If the AWB sunsets, why not vote for Bush?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you were active in the Second Amendment fights, you would know we finally have a majority in Congress. That's why we might be able to sunset the AWB. We don't have a majority in the Senate. We're missing about five votes. That's why we may not be able to sunset the AWB.
This was shown to be evident during the Manufacturer's Liability Protection Bil where 80% of the Republicans were on our side and only about 12% of the dems were on our side..

Now how exactly would returning the House back to the anti-gun Party help your Rights? How does losing even more votes in the Senate help our side? How does letting someone like Jane Fonda with a voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy help our side?
 
Problem is combat-wombat, I don't like some of the stuff the Libertarians are into either, namely all the drug legalization stuff.

However, if faced with the choice of legal drugs and an intact Constitution, or what we have now, then I would take the former, I think.

I am sure the Republican lap dogs will now chime in that if I vote for a third party, and Kerry gets elected, its my fault. Wrong, its Bush's fault. I have voted Republican since 1980 when I became old enough to vote. The current Republican party has shifted so far away from what it was 25 yrs ago that it is unrecognizable, and GWB has done nothing but accelerate that change.
 
Remember kids, its not the Republican's vote or the Democrat's vote or Dubbya's vote or sKerry's vote, its YOUR VOTE. It is not beholden to anyone person or party. You decide whom best to cast it upon. If the party or the party's candidate has strayed away from your views enough for you to not believe in him/her, then they dont deserve your vote.


If you vote third party because it is whom you believe in and Kerry gets elected, then you have still done your civic duty to exercise your vote as best as you see fit. It is Bush's fault for not standing up for your beliefs and being your best choice for President.
 
Yes, that's sorta true, Lone_gunman.......

"if I vote for a third party, and Kerry gets elected, its my fault."
************************************************************


but only if you might have voted for "Dubya" in the first place.

The Libertarians cannot win election, and therefore a vote for them rather than Bush contributes to a Kerry victory.

Which will do no good for RKBA, despite the Libertarian fantasies which seem to abount at THR.;)



************************************************************
"The current Republican party has shifted so far away from what it was 25 yrs ago that it is unrecognizable, and GWB has done nothing but accelerate that change."
************************************************************


This is true, and also very lamentable.

The Democratic (sic) party also has shifted left in the same time period.

I think the only hope for RKBA is to pull the Republican party back to the center-right.

Handing the Whitehouse to Kerry in a hissy-fit of voting Libertarian will do nothing positive for RKBA.

Any sound ideas for convincing the Republicans to come back to their roots out there?

Without 'cutting our noses off to spite our faces', that is?
 
Falling Block, I wish the Repubs would come back to where they were 25 yrs ago, but I don't know how to make it happen.

If they lose the election, and discover that the reason they did was because they alienated their conservative base, then I don't consider that is a bad thing. Unfortunately they probably won't reach that conclusion; the geniuses running the party will probably think they lost because they weren't liberal enough.

If Kerry wins, it won't be the end of the world as the Republicans predict. I am no supporter of Kerry, he is a liberal of the worst kind. But, the Senate and House will most likely remain in Republican hands, and then we will all benefit from gridlock in Washington. If the Democrats had controlled either the House or the Senate during Bush's term, then I am confident that partisan politics and gridlock would have prevented passage of Medicare Reform, Campaign Finance Reform, and the Patriot Act.

Plus if Kerry wins in 2004, we don't have to worry about Hillary winning in 2008, which I think will happen if Bush wins this election.

Now please don't misconstrue any of this as support for Kerry. I don't support him, think he is terrible, and Hell will freeze over before I vote for him.
 
I hope that you're correct, Lone_Gunman...

"then we will all benefit from gridlock in Washington."
************************************************************

'gridlock' has not seemed to have had any very significant ameliorating effect on anti-gun legislation over time.:(


We surely do agree on this point:
************************************************************
"Now please don't misconstrue any of this as support for Kerry. I don't support him, think he is terrible, and Hell will freeze over before I vote for him."
************************************************************

Kerry=:barf: :barf:

Raising precisely the concerns which 7.62 FullMetalJacket lists.
 
I too am an alienated conservative.I voted for both President Bush 1and 2.
The father lost my confidence and did'nt EARN my vote for a 2nd term.The son was the best of a bad lot so he got my vote but with SERIOUS reservations.The chance of him EARNING my vote this election looks "iffy" at
best.Conservatives are being taken for granted and I feel that is wrong.
 
Guys, I'm not voting FOR Bush...

I'm voting AGAINST Kerry.

Bush just happens to be the best chance to not have Kerry in office.

Not much of a choice, but hey...

If you vote FOR someone, and Kerry gets elected, don't run crying when your gun rights start to REALLY go down the sewer.
 
My sentiments as well, bogie....

"Guys, I'm not voting FOR Bush...

I'm voting AGAINST Kerry.

Bush just happens to be the best chance to not have Kerry in office."
************************************************************

"best chance" is worth the effort.

Kerry has the makings of an anti-RKBA zealot.:eek:
 
Voting, schmoting

My own plan is to vote against Kerry in the best way I can. The details or points of debate don't matter. I would rather vote FOR something, but this is not the right time to be too idealistic. I will vote for Bush. Holding my nose is a good way to put it, all things considered.

Those, like me, who would rather feel better about voting, should get to work on fielding their candidate for a later time. The other option is to influence the platforms and candidate choices of major parties. The fish stinks from the head.

Kerry is far more dangerous than Bush as an individual, but if you really want to "hasten the revolution", vote for Kerry. Just remember that laws passed in the interim Kerry watch are not likely to be repealed and will likely set further damaging precedents.

I think if gays marched on Washington, I would go join them. It's not about being gay or carrying a gun. It's about abuse of the Constitution and bad government, especially too much government.
 
if it sunsets, my one minor use for him is fulfilled and he is now even more worthless than before. Time to vote third party.
 
The conundrum: few seem to feel GWB is doing a great job, but the thought of John Kerry in the Oval Office is enough to cause most of us to shudder uncontrollably.

Many lament the lack of Conservatism of the GOP. The way to shift the Republican Party to the right is to vote for someone further to the right. This sends the message: "This is what we want, and you're not giving it to us." GWB/GOP have learned the political lesson that they only has to be a tiny bit to the right of their Dem opponents, and they'll get the votes. This sends the message: "You're not giving us what we want, maybe, but we'll still vote for you." Why would he or the Republican Party shift to the right as long as they get elected? Principle? Get real, they're professionals.

It is common wisdom that the Libertarian Party can never win. But this is a self-fulfilling prophecy: they can't win because they don't get enought votes, they don't get enough votes because they can't win. But even if GWB lost the election due to a vote split with LP (which seems not impossible!), it would send a clear message to the GOP that they've pushed it too far to the left. Problem is, Kerry would get elected. See the conundrum above ...

316SS
 
The campain finance law was a bunch of political BS. THe money is still haveing the same effect, just through different groups now.

I agree that it's an unreasonable restraint upon our first ammendment rights as well.

However, too few people understand that. Vetoing the bill would have been political suicide. He signed it and let the courts decide on the constitutional issues. Not the most corageous acti, but until the liberal media starts actually reporting facts rather than scewing the facts vetoing a campain finance reform bill is suicide.

As for the medicare reform, I have mixed feelings about that. While I'm appalled by the amount of my money that the government wastes, I'm also appalled by how much of my parent's retirement money goes to medical costs. Medical care and drugs costs have simply gotten too expensive. THe reasons for this are many, and neither the Democrats or the republicans are innocent of protecting the interests of the people driving up those costs.

Trial lawers are making a fortune off of junk science based lawsuits.

Drug companies are trying to make as much money as they can.

Other countries such as Canada are setting fixed prices for drugs, which causes the drug companies to charge even higher prices in the US to cover their development costs in a reasonable period of time.

It would be nice if the government could address the cause rather than spend my hard earned money paying inflated prices for the medical care that other people need. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are people who do need the medical care thant simply can't afford it without the medicare reform.

The issue is hardly black and white in my eyes. I'm not sure Bush didn't simply address the issue with the only solution he could get through congress.

Bush is hardly the ideal presidential candidate, but he's much better that the alternative in my opinion.

Ashcroft scares me. The patriot act has places a lot of power in his hands, and he keeps pushing for more power. He seems to abuse that power less than his predecessor, but I'd be much happier if he had less power that he could abuse if he chooses to do so.

The Patriot Act wouldn't scare me if I had faith that I could trust the government. History simply hasn't shown me that the federal government can be trusted not to overstep the law and stomp on the rights of their citizens.
 
"I swear to God I've never been so disgusted with somebody I voted for and actively supported."

But I'm still not voting for Kerry.

John
 
President is supposed to defend the Constitution. He took an oath. He then signed a law that he himself said was probably unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Don't get me started. . . . . . . . At some point, somewhere, some time, somehow this president has to make a principaled standed. I railed against Clinton for his absence of a moral compass. Now we are faced with a president who makes Clinton look like a stalwart. One day I'll be able to understand Dubya's behavior but damned if I ain't stumped for now.
 
Would all of you that claim voting for W is better from a RKBA
POV than voting for Kerry please go to your pill vials and make sure you didn't skip a week or so.

If Bush is a pro-2nd A guy I'll eat this d#mn keyboard. Bush is pro Bush.I'll end up getting banded one of these days for saying something I should not over exactly this kind of foolishness.

No one that supports the AWB renewal (and would sign it if it crossed his desk) is a pro 2nd A guy.

Period.

In his willingness to sign the d- AWB renewal I assume he means what he says and that says a lot about how important RKBA votes are to him. Not at all. Oh but where else will we conservative pro 2nd A people go.

According to Carl Rove there is no other game in town for conservatives.
Well Carl may be right.
I don't think so.


AND BTW,
From what I read of the Lib platform, it's no better than the Dems or Reps.
Legalized drugs?? Come on. They are going to EVER win an election with that plank in there? That makes them what, the party of the college frat boys?

Not voting for "all of the above" in the next election IS making a political statement based on the candidates and their public positions on the issues just the same as voting for any one the three major loosers is making a political statement. Why is it in the fishes best interest to bite SOMEONES hook?????????

ALSO why on earth does anyone think anyone else will come crying remorsefully...... regardless of the outcome of this election.

I'm going to flip on my remote viewing switch and give all here the outcome of the election in advance:

1.No Lib will be elected.
2.Things will su$k, and su$k badly, no matter which of the other two are elected.
3.Our RKBA issues are in for a hit, it's just not clear upon what date it will occur.

Rant mode off.
S-
 
Lone Gunman,

You're right he did swear to protect the Constitution, and failed to do so by signing the bill.

However if he signs the bill, and gets voted out of office because the media spins it successfuly as another example of how the Republicans are controlled by the rich and big business, then he loses the ability to stay in office and veto other issues.

In the end it's the Supreme Court that decides if it's constitutional or not. He punted that one to them.

Not the most honorable thing to do.

Not the ideal solution.

However, taking a stand in the wrong battle can lose you the war.

I believe that the law actually increased the amount a single donor can give. The other parts of the law have had little effect. You can no longer give tons of soft money to a political party. However you can give it to issue groups and they can use it to run add as long as they don't specifficly endorse a candidate. They can still talk about the issues and tell how their favored candidate's opponent isn't addressing those issues properly.

I'n not sure the end result of that bill wasn't a net gain for free speech. Other people are likely more familiar with the law than I am, so maybe someone can point out what I'm missing if I'm wrong.
 
If a group cannot come right out and endorse a candidate by name, then their speech is limited.

I don't see how this could be construed as a net gain of free speech. Speech was still pretty free up until this.

I guess I see the Bill of Rights as something more important to protect than a political party. Personally it doesnt matter to me which party tramples on my rights. I don't feel better because it was a Republican instead of a Democrat.



However, taking a stand in the wrong battle can lose you the war.
Click to expand...

There is no more important right than the ability to speak freely against or for any candidate. Thus, sacrificing free speech for some greater "war" doesnt make sense to me.

Wouldnt it have been nice for someone to grow a spine and say "This bill limits free speech, I won't sign it, and if you don't like, then vote me out next election". Unfortunately the politician class will not do this, as their own employment and power is more important than small things that get in the way like the Bill of Rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
AWB: no difference between Bush and Kerry?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Moparmike
M
S
  • Locked
Vote Bush instead of third party
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
157
Views
4K
ravinraven
R
P
  • Locked
Don't Get Happy About The AWB Sunset Yet
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Publicola
P
S
  • Locked
My Letter to President Bush
Replies
7
Views
438
bogie
B
J
  • Locked
If anyone needs proof that Kerry will restore the AWB
Replies
5
Views
458
Nightfall
N
Back
Top