"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).
The aircraft carrier attacks are a joke. Everyone I know says "Big @#&^#$ deal". Klinton did worse, so what are they b***ing about. Exact words.
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.