How Assault Weapons Import Ban Cost Bush 41 Re-Election

"Unintended Consequences" ^ | 1996 | John Ross

[Atlas Sneezed]

From page 488 et seq. of the 5th printing.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[Terpfen]

Of course, Clinton's economy rhetoric and Perot's vote-sapping had NOTHING to do with Bush 41 leaving office... nothing at all...

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

We need to come up with a way to defuse these
one issue Republicans.
They say if you don't agree with my one issue,
we will keep democrats in power to punish any-
one who doesn't agree one hundred percent with
my one issue!

[Tailback]

And Al Gore losing West Virginia (a rural state that always votes Dem) in the 2000 election had nothing to do with the perception that Gore would continue with Clinton's anti gun policies.

[Tailback]

Who's we?

[HamiltonJay]

hahahahahaha Bush 41 lost because he RAISED TAXES and RAN A HORRIBLE RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN, and also had the press overwhelmingly ejaculating over his Democratic opponent... may not like the Ban on "assault weapons"... but that's not what cost him the election

[gtech]

We need to come up with a way to defuse these one issue Republicans. They say if you don't agree with my one issue, we will keep democrats in power to punish any- one who doesn't agree one hundred percent with my one issue!

This one's EASY! Do your part to make sure congress doesn't pass this awful bill, and make sure the president knows that you have an interest in it not getting passed. Simple as that and thousands of "one-issue" voters start working for your candidate, let alone millions voting voting for him.

[jeremiah]

George Bush lost the election all by himself. He was solely responsible for the lack of focus of his campaign, the rise of Perot, and 8 years of Clinton. He was a horrible campaigner, endearing himself only to hard-core Republican voters. Any candidate must nail down his base, and sway the independents. He did a poor job on both counts.

[Servant of the Nine]

There is no way I would vote for a democrat, but if Bush signs a renewal of the "assault Rifle" ban, I am staying home.

Call it half a vote against him.

So9

[coloradan]

You could vote libertarian ... hypothetically speaking.

[Shooter 2.5]

We might get a better answer as to what cost him the election after September of 2004.

[Brian S]

I remember that election day quite well in 1992. It was the first time I walked into a voting booth to vote for President undecided. Clinton certainly wasn't an option but I toyed with a protest vote for Perot. When it was time to punch, Clinton flashed through my mind and I voted for Bush.

He ran a horrible campaign and his heart just wasn't in it. Somebody on TV was discussing the '92 election and kept mentioning 41's health problem. I can't remember what that problem was?

[Nick Danger]

Something about this doesn't make any sense. The assault weapons ban is not due to expire until September 2004. That means that any struggle to renew it will be going on as the 2004 elections approach.

Many people in the Democratic Party believe that Al Gore would be President today were it not for his stand on gun control. They think it cost him several states, including his home state of Tennessee. Not many Democrats, therefore, will be all that anxious to champion this renewal. The usual suspects from states like New York and California will certainly be trumpeting the cause, but they are likely to see less support than they'd like from their colleagues in less urban states.

Left to proceed on its own, an assault weapons ban renewal is likely to be a big issue for the media, Chuck, Hillary, and Diane... and that's about it. Most Republicans will be against it, and most Democrats will be hiding in a bunker until it goes away. The likelihood of it getting through the Senate, let alone the House, is near zero.

So why would the White House send some "spokesman" (you'll notice it wasn't Bush, Ari, or Karl) out to raise this issue more than a year before it is likely to come up in Congress? The White House could have ignored the whole thing; odds are it will never land on Bush's desk. Why take a position at all? And if you're going to take one, why take one that will be as popular with the base as "read my lips"?

This is not what it seems, folks. Bush has no reason to start crusading for a renewal of the assault weapons ban 16 months before it's due. It's not his issue, and it isn't time. Even if he was going to crusade for it, he wouldn't have sent some under-assistant deputy spokesman out to sound the trumpet.

This is some kind of Stategery. It's probably intended to bait the Dems into doing something stupid.

[GunRunner]

Bush lost for one reason: Ross Perot. Nothing more, nothing less.

[longtermmemmory]

can anyone tell me if a child is prescribed ritalin, do they lose their second ammendment rights? ability to get a CCW permit?

I know this is not directly related but there is another thread where this would be useful.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Of course Bush Jr. could use the renewing of the "Assault Weapons Import Ban" as leverage to get the tax cuts HE WANTS passed through the Senate.

[longtermmemmory]

I agree this comming out now stinks. What is the back ground of the person who said this? is this a leaker? This feels more like a troll by democrats to divide republicans who feel strong about the second ammendment.

[always vigilant]

up

[AAABEST]

Of course, Clinton's economy rhetoric and Perot's vote-sapping had NOTHING to do with Bush 41 leaving office... nothing at all...

Actually, there are some very credible studies that show Bush would have lost anyway, with or without Perot. Rush was just talking about this the other day.

Bush I lost by a small margin, just as Bush II won by a small margin. There are many reasons why either could have won or lost. Point is it's stupid to take for granted millions of gun owners votes to kneepad for liberals who can't make up for it.