President Bush's Boy Feels the Sting of His Boss' Mistake

The New Hampshire State Republican Committee is sponsoring a series of in-state visits from party bigwigs. Last night, Karl Rove, advisor to the President, and a friend of George W. Bush for 30 years, spoke at a lecture hall at Southern New Hampshire University, in Manchester. The hall was full, with several hundred people there, including a state senator, a recent Congressional candidate, and a number of other people I knew. (New Hampshire's a small state.) I sat in the front row, and after Rove's speech, was the last of a half-dozen people to be recognized for questions.

I introduced myself as a director of Gun Owners of New Hampshire, the NRA state affiliate, noting -- for the benefit of the audience -- that even Bill Clinton admitted that the country's 83 million gun owners, and the NRA, delivered the electoral votes of Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia in the 2000 election. I then told of assistant White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's statement a couple of weeks ago that President Bush had joined Democrat senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer in calling for renewal of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, due to sunset after ten years in 2004.

My question was whether President Bush was aware that many thousands of gun-rights activists around the country felt so strongly about this that we had drawn a line in the sand (my exact words), and would not support ANY politician -- even President Bush himself -- who supported this atrocious legislation.

Rove began his answer by referring to the tremendous amount of email that the White House had received on this subject, but then he shot back the question of whether we supported Bush in the 2000 elections.

I said "absolutely." His follow-up was that Bush had publicly campaigned on his position of "enforcing existing gun laws," and his position hasn't changed; he was just being consistent. Rove then closed the session and walked off the stage.

Just a few minutes later, I approached him to continue in private as he was leaving the building; I was the last to do so before he got into his car. This is where it got interesting: Rove took my arm and literally got in my face, using the old drill sergeant intimidation trick of speaking through clenched teeth with his nose an inch from mine. It didn't work, because I'm taller (and older, and uglier) than he is, and I took HIS arm in turn. He told me that Bush was sticking to his position, but that Congress would never pass the legislation. I told him that there were a lot of us, that we were dead serious, and that if Bush let the ban get renewed he'd lose the election, because freedom is more important than politics. He looked at me -- still with clenched teeth -- turned, and walked to his car, obviously angry.

GOOD! First, his anger told me that he knew that the hypocritical strategy was dangerous. More importantly, it tells me he'll remember the exchange.

"So help me understand why Bush couldn't just STFU on the issue?"

If it doesn't leave congress, he can claim credit for being on the record ready to sign it while also not having signed it, which would p.o. some gun-rights people a lot less than him signing it. It will muddle the message of the anti-gun crowd in mobilizing their base for the 2004 election, since the president did say he would sign this thing....politics as usual.

If it gets passed in congress, that is another story entirely.

Having said all of that, I would caution you from minimizing the innate distrust that many, many of the grassroots share about the leadership in Washington and at the state levels.

Before a campaign starts people like you describe become disgruntled with electable Republicans. But as the Democrats campaign for their nomination, they produce either of two results. The people you describe either are driven to vote so the leftist democrats do not get elected or they don't vote at all.

The truth is for every right wing pro gun vote garnered by unlimited gun possession, 5 votes from the quesy center are lost.

The fuction of Rove is two fold. First he must try to make the issues such that the far left is driven from the Democratic party and well over half the center is drawn to the Republicans.

Our government is about politicians doing what the majority of voters want. Politicians will always try to do what a majority of voters want. You can con convice a candidate who has teh moxie to win with ideology. You must convince them that a majority of voters share your views.

Many people on the right crave a dictator. They want a candidate that will act on his own opinion, rather than the views of the voters. That is exactly what every dictator does. Here in the states, politicicans do what the voters want. If they don't they get defeated. Many confuse what they think is just and right, with what hte public wants.

If you can mold public opinion to your view, the politicians will follow. For nearly 70 years that is what the Democrats have done. The Right looks for principled leaders.. .that is people who do not respond to the will of the people. The Democrats try to persuade a majority to their view.

It is fruitless to try to convince Rove that your position is right. You have to convince him a majority fo the public supports your view. This is a nation with a representative form of goverment. Elected officials are not supposed to do what they want. They are to represent the views of the majority in moving the levers of power.

If we don't see the result we'd hoped for, well then, why should we stick by the man who won't stick by us?

Because worst case Bush will be neutral in the gun rights fight and the Democrats will take all your guns away and make it a crime to own a BB gun.

Political success is about convincing a majority of the voters to your view. If a large enough majority of the public wants welfare reform even the leftist Clinton will embrace it as his own. He certainly did. If a large enough majority wants all guns banned even the most right wing politician will support total gun bans.

You reveal your stupidity when you think implemeting your positions on issues is done by supporting a politician. It is about convincing the American people to your way of thinking. Ignorance like yours is doomed to failure.

Thanks for your reply. I agree with much of what you say, but it still stands that in the end, a statesman (vs. a politician) must act on principle.

You are correct, too, that the mechanics of modern elections are, indeed, like selling soap. Unfortunately, the product under debate here is integrity and devotion to the first function of the presidency - upholding the Constitution.

What voter segment is pulled in what direction by what kind of campaign is more the province of advertising than policy and the ultimate manifestation of this was the pandering corruption of Krinton and company.

As many others here have opined, the very least that Bush could have done to play politics and maintain some creedence would have been to just shut up on this issue and let the legislation die under executive silence. Instead, he chose to send a calculated message and this is what disturbs me and a great many more than will be swayed from the Left by such inflammatory ignorance.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.