Awb 2

[Waitone]

Bush couldn't care less what media, political opponents, and foreign populations think of him (admirable quality). He will be in a legacy hunt beginning with a second term. Foreign side of his legacy will be a "democratic" Iraq.

The domestic component will be republican dominance of fed.gov. He will make policy and implement decisions based on what is good for ongoing republican control. If he thinks it necessary to jettison a "conservative" principal to position the republicans for 2008, he will do it.

AWB II is a llikely candidate particularly if it is combined with other "essential" legislation such as renewal of the Patriot Act. Or with continued appropriations for Iraqi rebuild. Any number of initiatives can be used as a hook on to which is hung AWB II.

His Christmas announcement of his illegal immigrants policy just before his meeting with V Fox should send a chill down the spine of anyone who holds to constitutional restrictions on government. His policy is right out of the works of Lenin. He instantaneously made a bad situation worse by saying, "Come on before we close the border." Never mind he has huge opposition to amnesty (which was the reality of his propposal). He made the pronouncement right in the face of his own base.

Now shift that policy discussion to post 2004 election. Bush is sucking up to illegals because of the planned voter fraud they and Democrats are planning. Both side want the illegal vote. There is now by definition political will to offer amnesty to illegals. Why? becasue Bush thinks he can pull the illegal vote into the republican column.

Bush's domestic legacy hunt is a serious threat to RKBA. The only way to deflect the forthcoming weenie is to crawl into his face and those of his party and explain in a forthright and unambigious manner we will not tolerate a sell out for political purposes. My view is Bush is that he considers the constitution and bill of rights as a pile of poker chips he can use in playing government poker. He will bet the second amendment just like he bet part of the first amendment.

I do not trust the man.

 

[rick_reno]

For all that though, it hasn't ever made it to his desk, What makes you think something is going to change that after the election?

The clearest indication we have on what might change in Congress are the two special elections recently held in what were solid Republican districts in the states of Kentucky and South Dakota - and both went to Democrats. While it's early in the election cycle, it's looking like Bush might not have any coattails for Republicans to ride and their control of Congress could switch to the Democrats. His policies and lack of leadership is being felt at the grassroots level, and that has many Republicans very worried. If Congress changes hands, he would end up with lots of legislation on his desk that the chest thumping/touch typists that frequent this board might find objectionable.

I have no doubt Bush will win the general election in Nov. - the makeup of Congress is up in the air.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Waitone:

The domestic component will be republican dominance of fed.gov. He will make policy and implement decisions based on what is good for ongoing republican control.

OK, we agree on this; but I see this as a positive for us. Why do you see it as a negative? You want Republican support for gun rights (or any rights for that matter)? Show them in 2004 that you can deliver votes for them. Both the Democrats and Republicans now accept it as fact that the Republicans are winning elections because of gunowners... we need to re-emphasize that every chance we get.

rick_reno:

The clearest indication we have on what might change in Congress are the two special elections recently held in what were solid Republican districts in the states of Kentucky and South Dakota - and both went to Democrats.

OK, first of all the special election in South Dakota happened when the current Republican representative had to resign due to a manslaughter conviction - so right out of the box, not a good start for the Republican party. The Democrat had run against Jankow and lost in 2002 - so she still had good name recognition. The Republican candidate was one nobody had ever hear of - he started 30 points behind Herseth and lost by fewer than 3,000 votes ultimately.

Add to that, Herseth only holds the office until the general election in November and I've got to question why you consider this a negative example?

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/06/02_hetlandc_sdspecelec/

In Kentucky, Chandler (the Dem who won) has a father who was twice-governor, had been in state politics for 12 years, had just ran for Governor and lost (name-recognition) and won in a district that is 60% Democrat by registration against an obscure state senator. Add to that, he basically won by running as a Republican in policy.

"A strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, Ben Chandler has earned an "A" rating from the NRA. In Congress, Chandler will defend the rights of central Kentucky's sportsmen by opposing new gun control laws."

http://www.chandlerforcongress.org/issues_chandlerplan.html

Basically, I think you are drawing some awful broad conclusions from a non-representative sample of two - and some of them (like the election of Chandler for example) are actually positive things for gun owners.

 

[rick_reno]

Basically, I think you are drawing some awful broad conclusions from a non-representative sample of two

Those are only two we have to draw ANY conclusions from - and given that I'd have to say they are representative. Democrats are very excited about the results of these two races - ask one of them if you don't believe me.

Whatever happens, it'll be an interesting election.

 

[Bainx]

Chas--
You still have not told us how this is going to happen.
Is it going to materialize out of thin air?

 

[Waitone]

Democrats are very excited about the results of these two races - ask one of them if you don't believe me.

A drowning man is highly enthusiastic over the anvil which someone threw him. Not so enthusiastic upon calmer reflection.

Democrats are not in good shape for taking control of anything in 2005. Matter of fact Bush is facing a rebellion in his own ranks over the morphing of the republican party into ???????????