Will George W Bush really suffer his father's fate?

The Sunday Telegraph ^ | April 20, 2003 | Julian Coman

[Captain Shady]

Well ,the economy is bad like it was in 1991.However this Bush was smart enough to put Saddam Hussein in the unemployment line if not the morgue.

[ModernDayCato]

I want some of what you guys are smoking. Yeah, yeah, Bush accomplished a lot...no question. But please, let's not insult Ronald Reagan and the rest of the REAL conservatives by calling GW Bush one.

The size of the government and the budget are at record highs, the trampling of liberty and privacy is epidemic, and -- I'm sorry to say this -- but no conservative would have signed McCain-Feingold, just as no conservative would sign the assault weapons ban renewal.

All of you neo-heads and Bushies always seem to counter with 'WELL...he's better than [insert your liberal idiot here]' or 'Would you rather have Clinton?'

That's the best argument you've got? Yeah, he's better than all of the liberal idiots you can mention, and no, I wouldn't rather have Clinton. GW Bush is OUR Clinton, only he's slicker, and has real morals. What I want is a real conservative. And YES, YES, YES, I will stay home in 2004. But I had already planned that just about when McCain-Feingold was being signed.

I'm a one issue voter too. My issue is the preservation of the Republic. There is no candidate that supports my issue this time around.

[Revolting cat!]

Which guns would you like to ban?

None, I know little about this issue. That is not what this thread is about, please note, but the attempt to hijack it by by the single voters is telling, and troubling, as far as the potential real world consequences come next year.

[Revolting cat!]

single voters = single issue voters

[Jesse]

You might be right, except for the fact that this thread is not about deer hunting with tanks. You must be confusing this thread with a Nintendo game.

P.S. Intellectuals, not intelek-shoe-alls. Do you generally have to take your shoes off to count to twenty as well?

[PuNcH]

oh Wise One, it may be just a little bit of an overkill to hunt deer with tanks?

LOL, just saying ak47 vs deer isnt good enough now, bring on the tanks.

If I can distract you from your fantasy land for a moment, a semi-auto AK type gun is so much less powerful than a more typical semi-auto deer rifle like a browning. AK is effective to about 200meters. The browning more like 700+ meters. I wonder how many times this has been pointed out to you but you just cant seem to keep the idea in your tiny head.

[Skooz]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States:

Brought to you courtesy of the "conservative" purists who refused to vote for GW Bush because he failed to meet their arbitrary test for conservative purity.

But, hey, at least the Republic is preserved.
Yeah, thanks for nothin' Bushophobes.

[Happygal]

Where in my post did I say I wouldn't vote? Only sheep don't vote.

Lookey here toots, do I have to bring on the Irish charms, or do I need to put me hands on me hips and point a big ol' gun (OH MY GOD, I WISH MY COUNTRY WOULD ALLOW ME OWN A FIREARM TO MAKE PEOPLE SUBMIT *LOL*), to your head and tell you...you think you have it bad with President Bush? How about Hitlery in power? Then you got a single-minded liberal, 'it's all about me', I forgot to change my clothes, and my daughter-needs-guidance-that-I-never-gave-her dyke with an agenda on yer hands!!!

[PuNcH]

single voters = single issue voters

The 2nd Amendment is not a single issue btw.

Bush EO'd his own assault ban in 89. He lost in 92. If you dont want to talk about it then dont bring it up or ignore the posts that do.

[Happygal]

BTW...that's me being nice.

Want the uncensored version? ;-)

[Revolting cat!]

Do you generally have to take your shoes off to count to twenty as well?

Wow! That's highly original, I must say! Yale graduate? Cambridge? Beverly Hills University Advanced Diplomas by mail?

[ModernDayCato]

Excuse me? ARBITRARY? Exactly what of my comments is arbitrary:

The size of the government and the budget are at record highs, the trampling of liberty and privacy is epidemic, and no conservative would have signed McCain-Feingold, just as no conservative would sign the assault weapons ban renewal.

You guys can pretend what's there isn't there as long as you want, but your canonization of Bush does much more damage than my disgust.

Skooz and his pals going about their lives.

[ODDITHER]

TOP TEN REASONS WE WONT SEE A RE-BUSH ELECTION.

1. America had not been attacked by Hollywood and terrorists.

2. We could only get our news from the Leftist CNN NPR CBS NBC ABC.

3. Americans in general were upset with the "New World order" statements made by Bush SR. and no longer trusted him to protect our sovereignty.

4. Bill Clintonitis had not happened and it had been 12 years for America to forget the failings of Jimmy Carter and the economic and Defense problems he left President Reagan with.

5. The Democrats had not had been confronted with having to make lame excuses for a President that had lied, stolen and cheated the American public.

6. There was no cold war except on the economic front.

7. Very few people were engaged in the political scene. Most couldn't even name their own representatives.

8. Hilary hadn't happened yet.

9. We were 7 gates short of where we are now.

10. Remember old whats his name? "We must get under the hood and fix the nation" who has been MIA since before the last election, Perot? He was the real reason we lost the election.

[Revolting cat!]

The 2nd Amendment issue, whatever one thinks about it, is a loser issue! In the past 100 years you have been steady losing! Will you deny it? My sympathies, but I must note that the bitterness shows. You're not winning any new converts, and you're not holding your own. As of the day the Iraqis have more rights in this area. Best of luck anyway!

[Skooz]

Wrong on all points.

It is the conservative "purists" who ushered in the Clinton presidency in 1992. If Bush loses in 2004, it will be the conservative "purists" who will likely usher in another Clinton presidency.

Wonder how your pet issues will fare under her reign. No, I don't.

But, that will be okay, huh? As long as it is a Democrat trashing the Constitution, that's okay.

[Godebert]

to your head and tell you...you think you have it bad with President Bush? How about Hitlery in power?

Sorry HappyIrishGal.....but I don't vote for gun-grabbers, wether they be democrats or republicans. If Bush can't take his Presidential Oath of Office seriously....then he doesn't deserve to be president. Just like the Campaign Finance Reform bill, he knows the AWB is un-Constitutional but will sign it anyway. The Constitution of the United States of America is more important than any one man's ambition, including Bush.

[PuNcH]

The 2nd Amendment issue, whatever one thinks about it, is a loser issue! In the past 100 years you have been steady losing!

As it relates to this thread, it was a loser issue for Bush's daddy in 92. It was a loser issue for the democraps in 94 and Gore in 2000. Bush may suffer his daddy's fate if he comes out on that historically bad side of the issue.

[caltrop]

Actually, Ed Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation, convinced G.H.W. Bush that banning "Assault Weapons" would help him politically. You're correct that Clinton's the one who finally signed it into law.

In '92 Bush lost because he demonstrated, even to those of us who'd held our noses and voted for him in '88, that he was truly Reagan's biggest mistake. '92 was the first election in which I cast a Presidential vote for anyone other than the Republican candidate - I voted Libertarian. Bush's two biggest mistakes were his support for tax increases and his support for the Assault Weapons Ban. Clinton's signing the Assault Weapons Ban played a huge role in the '94 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. No need to take my word for it, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has said anti-gun issues weren't something the Democrats should continue to push as it was the major reason they lost the House and their ability to push the rest of their agenda. In 2000, Bush won because of the NRA's endorsement and the fact Gore was recognized as hostile to the 2nd Amendment.

Bush appointments have made it difficult to arm airline pilots and it now appears he's counting on Congress to make sure he doesn't have to sign the extension of the Assault Weapons Ban. His lack of leadership on this issue will definitely cost him the support of some gun owners - a group that, IMHO, is getting tired of being taken for granted.

[ModernDayCato]

Still waiting for your reasoned debate to my valid points. There won't be one, because you don't have FACTS (you know, the TRUTH) to back them up. All you and your ilk can do, over and over again, is mumble that we would do worse under Clinton.

This always makes me laugh, for two reasons: if this were happening under a Democrat president, you and your pals would be screaming your heads off (you would have somehow been able to get them out of the sand, or somewhere else). The other thing that makes me laugh is that Hillary WON'T get elected, no matter how many of us stay home. She's just not that electable.

And y'know, there actually is some truth to your statement: As long as it is a Democrat trashing the Constitution, that's okay [to me]. What you really mean to say is that As long as it is GW Bush, your hero, trashing the Constitution, that's okay [to you].

Let me save you some trouble. This is how these debates always turn out:

Cato: I don't really care all that much, because I have enough money where I can get out of the country when the time comes.

Skooz and pals: Don't let the door hit you in the @ss on the way out.

Cato: Yeah, but you'll miss my tax money that supports the bloated government of which you approve.

[Happygal]

And WHAT makes you think he will?


Exert pressure toots, as only you can, with your democratically elected Congressmen.