[Lazamataz]

The non-presence of the base in 2000 ultimately cost us the Senate. The now-mythical "base" hasn't bothered to show up since 1988, and the GOP was dumb enough to do fall-on-their-sword maneuvers not once, but TWICE, in vain efforts to appease them.

So you're thinking that alienating the conservative base is a winning maneuver.

Well, I guess we shall see, since that is what he has done.

I know this: My only vote in 2002 will be for the Governor of Illinois. I will not be voting in any Federal-level Congressional or Senatorial races. I will not be contributing or volunteering for Bush in 2004, and unless he repeals the reauthorization for the Assault Weapons ban, will not be voting for him. If Bush's behavior is your definition of successful constituent loyalty-building, I beg to differ.

[Poohbah]

So you're thinking that alienating the conservative base is a winning maneuver.

The conservative base has demonstrated since 1992 that they are permanently alienated, and NOTHING will appease them. So he has to support the base that actually bothered to vote for him in 2000.

I know this: My only vote in 2002 will be for the Governor of Illinois. I will not be voting in any Federal-level Congressional or Senatorial races. I will not be contributing or volunteering for Bush in 2004, and unless he repeals the reauthorization for the Assault Weapons ban, will not be voting for him. If Bush's behavior is your definition of successful constituent loyalty-building, I beg to differ.

Like I said, if the conservative base hadn't been in a state of permanent temper-tantrum since 1992, they'd have a few markers.

They don't.

Sorry your buddies didn't back your move in 2000.

[billva]

I know this: My only vote in 2002 will be for the Governor of Illinois. I will not be voting in any Federal-level Congressional or Senatorial races. I will not be contributing or volunteering for Bush in 2004, and unless he repeals the reauthorization for the Assault Weapons ban, will not be voting for him. If Bush's behavior is your definition of successful constituent loyalty-building, I beg to differ.

Gosh, that's an intelligent approach. If you don't get what you want then pack your bags and leave. Boy will that solve the problem! NOT!

[elmer fudd]

Agree 100%. If he has the cajones to let the assault weapons ban die in a presidential election year he'll have earned my vote, especially if he vetoes it. If he vetoes it he'll be my hero. If he renews it with Republican support though I'll just wash my hands of the whole party. If he renews it with the vast majority of Republicans opposed, then I'll be a little more selective in who I vote for.

[finnman69]

I will not be contributing or volunteering for Bush in 2004, and unless he repeals the reauthorization for the Assault Weapons ban, will not be voting for him.

Thanks for being a one issue Pro Gore Pro Kerry Pro Hillary supporter. Witholding a vote for Bush means one less vote the Democratic candidate will need.

[rstevens]

Your kind of thinking will ensure a Hillary Clinton victory.

[afuturegovernor]

I will not be voting in any Federal-level Congressional or Senatorial races.

The United States has had lots of people die in war in its 200 years that would be really proud of you. People in China still are dieing to be given the right to cast a real vote. Consider how lucky we all are.