vote the way that we hope, it STILL is not a permanent injunction against all assault weapons bans. The Left will merely read the language of the decision, rewrite the Ban with language that will not violate SCOTUS's reasoning, and ram it through Congress yet again. These are Leftist lawyers. Playing games with words and twisting them to do their bidding is what they do best. All President Bush accomplishes by promising to sign it is to further their aims, play the odds that someone else will fix the problem, and pass responsibility on to others. That is not what I want out of my elected leader.
Amen. It will take years to peel back the layers of liberalism which began with FDR. It can't be done overnight. The checks and balances deliberately written into our Constitution to provide stability also serve to prevent sudden reversals in any direction.
While I understand your passion, I don't see your logic.You want to engage in actions that place Democrats like Hillary into the Presidency, over issues that shouldn't even reach the Presidential level.
Bush told everyone where he stood in regards to Campaign Finance and the Assault Weapons Ban, long before he was elected.
We all had plenty of time to judge, in sum, Bush's positions versus Gore's. By the tiniest of margins, our great nation chose Bush over Gore, but now you want to fault Bush for keeping his campaign promises on two issues that you've disagreed with him on from day one, as if this is some new development and some sort of reversal of Bush's positions.
Well, it isn't a betrayal or reversal. Bush has been consistent all along. Faulting him for keeping his campaign promises is absurd, too. The strategy that has been available to us all along in regards to defeating CFR and the AW Ban has been for us to win in Congress, because we all KNEW from long ago where Bush stood if those issues reached his desk.
Now granted, for the "one issue" voters out there, it doesn't matter if Bush keeps campaign promises so much as it matters to them that Bush be on their side on their one overriding, all important issue. And for the 3rd Party types, it doesn't even matter if Bush sides with them on any one all-important issue, as Bush would have to agree with them on each and every issue 100% of the time for them to even consider supporting him. Bush could go their way on one issue and they'd stab him in the back as soon as he didn't go their way on the next one.
Looking for a perfect political Jesus among mere mortals is an easy way to lead a frustrating life. It's also an easy way to lose every battle that you choose to fight.
On the other hand, searching for a leader who can deliver more of your concerns than all of the other leaders is an eminently achievable objective, and it is also a course of action that will deliver far more victories than any other.
Victories such as arming pilots, repealing state-level CCW bans, gaining national immunity for gun manufactures from frivolous lawsuits, killing the International Criminal Court, killing Kyoto Global Warming Accords, killing the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty, bypassing the UN regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.
But then again, there are those among us who would rather lose all of those fights if it means supporting a politician who isn't 100% perfect.
Aside from the fact that your statement is asinine if you are applying it to Bush, what do you think will happen to the Constitution if idiots like you help elect Hillary?
Small minds are impressed easily. All you have to do is complain to the moderator and it is gone, just like yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.