Democrats....Bush Key on Assault Weapons

Associated Press - Las Vegas Sun.com ^ | May 14, 2003 | Jim Abrams

[Godebert]

By JIM ABRAMS

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -

President Bush should take the lead in overcoming resistance within his own party to extending an assault weapons ban due to expire next year, Democrats said Wednesday.

"If the bill dies we will lay it at the president's doorstep," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said a day after House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told reporters that the 1994 law banning the manufacture of 19 types of common military-style assault weapons would not be renewed.

Schumer said the gun bill would be an issue in the 2004 election, a development that could pose problems for Democrats who represent districts with strong gun rights sentiment. The assault ban vote was also a campaign topic in 1994, the year Republicans recaptured the House after spending 40 years in the minority.

Bush, taking a position at odds with the National Rifle Association, has voiced support for extending the ban, and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer on Wednesday said that support would carry weight in Congress.

"This is a matter that the House has to work out, of course, by listening to the will of its members, but the president's position is clear on it," Fleischer said. "When the president states his position like that, it helps get the message to the Congress."

Fleischer would not say whether Bush would pressure DeLay to bring such a bill up for a vote. DeLay, R-Texas, on Tuesday indicated that there would be no effort to renew the current law before it expires on Sept. 13, 2004. "The votes in the House are not there to reauthorize it," he said.

"The real question is will the president weigh in and ask the leaders to schedule a vote," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., who as a senior adviser to President Clinton played a key role in guiding the 1994 legislation through Congress.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I don't claim unproven assumptions to be "facts" as you do, but I am "guessing" that a few would-be antagonists have had second thoughts after what happened to Saddam.

Antagonist? LOL!

Again, we are dealing with fanatical terrorist, not antagonists are you so mildly stated. Antagonist do not slam airliners into skyscrapers, and blow up buildings and people like what occurred yesterday in Saudi Arabia.

You need to first understand the difference between an antagonist and a terrorist. Once you figure that out, you will probably agree, that after killing a whole bunch of folks in the Mid East, the chances of creating more enemies instead of friends is great in my opinion.

LOL!

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Oh please. How weak can your responses get? I used the word "anatgonist" broadly.

When you get to the point of this type of nitpicking, your desperation is very evident.

You have still failed to give me your proof of more enemies and your proposed solution.

[sigarms]

" What isn't logical is the chant in support of running to the third party candidate du jour because of it."

It's also not logical to just lay down and take it.

Ultimately, political currency boils down to votes. There's no other way to effectively express your disagreement with the President's position, than by threatening to take your vote elsewhere.

On an individual level, threatining to take your vote elsewhere accomplishes next to nothing. But on a group level, it's powerful.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

On an individual level, threatining to take your vote elsewhere accomplishes next to nothing. But on a group level, it's powerful.

This may or may not be right, but there is no group large enough to do anything but divide the vote.

Please don't tell me that helping to elect a Howard Dean or a John Kerry is no different than reelecting Bush.

[sigarms]

"This may or may not be right, but there is no group large enough to do anything but divide the vote."

In the short run this wouldn't "do anything but divide the vote", I agree.

But I think you have to conser the impact in the long run. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that this kind of move, if taken on a large scale, would impact mainstream Republican politics for decades to come.

No more "taking us for granted". It's time to "show our teeth". Get it now?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Well, we can't ever know what the perfect formula is for success.

I concur about "not being taken for granted and showing teeth". However, we need to be careful to not bite before necessary. Some things appear to be a problem and then solve themselves without incident.

At this point, I personally have no teeth showing issues with President Bush.

[sigarms]

"At this point, I personally have no teeth showing issues with President Bush."

Well, he's about what I'd expect from a Republican politician--he's a mainstream liberal.

I don't want to lose the Great Culture War. And I refuse to stick my head in the sand while our Republican "allies" in Washington fail to defend the social issues that will determine whether our Nation succeeds or fails.

The time to start showing some teeth has long past. It's about time now to pull out the white glove and do some smacking.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Well, he's about what I'd expect from a Republican politician--he's a mainstream liberal.

You lose all credibility with this foolish statement. You aren't interested in progress; you are a die hard unappeasable. You almost had me fooled.

Yep.....George Bush and "pick your favorite mainstream liberal"; two peas in a pod. Get real !!!!!!!

[justshe]

But I think you have to conser the impact in the long run. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that this kind of move, if taken on a large scale, would impact mainstream Republican politics for decades to come.

No more "taking us for granted". It's time to "show our teeth". Get it now?

---

A curiosity question. If your premise were valid, why then did we NOT see an "impact on mainstream Republican politcs for decades to come" as a result of the Christian Coalition sitting out the election that allowed Clinton's re-election?

Some, on this thread and others, are discussing/threatening the SAME tactics that had NO impact the last time they were tried. And the amount of destruction/corruption/disruption caused by the Clinton' years will be felt for decades.

Are you REALLY willing to take that chance on an already 'failed' strategy?

[sigarms]

"You lose all credibility with this foolish statement. You aren't interested in progress; you are a die hard unappeasable. You almost had me fooled.

Yep.....George Bush and "pick your favorite mainstream liberal"; two peas in a pod. Get real !!!!!!!"

From my vantage point, it looks that way. Move your perception away from the "here and now" and look at the Long View. See how far, in the last 20 years, the Republicans have moved to the left on social issues.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Newsflash, sig.......the entire country has moved to the left and beating them over the head with fanaticism isn't going to bring them back.

However, bringing conservative values back a little at a time may.

But I know, I know.......George Bush is a liberal...yada....yada....yada. Well, you just go ahead and cast your vapor vote and give us a John or Hillary. I'm sure your grandkids will love you for it.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Oh please. How weak can your responses get? I used the word "anatgonist" broadly.

My responses are weak? Hehehe.

You are the only person I have *ever* heard that referred to murdering terrorist, as "antagonist".

Look, I am sorry you came apart after reading #842. Deal with it. It's real.

You only attack me because #842 is the GD truth. It's the brutal facts. And it could happen so damn easy. Actually, I am surprised it hasen't happened already.

Next time a post rings your bell hard, instead of attemping to attack the poster by any means necessary because it makes a certain political party look bad, ask yourself if it's the truth. And #842 is the hard truth.

I know it's hard, but try and deal with it.

And instead of asking me for solutions and answers to #842, you best ask your favorite politicians you speak so highly of.

It matters not what I think should be done. I am not in a position to change anything, I am not your elected official or your favorite politician.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

It matters not what I think should be done.

That's interesting since you came riding in here to chastise others for "being fooled".

You are a joke, Joe. You cannot back up what you so boldly declared, so you keep trying to dance around it.

But don't worry. I'm taking your advice. I am anything but fooled by clowns like you.

[sigarms]

"A curiosity question. If your premise were valid, why then did we NOT see an 'impact on mainstream Republican politcs for decades to come' as a result of the Christian Coalition sitting out the election that allowed Clinton's re-election?"

By the way, what other recourse is there? Politicians don't listen to anything but money and votes.

It's hard to say how much worse it would have been, if not for the Christian Coalition sitting out on Clinton's re-election. Who knows what sort of devils Karl Rove would have unleashed on us, if not for fear of another bite from the Christian Coalition's well-brandished teeth.

[sigarms]

"Well, you just go ahead and cast your vapor vote and give us a John or Hillary. I'm sure your grandkids will love you for it."

Look, I'm just fleshing out the argument on the other side of your position.

Personally, I will be voting conscience. If Bush signs a new "assault" weapons ban, in any form, then I will not vote for him. I'm also watching how the Administration handles other social issues such as gay marriage, prescription drugs, immigration, and others.

[justshe]

You could play the 'what if' game forever.

What if, Gore had been President during the last 2 years.....

What if, the Democrats still controlled the Senate and had control of the House?

What if, we had , as a result of the above, over 100 more liberal judges appointed to the Federal bench?

What if, what if, what if?

Do you REALLY believe....that if any of the above had occurred, you would NOT have a TOTAL ban on all guns, a federal law mandating recognition of gay marriages, a universal healthcare plan (including perscription drugs), and an open borders policy? Oh...and lets throw in a signatory to the Kyoto treaty, a member of the International Criminal Court, draconian environmental laws and the outlawing of SUV's, and massive tax increases?

You are forgetting the steps forward to undoing the last 40 years---that we HAVE accomplished. And that can not be achieved overnight. This is NOT a solution that comes "RIGHT NOW" just because some need instant gratification.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Next time a post rings your bell hard, instead of attemping to attack the poster by any means necessary because it makes a certain political party look bad, ask yourself if it's the truth. And #842 is the hard truth.

You are a joke, Joe. I am anything but fooled by clowns like you.

Your response is revealing, and predictable...

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Your response is revealing, and predictable...

Of what? Backing you into a corner after you can't come up with anything to support your claim??? I suppose that might be predictable because your behavior begs the question.

As for revealing, again I do "reveal" the fact that you came hopping in here as if you were going to educate all of us poor misled souls, but you have produced nothing.

Where is your explanation for the statement that we have "more enemies today than ever"? Unless I've missed a post, all I have seen you do is dodge the point with some babble about your post #842. That is exactly the source of my question. So let's see if you can address it.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Your seem a little hysterical. You better take a nap...

[justshe]

How does accusing someone of sounding hysterical and advising them they need a nap answer the question (Where is your explanation for the statement that we have "more enemies today than ever"?) posed to you?