W on the 2A (original title: Bush's talk on terrorism draws cheers)


PDA






Kharn
August 2, 2004, 03:28 PM
Source Link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-01-bush-terror_x.htm)

Bush's talk on terrorism draws cheers
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
PITTSBURGH — Crowd reactions to President Bush's new campaign speech provide more evidence that his management of the war on terrorism is his best political asset. Audiences cheer louder and longer for his tough-on-terror lines than for criticism of Democratic nominee John Kerry or any other issue.

President Bush, center, poses with employees of Cabela's, an outfitter in Tri Adelphia, W.Va., during an impromptu campaign stop.
Charles Dharapak, AP

The Bush lines that elicit the most cheers: "When it comes to better securing the homeland, to fighting the forces of evil and spreading peace, results matter. ... When it comes to choosing a president, results matter."

The other big applause lines also are reminders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Bush's aggressive foreign policy:

• "This nation had a choice to make: Either forget the lessons of Sept. 11 and hope for the best ... or take action to defend our country. Given that choice, I will defend America every time."

• "I will never relent in bringing justice to the enemy and protecting our country, whatever it takes."

• "If America shows uncertainty and weakness ... the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."

The muscular rhetoric reflects the Bush team's strategy to capitalize on what a new USA TODAY/ CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday and Saturday found: 54% of Americans think Bush would better handle terrorism, vs. 42% for Kerry. (Related item: Poll: No boost for Kerry after convention)

Bush gave the speech five times Friday and Saturday in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Bus tours are a splashy way for candidates to get attention, but people who line the streets to watch them pass dream up their own gimmicks to get noticed.

There were lots of professionally printed protest signs along Bush's 267-mile route through Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania on Saturday, and plenty of official Bush-Cheney '04 signs, too.

But handmade signs can be more entertaining. One little girl in Broadview Heights, Ohio, held a sign reading, "Stop by — we made you breakfast." He didn't.

In Dover, Ohio, another little girl's sign read, "My grandpa lost his job — your turn!" A Harley-Davidson dealership in Dover tried to tempt Bush with a sparkling new motorcycle and a sign that said, "Ride this to re-election." The president whizzed right by in his luxurious custom bus.

A woman in Cambridge, Ohio, held a sign that read, "Hope you got my letter about my husband." A sign in Wheeling, W.Va., conveyed the author's view of Democratic candidates John Kerry and John Edwards: "Flush the Johns."

Soccer moms and other women are not the only voters the rival campaigns are targeting. Bush and Kerry both are touting their macho credentials to appeal to outdoorsmen.

Bush stopped briefly Saturday at Cabela's, a Triadelphia, W.Va., store that stocks hunting, fishing and outdoor gear. It hopes to eventually create 1,200 jobs.

"I've come by because, first, I love to hunt and fish," Bush said. "Secondly, because I heard you're expanding the job base here." Earlier in Cambridge, Bush said, "We stand for the Second Amendment, which gives every American the individual right to bear arms. I've got a record on that issue. It stands in stark contrast to my opponent."

Meanwhile, at rallies across Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, Kerry advertised his own manly pursuits. "I've been a fisherman all my life," he said repeatedly. "I've also been a hunter. I've been hunting since I was 12 years old."

Many Republicans believe the news media have liberal inclinations, so they're not always happy to see journalists who travel with Bush. In 1992, his father's campaign printed caps and bumper stickers that read, "Annoy the media: Re-elect Bush." When reporters traveling with that campaign arrived at rallies, it wasn't unusual for audiences to cuss them out and yell, "Tell the truth!"

So reporters were surprised Saturday when they filed into a muddy park in Cambridge. "Welcome to Ohio," one smiling person after another said. One man wasn't quite as hospitable, probably because the usually punctual Bush was running 40 minutes late. "Where have you been?" he demanded of the arriving reporters.

The stage at the Canton, Ohio, Memorial Civic Center where Bush spoke Saturday was right in the middle of the arena. That meant much of the crowd had to look at his back while he spoke.

"I appreciate the warm welcome," he said. "I particularly thank those who are sitting behind me. You've probably got the best view in the house."

Hmmmmmm. :cool:

Kharn

If you enjoyed reading about "W on the 2A (original title: Bush's talk on terrorism draws cheers)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gordon Fink
August 2, 2004, 03:42 PM
Other than lip service, what does this mean?

~G. Fink

Sawdust
August 2, 2004, 03:59 PM
Nada.

Platitudes here...get yer platitudes...:scrutiny:

Dig the "Flush the Johns" sign, though.

Sawdust

Lone_Gunman
August 2, 2004, 04:35 PM
Why does he want to renew the AWB?

flatrock
August 2, 2004, 04:35 PM
I think he honestly believes that we have the individual right to keep and bear arms.

However what arms he thinks are reasonable for citizens to keep and bear, along with what actions by the government result in infringing upon that right are doesn't quite meet my definition.

Basically, he's a far better choice than Kerry, but hardly as pro-gun as many as us would like.

With him in office, there's a good chance at not having any new federal laws restricting our rights. Even restrictions he supports, he doesn't support strongly enough to beat up congress about them, such as the AWB.

Is he likely to push for laws that remove restrictions, or do so throughthe exectuive branch's powers? Well, his administration already has done some things.

They stopped abuses of NICS data by the FBI. THey changed the AG office's policy on how the 2nd ammendment is interpreted to be support for an individual right.

What's the most important thing he could likely do as president? He may get to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices. GIven the choice of Bush or Kerry appointing those, I think it's a clear choice.

Dead
August 2, 2004, 06:39 PM
Lets see I want at least 3 things to happen..

1 . Federal Law striking down ALL state laws that are MORE restrictive than the federal laws.

2. Federal National Carry (Vermont Style of course)

3. No more NFA.

That would be good start.

Stebalo
August 2, 2004, 07:23 PM
THey changed the AG office's policy on how the 2nd ammendment is interpreted to be support for an individual right.


Personally, I think this is huge. With the activist courts we have these days, we need an executive branch that is our advocate and fighting in the courts for our rights, not against them.

AZRickD
August 2, 2004, 07:26 PM
Information disconnect:

"The RKBA is an individual right."

"I support the renewal of the 'Assault Weapons Ban.'"

Which is it?

A right, subject to nearly unlimited restrictions (all those current laws on the books we know to be unconstitutional and counter to the views of the Framers) is no right at all.

Rick

Monkeyleg
August 2, 2004, 07:38 PM
Rick, you've been around THR and TFL more than long enough for me to come to admire your opinions and views.

Bush's "support" for a renewal was pure political subterfuge. He knew it wouldn't happen. Would I like for him to say that he opposed the ban? Sure. But it made sense to tell the bed-wetters that he supported a ban that would never be renewed.

AZRickD
August 2, 2004, 08:00 PM
Well, heck, Monkeyleg.

I agree, and I know well of the tactics, but that would have taken me more time to write and my daughter was tugging on me to go to the water park.

I had to make a choice, albeit, a difficult one.

I'm not proud of my decision (I should have put her in a time-out/severe beating), but... I was weak.

Yes, truth be known, (and I have said this before on the net) my hunch is that Dubya is well aware of our position. Just ask Melissa? (the chick from Virginia with the AWC-suppressed Model 7) whose friend interviewed Dubya back in 2000. Dubya was asked if he would sign the revewal of the 1994 Crime Bill. Dubya's response was something like, "That would cost me the election, wouldn't it?"

And I can well-imagine that the road block to the legislation was orchestrated by Leadership in both houses of the Congress.

Yes, I'd rather that he come out and take a stand for us, but he doesn't want to risk invigorating the Demo base. Now we know who the pro-abortion Demo activists feel when Kerry says abortion is bad but he supports a "woman's right to choose (something-not-otherwise-named).

One last thing, Monkeyleg. Beware of praising me too much. I would hate that guilt-by-association drag your good name down with mine. :cool:

Rick "Bull in a china shop" D

Lone_Gunman
August 2, 2004, 08:17 PM
Personally, I think this is huge. With the activist courts we have these days, we need an executive branch that is our advocate and fighting in the courts for our rights, not against them.

Ashroft made the statement that he thought the 2nd amendment was an individual right in a congressional hearing, not a courtroom.

To my knowledge, the present administration has not fought any court battles for our rights.

If you know of any examples, I would love to hear them.

Warbow
August 2, 2004, 08:38 PM
Lone_Gunman wrote:

Why does he want to renew the AWB?

He doesn't.

If you know of any examples, I would love to hear them.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85829

Too many people expect him to be perfect. He's not. Could he do more for RKBA? Yes. But he's 110% better than Kerry. This is reality, take what you can get.

Thumper
August 2, 2004, 09:08 PM
If you know of any examples, I would love to hear them.

I'm still amazed that supposed gunny individuals either ignore or aren't aware of this:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67194&highlight=white+house

JPL
August 2, 2004, 10:34 PM
If there's one thing that I've learned in my 50 odd years on this planet (and I've learned it the HARD way), it's that if it's coming out of a politican's mouth, it's generally a lie.

But if it's coming out of a Republican politician's mouth, you generally aren't going to be screwed nearly as badly by the end result of the lie as you generally are if it's coming out of a Democrat's mouth.

When I realized that, my political affiliations began to shift dramatically.

JPL
August 2, 2004, 10:34 PM
If there's one thing that I've learned in my 50 odd years on this planet (and I've learned it the HARD way), it's that if it's coming out of a politican's mouth, it's generally a lie.

But if it's coming out of a Republican politician's mouth, you generally aren't going to be screwed nearly as badly by the end result of the lie as you generally are if it's coming out of a Democrat's mouth.

When I realized that, my political affiliations began to shift dramatically.

JPL
August 2, 2004, 10:34 PM
.

Lone_Gunman
August 2, 2004, 11:01 PM
I'm still amazed that supposed gunny individuals either ignore or aren't aware of this:

Thumper, I scanned through that thread, but am not sure I see where the Bush Administration was fighting any court battles. It all looked like legislative actions.

What court battles specifically are they fighting that you are amazed that I don't know about?

Thumper
August 2, 2004, 11:20 PM
Not a court battle...much more important than that. Surely you agree that the Dem attempted amendments to the Lawsuit Immunity Bill were the last best chance of the AWB.

Do you argue that this wasn't a serious attempt by the Bush administration to kill any hopes of an AWB extension?

Remember, this memo was released after cloture and the only amendments to the bill up for discussion were the AWB extension and the closure of the "gun show loophole."

Standing Wolf
August 3, 2004, 12:03 AM
The Second Amendment doesn't give anybody any rights. Never did. Never will.

The Second Amendment merely protects our inherent human rights—in theory, anyway.

Monkeyleg
August 3, 2004, 12:09 AM
Rick: "One last thing, Monkeyleg. Beware of praising me too much. I would hate that guilt-by-association drag your good name down with mine."

Well, triple :D :D :D back to you!

Lone_Gunman
August 3, 2004, 12:12 AM
Thumper, I don't think we are on the same page.

The reference you cite is all well and good, but my question was in reference to court battles that another poster said the Bush Administration had been fighting on our behalf. I am not aware of any court battles, and that was what I was asking about.

The stuff you cite is all legislative, and while good, is not relevant to my question about the court battles.

You kind of spanked me a couple of posts back by saying :

I'm still amazed that supposed gunny individuals either ignore or aren't aware of this:

Then nothing cited in the thread you posted had anything to do with court battles.

Bush trying to block the AWB does not have anything to with fighting in court, which is the comment I was responding to.

Thumper
August 3, 2004, 12:26 AM
Bush trying to block the AWB does not have anything to with fighting in court, which is the comment I was responding to.

I agree, the support didn't happen in a court room. Sorry for the misunderstanding. He DID go out on a limb to block it, though. Many here ignore that.

Just trying to point out that Bush's support for us in tangible and on the edge of what is politically permissible.

That phrase "individual right" didn't just sneak into that speech, either.

Lone_Gunman
August 3, 2004, 12:32 AM
Its tangible, but just barely tangible.

One thing that worries me about him is that he signed the Campaign Finance Reform, despite having concerns that it was probably unconstitutional.

If he will take that kind of liberty with the 1st, why wouldn't he do it with the 2nd, if he found himself in a situation where it was politically expediant to do so?

He is a heck of a lot better than Kerry, but he is a long long way from ideal.

Thumper
August 3, 2004, 12:49 AM
One thing that worries me about him is that he signed the Campaign Finance Reform, despite having concerns that it was probably unconstitutional.

Hey, I wish he would've vetoed it too, but evidently he believes in the concept of Separation of Powers.

His last comment, as he was signing, was "I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."

Lone_Gunman
August 3, 2004, 12:58 AM
I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law

Yes, he passed the buck on to the Supreme Court, and now we have a bad law.

If a president believes in his heart that a bill he is about to sign into effect is or might be unconstitutional, then he shouldn't sign it. Its his duty to veto it.

I don't know if he believes in seperation of powers or not. He mainly just goes along with what everyone wants.

Zundfolge
August 3, 2004, 01:15 AM
...but my question was in reference to court battles that another poster said the Bush Administration had been fighting on our behalf.

PRESIDENTS DON'T FIGHT COURT BATTLES!!!


There is only ONE member of the administration who you could remotely say has anything to do with "court battles" and that's Attorney General John "2A is an individual right" Ashcroft.


I keep hearing people complain that Bush isn't pro-2A enough ... but the choice in this next election isn't between Bush and a pro-2A candidate, its a choice between Bush and a BIG OLD ANTI ... hell, might as well be Chuckie Schumer or Diane Feinstein on the ticket.




I don't like Bush, but I DO like many of the people around him (and as far as 2A goes, I like Ashcroft ... on other issues like the Patriot act, not so much) but since the realistic choice is Bush or Kerry, I seriously doubt that Kerry is going to make us happy.

Lone_Gunman
August 3, 2004, 01:22 AM
PRESIDENTS DON'T FIGHT COURT BATTLES!!!

Sigh... Zundfolge, I dont know if you were specifically responding to me but ...

If people would read the context of my statement it would be so much easier to discuss this.

Someone made the comment that the Bush administration was fighting for our side in the courts.

The exact statement was:

we need an executive branch that is our advocate and fighting in the courts for our rights, not against them

I asked for examples of these court battles, knowing there were no cases where anyone in the Bush Administration had entered into a court battle regarding the second amendment.

Instead of answers, what people respond with is a list of legislative and executive actions taken by the Bush administration (none of which involve the courts), and a very loud statement that Presidents don't fight court battles, which was exactly my point to begin with.

Zundfolge
August 3, 2004, 01:32 AM
Sigh... Zundfolge, I don't know if you were specifically responding to me but ...

Sorry ... I just used your statement to put my response in context ... I've heard this complaint many times that "the administration isn't making laws that do this" or "the administration isn't fighting in the courts for that".


Presidents don't write laws or fight court battles ... that was really all my point was (it was apparently yours as well).


as for:
we need an executive branch that is our advocate and fighting in the courts for our rights, not against them
I agree ... and as far as the second amendment goes, the GW Bush administration has come the closest in a long time to actually fighting for our rights (Ashcroft has publicly and on the record said that the 2A is an "individual right" ... not exactly a big fight, but more action then I've seen before) Not even under the Reagan Administration was there that clear a pro 2A position (and certainly GHWB was no friend of the 2A ... compared to his father GW is Ron Paul :p )

JPL
August 3, 2004, 01:49 AM
Isn't it the Solicitor General, not the Attorney General, who argues the US position in court cases?

LAK
August 3, 2004, 03:57 AM
QUOTE: "The Bush lines that elicit the most cheers: "When it comes to better securing the homeland, to fighting the forces of evil and spreading peace, results matter. ... When it comes to choosing a president, results matter."

The other big applause lines also are reminders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Bush's aggressive foreign policy:

• "This nation had a choice to make: Either forget the lessons of Sept. 11 and hope for the best ... or take action to defend our country. Given that choice, I will defend America every time."

• "I will never relent in bringing justice to the enemy and protecting our country, whatever it takes."

• "If America shows uncertainty and weakness ... the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch." .... " END QUOTE

..... This business of how "tough" George Bush is on "terror" and how he is "doing a good job" of protecting the CONUS is just so much bs. The borders have remained wide open for more than three and a half years, there are upward of ten million unknowns incountry, more flooding across, and it is evident that he has no intention whatsoever of jeopardizing his cronies' plans for the new Pan American state.

As for his 2nd Amendment stance; he could - with the stroke of a pen - mobilize the unorganized militia under Title 10 Section 311 of the USC. Now
that would actually allow a good many people to actually exercize the individual right he claims to support, and such a volunteer force would be far more useful and meaningful than the "Americorp" and other duct tape and plastic bs coming out under "Homeland" Security.

Justin Moore
August 3, 2004, 05:47 AM
PRESIDENTS DON'T FIGHT COURT BATTLES!!!

Yes, its the Solicitor General.

Gordon Fink
August 3, 2004, 05:07 PM
but the choice in this next election isn’t between Bush and a pro-2A candidate, its a choice between Bush and a BIG OLD ANTI ... [sic]

And this is why we fail.

~G. Fink

Zundfolge
August 3, 2004, 05:19 PM
And this is why we fail.

Not sure I see how this means we "fail" ... so what is your solution?


If we fail with Bush and we fail with Kerry then that only leaves taking the guns we have to Washington and killing everything that moves ... not exactly a "high road" solution nor one we'd be likely to succeed at.

Or we turn our guns on ourselves.

Or we turn our guns in (before they even ask) and accept slavery.

Gordon Fink
August 3, 2004, 05:44 PM
We fail because far too many of us see only two political options. In fact, our choice this November is not between just not-so-pro-RKBA Bush and “big-old-anti” Kerry.

Yes, yes. I know. “But that’s all we’ll get.”

~G. Fink

Zundfolge
August 3, 2004, 07:11 PM
We fail because far too many of us see only two political options.

So what's the third option?

Regardless of how much we'd love to see someone else (hell, I know I would love to see Badnarik actually win), unless one of them dies then after the election we will either have 4 more years of Bush or we'll get Kerry ... there is not dark horse who could come close to winning one state, let alone the election.

I understand that there are other people running for election, but the winner of this coming election is only going to be Bush or Kerry, so debating what Badnarik or Nader or Alfred E Newman would do if in office is pretty much pointless.


On a side note, I think the point of the post that originated this thread is that Bush is pro RKBA ... maybe not as rabidly as we'd like, but he isn't out there calling for more gun control (and when he said he'd sign a renewal of the AWB I'm sure he turned right around and said to the Republican leadership in the house and senate "now make sure a renewal doesn't come to my desk" ... not a political strategy I agree with, but its not "oh please please please gimme an AWB renewal to sign!!!" )

If you enjoyed reading about "W on the 2A (original title: Bush's talk on terrorism draws cheers)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!