[seeker_two]

With Wesley Clark's entry into the Demon-Rat Free-For-All, many politicoes think that he'll run away w/ the nomination. The same politicoes also think that, if Clark is nominated, he'll step to #2 so Hillary :barf: can run.

As bad a job as Bush has done in some areas (Patriot Act, Campaign Finance Reform, TSA, etc.), would the entrance of Clark and Hillary :barf: be enough for you to vote for Bush? Would you vote for another candidate in the general election (third party)? Or would you just stay at home?

Just curious...

[jsalcedo]

Rumsfeld and Cheney are worth re-electing Bush.

I am also happy with my tax cut and the fact that no new gun control legislation has been passed since "W" was elected in that "ficticious" election.;)

[Mark Tyson]

I think Clark's starting too late in the race to be an effective candidate. Wierd how here in the US the presidential election starts so early, isn't it?

But for me it all depends on The Ban . If Bush renews the AWB I don't care if he's running against Mao Zedong - I will not vote for him.

[Standing Wolf]

I'll never even consider voting for representatives of the Democratic (sic) party: I don't ever support anti-Second Amendment bigotry.

[cordex]

As of now, no.
If the new AWB is passed and he vetoes it (I know ... he already said he will sign it if it lands on his desk) then I might consider giving him a vote, but right now it is very doubtful.

Very little that he's done or encouraged fits well with my ethic. So third-party will probably get my vote.

[longeyes]

Clinton, Clark, or Clinton-Clark, it doesn't matter: that way lies Hell.

I have issues with Bush--who doesn't?--and some aren't small ones either,
but to not vote for Bush is effectively a vote for imminent social
chaos, in my opinion. Maybe with Bush we are only buying time, but of
all the things you can buy, that may well be the most valuable.

[Bruce H]

Watch this one carefully. Wesley Clark is a Bill Clinton clone without the baggage. Look for him and Hillary to run together. This will turn out like the Arnold for governor CF. All symbolism and very little substance. The gee whiz they are celeberities will cover their lack of platform with a lot of people. This pair are dangerous.

[cordex]

to not vote for Bush is effectively a vote for imminent social
chaos
A vote for Bush is the most obvious approval of his actions while in office that a citizen can show. I don't, so I won't.
Won't matter anyway. Indiana has gone Republican for President since '64 and I see no great change on the horizon.

Bush pushed for limiting civil liberties through forcing the Patriot Acts through congress. He added unnecessary federal agencies and expanded their authority.
No thanks. I don't like that, I don't want any more. The least I can do is tell him (and Republicans as a whole) as much through my vote.

[Ian]

If Bush signs the Patriot Act or the new AW ban, there's no way I will vote for him. And since he already signed the Patriot Act...

[Hkmp5sd]

I'd vote for Al Sharpton before I voted to allow another Klinton in the White House.

[Zip06]

Listen to you guys. Sure GW has warts but do you think that a democrat, any democrat, would be an improvement.

[Hkmp5sd]

do you think that a democrat, any democrat, would be an improvement.

This has been discussed in other threads, but if GWB signs a new AW ban, in my opinion he is not an improvement over a democrat. I will not vote for him simply because he "is the only choice we have."

The only way we can get the upper hand in this gun control battle is to have a president that is as adamant about the issue as we are. We need a president that not only won't sign new gun bans, but will actively work to remove the bans currently in place. The only way to accomplish that is to give the republicans a wake-up call that we will not support them simple because they are the lesser of two evils.

If it requires living 4 years with a democrat in the White House for the republicans to get the message, so be it.

[longeyes]

"The only way we can get the upper hand in this gun control battle is to have a
president that is as adamant about the issue as we are. We need a president
that not only won't sign new gun bans, but will actively work to remove the bans
currently in place. The only way to accomplish that is to give the republicans a
wake-up call that we will not support them simple because they are the lesser of
two evils."

That is going to take the right ruling from the Supreme Court, and
that is why a) we need Bush to win and b) we need to pressure him to
make the right judicial appointments.

What other viable candidate is out there who has any hope of being
President any time soon? Condi Rice? By '08 the game could be up, and
a lot of us will either be in exile or we'll be taking our anti-aggression
meds or elections will be a thing of the past with a rightwing or leftwing
junta in there.

[JoshM]

In a H Clinton/Clark administration where does Bill Clinton fit in ?


U.S. Ambassador to the UN ?

Secretary of State ?

U.S. government candidate for the position of UN Secretary General ?

[RobW]

That is going to take the right ruling from the Supreme Court, and

We had it, don't we? Where was the support, the fight for the appointee?

:barf: Politicians:barf:

[Atticus]

Will I vote for Bush? Yes...twice.

[Hkmp5sd]

If the law is not on the books, the Supreme Court has nothing to rule on. For example, if we can get a congress and president to do away with the '86 machinegun ban, there is no need for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether or not a machinegun is included in the Second Amendment.

Trying to get a Supreme Court to actually hear a case on the legality of the machinegun ban or any other Yea/Nay Second Amendment case is virtually impossible. They have no desire to make a ruling that enforces the Second Amendment as written, overturning every firearm restriction in the country.

[Zip06]

Charles Moose does (respect Hilly).

[Moparmike]

Hillary will run in '08. It will be much easier for her to win with out the uphill battle of an incumbent.

That said, I will only vote for Dubbya if and only if I think that the LP candidate is a complete and utter '****.

[CZ 75 BD]

a new AWB gets to W's desk, and IF if signs it, I would vote for someone else. None of the Dems, though. The key for me (as many have said here) is for the AWB not to reach the president's desk!

[Chris Rhines]

I'm not voting for Bush, no way, no how. That's long since been decided.

Right now, it's a toss-up between third-party and stay at home and do something productive on election day. It's unlikely that there will be anyone worth voting for in Maryland.

- Chris

[Dilettante]

I must not be paying attention, because I never heard that there was a serious chance of Hillary running this time around. Let alone that Clark was supposed to move over and let her be the top man. ;)
How long has this idea been floating around? When did you first hear of it?

By the way -- if that really happened I would vote for Bush in a heartbeat. (I probably will anyway, unless we find out that the Democratic nominee is much more pro-defense than most of them sound.)

[Doctor Wu]

Probably third party, since Bush will carry my area easily.
If it were close, I would vote for Bush, just to keep those demorats out of the Oval Office.

[MicroBalrog]

Vote Clark.

[Ala Dan]

My vote? There ain't but one person on the ballot~

George W. Bush

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[FPrice]

Vote for Bush but continue to press the Republicans for meaningful reform of gun control efforts. Allowing the Democrats to return to power as a protest will do anyone one any good.

[Ohen Cepel]

I would vote for a street whore, with a sewer rat for a VP before I did ANYTHING that would allow Billary back into the White House:fire:

[Waitone]

Lemme see here!

How bad do democrat statists want control of the gov't? If the current crop doesn't stand a chance the choice becomes 1>accept a skunking in Novmber or run Hillary. The wisdom says Hillary doesn't want to risk a loss in '04 which would kill a run in '08, but if '04 is looking like a complete route then Hillary is the only hope.

So if Hillary runs what are the choices?

Hillary gives us instant end to the war on islamofascist terrorists, one world blissninnies out the ying-yang in the bureaucracy, supreme court nominees no doubt from Europe, BJ Clinton as world president, gun control with a vengence, marxist economics, and the Patriots Act in the hands of Frau Reno's successor.

Dubya gives us a war on islamofascist terrorists and nothing else. No identifiable beliefs, no priorities, no leadership, just a fade into nothingness.

Great choices.

[Augustwest]

Dianne Feinstein and Sheila Jackson Lee could be on the Dem. ticket and I still wouldn't vote for GWB.

3rd party it is.

[dog3]

After the incredible constitution slaughtering "Patriot Act". I cannot see how
anyone even remotely associated with our federal government could be
trusted to "Uphold and Defend"

Oddly, I don't see Dubya as the bad guy here. I think he is in fact
a good man doing what is in his heart the right thing. He has had
a remarkably tough row to hoe, and he has done a good job. I
support him and will contine to do so.

Rumsfeld and Cheney, hmmm. These fellers have taken the ball
passed to them by the Clintonistas and moved it farther down
towards to goal of totally suspending anything the resembles
authority of constitutional law than I could imagined. I don't think
the Clintons could have undermined the rule of constitutional
law to this degree.

Many of us are sitting back smugly assuming that folks who are common
criminals and now being prosecuted under federal anti-terror
legislation "had it comming". "Who cares what happens to that
scumbag." Well, I care when it involves suspension of protection
under the law, and forfeiture of due process.

Today, it's an idiot playing with pipe bombs. (I've never done
that, have you?) It's a really thin line from there to a 6 round
tube for your 870, REALLY THIN.

When the same government that promised us that they would only
use these really sketchy and arguably illegal rules (read the
definition of legal before attacking my use) to "stop terrorists"
begins conducting seminars for prosecutors to educate them
how to prosecute common crime under the patriot act, they
cross the line, Not just by a shade or two, but in a full force
breach of trust.

Constitutional law is under duress. Deeply under duress. And
NO ONE is doing anything about it. There isn't even any
real discussion.

[hillbilly]

I say there won't be any AW Ban for Bush to sign.

The AW Ban is going to die a quiet death.

It won't even get out of committee.

hillbilly

[Dorrin79]

not a big fan of Dubya - big government conservatives are only slightly less bad than big government liberals.

However - compared to Hillary/Clark, votign for Dubya is a no-brainer.

[MuzzleBlast]

Gotta real problem, seeing that Clark is an Arkie. Unfortunately, a lot of Arkies are idiots. The fact that Bill :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: Clinton was governor for many years attests to this fact. They might well vote for Clark simply because he's an Arkie, and the rest of us might have our voices drowned out. Hope I'm wrong.

[Skunkabilly]

Depends on the AW ban.

[riverdog]

The AW Ban will never be signed. W gave notice so that the folks in congress would know to not let it near the White House.

Machiavelli's at work here. Bush would sign the original AW ban if it got to the White House, but since he wouldn't be offered the original ... he'd prefer the new version didn't get to the White House and simply die quietly in committee.

I'll vote for Bush. There are enough good people in congress to keep him out of trouble.

[glockten]

I normally vote Libertarian, but if we're still at war when the election rolls around I may vote for Bush. I don't believe in changing horses in midstream.

[G-Raptor]

It's not SAFE to vote Democrat. PERIOD.

Putting ANY of those guys in charge now would open the gates of hell. I don't want to go there.
:fire:

[cordex]

I normally vote Libertarian, but if we're still at war when the election rolls around I may vote for Bush. I don't believe in changing horses in midstream.
Still at war?
As in ... War in Iraq? Bush announced end of major hostilities. There's still fighting, but the "war" is over. Bush administration thinks we'll be in there for at least 10 or 15 years.
War in Afghanistan? Pretty much the same deal.
War on Terror? Will never be over.

Don't know if I'm following you here.

[Sean Smith]

Clark is going to fizzle with the hard-left Democratic faithful who control the nomination process. He's too warlike, inexperienced, started late, and near as I can tell is mentally unstable and downright dangerous. They will either pick a known middle-of-the-road quantity like Lieberman out of caution, or a hard-left lunatic finger like Dean out of enthusiasm. Unless Hillary declares her candidacy, then she'd win by default unless she really screws up somehow in the interim. The Democratic dream ticket would probalby be Hillary-Lieberman, since he'd negate her anti-Israeli aftertaste and would add a pro-war (but still anti-Republican) flavor to the ticket. No reason to run a black VP, since the Democrats will get all the black votes by default.

Bush #2's ability to win is totally dependent on the random variations in the economic situation, and to a lesser extent the situation overseas. The smartest (though unlikely) thing for Republicans to do is to replace Cheney with Rice in 2004 and run Rice for president in 2008. It is the only thing that has a remote chance of breaking the virtual Democratic monopoly on black votes in America.

[Waitone]

Bush has three domestic issues to exploit:

1>Gain control over our trade policy which encourages US and multi-national companies to pull manufacturing out of the US
2>Gain control over illegal immigration
3>Gain control over a run-a-way judiciary.

Trouble is he is on the wrong side of #1 and #2.
He refuses to fight for #3.

So he now goes into an election with only his war on islamofascist terrorists as a positive.

He is the one who disarmed himself domestically. No sympathy here. He did it to himself. I think he and Rove would be making a huge mistake assuming foreign policy will pull him across the finish line first when 3.5 million people lost their jobs in the last 2 years and of that total 2.5 million jobs reappeared in another country.

Lee Atwater (the last republican campaign manager who knew how to put up a fight) said it best. "The last thing a voter does before casting a vote is to check his wallet."

If Hillary runs for President it is because democrats are conviced Bush will lose.

[Tamara]

I don't believe in changing horses in midstream.

Didn't FDR respond to that line during the '32 campaign with "No, it's changing engineers in mid-train wreck." ;)

[Bill Hook]

Right now, it's a toss-up between third-party and stay at home and do something productive on election day. It's unlikely that there will be anyone worth voting for in Maryland.

If you don't vote, then they won't know that you didn't vote for THEM. If all those folks who dislike the political scene here in the USA would go to the polls and write in "Mickey Mouse," I'd bet Disney would have matching funds to run his campaign next election cycle. ;)


I would vote for a street whore, with a sewer rat for a VP before I did ANYTHING that would allow Billary back into the White House

What's the difference between them? ;)

[Chris Rhines]

A write-in for Osama Bin Laden did cross my mind... ;)

- Chris

[BigG]

Clinton-Clark. Isn't that a toilet paper company?

[Atticus]

No, it's what's ON the toilet paper.

[glockten]

cordex,

As long as American soldiers are dying in combat, we are at war. The distinction between being killed in "major hostilities" and being blown up by a command-detonated mine on a Baghdad street is an irrelevant one to those killed.

[Mike Irwin]

"Secretary of State ?

U.S. government candidate for the position of UN Secretary General ?"

Hillary can't appoint bill to a cabinet position, I don't think. Congress took care of that after JFK appointed Bobby Attorney General.

As for US candidate for UN Sec. Gen. sure, he could be put forward, but it's pretty much a lock that NO candidate from any of the Security Council's permanent members will ever be secretary general. None of the other 5 would allow it. That's why the Secretary Generals have been from relatively small nations, Hamarschold (sp?) from Denmark, U Thant from Burma, etc.

[cordex]

As long as American soldiers are dying in combat, we are at war. The distinction between being killed in "major hostilities" and being blown up by a command-detonated mine on a Baghdad street is an irrelevant one to those killed.
I agree that you're just as dead whether you die in a police action, terrorist hunting or a full-blown war ... but that isn't what we're talking about.

As long as our boys are policing Iraq, they will be getting shot at and doing some shooting.
Bush thinks we'll be in there for longer than he can serve as President, so we will be changing Presidents while US military forces are in conflict - in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Philippines, and a dozen other places around the globe.

You're going to change horses midstream, you just have to decide how deep you want to go before you make the change.

[Ed]

For the people who would not vote for Bush if he signs an AWB.

I would be Very unhappy to see him sign it . I would have lots of problems with that. But I would also not base the future of the country on an attempt to get back at him. Would any of his opponents be any better on an AWB? No. Would it have already passed? Yes. So I would hold it against him sure but also look at the other major issues that we have in this country. As much as I love firearms, And know that we need them to defend our rights, I understand that we have other rights and I don't want to lose those either, or see this country fall further morally or otherwise. I guess I'm just saying If at that point it had already been passed, why punnish yourself, by punishing Bush?

[Dilettante]

Thanks Ed.
I don't want to lose Seattle or New York either. That's why I'm voting for Bush, unless someone else comes forward who is more serious about remaking Araby from the ground up.

We already know that Clark's not the guy. :banghead:

[Moparmike]

Ed, that is why we vote libertarian.

[Felonious Monk]

Bush-Rice '04
Rice-Rummy '08

Fate's cruel irony: for the first black woman president of the US to be an articulate, politically shrewd conservative Republican. Poor *******--after that, they'll probably have to lock her up in the padded cell next to mine.

...and, while we're at it, let's harvest some of Lee Atwater's DNA and clone a whole ARMY of a$$kicking, guitar picking conservative blues boys between now and then.
Sorta like the Boys from Brazil. Yeah, that's it.

[FM walks away, holding his head and yelling at The Voices: "Shut up! Shut up ALL of you!"....]

[LostOneToo]

I'd vote for Chairman Mao before I'd vote for Clinton/Clark!!!!

[EJ]

Bush -- (unfortunately) while WAY less than perfect and a fair spell behind good is an entire order of magnatude over ANY democrat they have or could put up--

Get real -- Wer're stuck with Bush or we're really stuck---:uhoh:

[PDshooter]

Bush Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Dem, NFW:cuss:

[TekChef]

I will vote for either Liberteran or Bush when the time comes..

but..it won't matter much other than a satistic..

since CA is so democrap,it's not funny

[AZLibertarian]

I didn't respond to the poll because my real choice isn't there.

In no way would I vote for the Democratic nominee...Clark, Clinton, whoever. Any one of them is one step away from being a complete socialist.

Bush43, OTOH, has both disappointed me greatly, and shined brighter than I could have ever imagined. The delay in arming airline pilots, his position on the AWB, trade issues, campaign finance reform, Patriot Act--he's just as bad as the other Republocrats. But he's been nearly perfect in the War on Terror.

How I'll vote will depend on how I think AZ is going to go. If it looks like it may be close here in AZ, I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush. If not (as I suspect will be the case), I'll be voting my heart and be voting libertarian, if for no other reason than to send a message to the R's.

[sm]

I have never voted for a Klinton, even when a Klinton was AG or Gov. of my state...I will never vote for one in the future. You can go to the bank on that!

Though not happy with current admin., and I'd like to see a LP canidate win , gonna wait and see. I'd hate to have a repeat and end up with a Klinton, or similar.

[Hypnogator]

Heck, I'd vote for Bush today! On September 12, 2001, NOBODY was saying "If only Gore had won!"

The only Democrat that might cause me to pause while heading for the Bush Button would be Zell Miller.

[CaesarI]

I'll vote for anyone who promises to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act. The dem's... haven't. If a Dem did, I'd vote for'em. But no Dem is. The Dem's only complain about it cause they didn't think of it first.

That said... if the AW Ban passes, I'll vote Libertarian. We HAVE to send a message. That's how you do it gentlemen. This is politics, yes it hurts, but it gives us more power in the long run. The Dem's will fear us more, and respect us more, if they think we'll vote for them if they are pro-gun.

Just cause Bush passed the Patriot act don't mean you shouldn't vote for'em. The other guys won't repeal it, they'll use it, and they'll use it to hunt down "militia" terrorists. I Guarantee it.

-Morgan

[444]

I would vote for Lucifer before I voted for hillary.

[Brian Dale]

Dubya's (virtually) certain to win my state, and that's fine by me. I'll probably vote Lib., because sending that message won't cost Dubya this state's electoral votes. I'll change my plan if that prediction looks too optimistic and the race seems close on Game Day.

No Clintons, ever. The evil-and-wrong excesses we've seen from Dubya's subordinates pale in comparison to what we'd see if Hitler-y were given the reins. I'd support Nixon (who was arguably a jerk who abused the power entrusted to him) over Pol Pot, for the same reasons.

Congress gave us the AWB and the "PATRIOTs-spinning-in-their-graves" Act. I'll focus my attention on supporting the Repub. candidate opposing David Price (North Carolina English for "Gun-Grabbing Socialist") in the House, and the Repub. who'll be campaigning to replace John Edwards (North Carolina English for " Ambulance-chasing Barbie Doll") in the Senate.

[corncob]

As much as I hate to say it, I'll probably be voting for Bush again. I'm scared not to, honestly. The only thing that might stop me is if I hear good things about the Libertarian, or if Bush does something(else) between now and then that makes me angry enough to stay home. Not that it really matters in SC. What I don't get is why everyone is so optimistic about the AWB and any (worse) legislation that may or may not replace it. The Dems are going to bring it up and, with help from the media, beat Bush about the face with it all year long. I just hope he doesn't try to compromise with these people in keeping with his "new tone" philosophy. It didn't help us much with the farm bill, education bill, airline security, Patriot Act, (thanks Mr. Ashcroft) etc. Sometimed I can't really tell whether the Republicans won the last election or not.

[geegee]

The way I see it, it comes down to the new Supreme Court Justices. Who do want nominating them? Bush or someone (anyone) else? And there will be more than a couple. geegee

[Don Galt]

When it comes to RKBA, there is no difference between Bush and Clinton.

Bush has already extended the AWB-- which allows one to manufacture a US made, AWB compliant rifle, if you have enough US parts. So what did Bush do after taking office? Have the ATF ban from importation the non-US parts that make up these rifles, extending the AWB ban to cover rifles that weren't previously covered... or put another way, he banned rifles that were complaint with the AWB by making the importation of parts necessary to manufacture them impossible.

Bush is a gun grabber.

Has everyone forgotten that the AWB was put in place by Bush's father, not Clinton? Yes, under clinton it was made law, but it was already executive order under Bush one (the import ban).

Bush is a gun grabber who has vowed to sign the AWB reauthorization.

As long as you keep thinking a gun grabber is acceptable because you fear another gun grabber is worse, you're endorsing gun control.

Vote third party, or don't vote. But if you vote for gun control, that's exactly what you'll get. And you deserve no sympathy when you get it!

[Brian Dale]

Well put. Was your grandfather named John?

[Don Galt]

Well, yes, my grandfather WAS named John! :)

[MeekandMild]

Don, has it ever occurred to you that what Bush did was encourage the growth of the US gun parts manufacturing industry? Call it a ban if you want, it is actually an embargo to give some incentive for Americans to continue making guns.

There are a whole lot of folks who are not gun grabbers and who believe that there should be a 100% embargo on all Chicom and Comblock rifles. Why? Because if we buy foreign guns then pretty soon Americans start forgetting how to work drill presses, casting machines, lathes, forges and all the other tools needed to make guns. :rolleyes:

Go ahead and vote third party if you want, then when Hillary starts confiscation you might think about how she got elected.

[geegee]

The only Democrat that might cause me to pause while heading for the Bush Button would be Zell Miller.
Here's what I see as a problem with that notion. There are pro-RKBA Democrats, both at the state level and national level. The problem is that once almost any at the state level reach the national level, they're told in no uncertain terms that to rock the boat on gun control and abortion rights will mean an end to the contributions coming from the DNC. Period, end of story.

At the national level, there are so few, you can hardly count them. I think John Dingell is able to pull it off because he can deliver the badly needed union votes from Michigan. That's a trade-off the Dems will make for one state. Remember, Al Gore at one time was pro-RKBA.

It's just not being realistic to think that any Democrat can stand up to the Clintons and McAuliffes that run the Democratic Party. Not if they want to get some of the money that's raised by them.

As far as voting Libertarian, or any third party is concerned, face the truth-do so and you just helped an ant-RKBA Dem get to the White House. I understand the frustration we all experience at some time by Republicans, who also sing a different tune during the campaign, then let us down on an important vote, but be realistic. Our country is a two party system. Right, wrong, or otherwise, at this point in our history it's where we are. I'm not prepared to "make a statement" only to wake up the morning after the presidential election and find out a new gun-grabbing Democrat is our new president.

George Bush isn't perfect, but in terms of honor, integrity, and his Second Amendment views, he's head and shoulders above his competition. geegee

[Moparmike]

As far as voting Libertarian, or any third party is concerned, face the truth-do so and you just helped an ant-RKBA Dem get to the White House.What about when you are helping to elect an anti-RKBA Repuke into office? What then? Even if people say I am throwing it away by voting third party, how am I not throwing it away by voting for Bush? I simply dont get your logic. Clue me in on it. George Bush isn't perfect, but in terms of honor, integrity, and his Second Amendment views, he's head and shoulders above his competition. geegee Again, I ask how? Explain please.

Edited to add: Meek, I would appreciate some clarity from you as well.

[chaim]

If Hillary, Clark, Kusenich (sp?), Dean and a couple others get the nomination I will be voting third party. Doesn't really matter which one, I guess whoever will probably get the most votes in order to send the biggest message (I won't care if it is the Libertarian, Pat Buchanan, Nader, or whoever else). I will not vote for most of the current Democrats whatever happens, and I can not vote for Bush.

[geegee]

What about when you are helping to elect an anti-RKBA Repuke into office? What then? Even if people say I am throwing it away by voting third party, how am I not throwing it away by voting for Bush? I simply dont get your logic. Clue me in on it.
The first piece of legislation GWB signed into law as Governor of Texas was our Concealed Carry Law. Not exactly the hallmark of an anti-RKBA politician. He said he would, and he kept his promise. To me, that certainly counts for integrity. At the national level, his biggest RKBA legislative test will be the AWB. We'll just have to wait and see how that one turns out.
George Bush isn't perfect, but in terms of honor, integrity, and his Second Amendment views, he's head and shoulders above his competition
How? The first thing I'd have to ask you is whether you really believe you'd rather have Al Gore as President, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt, or Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun, or Howard Dean, or (dare I say it?) Hillary Clinton? Integrity and the names of most of those people don't even belong in the same sentence. Dean seems to be a nice enough person, who I just disagree with. Kerry is a bonafide war hero, who since entering Congress has never missed a chance to vote for weakening our military and national defense (go figure).

The one thing I've appreciated and admired about Bush as President, more than anything, is having the spine to stand up to the United Nations. He did it when we first went to Iraq, and he did it again today. There isn't a person on my previous list who isn't totally in love with the idea of a bigger, stronger, more powerful U.N. At this point, I'd say Bush has put the interests of our country ahead of a group of internationalist windbags, and for that I am grateful. Had Al Gore been elected President, he'd still be conducting polls to see how many Afghani and Iraqi Americans are in the U.S., and then measure the potential political fallout from offending them by sending troops to the Middle East.

I think another measure of Bush's honesty and integrity is to look who he surrounded himself with. He has some of the finest cabinet and staff members seen in D.C. in years. With Clinton/Gore there were mostly self-serving skanks, who mirrored the values of the people for whom they worked. Ask yourself, just how many were run off because of ethics violations of some sort?

I don't have any quarrel with anyone here who has said the Republicans have let us down too many times-they have (there must be something in the water around Washington, D.C. that causes a man's testicles to shrink, because that same malady affects Republicans far too often once they get up there). As far as GWB is concerned, I've been pleased (on balance) with his administration and how he's represented the U.S. to the world. There are parts of his governing that I've been disappointed with, but on balance in a post9/11 world, I'm still ready to help him get 4 more years. And most especially when I see what the alternatives would be. geegee

[Moparmike]

At the national level, his biggest RKBA legislative test will be the AWB. We'll just have to wait and see how that one turns out.Yes, we will. He decides that he wants to fall on the RKBA side, then my vote might fall on the Republican side of the ticket. Might.The first thing I'd have to ask you is whether you really believe you'd rather have Al Gore as President, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt, or Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun, or Howard Dean, or (dare I say it?) Hillary Clinton? [...] The one thing I've appreciated and admired about Bush as President, more than anything, is having the spine to stand up to the United Nations. He did it when we first went to Iraq, and he did it again today. There isn't a person on my previous list who isn't totally in love with the idea of a bigger, stronger, more powerful U.N.That is because you didnt include a Libertarian in your list. Standing up to the UN and Fraermany is admirable, but its rather like standing up to your freshly-made pan of jello. It doesnt take big chrome-moly spheres to do that. I dont have to tell you that if we completely withdrew from the UN, it would become our global whipping boy, then they would suddenly "see our point of view" after they missed our money long enough.

Ok, while I like his "Bring it on" stance (I _really_ loved that), that isnt enough for me to vote him into a second term.

[Don Galt]

Don, has it ever occurred to you that what Bush did was encourage the growth of the US gun parts manufacturing industry? Call it a ban if you want, it is actually an embargo to give some incentive for Americans to continue making guns.


No, this didn't occur to me because that's not what happened. There is no domestic production for these type of barrels... it was a ban to prevent guns legal under the AWB, but going against the "spirit" of it (eg: Evil Black Rifles) from being made. This intent was made very clear when the rule was enacted.

It had nothing to do with encouraging domestic production. I find it sad that you would assume this was the case.... that's seems desperate to me.

How many guns does Bush have to ban before he loses your support?


There are a whole lot of folks who are not gun grabbers and who believe that there should be a 100% embargo on all Chicom and Comblock rifles. Why? Because if we buy foreign guns then pretty soon Americans start forgetting how to work drill presses, casting machines, lathes, forges and all the other tools needed to make guns.


Americans are going to forget how to work drill presses? Now that's even more absurd!

For what its worth, Bush's new ban applied to non-comblock parts as well. It covered FALS and in fact, now the ATF is raiding people confiscating FAL parts (parts that are totally legal under the law.)


Go ahead and vote third party if you want, then when Hillary starts confiscation you might think about how she got elected.


She will have been elected because you didn't have the courage of your convictions. You voted for a gun grabber, and you got one.

Enjoy!

[Don Galt]

Its worth noting that the AWB may never make it to Bush's desk.

If that happens, then his presidential record will be %100 gun grabber.

It has to make it out of congress, and THEN be vetoed by him in order for him to redeem himself.

His ban on imported rifle parts for scary looking guns is just as wrong as clinton signing the 94 AWB into law... (and bush 1 enacting it by executive order in 89).

That he signed the right-to-carry law-- a law that would surely have overcome his veto in Texas is not much of a pro-RKBA record.