Why Bush will get my vote!


PDA






I'mSpartacus!
December 24, 2003, 05:19 PM
#1 reason? Judicial appointments.

Domestically, the president has little to do directly with the economy aside from psychological impact. He does, however, appoint judges for life to the federal and supreme courts.

Elect Bush and most of the appointments will be judges who give some respect to gun owner's rights and crime victim protection -- elect Dean and see what this country will be like with a group of young, liberal judges who will likely make Clinton's appointments look conservative.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why Bush will get my vote!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jeff White
December 24, 2003, 06:47 PM
Doesn't do a bit of good to appoint anyone to the bench if you arent willing to play hardball politics to get them confirmed. Bush has zero credibility on judicial appointments. The Dems are able to keep him from confirming any till they get into power.

When he makes a recess appointment, I'll believe he gives a hoot about the court....

Jeff

Standing Wolf
December 24, 2003, 06:54 PM
What judicial appointments?

Chris Rhines
December 24, 2003, 07:16 PM
I don't think I'd trust any judge that Bush appointed.

- Chris

Ian
December 24, 2003, 08:21 PM
Hooray! If Bush gets into power again, we'll be assured of having a bunch more closet socialists in the Supreme Court. Just what we need.

Malone LaVeigh
December 24, 2003, 08:47 PM
Bush has gotten a much higher proportion of his nominees confirmed than Clinton. The Repugs are just getting a little of their own medicine. This is not a bad thing.

When both ruling parties are corrupt, gridlock is good.

HBK
December 24, 2003, 08:50 PM
I thought Estrada might be too liberal, but the ones currently in waiting I hope will finally make it through the quagmire the Democrats have created. The filibusters are criminal. All nominees deserve an up or down vote.

carpettbaggerr
December 24, 2003, 09:26 PM
Hooray! If Bush gets into power again, we'll be assured of having a bunch more closet socialists in the Supreme Court. Just what we need. As opposed to the non-closet socialists any Democrat would appoint?

Balog
December 24, 2003, 09:48 PM
Come on people, we live in a two-party system. The "Damned if you do" and "Damned if you don't" parties. Bush or Dean, it doesn't matter.

I'mSpartacus!
December 25, 2003, 04:40 AM
Sorry, I'll take a Scalia or Thomas (the types Bush would appoint to the courts) over a Clinton appointee like Ruth Ginsberg (who thinks the court should follow precidents from the EU in making decisions) any day.

If conservatives don't support Bush, they'll deserve Euro-style gun restrictions!

tyme
December 25, 2003, 05:31 AM
Has J. Ginsberg actually said that, or are you basing that conclusion on her voting pattern?

Bob Locke
December 25, 2003, 06:38 AM
If conservatives don't support Bush, they'll deserve Euro-style gun restrictions!
Considering he is on record as supporting reauthorizing the AWB, what sort of pro-gun people do you think he would appoint to the bench? And then there's his signing of the McCain-Feingold clap-trap.

I'm seriously wondering what he means when he says he wants "strict Constitutionalists" in the courts, as he apparently has no idea what that is.

I'mSpartacus!
December 25, 2003, 06:51 AM
Tyme,

"4. Ginsberg. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg publicly acknowledged last week that she based her opinion in the Lawrence v Texas (Texas sodomy law) case not on American law, American jurisprudence, the Constitution, Federalist Papers or the Declaration of Independence. Ginsberg joined the other Clinton appointee on the court – Stephen Breyer, - saying that she based her opinion on recent trends in European Law and EU Court actions."

http://home.gci.net/~agimarc/archives/ii_000811.htm

Do you really want more of this? If you do, please do not caste your vote for Bush. A liberal Democrat will appoint more of these people and we too can have a country in which the law mirrors other great nations -- like France.:what:

Bob Locke
December 25, 2003, 09:19 AM
Sounds to me like the Congress ought to vote articles of impeachment against Justice Ginsberg for failing to live up to her oath of office. Since she is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and blatantly stated that she made a ruling based on European standards of law, it would seem to be a pretty easy case to make.

But Bush still doesn't rate my vote come November.

Thumper
December 25, 2003, 09:41 AM
Considering he is on record as supporting reauthorizing the AWB, what sort of pro-gun people do you think he would appoint to the bench?

I hardly consider saying he'll sign it if Congress makes the new law as supporting reauthorization.

Note: Congress still makes laws.

He said it once...through Ari Fleicher (who refused to repeat it when pressed.)

What kind of people will he appoint to the bench!? Good Lord! What kind of people do you think a Dem candidate will appoint?

If a Dem somehow gets into the White House, gun owners are screwed...for a long time to come.

If you try to spin it any other way, you are either as politically astute as a brick, or you have a further agenda.

Lone_Gunman
December 25, 2003, 10:41 AM
If conservatives don't support Bush, they'll deserve Euro-style gun restrictions!


You are not so blind as to think Bush is actually a conservative on any issue, are you?

The conservatives will have no one to vote for in the next election.

Here are the top 4 reasons why conservatives should not support Bush:

1. Medicare Reform/Prescription Benefit Program, a socialist liberal program if ever there was one, and it puts GWB on par with Lyndon Johnson.

2. Campaign Finance Reform, limiting the ability of citizens and citizen groups to speak out politically before an election. So much for the First Amendment, folks. While Bush said he thought the law was unconstitutional, he subsequently signed it. I suppose he thought the Supreme Court would strike it down, but they did not. If our president is sworn to defend the Constitution, why would he sign a law he thought was unconstitutional?

3. He supports renewing the Assault Weapons Ban. Don't think for a minute he wont really sign it if it reaches his desk. I don't think he has the spine to veto it, he sure didnt stand up and veto Campaign Finance Reform

4. The Patriot Act, which makes government spying of the citizenry easier.


Obviously, we are worse off with someone more liberal than Bush in power, but don't be fooled into thinking you are voting conservatively if you vote for Bush.

Jeff White
December 25, 2003, 10:48 AM
His record bears that out. He may be less liberal then the known Democratic opposition, but he's not a conservative.

I for one am tired of supporting the lesser of two evils. I'm tired of voting for the person who's going to screw me over the least. The way I see it, conservatives have two chances. We can attempt to take over the Republican party or we can start a new party and in 20 years once again be a viable political force.

Jeff

I'mSpartacus!
December 25, 2003, 11:08 AM
Okay, so if a man isn't perfect you will let the worse guy get in office? You know, George Washington had his faults, and the British were much worse, but are you saying you would have sat out the Revolutionary War just to teach Washington a lesson? Good thing our ancestors didn't have that attitude or we'd be soon getting princess Charles as our new king.

UnknownSailor
December 25, 2003, 11:27 AM
I dropped my support for Bush when he said in a public statement that he thought the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill was "propably unconstitutional", but he was going to sign it anyway.

rock jock
December 25, 2003, 11:37 AM
Considering he is on record as supporting reauthorizing the AWB, what sort of pro-gun people do you think he would appoint to the bench?
Possibly the same sort as the AG, who stated in writing that the 2A was an individual right.

Cal4D4
December 25, 2003, 11:44 AM
I'm still for supporting the lesser of two evils. I tried boycotting elections a few times and it didn't help a thing. "None of the above" never got on the ballot. Bush vs. Dean, Lieberman, Daschle, Kerry, Gepheart(sp) or that beast Hillary is a no brainer. Bush is certainly not all I want him to be for issues near and dear, but he does show character and principle beyond most politicians. Give him his shot at making the world a better place. People will forget the treachery of Bill C. by then and set Hillary on the throne. Then it begins again.:barf:

Lone_Gunman
December 25, 2003, 11:45 AM
Okay, so if a man isn't perfect you will let the worse guy get in office?

He doesn't have to be perfect at all. I just don't want him to wipe his behind on the Constitution. The four points I list above are in contradiction of at least 3 of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The difference between the Dems and Repubs is the same difference as driving off a cliff at 100 mph versus 50 mph.

I don't think I have any choice but to vote for someone other than Bush. He is not representative of what the Republican party should be. I agree with Jeff White, conservatism is a lost cause for now. If we want to reclaim it, we either need to get people like Bush out of the Republican Party, or start a new party, and of course this would be a long term proposal.

It doesn't really matter to me if we have a liberal Republican versus a liberal Democrat in office.

It has become so ingrained in our thinking that the Republican party is conservative that many people have not noticed that the platform of the party has changed.

HBK
December 25, 2003, 11:56 AM
He should've vetoed Campaign Finance Reform. He still gets my vote as of this minute, but if the AWB doesn't fold and he signs a renewal into law, he will lose my vote for good.

I'mSpartacus!
December 25, 2003, 12:12 PM
Like I said before, does a Dean-appointed Supreme Court sound good to you? Yes, the campaign finance bill was a stupid act, but the Democrats would also do many other lousy things -- take for example, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. How long do you think the Democrats will take to put an end to conservative talk radio? Don't support Bush and you'll find out.

Lone_Gunman
December 25, 2003, 12:22 PM
If you think the Campaign Finance Reform bill was unconstitutional, and yet you vote for Bush again, then aren't you personally guilty for not defending the Constitution?

The Republicans are slowly boiling us to death.

carpettbaggerr
December 25, 2003, 12:25 PM
It doesn't really matter to me if we have a liberal Republican versus a liberal Democrat in office. If you think Bush is liberal, you've gotta be way to the right of me. And I can't even see the left from where I sit. Vote for the Democrats and see what a difference it'll make.

Lone_Gunman
December 25, 2003, 01:31 PM
Medicare Reform and Free Drugs for Old People is a pretty liberal idea.

While Campaign Finance Reform, the AWB, and the Patriot Act don't actually fall into the category of liberal ideas (they are actually authoritarin/fascist ideas), they have nonetheless been supported largely by the left.

longeyes
December 25, 2003, 05:04 PM
Medicare Reform and Free Drugs for Old People is a pretty liberal idea.

While Campaign Finance Reform, the AWB, and the Patriot Act don't actually fall into the category of liberal ideas (they are actually authoritarin/fascist ideas), they have nonetheless been supported largely by the left.

------------------------

Perhaps authoritarian is the better term. All are, to my thinking, collectivist in intent.

I'mSpartacus!
December 25, 2003, 06:22 PM
Again, do I have to say it again? If you want to shut down conservative talk radio (via the "Fairness Doctrine"), have liberals on the court who see victim's rights as the criminal being a victim of an uncaring society, and more restrictions on guns then by all means punish Bush by not voting for him. You can gripe all you want about individual issues, but taken as a whole Bush is more on your side.

If you have doubts wear a pro-gun t-shirt to a Bush rally and a Democratic candidate rally and see where you will be treated the best!

Lone_Gunman
December 25, 2003, 06:48 PM
So far Bush hasn't had too much success getting his judicial points through anyway.

Spartacus, how can you support a president who openly admits a law is unconstitutional, and then sign it into law? Isnt the POTUS supposed to defend the constitution?

kentucky bucky
December 25, 2003, 07:35 PM
He will get my vote too!! There has been a couple of things that he did that he didn't ask for my advice, but I'm glad he is my President. The alternative is chilling to say the least.


I love how the "usual suspects" pile on any thread and start the bashing when anything good is said about Bush, (or any authority figure for that matter).........a little telling isn't it .....hummmm?

Lone_Gunman
December 25, 2003, 07:43 PM
I am not sure I would call telling the truth bashing.

kentucky bucky
December 26, 2003, 03:26 AM
Most of the "usual suspects" don't bother with the truth..........it gets in the way of a good Bush bashing.

w4rma
December 26, 2003, 04:36 AM
Judges who will uphold the Patriot Act as being Constitutional in their warped minds? Nope. I'll be working extremely hard to prevent as many of that type of judge from taking the bench as possible.

I'mSpartacus!
December 26, 2003, 04:55 AM
Maybe what some want is the "West Wing", or should we say the left wing! Here's every conservative's favorite entertainer Martin Sheen's endorsement of Dean -- the man some conservatives here will support if they don't vote for Bush:

"A few days ago Howard Dean did something we haven't seen in our country in decades. He called on all of the American people to participate again in our common future....I am a supporter of Howard Dean and all that I ask is that today we all do something together to move his candidacy and the cause of America forward."

http://www.endorsementsfordean.com/

Lone_Gunman
December 26, 2003, 09:16 AM
Spartacus, you may have just named the real best reason to vote for Bush...

he is not supported by wacked out hollywood actors.

I guess thats not much of a reason, but at least its something.

(by the way, I am support Dean even less than Bush, but I have had a belly full of voting for the lesser of two evils).

Tamara
December 26, 2003, 09:27 AM
I don't vote for liberals, no matter what color bunting they use at their rallies.

The GOP hasn't offered up anything remotely resembling a conservative presidential candidate for twenty years.

Jeff White
December 26, 2003, 01:41 PM
Bush has done no action that would convince a conservative, that he (Bush) was in fact, conservative.

I'mSpartacus!, Did Carl Rove send you here to try to shore up the base? The party ignores it's base at it's own peril. Because if he did, he made a gross miscalculation. We are way too smart to buy into the old "look at what you'll lose if you don't elect me" arguement. It's not going to cut it anymore. What have I gained by electing Bush? The biggest expansion of government since the Great Society...The rape of the 1st, 2d and 4th amendments to the constitution....Constitutionalists appointed to the bench and then not fought for..... And you have the nerve to threaten me with the demise of conservative talk radio under a renewed Fairness Doctrine? I was a conservative before Rush Limbaugh was working in promotions for the Kansas City Royals. How did the Fairness Doctrine get conservative views on the air when it existed before? When they got on at all, they were on at 3:30 am. I hate to tell you my friend, but the radio stations are in business to make money. As long as conservative talk radio (or any programming for that matter) sell advertising, it's going to be on the air. Any opposing time required to be broadcast under the so called Fairness Doctrine will be broadcast in the cheapest time slot that exists.

Do you really expect all of us to act like abused spouses....Bush only beats us because he loves us? I'm sorry. Bush has to prove he's a conservative. And he has to go a long way now to justify his actions in the first term.

As I said in an earlier post...conservatives can either abandon the Republican Party and go somewhere else or they can attempt to take over the party. Either one is a relatively long term proposition.

Jeff

w4rma
December 26, 2003, 01:45 PM
he is not supported by wacked out hollywood actors.Like Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.comcast.net/News/POLITICS/XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/f4a21c05-921e-440f-93ea-7757df9ff034.html)?

romulus
December 26, 2003, 02:35 PM
All I can say is that while Bush isn't taking an active stance in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the Democratic candidate, once lected, will actively work against it. I remember Bill Clinton duck hunting with a Benelli. I also look at who presided of the affairs of gummint in 1934, '68, and '94. They weren't republicans. I'll take my chances with Bush, knowing there's NO chance with Dean, regardless of his pick-up trucks with guns" pronunciamentos. He'd cave in a New York second, as history bears witness.

Lone_Gunman
December 26, 2003, 04:30 PM
I am curious Romulus, what stance do you think Bush has on guns? Is he pro? Is he neutral? Is he anti?

Doesnt his support for renewing the AWB make him anti???

I don't like Dean, but what anti-gun legislation did he work towards while governor of Vermont?

Lone_Gunman
December 26, 2003, 04:36 PM
I think Jeff White summed up my feelings very well. And I also agree, no conservative has been president since RWR.

Bob Locke
December 26, 2003, 04:42 PM
So Bush can get your vote with nothing better than being "not Dean" (or whomever the Dem's put on the ballot)? How do you think he's going to react to that news? You think he'll be inclined to pay attention to the issues that are important to you when he knows he's already got your vote regardless of what he does? If you think that, then I've got some real estate I'd like to talk to you about...

If you stop making a politician earn your vote, then you've lost. You may feel good about voting for the "less bad" candidate, but in the long-term you're still handing the knife to the person who'll slit your throat.

I'mSpartacus!
December 26, 2003, 05:35 PM
Dean's site:

"I believe we should keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have - including the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill - and close the gun show loophole using Insta-check..."

http://www.illinoisfordean.org/issues/sensible_gun_laws.html

Lone_Gunman
December 26, 2003, 05:46 PM
And what part of that has Bush disagreed with, Spartacus?

Jeff White
December 26, 2003, 05:47 PM
I'mSpartacus! posted;
Dean's site:

"I believe we should keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have - including the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill - and close the gun show loophole using Insta-check..."

And how is this different from Bush's statements?

Jeff

romulus
December 26, 2003, 06:47 PM
Lone Gunman, on the 2nd Amendment Bush it's my understanding that Bush was good as Governor of Texas. He certainly hasn't sounded a clarion call in defense of the RKBA as Prez, but no harm thus far. I'm disappointed to hear he'll sign an extension of AWB, especially since it was sold to us a a bill that would sunset once insta-check was in place. I didn't believe it then, and we can see where they're going with it now.

Re: Dean's record as Guv...The way I see it, it's irrelevant. The last Democratic, pro-gun Guv elected Prez was Clinton, who changed his tune once he entered the fray of national Democratic politics. I have every reason to suspect that Dean will do the same...why would he be different? His constituency, his patronage structure will be completely different from what it is in Vermont. To believe otherwise is, frankly, naive in the xetreme.

w4rma
December 26, 2003, 10:38 PM
romulus says that Bush's governor's record on guns was:
"good"
romulus says that Dean's governor's record on guns was:
"irrelevant" (But good, right?)

Why don't we talk about civil liberties here, also?
I say Bush's record on civil liberties is horrible: He's passed the Patriot Act and has now passed parts of Patriot Act II and is working on more parts with AG Ashcroft's help. (btw, you should, IMHO, assume that judges nominated by Bush will treat the Constitution as Ashcroft does.)

Dean has said that he'll revoke the unconstitutional parts of the Patriot Act and has a good record on civil liberties as governor of his state.

So, IMHO, you've got two folks here who are moderates on guns, but one of them leans totalitarian on civil liberties (Bush) and one of them leans libertarian on civil liberties (Dean).

Justin
December 26, 2003, 10:43 PM
Okay, so if a man isn't perfect you will let the worse guy get in office? I'm sick and tired of being beaten over the head with this absurd false dichotmy, while hearing neo-cons scream 'IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR BUSH, YOU'RE VOTING AWAY YOUR GUNS!'


Pure and utter horseapples. Hmmm, just to recap, Bush supported McCain Feingold, even though he admitted it was unconstitutional, he signed into law Teddy Kennedy's education pork bill, signed into law the biggest expansion of socialized healthcare in my lifetime, allowed the PATRIOT Act, supported steel tariffs, and has publically stated that he would reauthorize the AW ban.

On top of all of this, Bush has not vetoed one bill to cross his desk. Not once. Even Clinton vetoed stuff occasionally. But Bush has given Congress rubber stamp approval on every hair-brained scheme they've proposed. Bush, and a Republican controlled congress are responsible for the biggest increase in spending since FDR.

Maybe I'll vote for a Republican when the Republican party stop being Socialist Party B.

Tamara
December 26, 2003, 11:27 PM
I also look at who presided of the affairs of gummint in 1934, '68, and '94.

You forgot '86 and '89.

"Meet the new boss,
Same as the old boss,
We won't get fooled again." :scrutiny:

romulus
December 26, 2003, 11:28 PM
one of them leans totalitarian on civil liberties (Bush)
I cann't consider that because it is ridiculous, indeed laughable, on the face of it. Impossible to take such a statement seriously...What I said, if you read carefully, was that Dean's record on guns AS GOVERNOR is irrelevant, as the pressures on him as President will be quite different. He will have to turn anti-gun if he's going to maintain any control of the national Democratic apparatus, just like Clinton did...It's inescapable...

Tamara
December 26, 2003, 11:36 PM
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are out-phased, by-the-bye
And the party on the left
Is now party on the right
And their beards have all grown longer overnight...

seeker_two
December 27, 2003, 12:15 AM
What I said, if you read carefully, was that Dean's record on guns AS GOVERNOR is irrelevant, as the pressures on him as President will be quite different. He will have to turn anti-gun if he's going to maintain any control of the national Democratic apparatus, just like Clinton did...It's inescapable...

What I said, if you read carefully, was that Bush's record on guns AS GOVERNOR is irrelevant, as the pressures on him as President will be quite different. He will have to turn anti-gun if he's going to maintain any control of the national Republican apparatus, just like Bush Sr. did...It's inescapable...

Same song, different verse...

:rolleyes:

Gary H
December 27, 2003, 12:23 AM
Bush is a Kennedy Democrat, with LBJ thrown in... (Medicare). Compassion has taken over as appearance rules over common sense. I for one may just sit out the election in protest. If it is a close one, I would vote to avoid Dean, or Hillllllary. Bush proved that he is no conservative when he was born into the Bush family.

romulus
December 27, 2003, 12:37 AM
What I said, if you read carefully, was that Bush's record on guns AS GOVERNOR is irrelevant, as the pressures on him as President will be quite different. He will have to turn anti-gun if he's going to maintain any control of the national Republican apparatus, just like Bush Sr. did...It's inescapable...
Well you can say what you want, but it just ain't so. At the last national convention in 2000, this plank appears on the National Republican Party's Platform:

"We defend the constitutional right to bear arms. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens."

Please point to a similar plank in the National Democratic Party's Platform...

Lone_Gunman
December 27, 2003, 12:47 AM
Bush was pro gun when he was governor of Texas, but its easy to be pro gun in Texas.

He has not been pro gun since being elected president; I can't even say he has been neutral since he has said he will sign the AWB.

The same pressures that Romulus predicts will cause Dean to flip-flop on gun rights have already caused Bush's unsteady position on gun rights.

I do think there is a difference between Bush and Dean, but it is not enough of a difference to matter.

romulus
December 27, 2003, 12:49 AM
Thak you for directing me to the Democratic platform plank that shows how the Democratic apparatchiks will safeguard your rights, and work on President Dean into doing same....

Lone_Gunman
December 27, 2003, 01:05 AM
Romulus, no offense, but the blurb in the Republican Platform doesnt really wind up saying much.

The only thing concrete it says is that they oppose national registration. We already have defacto registration with NICS in place.

While you are pointing out things to folks, how about point out any existing firearm law, any at all, that the Republicans would be willing to get rid of.

Actions speak louder than words.

I have never voted for anyone but a Republican for any office since 1984. I voted for GWB. I am not at all biased against Republicans. But it is no longer the party of Reagan. It has taken a drastic step to the left. Most "republicans" just havent noticed it yet.

romulus
December 27, 2003, 01:17 AM
Oh, no, I have noticed it, and have no illusions about the turn the party has taken under the Bushes. I'm simply saying that there is a difference between this Bush and Dean on RKBA, or that there certainly will be once Dean is elected.

PS: nothing remotely offensive in your posts...

Lone_Gunman
December 27, 2003, 06:07 PM
The question was,

Is there any current gun law that the Republican party, Bush in particular, would get rid of?

The answer seems to be no, and in fact he has said he would sign more if sent to him.

So this is better than Dean in what way?

romulus
December 27, 2003, 07:20 PM
Meaning Dean will continue down the path of incrementalism...see the Brady campaign platform an MMM...I dont believe Bush would sign a law that bans all semiautos. I believe Dean would do so in order as his most loyal political base demands it...if adding new laws to you is the same as not removing old ones I just don't know what to add at this point.

Lone_Gunman
December 27, 2003, 08:59 PM
Has Dean said anything that would lead you to believe he would ban all semi autos? From the things I have heard him say, he sounds as "pro gun" (and I use that term lightly) as Bush.

Clinton never tried to get rid of all semi autos even in his second term when he had nothing to lose, so why would Dean?

Why do you think Bush would not ban semi autos if it would benefit him politically? Why would he be willing to ban assault weapons, and not take it a step further to semi autos? Do you think Bush would not fall victim to incrementalism as well? He has already shown he is willing to sign what he considers unconstitutional legislation into law, i.e, the Campaign Finance Reform law.

I am not trying to be argumentative, and I don't really mean to bash Bush. Since 1984, every candidate I have voted for in a federal election has been a Republican. I am a member of the Repub National Committee. But the Republican party has changed drastically, is moving further and further to the left.

If Bush loses the next election, and the Republicans wise up and move back to the right where they belong, then I think having to endure 4 years of Dean would be worth it. Long term, if the Republican Party stays on its present course it will be indistinguishable from the Democrats in less than 20 years.

romulus
December 27, 2003, 09:49 PM
I get the feeling we're both just getting repetitious and boring the hell out other forum participants. Plus I'm not on a conversion tour, I just wanted the opportunity for my say. For that, I am grateful.

Greg Bell
December 28, 2003, 12:28 AM
You guys are living in la-la land. Bush is our only hope. I prefer Ashcroft as AG to say, Janet Reno. I have never seen any politician that I agreed with 100%. The Democrats are Communists. The Republicans are center-right Socialists. The Libertarians are whining tax-dodgers who would leave our defense to the Care Bears. The Greens are just not living on the same planet as everyone else.

I'll take Bush. He is all we have.:mad:

Triad
December 28, 2003, 01:15 AM
If Bush is all we have, we have nothing.

Greg Bell
December 28, 2003, 01:30 AM
Triad,

"If Bush is all we have, we have nothing."

We have a heck of a lot less new gun legislation with Bush and the Republicans 3 years into his term that we did under Clinton and the Democrats. The AWB will sunset under Bush--so we will actually have fewer gun restrictions for the first time...ever. Rove and Delay won't let it get to Bush's desk so the Pres gets to have his cake and eat it to.

Underhanded? Yep. Machiavellian? Sure. This is the real world, not some Libertarian fantasy world.

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 09:11 AM
Greg, is it OK to play chicken with the Bill of Rights? Thats what GWB is doing with by saying he will sign the AWB, while hoping at the same time it will never reach his desk.

This is a very risky maneuver. He has already tried playing chicken once before, with the Campaign Finance Reform bill, and ended up losing. He didn't think it would become law, and he thought the Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitional. So he signed it, once again trying to have his cake and eat it too, as you say. He signed it into law after saying he thought it was unconstitutional.

Will you guys still support him when he signs the AWB renewal? Will you say, well the AWB renewal would have been a lot worse if Dean had signed it?

The presidential oath requires him to defend the Constitution. If he thinks a law is unconstitituional (ie, Campaign Finance Reform), then how can he sign it into law while still honoring his oath of office?

Tamara
December 28, 2003, 09:19 AM
I prefer Ashcroft as AG to say, Janet Reno.

I prefer slamming my thumb in a car door to chopping it off with a hatchet, too.

greyhound
December 28, 2003, 09:23 AM
Yes, Bush is not even CLOSE to the ideal candidate.

But every time I think of voting for a Democrat, I am reminded why I never will.

Latest example: Madaleine Albright, the Democratic former SECETARY OF STATE, for gosh sakes, says Bush already has Osama Bin Laden in custody, and is going to trot him out in an "October Surprise". She quickly says she was joking, which is disputed by some present in the room.

These are NOT the kind of people I want running our country, Patriot Act or no Patriot act.....

NorthernExtreme
December 28, 2003, 09:33 AM
I'm telling you the only difference is whether or not you are going to take the Express-Way or the Scenic Rout to Hell. The Dems will get us there faster, but the Repubs will end up at the same Dead End. TRUST ME!

Be honest with me; can anybody out there truly tell me they believe the Republicans are going to stand up and fight for the 2nd Amendment? The fact is, the 2nd Amendment is dead unless we stop choosing the lesser of two evils and vote for those who will fight for all of us, by fighting for the Constitution and all it stands for. And I challenge anybody to show me a trend in political or legal reality that shown the 2nd Amendment isn’t on its way to its death bed. All we have seen is a few years of slowed decline, and the Republicans are trying to convince us this is somehow a good thing.

A third party is our only hope (with things being the way they are). I think we need to support Bush if for no other reason, but to give us time to find real people to represent us in Washington. The Repubs have taken the pro 2nd Amendment crowd for granted and consider us nothing more than votes in their pocket (don’t kid yourself into believing otherwise). And I challenge anybody to show me where the RNC has supported us in a manner even close to the way we have supported them. We gave them the White House, and both houses of Congress, they have done nothing in return. And don't tell me that not allowing more gun legislation to pass is something. Washington has stolen our Rights, and the republicans have done NOTHING TO CORRECT THAT! And I mean NOTHING to correct it.

We need time and that is the only reason I'll vote for Bush. Not because I have false hope for better days, only the need for time and for no other reason.



:fire:

Jeff White
December 28, 2003, 09:38 AM
greyhound,

And the difference between what Madeline Albright said (that's old news BTW) and this The AWB will sunset under Bush--so we will actually have fewer gun restrictions for the first time...ever. Rove and Delay won't let it get to Bush's desk so the Pres gets to have his cake and eat it to.

Underhanded? Yep. Machiavellian? Sure.
is what exactly?


Greg Bell, you are in possession of a verified memo from Carl Rove that the AWB won't make it to Bush's desk? That it's official party policy? Could you post it here for us to see? The statement Delay made to that effect doesn't count...Unless you can explain away Hastert's assertion that Delay wasn't speaking for the party leadership as soon as Delay said it....

Jeff

lapidator
December 28, 2003, 09:42 AM
An analogy if I might:

African-Americans, by a measure of what -- 95%, have voted for Democrat candidates over the past 20 years. What has it gotten them? Well, nothing -- save for the Democrat party taking their vote for granted. The Democrats now just assume that all they need to do is show up in Harlem, makes some absurd remark about playing basketball, and boom, 15% of the popular vote is theirs. And what do the African-Americans get out of this, do they get more representation at the Cabinet level? No. Do they get more representation at the Judicial level? No. They get Hillary-care which would have made it impossible for them to get timely healthcare. Or they get huge tax increases which would have made it impossible to save and join the ranks of the middle-class.

The Republican party takes gun-owner votes for granted. At the federal level, there really aren't any that would actually help us repeal the anti-liberty laws, and stem the tide of new encroachments. It is a known-documented fact that Gore lost because he lost Tennessee -- he lost Tennessee because he became anti-gun. One would think that this would encourage Bush to respect that support. Ha!

What has the pro-gun support of Bush gotten us? New powers of the BATFE. A tortured interpertation of the 2nd Amendment that essentially boils down to, "you have the RKBA -- except where we say you don't" We have the 1st Amendment under attack by a president that ADMITS it is unconstitutional as he signs it -- wondering if the adults will take care of his blunder. The Bush administration is working hand in hand with The Swimmer to further ruin education -- just so that people will "like" him. Now we're talking about extending legal status to the wetbacks whom are massing on our border.

So is the option of having a Dean or Kerry presidency better then our current summer-solder President? Talk about the lesser of two evils!

For my part, I didn't vote for Bush (Go LP!) but then again my vote doesn't really matter here in the Peoples Commonwealth (I've never seen a Republican for President TV ad on any station in Boston in my life).

Could I vote for Bush in 2004? Probably not. Except, for me there are two litmus tests. 1) If Bush were to appoint a truely conservative judge to SCOTUS between now and Nov. 2004 I would certainly join his side. 2) If Bush VETOED the AWB renewal -- I could become a Bush.

Either are quite unlikely.

greyhound
December 28, 2003, 11:06 AM
Jeff-

Good point, but I would say there is a difference between Republicans trying to weasel on the AWB and our former Secretary of State accusing the President of a crime that would make Watergate look like child's play.

I have no doubt that the Republicans will push for renewal of the AWB if that is the way the popular wind is blowing, and that Bush will sign it. He is not going to draw a line in the sand on gun issues; its too volatile an issue. I take him at his word: if it reaches his desk he will sign it; though he probably hopes it never does.

Taking the 2A issues as one part of the total platform, Bush is better than any Democrat.

If you're a one issue (2A) voter, there is no good choice in the 2 major parties.

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 11:16 AM
If you're a one issue (2A) voter, there is no good choice in the 2 major parties.

If you are a 10 issue voter (ie, Bill of Rights), there really isnt a good choice either.

I can think of at least 3 amendments in the Bill of Rights that current policy contradicts.

I'mSpartacus!
December 28, 2003, 01:38 PM
Now who do you suppose the National Rifle Association of America will support in the election?

http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org

On Friday December 12, President George W. Bush invited the NRA, along with 20 other sportsmen`s organizations, to the White House to discuss issues of concern to hunters and sportsmen. Also attending the meeting were Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman. During this meeting, the President reaffirmed his personal commitment to hunting, fishing, and sportsmen`s issues. Additionally, Secretaries Norton and Veneman, along with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Steve Williams, presented an overview of Bush Administration wildlife and conservation initiatives, including the opening of 50 additional National Wildlife Refuges to hunting and fishing. Also discussed was the need for the Administration to work with folks in local communities, including local gun clubs, when formulating new policies that impact hunting lands, such as increased exploration of natural resources.

"We were pleased to hear President Bush express both his steadfast support for America`s hunting traditions and his recognition of the economic contribution that sportsmen make to the economy," said David Lehman, NRA-ILA Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel. "It is refreshing to see a President and an Administration that supports America`s sportsmen, and actively works to increase hunting opportunities and hunter access to federal lands. We look forward to continuing to work with President Bush and his Administration on these important issues."

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 01:58 PM
The NRA will support Bush, of course, but they gave Dean the same "A" rating they gave Bush.

Jeff White
December 28, 2003, 02:22 PM
Should the AWB renewal pass, and get to Bush's desk and he sigit as promised, they will hard pressed to support him. Might be another no endorsement election like the '92 one.

I'm a life member and Bush has a long way to go to get my vote, regardless of any endorsement. The only thing Bush has going for him is the war....And I'm not pleased with the Rumsfeld has chosen to run it. I will be surprised if we have a force as good as Clinton left him at the end of the GWOT.

Another crisis anywhere in the world is going to make Bush look pretty stupid on national security. We are too over-extended to handle it.

The message the White House needs to hear is that they need to come back to the base...a real deal return to conservatism or we might just sit this one out...

Jeff

I'mSpartacus!
December 28, 2003, 02:34 PM
Even if Dean dressed up like Rambo and pledged never to erode gun owner's rights I believe pro-gun organizations would go for Bush just because they have a 4 year track record that shows that he will uphold their rights vs. a politician just making a promise to get votes from gun owners.

greyhound
December 28, 2003, 04:03 PM
RE: the NRA visit to the White House, I'd feel a little better if I didn't see constant references to "hunters" and "sportsmen".:banghead:

Waitone
December 28, 2003, 04:07 PM
The message the White House needs to hear is that they need to come back to the base...a real deal return to conservatism or we might just sit this one out... Bush // Rove will not come back to the base because they believe, for good reason, most voters out here wonder "Where They Gonna Go?"

Vote for Dean? You may like his second amendment stand (if its being correctly reported), but will you like the instant end to the pro-active war on islamofascist terrormongers (IFT)? Most voting Americans will not accept an appeasement foreign policy when it come to fighting IFT's.

Vote for Hillary? The damage the woman will do boggles the mind and I think most voting Americans understand she is high risk.

Vote for any of the other democrat candidates? I doubt it. The public has already written on all by two for very good reasons.

Back to "Where they gonna go?" If that is indeed Bush // Roves perception of Bush's base, look for numerous efforts at slipping the base the weenie. AWB is merely a sideshow. Immigration reform is the biggie. Don't like the incipient assault on national sovereignty represented by Bush's immigration reform? Where you gonna go?

Don't like his threat to sign a new AWB? Where you gonna go?

You gonna get mad and vote libertarian? <snicker> Now there's a smart move. It is not a good idea to turn the war on islamofascist terrormongers over to a bunch of American tribalists.

Bush has vulmerabilities. It will take dissatisfied voters making a decision between today and tomorrow. Bush wants and needs control of the senate. His legacy as president is tied up in what he does with the supreme court. Having seen Bush in action for 3 years I see nothing that convinces me he needs access to that particular lever of power. Matter of fact I think he needs to be kept away from it. Yes we are rapidly moving down the road toward fascism, partially propelled by court decisions. In our form of government checks and balances was the means by which rogue branches of government were kept in line. For now we think our check on SCOTUS is the judge approval process. Sooner or later we'll figure out congress can trump the judicial branch if only it could grow a pair of principals.

Vote for Bush frequently and often. Just deny him control of the senate. Denial of SCOTUS appointments will go a long way toward destroying "Where they gonna go."

Greg Bell
December 28, 2003, 04:52 PM
Tamara,

" I prefer slamming my thumb in a car door to chopping it off with a hatchet, too."

Yep. I think this is a fair analogy. I'll take the door slam every time.

We live in a two party system. All this moonshine about third parties is nothing but a childish denial of this fact. The liberals learned with Nader that being absolutist gets you exactly what you don't want. I remember chatting with a lefty buddy of mine back in 2000. He had spent months trying to convince his fellow-travelers not to vote for Nader, despite Gore's obvious flaws. He tells me now how much they regret the "foolish consistency" of voting for someone they knew was going to lose. R. Reagan is a better example of what to do. Many of you think he wasn't a "true" conservative (avoid the "true" trap if possible). But, in any case, he was an immense improvement over Ford and Nixon. Now, when Reagan began running many people thought a vote for him in the primary was a vote to lose in the general. This logic simply does not apply to the two major parties. The Democratic and Republican parties are the only choices that the general electorate will consider. Therefore, a radical candidate can only be elected if he can secure the nomination. That is why Dean is so frightening to me. People say, "ha, he is screwed because he is too liberal." Nope, people will elect damn near anyone if they hate the alternative enough.

What I am trying to say is accept reality and work within the existing framework. Pick the party that is closest to your ideals and work to make it better. Everything else is "tilting at windmills."


GHB

nonquixote
December 28, 2003, 05:13 PM
There hasn't as far as I know been a viable candidate for president who represents my beliefs during my whole lifetime. So, I decide to live my life as free as I can anyway, and by my own principles. I pay my taxes, I try to be a good neighbor, I try to deal honestly with my fellows. Not because the government tells me I have to, but because these are the things I believe in. I vote for the lesser evil in the hope that it might make it less likely that I'll draw the ire of the powers-that-be for my socially irresponsible desire to control my own life, but I understand that eventually it might just come down to living as a subject of the government or dying as a free person. I know which way I choose.

Nonq

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 05:17 PM
Greg, I would argue that the best way to change a party from within is to vote against it. That is the best way to get their attention.

If the Republicans lose the next election, and then move back to the right where they belong, I will consider it a victory, despite having to look at Dean for 4 years.

romulus
December 28, 2003, 05:43 PM
Why wouldn't they move even further to the left? Why wouldn't they think they lost because they haven't moved enough to the left along with an electorate that now votes Democrat? Just asking...

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 05:57 PM
Romulus, they would move to the left only if you voted for the Democrat, or other left wing candidate.

If the republicans saw 20% of their base move to a conservative third party, or if 20% of their base just stayed home and didn't vote at all because they were so disgusted with the Republican candidate, maybe they would get the idea that they had veered to far to the left, and try to recapture those voters next time.

romulus
December 28, 2003, 06:27 PM
But that assumes a correct interpretation of events. They don't seem to grasp how they alienate the conservative base now (yep, I'm alienated), why would they realize it after an election loss that could have been prevented by not alienating the conservative base in the first place?

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 06:41 PM
Yes, you are correct Romulus, it would depend on them being able to correctly interpret why they lost the election. I also agree that Republicans aren't too clever at figuring things like that out... eg, as far as I can tell they learned nothing from Ross Perot.

Jeff White
December 28, 2003, 07:20 PM
Waitone said;
Just deny him control of the senate. Denial of SCOTUS appointments will go a long way toward destroying "Where they gonna go."

You really don't think Bush could confirm a Supreme Court appoinment that was remotely acceptable to the conservative base, do you? Just because the Republican's are the majority party in the Senate, doesn't mean they are in control of it. If they were, Estrada and the others would be sitting on the bench now.

More of the conservative agenda was passed during the Clinton years then has been during the Bush administration. Outside of losing on the AWB and the Brady Bill we won. Bush has given us most of what Clinton couldn't...The Patriot Act was mostly written in 98 after the Hart/Rudman Commission and a couple Rand studies. How do you think they got such complex legislation written in days? They just dusted off those old proposals. Outside of the fact that we probably would have apologized to al-Queda for putting our buildings in tha path of the ailiners they hijacked and pulled totally out of the middle east, I see no difference to what we would have under a Gore administration.

The Republicans control both houses of congress and the White House yet they can't pass any of their agenda. Either their agenda isn't the same as it used to be or they feel they have to pander to the democrats to look like they are bipartisan.

I'm not sure that it would be possible to take over the republican party from within. But as they become more and more indistinguishable from the democrats they may just go away on their own and be replaced by a true conservative party who would be populated by those who have been abandoned by both parties.

Jeff

Greg Bell
December 28, 2003, 07:24 PM
"I'm not sure that it would be possible to take over the republican party from within. But as they become more and more indistinguishable from the democrats they may just go away on their own and be replaced by a true conservative party who would be populated by those who have been abandoned by both parties."


That has 0% chance of winning. Wow.

I hope the Republicans don't have any interns reading this nonsense. They might come to the realization that there is nothing that they can do to please you guys short of political suicide.

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 07:31 PM
Greg, do you believe the Republican Party to be immortal?

Parties come and parties go. Ever heard of the Whigs?

Greg Bell
December 28, 2003, 07:34 PM
Lone Gunman,

Name the last President of the United States who was neither a Democrat or Republican?

Anybody left alive who saw it? Nope.

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 07:54 PM
Does that mean the Republican party is immortal, Greg?

Or to ask another way, Do you think at any point in the future someone other than an Republican or Democrat will be elected president?

Do you think it is possible another party could emerge?

Jeff White
December 28, 2003, 07:58 PM
Greg,
I am a republican. The county chair was just here a couple weeks ago asking me to run for Precinct Committeeman. The party has a very good chance of going the way of the Whigs.

It's not political suicide to stand for something different then what the opposition stands for. Maybe they won't idolize you on MSNBC for taking a conservative stand.....if that's what you are referring to as political suicide...I submit that the party is already comitting politcal suicide. The base that put them in office will eventually go where their views are respected and acted on. That will leave them with the swing votes and whatever democrats they can get to vote for them.

What is the sense of putting money and time into electing people who take your views and issues for granted. If there aren't results those voters will go somewhere else.

The Republicans never learned the lesson of Perot. There is plenty of time for a conservative third party candidate to jump into the race and spoil it for Bush.

Jeff

pax
December 28, 2003, 08:06 PM
I'm not going to vote for Bush when the time comes.

I'm going to vote for the candidate and party whose stated goals and past history most closely mirrors my own.

If that causes the Republicans to believe they can't get my vote by doing what they've been doing, excellent.

pax

Buck early on displayed two of the most common qualifications for leadership, those being that he was tall and had nice hair. Furthermore, he was burdened with only minimal intelligence, which left him free to act without the usual restraints provoked by thought. And, finally, he possessed charisma, that peculiar trait of personality so magnetic it draws a leader's followers happily after him into the most desperate and stupid of predicaments, for which favor he earns their undying gratitude and devotion. Indeed, many a leader has won glory for heroic acts in situations that, except for his unrelenting arrogance and stupidity, would never have occurred in the first place. – Pat McManus

Greg Bell
December 28, 2003, 08:09 PM
Our country has a DEEPLY ingrained tradition as a two party system. I'm not even sure our political system is recognizable without this attribute. The answer to your question is, I seriously doubt that we will see a viable third pary in our lifetime. Third parties pop-up from time to time but never get anywhere. The reason is because of the above-mentioned tradition. The system is, frankly, rigged towards the two major parties. The recent "campaign finance reform" only reinforced this. Only a truly cataclysmic event could undo this system. Yes, the two party system will eventually crumble--but it will probably most resemble the transition of Rome from Republic to Empire.

Greg Bell
December 28, 2003, 08:23 PM
Jeff,

"It's not political suicide to stand for something different then what the opposition stands for. Maybe they won't idolize you on MSNBC for taking a conservative stand.....if that's what you are referring to as political suicide...I submit that the party is already comitting politcal suicide. The base that put them in office will eventually go where their views are respected and acted on. That will leave them with the swing votes and whatever democrats they can get to vote for them."


Bush has taken a lot of heat for taking conservative positions that the liberal media despises. What a lot of people seem to be saying is that they are going to take their toys home if they don't get everything the way they want it. The fact is, Bush is in charge of a real political party, not a club. There are social conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, and even a few old Rockefeller country-club Republicans. He can't please everyone all the time. Absolutism only marginalizes you further.

"The Republicans never learned the lesson of Perot. There is plenty of time for a conservative third party candidate to jump into the race and spoil it for Bush. "

But it was the Perot voters who had some learning to do--and they did. Hell, even Perot himself endorsed Bush this last time.

GHB

Jeff White
December 28, 2003, 08:39 PM
I never said a third party could win. But it could cost Bush the election. And yes, you're right we've always had a two party system, but it hasn't always been democrats and republicans. As the two parties become interchangeable, one will go away and another party will come in to replace it.

The republicans can no longer say they stand for different things then the democrats do. They have proven that they don't.

Although I would never vote for him, Howard Dean started out doing things right in his quest for the nomination. He started running against Clinton. Even though Clinton was not a conservative democrat by any stretch of anyone's imagination, he was politically savvy enough to paint himself as a centrist. All of the other democrats seeking the nomination are tyring to cast themselves in Clinton's mold as centrists who will be electable. Why do you think they aren't doing well? They aren't playing to the liberal democratic base. The undecided swing voters that they are trying to win over aren't going to vote in the primary. So they are all badly trailing Dean. Dean is giving the base what it wants.

The problem that Bush has is that he has spent three years proving he's a centrist and alienating his base. The base is now disillusioned and angry. While they would no more vote for Dean or any other democrat, they may vote for a third party candidate (don't think for a minute the press wouldn't be all over that, they learned the lesson of Perot, any third party candidate that could hurt Bush would get all kinds of coverage) or they may decide to stay home on election day. This leaves Bush with having to win with the swing votes. And there aren't enough swing votes to win.

The democratic base won't stay home. They are still too angry that they were unable to steal the election in 2000.

As for your prediction that it will be a big event that kills the two party system, I think you are right. I don't think we'll see the next democratic administration give up power if they are voted out. They proved that in the last election.

Jeff

Greg Bell
December 28, 2003, 08:55 PM
"The republicans can no longer say they stand for different things then the democrats do. They have proven that they don't. "


That statement is just way too cynical. I happen to like the Republican position that we can't give France and China a veto over our own self-defense. I happen to like the Republican position on tax-cuts. I happen to like the fact that we have had no new gun legislation since they took power in 94'. I happen to like the fact that they are going to let the AWB die. I happen to like having our military budget given priority for a change. I happen to like an AG who recognizes the 2nd Amendment, etc.

" Dean is giving the base what it wants. "

And if his prayers for some sort of disaster for the USA (economically, terrorism, etc) aren't answered, he will lose big-time. He will only win if Bush is hated. Nothing shows this happening. Dean can get the nomination but can't beat Bush in a head to head without a gift of fate.


'As for your prediction that it will be a big event that kills the two party system, I think you are right. I don't think we'll see the next democratic administration give up power if they are voted out. They proved that in the last election. "

Aww, you worry too much Jeff. :) The ol' USA is going to be fine.

GHB






:

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 09:06 PM
Greg,

I have a question about this statement:

I happen to like the Republican position on tax-cuts

Tax cuts are nice, I agree, and I appreciate the little one I got from Bush. But long term, tax cuts cannot continue, since Bush is spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

The Medicare Drug Bill and The War on Terror will eventually have to be paid for.

He can cut taxes in the short term to win votes, but one day either us, or our children, will have to pay off the debts we are generating.

Greg Bell
December 28, 2003, 09:16 PM
"Tax cuts are nice, I agree, and I appreciate the little one I got from Bush. But long term, tax cuts cannot continue, since Bush is spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave."

This is another point on which you and I depart. I do not subscribe to the common wisdom that tax increases equal more tax revenue. We can stand quite a bit more cutting before we actually see diminished revenue because of tax cuts.

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 09:24 PM
Admittedly Greg, my understanding of economic issues is limited, and I won't necessarily argue your point, but in my overly simplified viewpoint:

If the government increases spending, then revenue, in one form or another, must increase also, which will likely translate into a tax increase.

I just plain don't think the government ought to subsidize people at the expense of others, and thats what Bush's medicare plan will do.

Even if taxes, by some miracle, don't have to increase to fund it, then really we would have had to pay less taxes in the first place without the program.

Greg Bell
December 28, 2003, 09:38 PM
"I just plain don't think the government ought to subsidize people at the expense of others, and thats what Bush's medicare plan will do. "

To a certain degree, I am sympathetic. However, our country has long made a commitment to the elderly and less fortunate. My real problem is whether what we are doing is helping or hurting. I think we might very well be doing more harm than good.

"Even if taxes, by some miracle, don't have to increase to fund it, then really we would have had to pay less taxes in the first place without the program."

True, but my point was that the Republicans do like tax cuts. Democrats posture about targeted tax-cuts but never deliver -- or at least not in the past 40 years.
GHB

Jeff White
December 28, 2003, 09:48 PM
I happen to like the Republican position on tax-cuts. I happen to like the fact that we have had no new gun legislation since they took power in 94'. I happen to like the fact that they are going to let the AWB die. I happen to like having our military budget given priority for a change. I happen to like an AG who recognizes the 2nd Amendment, etc.

I think you are giving them way too much credit. The tax cuts are miniscule compared to what they need to be to really stimulate growth, but they are a start. You are wrong, there has been new federal gun legislation since 94. They rewrote and passed the gun free school zone act after the Supreme Court declared it uncostitutional. Bush just signed a bill banning plastic guns that don't exist. While the AG says he sees the 2d amendment as an individual right, Ted Olsen has yet to argue that position before the supreme court.

Contrary to what Bush promised in the campaign..help was not on the way for the military. The administration has steadfastly opposed concurrent receipt for VA disability and military retired pay, continuation of combat pay for soldiers who are deployed, they are supporting the closing of many DOD schools and commisaries. All of this while we have troops in harms way. The only people who have seen a budget increase are the contractors and segments of the defense industry.

I agree that there is no democrat currently running that can beat Bush. The polls look a lot like they did in December of 91. There was no disaster that caused Clinton to beat Bush in 92. The economy was beginning to recover, just like it is now. But the senior Bush alienated the base...he signed an executive order banning more guns then any legislation had up to that point. Then he raised taxes.

The junior Bush has The Patriot Act, Campaign Finance Reform, The Education Bill he let Ted Kennedy write, and the expansion of Medicare all against him. The conditions are the similar to what they were in 91. As I said earlier...the democratic base isn't going to stay home. If the republican base does...Bush can still lose.

As for worrying too much...someone has to do it. ;) If you don't see a democratic administration refusing to give up power I think you're giving them more credit for being Americans first then they deserve. They lost in Florida. They lost every recount. They lost every unofficial recount done by media oganizations. Yet they still say they won. The temper tantrum of theft and vandalism in the White House is proof enough as to what kind of people they are. The never ending war on terror will give them all the legal cover they need to try to stay in power if they are ever elected again.

Jeff

grampster
December 28, 2003, 09:55 PM
Was saving this thread for a time when I was bored and looking for some spirited discussion. I have jumped from the first page to this spot because I saw something that stunned me on the first page. Malone Laveigh made a comment that I agreed with (other than guns, o'course). I almost fell out of my chair as I don't agree with Malone much, if at all. She said, "When both parties are corrupt, gridlock is good." I totally agree, in fact, gridlock is almost always good when it concerns gubmint. When they are gridlocked, they can't spend our money! Tip O' the Michigan hat to Malone.

Gotta go back and read everything now................

grampster

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 10:03 PM
Yes, gridlock is good!

I really thought if the Republicans ever got control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, we would see tax cuts, smaller government, less intrusion into private affairs, and of course no gun legislation.

It appears we have the exact opposite with the first three of these, and our president is working hard on the last as well.

Greg Bell
December 28, 2003, 10:19 PM
Jeff,

" think you are giving them way too much credit. The tax cuts are miniscule compared to what they need to be to really stimulate growth, but they are a start. "

I agree, bring em' on. But 8% growth ain't bad!


"You are wrong, there has been new federal gun legislation since 94. They rewrote and passed the gun free school zone act after the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Bush just signed a bill banning plastic guns that don't exist."


Oops. Let me rephrase then, there hasn't been any gun legislation that has any effect whatsoever on anyone. If they want to ban Plutonium zip guns let them.

"Contrary to what Bush promised in the campaign..help was not on the way for the military. The administration has steadfastly opposed concurrent receipt for VA disability and military retired pay, continuation of combat pay for soldiers who are deployed, they are supporting the closing of many DOD schools and commisaries. All of this while we have troops in harms way. The only people who have seen a budget increase are the contractors and segments of the defense industry."

Once again, not everybody is going to get everything they want or even need. More can and should be done. The military is a lot better off with Bush than Clinton. I only know a few grunts that don't wince when I mention going back to the Clinton/Clark/Cohen/Aspin years.

"I agree that there is no democrat currently running that can beat Bush. The polls look a lot like they did in December of 91. There was no disaster that caused Clinton to beat Bush in 92. The economy was beginning to recover, just like it is now. But the senior Bush alienated the base...he signed an executive order banning more guns then any legislation had up to that point. Then he raised taxes. "


The economy was growing at nowhere near 8% at the end of Bush the elder's third year. Further, he had just slipped below 50% in approval ratings in Dec 1991. Bush's 63% approval is higher than any other president finishing his third year. The "read my lips" lie was a disaster for papa Bush. The economy was still wheezing. W has nothing even close to this haunting him. Furthermore, Bush has Karl Rove to run things. Sunnunu was run out by "dentist-gate" and Lee Atwater was dead of cancer by this time in 91.

Also, you shouldn't worry about the Republican base. All polls indicate W is adored by the base. It has been the swing vote that Bush has been shakiest with (naturally). He is going to win barring disaster.


GHB

Balog
December 28, 2003, 10:27 PM
An analogy for the history majors out there.

"Supporting the lesser of two evils overthrew Nazi Germany (13 million killed)! And ushered in the USSR (25-50 million killed)!"

Giving power to evil is BAD! Even if it's the "lesser of two evils." A POTUS who signs a law he admits is unConstitutional is evil. He deserves to lose.

Jeff White
December 29, 2003, 12:25 AM
Greg said;

Oops. Let me rephrase then, there hasn't been any gun legislation that has any effect whatsoever on anyone. If they want to ban Plutonium zip guns let them.

Well I wouldn't say it has no effect. In the police station where I work, there is a city map with circles outlining 1000 feet from every school. A large part of the city is covered by that law. Don't know if I could get the US Attorney to prosecute, but if you'd like to come up, I'd be more then happy to arrest you on that law that has no effect whatsoever on anyone :evil: The law is there and sooner or later someone will use it. And what kind of research is being stifled because it's illegal to make a plastic gun? No law is harmless.

The military is a lot better off with Bush than Clinton. I only know a few grunts that don't wince when I mention going back to the Clinton/Clark/Cohen/Aspin years.

Bush tells the troops he loves them, Clinton made it clear he despised what they stood for. I entered the Army in December of 1974 and retired last October 31st. The back to back deployments, the continual misuse of the force (tankers and artillerymen used as Infantry and MPs) , Rumsfeld's refusal to expand the Army into a force large enough to meet our commitments and the actual cuts in benefits and quality of life is going to do more to destroy the volunteer military then anything Clinton ever did. The signs are starting to show up. The reserve components may never recover from the misuse they have been subjected to. The men and women currently serving are the best trained and most intelligent and motivated force the world has ever seen. Yet the administration is intent on destroying it to prove that the new way to wage war is with machines.....

The "read my lips" lie was a disaster for papa Bush. The economy was still wheezing. W has nothing even close to this haunting him. Furthermore, Bush has Karl Rove to run things.

The Patriot Act, Campaign Finance Reform, The Education Bill, Prescription Drugs....As was said in another thread Karl Rove is a whore, who will steer Bush into whatever the polls say. Karl Rove will tell Bush to sign the AWB renewal if it reaches his desk. Was Karl Rove the genius who told 'W' to publically state the Campaign Finance Reform bill was unconstitutional and sign it anyway?

Also, you shouldn't worry about the Republican base. All polls indicate W is adored by the base. It has been the swing vote that Bush has been shakiest with (naturally). He is going to win barring disaster.

Here's where you are the most wrong. I'm part of the Republican base and I don't adore "W". There are a lot more like me out here. And we are centers of influence. When people ask me why I am upset with Bush, I tell them. There are 10 long months to go before the election. A swerve back to the right is necessary and it's necessary now or "W" will suffer the same fate as his father.

Jeff

romulus
December 29, 2003, 12:58 AM
I agree with Jeff that Bush can lose this one. However the post was about "why I will vote for Bush." I've stated my reasons, and even though I fear for the future of the GOP, I fear more for the future of the nation and will vote for GW...

Al Norris
December 29, 2003, 02:52 AM
Philosophy 101, final exam: If faced with 2 possible choices, both of which can be seen as bad, only that one choice would be worse than the other, what will be the result of your choice?

I drew my line in 92. I have not voted for either of the 2 major players since then. If that was the only choice on my ballot, I left that portion blank.

For all of you that say such action got the other guy elected, poppycock. You are entitled to your opinion, allow me mine.

Oh... and the answer to the exam? The result will be, of course, bad.

Marko Kloos
December 29, 2003, 07:33 AM
Philosophy 101, final exam: If faced with 2 possible choices, both of which can be seen as bad, only that one choice would be worse than the other, what will be the result of your choice?


Logical fallacy "False Dilemma":

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

I am faced with more than two choices in the context of this debate. I can vote for Bush, vote for a Democrat, vote for a Libertarian, or not vote at all.

I absolutely despise the attitude among you "freedom lovers" that seems to hold Republican violations of the Bill of Rights as "the lesser of two evils", as long as the Democrats would have shafted us worse. Tell me that thing about "moral relativism" again?

The lesser of two evils is still evil. I don't want people on my side who absolutely will not vote for a true freedom candidate unless they are sure to be among the majority of votes. So you're only going to vote pro-freedom if it doesn't cost you anything, and if you can be sure to be counted among the winners?

With "allies" like these, it's no wonder the country is sliding downhill at full speed, down the slippery slope of incrementalism. Keep voting for the "lesser evil", because "non-Republicrats have no chance of winning", and you will get the country you deserve. If you won't see the total elimination of the rights you cherish, your children most certainly will.

Al Norris
December 29, 2003, 10:03 AM
Marko, you have perfectly illustrated what so many here don't get: "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

That and that there are actully more choices than just two. And why so many are unwilling to select a third choice. It is a fact that as long as people refuse to vote for a third party for fear of losing, then the 2 major parties will remain in control. Self-fulfilling prophesy.

The real question then becomes: Why do people who have chosen evil, seem surprised when it is evil they get?

Marko Kloos
December 29, 2003, 10:28 AM
Even worse: they keep insisting that it's not really evil.

During the last three years, we've had Campaign Finance Reform, the Patriot Act, a Medicare reform that is the biggest and most expensive social handout vote bribe since Roosevelt's New Deal, publically-stated support for an AWB renewal, and military deployments that will gut the Reserves and wreak havoc on re-enlistment rates for years to come.

If any or all of the above had happened with a Democrat in the White House, the resident Republicans would be positively speechless with rage, and we'd have calls of armed revolution and impeachment. But since it's a Republican at the helm, it's all good.

AmericanFreeBird
December 29, 2003, 12:45 PM
Bush will not get my vote. I'll be voting Libertarian, my conscience clear.

grampster
December 29, 2003, 01:17 PM
Al and Marko,

The problem of "choosing the lesser of two evils" is that a half of those eligible to vote seem to do just that and are content. I have often wondered just exactly who are the other half of the eligible voters that don't vote (demographically) and what in the world would have to occur in order to inspire them to get involved? And then what would that mean if they did?

In my participation in government, I have looked for the party that mirrors my position most closely. I have never bought into the myth of "I vote for the man, not the party" as the man represents the party and is most likely controlled by it anyway.

Given the circumstances lately, one wonders if any party actually mirrors my position anymore!?



:( grampster

Russ
December 29, 2003, 01:38 PM
For those of you who thinks it doesn't matter, look what has happened in California in the last 5 to 6 years. The DemocRATS have taken overwhelming control over both houses of the Legislature and a Democrat ( the first one in 20 years) got elected Governor. You may remember Gray Davis who was recalled a few months back. He and the Dems in the Legislature took the State from marginal on guns to being the poster state for the Brady Campaign. Now with a RINO Governator who knows.

If you care at all about your guns and vote for the Dems to control , you need to have your heads examined. The Republicans or Repugs as Malone, our resident leftist would say, are not perfect but 99% of them are pro 2A. Vote for Libertarians if it makes you feel better. May as well vote for Lyndon LaRouche as much chance as they will ever have to obtain office.

Balog
December 29, 2003, 02:38 PM
Russ: 99% are pro 2A?!?! ***? If that's true, why has our Repub House, Senate, and President done nothing to preserve our rights?

w4rma
December 29, 2003, 02:42 PM
They lost in Florida. They lost every recount. They lost every unofficial recount done by media oganizations.…
“More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/ex_marking1.html)
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/ex_marking3.html)
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is at least dimpled. Example (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/ex_ballot1.html)
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 107 votes.

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/ex_marking1.html)
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/ex_marking3.html)
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is detached from one or more corners. Example (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/ex_ballot2.html)
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 72 votes.

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/ex_marking1.html)
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/ex_marking3.html)
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is fully detached from ballot.
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 430 votes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/yourvote.html


Final Adjusted Total,
including first media recounts
for all Florida counties:

Bush 2,915,426 --- Gore 2,915,928

For the count we've been keeping since Election Day, these are now the final numbers for a state-wide cumulative media recount.

http://www.unknownnews.net/election2000.html#count

Russ
December 29, 2003, 02:56 PM
Balog,

Why a ***?

What have the Republicans done to curtail your 2A rights since they caved on the "Crime Bill" when Clintoon was in office?

Bush has said he will sign the AWB if it reaches his desk. It won't get there. The House voted to overturn this Turkey once. Remember back when Sonny Bono was there? The Senate will never go along but the House will not let this come to Bush's desk.

Vote for HoWIERD Dean. He'll be much better

MicroBalrog
December 29, 2003, 02:58 PM
What have the Republicans done to curtail your 2A rights since they caved on the "Crime Bill" when Clintoon was in office?

Left them intact - letting the ground for the next infringement.

Jeff White
December 29, 2003, 03:01 PM
Sorry w4rma, you lost. The blatant attempts to steal the election in Florida by counting votes on ballots that were rejected for various reasons were criminal. It wasn't only criminal it was pathetic.

Count ballot as a vote if chad was dimpled?
Count ballot as a vote if chad was detached at one or more corners?

Hold ballot to forehead and divine by ESP the the voter meant to vote for Gore?

Handle those ballots enough and you'll get chads falling out all over the place. We vote with punch cards here. It's not hard to use the little stylus and properly mark them....You have made my point for me. If we are ever unfortunate enough to elect another democrat into the White House, they will not give up power willingly. What will the excuse be to remain in power next time?

Face up to the fact that you lost, accept it and drive on.

Jeff

Balog
December 29, 2003, 03:15 PM
Russ wrote: Why a ***?

You made a blatantly untrue statement. If 99% of the party controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency truly believed in our rights, then why have they done nothing!?!?!?!?! Call me crazy but "They haven't hurt us anymore, yet" doesn't fill me with glee about those who "represent" me.

w4rma
December 29, 2003, 03:30 PM
The blatant attempts to steal the election in Florida by counting votes …673 Law Professors Say

By Stopping the Vote Count in Florida, The U.S. Supreme Court Used Its Power To Act as Political Partisans Not Judges of a Court of Law.

We are Professors of Law at 137 American law schools, from every part of our country, of different political beliefs. But we all agree that when a bare majority of the U.S. Supreme Court halted the recount of ballots under Flordia law, the five justices were acting as political proponents of candidate Bush, not as judges.

It is Not the Job of a Federal Court to Stop Votes From Being Counted

http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archive/supreme/statement.html


Q: Is there an exception in this case?

A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.

Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.

A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.

A: Read the opinions for yourself:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf
(December 9 stay stopping the recount) - PDF format
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.pdf
(December 12 opinion) - PDF format

[Andrys’ alternative for the Dec. 12 opinion, including Dissents]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
(December 12 opinion and dissents) - HTML browser and PDF formats

http://www.geocities.com/dearkandb/supremeqanda.html

dischord
December 29, 2003, 03:34 PM
Most races are not close enough for the Libertarians to play a spoiler role, so I'm always amused at people getting apoplectic at how we’ll lose our guns if we vote for LP candidates.

In nearly all races, it is safe to vote LP “to send a message.” Even if by some miracle the LP vote were to double, the outcome in most districts would remain the same. If you can’t change the results, why not at least send a message?

Why waste your vote on a Republican when polls show that his/her likely margin of victory/loss is outside anything that LP votes can affect?

YMMV in closely contested districts. ;)

Russ
December 29, 2003, 03:47 PM
Balog,

Congress doing nothing? In my wildest dreams!

Did you, do you, really expect them to repeal the 1934 and 1968 legislation? Won't happen in my lifetime. The AW ban will be sunsetted until the Dems get back in power. Then it will be the first thing on the agenda. Just a matter of time. Doing nothing is precisely what Congress should be doing.

Balog
December 29, 2003, 04:44 PM
Not a big Edmund Burke fan, eh? And I refuse to get happy about my congresscritter not raping my rights anymore than they have already.

Malone LaVeigh
December 29, 2003, 06:12 PM
The Repugs in Florida stole the election before a single vote was cast. Thousands of black voters were disenfranchised by a bogus effort to remove felons and others from the ballot. On election day, it didn't matter that most of the voters removed were not felons or disqualified in any other way. Floriduh doesn't see a need for provisional ballot status.

Sean Smith
December 29, 2003, 06:16 PM
I like having w4rma around for comedy value. :D

lapidator
December 29, 2003, 08:16 PM
Face up to the fact that you lost, accept it and drive on.

No -- Please, W4rma don't listen to him. Please, continue on reliving the past. Spend as much time as you need to convince yourself that you're right. Whatever you do -- don't let it go. Its critically important that you make sure that you convince yourself that Gore actually won -- 4 years ago.

Lap

Don Gwinn
December 30, 2003, 10:56 AM
Frankly, the bottom line is that I'd just about rather have a good old-fashioned all-out political fight with my avowed enemies than sit here day after day trying to convince people that it's not OK for our supposed ally to screw us over and over again.

Dean has some odd positions, yes. But can you honestly make the case that he's worse than Bush, except by saying "Yeah, but look at him! It's obvious!"

MicroBalrog
December 30, 2003, 02:03 PM
steal the election in Florida by counting votes

Isn't counting votes the way to win elections?:) :)

Won't happen in my lifetime.

Do you expect to have a very short one or something?:D

pax
December 30, 2003, 02:14 PM
Isn't counting votes the way to win elections?
That'd be what the Democrats thought in Florida a few years back.

I think the Republicans were still under the impression that the way to win was to get the votes.

:p

pax

MicroBalrog
December 30, 2003, 02:28 PM
And never count them once you get them?:)

Russ
December 30, 2003, 02:38 PM
Micro,

Just the facts. We're all getting old fast. The older you get the faster it goes. In 20 years you will ask yourself, where in the **** did the last 20 years go!

My oldest son was born a few months before you. So, since I was older than you are now when you were born, I think I can safely say the 1934 and 1968 gun control laws will not be repealed in my lifetime. I'd be willing to bet they won't be in yours either. Ah, but I wouldn't be around to collect. This is not to say I'm ancient but rather realistic. If those laws do get repealed before I die (I sincerely wish it would) , come on over and I'll buy you a steak.

One of the great things about life is that no matter how old you get, you still feel like you are 18 inside. My 81 year old mother agrees with that.

:D

atek3
December 30, 2003, 03:45 PM
The economy was growing at nowhere near 8% at the end of Bush the elder's third year.


Ya and Bush senior didn't decrease, I mean Increase, the chocolate ration. Don't tell me you believe the Bushivik Newspeak.
The economy isn't growing by 8% a year. Government economists have published a report claiming that the gross domestic product increased by ~8%.
Which, even if you take at face value, (the USSR for 40 years spat out bunkum statistics PROVING the superiority of communism, did we ignore them? No, we used them to justify budget increases :( ) are merely the product of a MASSIVE amount of short term stimulus which will result in long term harm to the economy. By sending interest rates to fifty year lows, the poor investments of the late 1990's rather than being liquidated (sowing the seeds for another boom), have been propped up as was the case in Japan circa 1992. Now with a "boom" caused by people people purchasing and refinancing homes the bubble has simply moved to the housing sector.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=450&sortorder=articledate
Not to mention the fact with the interests rates near zero, the dollar is in a slow-motion free fall.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1386
Oh but hey, the economy grew by 8% so *** am I talking about.

atek3

If you enjoyed reading about "Why Bush will get my vote!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!