Why Bush will get my vote!

Status
Not open for further replies.
one of them leans totalitarian on civil liberties (Bush)
Click to expand...
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...
 
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...
Click to expand...
 
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...
Click to expand...

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:
 
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.
 
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...
Click to expand...
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...
 
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.
 
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....
 
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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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,

"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.
 
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?
 
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.....
 
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:
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Now who do you suppose the National Rifle Association of America will support in the election?

http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA Institute for Legislative Action&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."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Long term Presidential legacy
Replies
15
Views
853
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
C
R
  • Locked
Third party votes will kill the Second Amendment
Replies
9
Views
669
Art Eatman
A
F
  • Locked
Does the president make a difference?
Replies
7
Views
596
Jeff White
J
K
  • Locked
Clinton on the Supreme Court?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
R
  • Locked
Replacing Justice Rehnquist
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
carpettbaggerr
C
Back
Top