Posted on 01/23/2012 11:20:48 AM PST by Kaslin
Gotcha.
The reality is, when you go to purchase a firearm and the dealer calls in the instant check, your exercise of that right is contingent on the good will of the faceless, nameless person answering the dealer's call, the reliability of his/her computer terminal that day, and the accuracy of the database they happen to be querying. Certainly the system is "prescribed by law," but those other variables aren't.
The bureaucrat is looking for legal No’s — not Yes’s. Failure to do it right by the bureaucrat will virtually always mean getting a default Yes. If someone else’s record came up and it was a No, the dealer will probably ask for a re-check. I see your issue with the possibility of false No’s in the system, which you then have to provide proof to the BATFE to get expunged, but how often has that happened (probably 1,000,000 times less likely on a given visit than that the TSA wants to grope you).
See what John Lott has to say on the matter:
http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967
You may be right and his Catholicism may in fact help balance an awful track record politically. There is a natural tendency toward skepticism based on a whole cadre of faux Catholics in D.C. I don’t in fact necessarily hold to his Catholicism as being expedient. I hope he benefits from being Catholic, which really is an understatement. Setting that aside, his track record has not been very good as a conservative and I’m in no way anxious to demean the man. I’m just not convinced, again, based on political track record, and I am still a conservative in search of a candidate to a point, but only to a point since I think the nation’s problem is more spiritual than political, but that’s a different topic.
“So when Newt changes his ways he’s seeking redemption and learning from his mistakes, but when Santorum does, he’s to be condemned for his older vote.”
No, they all do it to some extent, but Gingrich’s record is just much more consistently conservative.
American Conservative Union
100% - Gingrich: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (90% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
88% - Paul: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (88% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
84% - Santorum: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (83% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
“Setting that aside, his track record has not been very good as a conservative”
Simply incorrect as post 106 above illustrates.
88% - Paul
84% - Santorum
So your second choice is Paul? Or perhaps Romney? Almost by design, the House is more partisan and adversarial than the Senate, which is inclined to be more conciliatory and compromising. By '98, Santorum had been in the Senate for three years. It doesn't surprise me one bit that a junior Senator (particularly one from a state like PA) doesn't have a higher ACU rating than two Representatives from safe conservative districts. I'd frankly be quite surprised if he did.
Also, if you look at the vote criteria employed by the ACU for that year, one of the House votes considered was their impeachment vote, which was a pretty clear vote for anybody even remotely conservative. The Senate votes evaluated by the ACU that year did not have a corresponding "gimme." That all said, if you look at Rick's lifetime rating after his last year in office 88.1% for a Senator from a swing state, as opposed to Newt's lifetime rating of 90% for a Representative from a conservative district, the difference is, to an intellectually honest person, negligible.
But as you pointed out earlier, we can hold Rick's old bad votes from '98 against him, but anything even remotely un-conservative that Gingrich has done since '98 should be considered water under the bridge.
Simply out of context as post 108 above illustrates.
I believe you are correct that America’s ultimate difficulty is spiritual. America has, more and more, forgotten the Lord.
I believe the political side is still salient upon this matter — if you have a president who isn’t pushing a carnal minded agenda all the time, it’s got to be better than having one who does. And Newt’s return to an environment where the Lord is honored will hopefully give him some kind of compass by which to proceed. Also he does have the kind of verve in fighting off Obama that none of the others have shown (except maybe Sarah Palin in little occasional zingers, and she is not running).
Joe rationalization lol.
nice try
OK,lol...why not post their respective ‘97 ACU scores?
Why do old-timers persist in dropping like flies?
Picking and choosing? Why do you want to ignore the Lifetime ratings?
American Conservative Union
100% - Gingrich: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (90% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
88% - Paul: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (88% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
84% - Santorum: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (83% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
It's a snapshot of a single year in time, but as Newt's last year, his lifetime rating for '98 is also his overall lifetime rating. If you want to be intellectually honest, you'd examine the entire body of work for each and look at Santorum's overall lifetime rating as of the time he left the Senate. Again, Santorum's 88.1% vs. Newt's 90% is negligible.
Your error is twofold:
1 Santorum has an 83% conservative rating compared to Gingrich’s 90% (Lifetime)
2 You are the one incorrectly stating that Gingrich is not conservative (despite the obvious facts that he is), and indeed more conservative than Santorum.
I’ve never said that Santorum wasn’t a conservative. It is you have said Newt is not conservative and that Santorum is more so.
All clearly false from the facts above.
At the end of his legislative career (1998), Gingrich's lifetime rating was 90%. At the end of his legislative career (2006) Santorum's lifetime rating was 88.1%.
For some reason you want to compare a single, cherry picked year of Rick's career to Newt's overall, lifetime. Why are you so resistant to comparing apples to apples?
Certainly, Newt comes out with a higher (by 1.9%) rating, and I've never said he wasn't conservative. What I have said, and will continue to say is that since the end of their legislative careers, in their public pronouncements and actions, Rick has been more consistently conservative in his public actions and pronouncements.
Only mildly agitated, can’t find any sand to pound.
Spirits and a nap are always nice.
A vignette. In the late 70s and early 80s I dabbled with politics as treasurer for local Young Republicans and I was unfortunate enough to rub shoulders with some young Democrats from the Indianapolis IU law school. As time went on I became and remain very disillusioned with the kind of person in BOTH parties who is smitten with politics-as-career.
The Jack Kemp campaign manager I referred to was a manufacturers rep for my company. He and I talked candidly one day long after the election and noting I am no Jack Kemp fan, but in any case I felt I got his unvarnished opinion of Newt Gingrich.
I am a staunch Republican, and a dedicate paleoconservative in the mold of Pat Buchanan and the late Joe Sobran, always will be. But I looked at Newt based on his firsthand observations and knowledge and I have looked at Newt’s track record, good and bad, and I am unable to conclude anything except that here we go again, we are looking at an awful lesser-of-evils choice. I am rather weary of it.
I am not enamored of what is said in the campaign, barely even interested really. I have been in campaigns. The modern American campaign model, GOP and Democrat operates almost solely on a “end justified the means” anti-Thomistic (sorry, a Catholic moment there) method, and I am sick of it. Mr. Smith has almost no chance to go to Washington today. And I am almost obsessed with track record, and why not?
Make no mistake. Romney makes me want to retch. If he becomes the nominee, I will vote by staying home. Locally, we have our own Richard Lugar, another talk-conservative-vote-leftist disingenous RINO. Oh, I understand that Newt is kind of a “hold the Alamo” choice and a way to pry the worst president in my lifetime out of office. It’s just that I think I see beyond the election into a Newt candidacy versus Obama and even a Newt presidency, and I am all but certain disappointment looms, not as a pessimist but very much as a G.K. Chesterton realist.
Graces and blessings.
“Rick has been more consistently conservative in his public actions and pronouncements.”
Your claiming I cherry picked is flawed. Since I put the lifetime stats in the data chart.
The record speaks for itself. Gingrich’s accomplishments with the historic Contract with America, planned the first GOP House in nearly 50 years, and fighting against HillaryCare and forcing Clinton into Welfare Reform and 4 balanced budgets dwarfs anything that Santorum has done.
The data you picked is from '98. The lifetime for Gingrich at that point reflects the aggregate of his entire legislative career. The lifetime for Santorum at that point reflects his first three years in the Senate. Why not compare the rating of the end of Gingrich's career ('98) with the end of Santorum's ('06) for a fair comparison?
Doing otherwise simply makes for an apples/oranges assessment.
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.