Bush in Tight Spot With N.R.A. Over Gun Legislation

The New York Times ^ | 05/08/03 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

[ozzymandus]

What did you expect? He's running for re-election. Would you rather have John F Kerry or John Edwards signing every piece of anti-gun legislation that crosses his desk?? Try dealing with reality instead of impossible absoloutes. And yes, I'm a Life Member NRA.

[kcar]

Haven't read the NYT recently. But unity means nothing if the leader of our cause doesn't see our freedoms as his cause. Bush and the Republican dominance of our congress ends when it becomes smugness and arrogance. Doan care much about your united front - unless it impacts my future of freedom, or that of my kids. Like the Dixie sluts, Bush can choose to support whatever he likes - then we get to.

[dead]

You're right. But Bush and Rove have calculated that those on the right wing who don't vote for him will be more than made up for by those mushy moderates who will jump aboard.

It's a political calculation, and that's what Rove is really good at.

It's pretty gutless for Bush, but there's an election to win, I guess.

[Mr. Mojo]

I'm sure Rove has stated basically, "You won the war in Iraq, you fight for lower taxes (not very successfully), and you wear a cowboy hat. The right wing will be pissed at you, but they'll still vote for you anyway. Where else are they gonna go?"

Some will vote for a 3rd Party loser, but many will just chose not to vote - for President, at least - at all.

[Dane]

Well, that is what I expect from the NYT. What should we expect from President Bush on this issue?

Whew it is amazing how you all can get worked up by a NYT article. I admittedly skimmed over the article but it only mentions the Senate. I guess to the NYT the House doesn't exist. This is where this issue will be decided since 2nd amendment issues are a big factor in local congressional elections and the aw ban barely passed the house in 94 when the demo's had control, but you all go ahead with your rants over a NYT article.

[fourdeuce82d]

Brother, as a Texan (not by birth, by choice, dammit!) and an ex army puke, and an owner of an Evil Black Rifle... I'm willing to give him a pass. He is not implementing any new legislation, he is maintaining the status quo.

I don't agree with the ban, but we're holding our own, and gaining ground. CCW laws are sweeping the nation, frivolous lawsuits are being prohibited...slowly slowly catchee monkee.

Let's get another four years, a few more congressional seats, a bunch more judges...and then lower the boom.

[Mr. Mojo]

I see Mulder already answered you (in post #14).

[Mulder]

Bush is supporting the ban because it will never reach his desk.

If the AWB ban isn't renewed, Bush will get blamed anyway. So why doesn't he simply oppose it and state his reasons for doing so? It's an incredibly stupid law and he could articulate it as such in about 30 seconds.

That said, it's damned stupid of him to run away from a good issue like this one.

I don't know of ANYONE who will vote for Bush based on his support of this. I know lots of folks who will vote against him based on this issue.

Also, if the big issue in 2004 is 'guns', the conservative candidates will win big time. Hell, even the demoncrats are starting to realize this. Lieberman made a statement during the last "debate" (for lack of a more accurate term) that was very pro-gun Rights, demoncratic governors have run on pro-gun platforms, and traditionally demoncratic states have enacted CCW laws.

The gun issue is a winning one for conservatives.

[Parley Baer]

I have not heard a word on what Bush himself has said. All I have heard is from the likes of the NY Times. I'am willing to wait and see what happens and how this plays out. Maybe he will only renew it for one year just to get past the 2004 elections and then dump it???? Sometimes GW plays these things close to the vest in order to sucker the liberals. Parley

[kcar]

I got your status quo (Slave # 055-4879-97315-00) right here.

[ysoitanly]

I am SICK of Bush counting on 'something', be it the courts or legislative bodies, to 'overturn' his lack of spine on certain issues. Before I put on the flame suit, think of CFR and now this. Ok, bomb me with 'strategery' and how it (so far) has come out all right, but do you think this can go on forever before Dems and RINOs jump on? And, as I add extra asbestos to prepare, it looks like he temporarily 'skated' from addressing - read: giving Mexico totally unfettered access to the U.S. and the amnesty for illegals, purely by chance, because Mexico pi$$ed us off with their Iraq war stance. Ducking.......

[justlurking]

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities, the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk.

I suspect this is Bush's strategy. He expects that it will never make it out of the House (although the Senate will probably pass it). It can't become an issue in the 2004 campaign -- he didn't oppose it, but he wouldn't have to sign it into law, either.

If the bill does come to him for his signature, Bush should remember gun owners' part in the defeat of his father, and his own victory in Texas two years later. If he has forgotten, he deserves to lose in 2004.

[RKV]

I expect him to be able to read the Constitution. He failed the CFR test and he failed the Homeland Security test, and if he fails the Bill of Rights test we might as well start the civil war now. The 2nd Amendment isn't optional. Any law that imbalances the power of the people in favor of the power of the government with regard to the possession and carrying of arms is too many. We have been patient for too long as our fundamental rights have been erroded. This is the last straw.

[marron]

He is making a political calculation. The catch is that people who favor gun control aren't going to vote for him whatever happens. So he is alienating his core and getting nothing in return.

He may be calculating that conservative voters have no place else to go, and he is right that they obviously aren't going to vote Dem. Most conservatives will vote for him despite reservations as the lesser of evils. But others will simply stay home, or vote for one of the "third" parties as a protest vote. If you remember how close the election was last time, you realize that it wouldn't take too many protest votes to cost him a second term.

He is gambling, and this is a gamble that could cost him the election and cost us 4 years of Lieberman.

[dead]

I have not heard a word on what Bush himself has said. All I have heard is from the likes of the NY Times.

When Bush's spokesman speaks for him and states that he will support this law, do you think that maybe the NY Times is pulling his strings? I don't.

And you never answered my question - do you think Bush's stated (through a spokesman) support for this law springs from some core belief that the law is just, or is his support based solely on political calculations?

[cksharks]

Would someone please explain to me how he is weak on gun issues when "HE SAID BEEFORE HE WAS ELECTED THAT HE SUPPORTED THIS ISSUE. I would say he is a hipcritical SOB if he said he did not support it now. He said the same thing about caimpaign finance. He said if they send it to me I will sign it.They did he did.

[kcar]

Put your name on the ballot and I'll vote for you.

[rastus macgill]

If the gun ban extension does reach the President's desk and he signs it He has lost my vote.
Of course he didn't get it in the last election either.
I live in a conservative state (GA) so the race would have to be close for my vote to make a difference in a Presidential race.
The political demographics of the mid-west make this move risky no matter which position he takes.I wish President Bush would oppose it on constitutional grounds.

[dead]

Bush is just playing politics. This is a touchy third rail issue that could be used against him with the soccer mom's. I will bet that it will never reach his desk. If it does... He better veto it or lose a large block of support

Yikes! I must have fallen into my "way-back" machine and landed in an old thread about campaign finance reform legislation!

[rastus macgill]

The support should be even less than lukewarm.