There's no phobia against conservatives. The voters want economic tidbits, real, or imagined tossed their way. Bush gave them some.
"Dems did not lose in '94 because of an AW ban but because of the Hillary care scam and the generally sleaziness of the Clinton administration."
Both were significant factors.
"blustering nutcases threatening to vote against Bush and empower these fools is so dangerous."
It appears that the House will not reauthorize it on their own. It's in your interest and President Bush's interest to make sure that law dies.
You are overestimating the media, and I think you're giving the sucker moms way too much power. They are overrated.
I'm not fantasizing anything. Look up the demographics of the areas. If Bush gets an anti-gun rep, he can kiss Michigan, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania goodbye just like that. He may win the sucker moms...at the cost of the "union independents" as well as his base.
Only his personality was able to overcome the phobia against conservatives so pervalent in America.
He's a moderate, but had a arch-conservative REPUTATION. His personality was hit and miss as well. Some loved it, others hated it. My rep(Mike Rogers) was much more conservative than Bush, but ran 5% ahead of him because of his personality. Rogers won by 88 votes, and was given a better district by redistricting.
I doubt even one RAT lost his seat because of that ban.
Jack Brooks. Eric Fingerhut. Frank McCloskey. Harris Wolford. Wyche Fowler. Jim Sassar. That's off the top of my head.
BTW - Republicans need to get about 63% in my county to win statewide. A good solid conservative will get 63% with a good campaign. A liberal Republican(pro-abortion) gets 53%. Bush got 60% in 2000.
Your claim is that Bush is as conservative a president as has ever been elected in US history?