Posted on 05/08/2003 7:53:15 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
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.
Molon Labe!
Sam Cohen http://www.thespiritof76.com/rkba.html
* RKBA! (...the exclamation point means "shall not be infringed!")
Oh, come on!! You don't want to be a one issue, well two issue, oh, three issue, voter now do you? It's all part of the bigger plan that's going to be good for us....
Bottom line: When this law sunsets in 9/04, we're all going to be a happy lot. And it's going to happen.
You say that "most" people who feel strongly about bogus gun bans did not vote for Bush?
Just what UFO stole your brain?
Since the public does not agree with you, politicians tell you to go hump a tree.
Charmingly obnoxious, not to mention ridiculously simplistic and wrong. Plenty of politicians win victories by courting the swing voters, since much of the conservative/liberal base are lemmings (oh, excuse me, "practical folks") who will vote for a Republican/Democrat no matter what, just because they'd die before giving the opposing party any chance of winning. So most elections are won by giving the 10-20% of "swing" voters in the middle a reason to vote for them.
But I digress. The real question, Mr. Go-Hump-A-Tree, is are you *really* this hateful towards people who feel strongly enough about any issue to possibly withhold their vote from a candidate who has spit on it, or is it just those who do so on a given issue that *you* personally don't give a s**t about? Is there truly nothing a Republican could do to lose *your* vote? How about signing/passing an abortion on demand bill into the third trimester? How about enabling homosexual marriage? Removing prayer from schools? Legalizing drugs? Banning alcohol? Socializing healthcare? I could go on, but stop me when I hit one of *your* "line-in-the-sand" issues, so that I can tell *you* to "go hump a tree" for daring to care about it enough to refuse to vote in (or back in) a politician who violates your limits.
And if there really *is* no such issue for you, then there's absolutely no reason for a politician to care about your concerns, because he's *always* got your vote and he knows it. From his view, why *not* position himself just one hair to the right of the Democratic Socialist candidate, and scoop up all the votes in the middle as being the "very slightly closer to the middle" candidate?
There's an old saying that some voters still need to learn: "The more s*** you put up with, the more s*** you're going to get". Sooner or later, it's time to stand up and say, "*That* much is *too* much." Or maybe continue to take it and learn to like eating it.
The only thing that will keep most Republicans on the ranch is the realization that if they stray too far from conservative principles, they're going to lose votes. Don't make the mistake of sending them the signal that "we'll vote for you no matter what", or they'll soon stampede to the RINO corral to pick up the votes that really *are* still in play. There are a few Republicans that won't, because they actually believe in the core conservative principles, but honestly, how many of them are there versus the ones that'll do whatever might get them elected?
I admit to being very ignorant on gun laws, so can you give me a link where Bush wants to enact a 'new' one?
The "assault weapon ban" passed in 1994 contained within it its own "sunset" period. It was going to become null and void 10 years after it was enacted. That's going to take place in the summer of 2004.
If nothing is done, the assault weapon ban will vaporize and be null and void in 2004.
His wording notwithstanding, there's no way to simply "reauthorize" the current law. It's toast in 2004, dead as a doornail. The only way to to keep it from dying is to introduce a *new* bill and pass it. At a bare minimum, that new bill would have to specifically require the removal of the expiration clause from the original law's language in the US Code, prior to the "drop dead" date. This would be a *new* gun law that had the effect of keeping the old one alive.
But even worse, you *know* there's no way they can pass such a bill without every anti-gunner in existence trying to stuff *new* clauses and restrictions into it at the same time. As long as you're trying to pass a bill which "edits" existing gun control law, why not tweak who knows what *else* at the same time to "refine" it?
To make matters worse, this is going to be *right* before the elections (so was the original 1994 bill, it was passed to curry favor with Democratic voters), and it's going to be a huge hot-potato issue. So expect a great deal of pandering and wobbly-kneedness to occur instead of the careful consideration that a bill of this type truly requires...
It's going to get ugly.
Bush sides with the NRA and against law enforcement on every major gun safety measure including closing the gun show loophole, concealed weapons, and mandatory child safety locks.
Concealed Weapons : Bush Signed NRA-backed Concealed Gun Bill. In 1995, Bush signed an NRA-backed bill to allow private citizens to carry concealed handguns in Texas, ending a 125-year ban on concealed weapons. [ Dallas Morning News, 5/27/95; Oil and Gas Journal, 6/19/95 ]
Bush Signed Bill Allowing Guns In Churches : In 1997, Bush signed a bill that allowed Texans to bring their guns into churches and synagogues unless a sign specifically barred them from doing so. [ Texas HB2909, 75th Legislature, www.capitol.state.tx.us; Legislative History, Texas HB2909, 75th Legislature, www.capitol.state.tx.us ]
Gun Shows : Bush Bowed to NRA, Failed to Lead on Background Checks Legislation . Bush claimed to support background check requirements for unlicenced dealers at gun shows, but declined to assist the passage of a state bill on that very issue. Bush claimed the federal government should solve the gun show problem, but only endorsed an NRA-supported, loophole-filled amendment. [ Houston Chronicle, 4/27/99; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 5/22/99 ]
Texas Leads the Nation in Number of Guns Shows. Under Bush, Texas offered convicted felons more opportunities to purchase guns than any other state in the country through a loophole that allows people to purchase guns at gun shows with no background check. Texas led the country with 472 gun shows in 1998 -- 222 more shows than the state in second place. [ San Antonio Express-News, 3/18/99, 4/14/99; South Bend Tribune, 2/18/99 ]
Child Safety : Bush Opposes Mandatory Child Safety Locks. Bush opposes mandatory gun safety locks -- instead he thinks the locks should still be voluntary. [ Christian Science Monitor, 5/13/99 ]
Texas Received "D" in Protecting Kids from Guns. Texas received a "D" -- the sixth worst grade in the nation -- from Handgun Control, Inc. for failing to pass laws to protect kids from guns. The national gun-control group cited Texas?failure to prohibit juveniles from owning handguns, as well as the state’s prohibition of municipal laws that are stricter than state law. [ Houston Chronicle, 9/15/98 ]
Special Rights for Gun Makers : Bush Signed NRA-Backed Bill Giving Gun Manufacturers Special Rights. In 1999, Bush signed legislation -- called the "gun lobby’s top priority" -- that gives gun makers special protection from being held liable for the design and marketing of their products. [ New York Times, 6/20/99; Associated Press, 5/19/99; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 5/18/99 ]
For some people the fact that Dubya has shown support for a bill that, even Karl Rove says, has no chance of passing is cause for sleepless nights. I sleep very well thank you.
Hope that you don't mind my pinging you to this thread. I read the thread, that you posted on Wednesday and am curious as to whether or not you had seen any of the exchange alleged in this article. Can you verify this?
Thanks.
Yes, I did. The gentleman was sitting front/center and I was sitting in the second row on the right aisle. I had a clear view of him and everything happened exactly the way he described it. However, I cannot verify the part at the end of the article, where Cohen describes his exchange with Rove, where Rove clenched his teeth and grabbed Cohen's arm.
My meeting with Rove was in the corridor in between the time he left the conference room and when he went outside to his car. There were certainly quite a few people around trying to speak with Rove, and the place was buzzing so I have no reason to suspect that Cohen is not telling the truth about his exchange outside.
As I said, everything he said about his exchange with him in the Q & A segment was spot-on, so that leaves us no reason to doubt what happened outside Rove's car.
Hope this answers your question. Feel free to write again if it doesn't.
Gotta sign off. It's waaay past my bedtime....
Goodnight!
The Bush administration better think long nad hard about that then. Bush Sr made the same mistake in possibly selling out gun owners : result - one term.
If the AWB gets to his desk and he signs it you can kiss his re-eelection GOODBYE.
Amen, brother. If they want the conservative vote, conservatives need to get a little legislative steak along with the rhetorical sizzle. Otherwise, they're really just making us choose between:
A: Watching the country go to hell slowly under Republican rule, or
B: Watching the country go to hell quickly under Democrat rule.
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.