If the bill to re-authorize the ban arrives at Bush's desk, he's going to sign it. Why screw around with these threats, just announce he doesn't have your vote?
So ... what is the plausible alternative? Democrats? Third Party? Sitting out the elections? The first isn't likely, the second option needs a severe jumpstart with the election in less than twelve months, and the third option warrants no respect or admiration.
The energy should be to thwart the initiative in Congress, before it lands on the President's desk. Throwing Bush overboard for an action he has signalled he WILL take is silly. Don't board his ship in the first place. But, don't delude yourselves that you will have any positive influence attaining other Conserviative priorities that only George W. Bush and a GOP majority Congress can codify into law.
Absolutely.
Also, there is nothing wrong with communicating very clearly to both Congress and the White House that an extension of this bill will cause many conservative gun owners to sit out or vote third party.
If the bill somehow gets to Bush's desk after such a campaign it would mostlikely be the result of a very, very close vote.
That would give Bush cover for a veto with the explanation being along the lines of "such a hotly contested law with dubious actual relationship to reducing crime should not be renewed by such a slim margin, if this law is truly the will of the American people they will contact enough legislators that Congress is able to override my veto..."
Or some other such drivel - but you get the idea. It's all about political cover. Pro AWB voters aren't going to vote for him anyway.
Therefore he just needs to be able to explain to the 70% or so of Americans who don't have a dog in the hunt and don't understand the issues. IF he gets out there and explains that the ban has no effect on crime then Americans won't have a problem with the veto.
This doesn't mean I'm voting for him if he does sign it - I'm getting to the point where I want the next revolution to occur - you know, the one that the Socialists are pushing for. Might as well get it over with while I can still take part in it.
JMO.
So if Bush (or any politician) tells you that he is going to screw you that we should vote for him because he was honest enough to tell us that we're going to get screwed? Are you insane?
Well, because that is not necessarily true.
See, Bush also can PUSH for the AW ban. That would definitely lose my vote. If he just lets it die but mouths the politically correct party line, he keeps my vote.
I disagree. If a person takes the time to go into a booth, and selects NO presidential contender, they are making a clear statement: "I will not vote for either form of tyranny."
Now, tyranny certainly still would come -- but at least they have thrown the finger at it.