Replies

1. You and Bush are ASSuming that DeLay will kill the bill in the house. That's the gameplan. It will PROBABLY happen, but we don't know that. If another Columbine happens, look out. DeLay couldn't keep that from a vote, although he and Dingell saved gunowners bigtime by poison pilling it. There are a lot of new members and congressman, and they haven't had a really close gun bill. This is tougher than the gun lawsuits bill.

2. Bush and his advisors are being dumb on this. The SMART thing for him to do is to shut the hell up about it and not say a damn thing. If he didn't say anything, we wouldn't have a firestorm on it at all. By casting doubts, it hurts him in several swing states, and paints him in a corner. If the AW ban is re-signed, he probably won't win in 2004.

3. Bush is viewed already as a pro-gunner. He won't win extra votes on this, and might lose CENTRIST voters in many states over this, and will certainly lose more than he will gain outside of California, New York Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticutt. All heavily dem states. Contrast that with closer progun states like Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

4. Bush is NOT playing to win this. He's playing "NOT TO LOSE". An old saying is "dance with the one that brung ya". He passed the buck on CFR and it bit him in the ass hurting him with his base. Enron put him in that position and the house passed the buck back to him. Will that happen again with the AW? That's not counting if it goes on a rider to another bill. That's how they got Lautenberg through. If he played to win, he wouldn't say anything and quietly let this die. Or give a non answer and say "The AW ban will sunset. We'll see what congress proposed on this. I won't make a decision until I see what the contents of the bill is". That's fair since any new AW ban would be a new bill.

5. So right now, Bush looks bad to his base since he(McClellan) opened his trap and a can of worms. No positive came from that for him. None. Now he better hopes the house saves his ass, since I doubt the senate will.

"Now he better hopes the house saves his ass, since I doubt the senate will."

If we have so little power that not one single Senator will filibuster this AW ban renewal, then just how are we so powerful as to knock Bush out in 2004 for signing it? Either we have power or we don't. It can't be both ways.

Moreover, why are we giving the House and Senate a "pass" on this issue, and only holding Bush's feet to the fire, especially since he has already campaigned on this issue and his position on it (whereas a lot of Congressmen haven't yet been pressed on their positions on this issue)?

"2. Bush and his advisors are being dumb on this. The SMART thing for him to do is to shut the hell up about it and not say a damn thing. If he didn't say anything, we wouldn't have a firestorm on it at all."

Come on Dan, you know politics better than that comment illustrates. Heck, Bush is catching fire simply from landing on an aircraft carrier, for crying out loud! One of his judges, Estrada, is catching fire simply because he hasn't anwered enough Senate questions verbosely, a far cry from being completely silent on the matter.

Moreover, Bush's advisors are being brilliant about this issue. Bush has taken a political position that keeps his campaign promise, for one thing, and for another, it places him to the left of the NRA, thus making it extraordinarily difficult for the Left to paint GWB as a far-right radical (And they would love to be able to so do).

But the real beauty of Bush's advisors stating that he would sign an AW Ban renewal bill is that it puts every Congressman on the spot.

No longer can they vote for this bill knowing that it would simply be vetoed. Nor can they avoid the vote and escape the consequences.

By making his stance public, Bush has robbed the Left of several inevitable criticisms, as well as placed our Congressmen precisely where they need to be, in the firing line regarding this bill.

Of course, the RINOs can escape even this firing line if the Democrats are still filibustering 24/7 against Estrada and Owens and/or others come September 2004 (as bills couldn't be voted upon then), but no matter, at least that would be a victory for us (if a meek and backdoor win, at that).