Why You Should Hope Dean Wins the Dem Nomination

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Regardless of how you feel about the Democratic party, Howard Dean is the most pro-gun presidential candidate it has.

Next year, the so-called Assault Weapons ban sunsets right before the elections. Think that this issue will make its way into the Presidential campaign and be horribly hyped by the media?

Not too likely if Howard Dean is the Dem candidate - because the NRA has a 1992 questionaire from Dean opposing the federal AW ban. In fact, Dean is already getting attacked for this in the primaries by John Kerry.

Dean has since changed his official position to match that of GWB; but look at it this way, do you think that this issue is one the Democrats want to address if Dean is their only chance to beat Bush? Do you think they want to bring up this flip-flop during a Presidential election?

If Dean is the Dem nominee, the chances that either side wants to go on the attack over the AWB goes way, way down - and that will also translate into less sympathetic media columns that foist such crusades on the public.

 

[dustind]

good point

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Do you think they want to bring up this flip-flop during a Presidential election?

Sure. Why not? He's come to see the light in the last 11 years. That's a Dem victory.

He's a gun-grabber.

from http://www.candidatesonguns.org/content/meet/cand_dean.html

Howard Dean on Federal Gun Laws
"Here's what my position is and what it would be as president. Keep the assault weapons ban. I favor that and it ought to be renewed. Keep the Brady bill, close the gun-show loophole, and then let every state decide for themselves what additional gun control they need."
National Public Radio's Tavis Smiley Show, January 28, 2003

Howard Dean on Firearms Industry Immunity
"Sure. I would vote no, and I'd veto the bill as president…I do not believe we ought to exempt gun dealers, who may be breaking the law, from liability. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever."
Children's Defense Fund, Presidential Candidates Forum on Children, April 9, 2003


Howard Dean on Assault Weapons
Sportsmen know they don't need an Uzi to hunt deer. These weapons are not favored by sportsmen. They are favored by criminals and terrorists, and we need to keep them off our streets.
May 14 Press Release; Dean For America

The true measure of leadership is standing up to your friends when they are wrong. President Bush should use the power of the presidency to urge his fellow Republicans to do the right thing, protect American lives, and extend the assault weapons ban.
May 14 Press Release; Dean For America

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

There's another good reason. The Dem, whoever it is, might win. If the job market doesn't recover enough, and we are still bogged down in Iraq a year from now, any Dem might win. Then who would you rather have in the WH? I think Dean has had to make some concessions to the grabber wing of the party during the primaries, but deep down, I don't think he cares much about the issue. I don't see him expending a lot of political capital once in office to enact gun control legislation, and if the Congress didn't send the AWB renewal, I don't think he would go to any effort to bring it up.

Not that he is an ideal candidate from the gun rights perspective (neither is Bush), but he has shown no sign of being a passionate grabber.

 

[Mark Tyson]

If we can nudge the Democratic party leadership more towards the pro gun side, however slightly, it will be a victory. If the more pro-gun candidate gets support from the electorate, it will encourage the rest to move in that direction.

 

[Tempest]

.

Regardless of how you feel about the Democratic party, Howard Dean is the most pro-gun presidential candidate it has.

To me that's like saying "he's the turd that smells least offensive." A turd is a turd, and a gun grabber is still a gun grabber.

*SHRUG* JMHO

 

[semf]

I may be wrong on this, but didn't Gore originally win in Tenn on a pro gun platform

 

[Jonesy9]

I at least like his states rights views. nice to see especially in light of an administration that lied about their position on states rights and has an activist AG who has gone out of his way to quash states rights on med pot, euthanasia etc etc.


Of course the AWB will be hyped before the election, but mostly in the run up to the primary. The vast majority of the country supports the AWB and any political opponnent just loves to score points by showing how beholden their opposition is to special interests. You wouldn't expect the GOP to not go after the Dems support from labor unions or trial lawyers. Bush's ties and anyone in his admin's ties to the NRA are fair game. But I doubt you'll see the Dems move on this after a candidate has been chosen. But, if they feel that the GOP is steering the issues towards things the Dems can't win on like equal rights for gays, they will bring out the AWB and gun control.


I believe we have more than nudged the Dems slightly to the pro-gun side. Guns had become a political third rail. We're seeing it pop up again during the run up to the Dem primaries as people like Kerry and Dean try to energize their base by appeasing the anti's but playing up to the average shot gun owner. Once the primary is over and a candidate emerges, gun control will again be a third rail and not an issue the Dem candidate will try to over exploit.

Not much different than Bush who is reaching out to parts of his base like the religious right but will pull back for the election. Bush's teams polls public opinion more than Clinton ever did, they know not to step on the third rail by endorsing a repeal of the AWB. They know that Bush will have to sign it or fear the backlash and possible loss of power during congressional elections.

Gun owners rights and the RKBA is not an issue that the GOP would squander thier lock on power for. There are far more powerful and monied interests to be served first.

IMHO

 

[commygun]

Actually it would be best for the RKBA if Dean is not the Democratic
nominee. Given that the economy is heating up at a great rate and
that the situation in Iraq is far better than major media will ever admit
(but will be unable to deny a year from now) GWB is almost certain to
defeat whoever the Donks put forward. Now if it's Dean that's defeated,
the wing-nut wing of the Democratic party will be chastened, control
of the party will return to it's liberal 'center" and Feinstein, Schumer,
Hillary and the rest can go merrily on their statist way, pushing for
more gun control and generally making life hell for the rest of us.
However if Kerry/Gephardt/Lieberman/Clark/DLC-hot-candidate-
of-the-week is defeated all hell is going to break loose in the Democratic
party. The only person the Loony Left hates more than GWB is the person
who allows GWB to be re-elected. They'll undoubtedly claim that there
was a conspiracy to keep Dean from being the nominee and insist that
if he had been the nominee he would have defeated Bush. There'll
be massive defections to the Greens and the Donks will be seriously
weakened if not actually fractured. The Democrats will be too hard
pressed to even utter the words "sensible gun safety laws for the
children" and the Owens/Rice ticket will sweep into the White House
in 2008. The Green's Nader/LaVeigh ticket will receive an unprecedented
%11 of the vote and American politics will be changed for generations.

 

[Dan from MI]

I don't trust Dean. He's switched his position and seems to want it both ways. I remember Klinton trying that crap in 92, and he turned out to be the worst on this issue.

Being a Republican, I hope John Kerry is the nominee. He's an elitist. He's a leftist. He's arrogant. He's from Massachusetts. He's Mike Dukakis all over again. He won't sell out here among the conservative blue collar Democrats. Dean might.

 

[Don Galt]

I have trouble getting excited when the only two choices are a gun grabbing republican and a gun grabbing Democrat.

The libertarian dude may be a kook, but at least he isnt' a gun grabber, and so he'll get my vote.

If you really wanted to maximize the effect of your votes, you'd vote for him too. When George Bush can endorse gun control, and enact new gun bans, and not have to worry about loosing the pro-gun vote, the republican party becomes just like the Democrats.

Oh, wait, it already happened.

 

[bountyhunter]

The libertarian dude may be a kook, but at least he isnt' a gun grabber, and so he'll get my vote-- along with the votes of all people who support the second ammendment.

Which throws away your votes on a candidate who can't possibly win which strengthens the incumbent's position.

 

[Tempest]

Is the libertarian dude a kook? I don't know squat about him. But I was over at the former state chair's house this weekend, and he had a few pamphlets promoting this guy. I'm sure I'll probably agree with the vast majority of his views, but I can say one thing for him: he's not very photogenic at all!!!

 

[Jim March]

There are comments in another thread that are relevant here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=582145

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

OK, veering off topic here, but who is "the libertarian dude?" Have they already had their convention or whatever they use to select a candidate?

 

[Mark Tyson]

Which throws away your votes on a candidate who can't possibly win which strengthens the incumbent's position.

As ya'll know, I am emphatically not a libertarian. But if enough people throw their votes away because they don't like the main party candidates' position on guns and tell them why it could effect the candidate's stance on gun in the next election, or the party's platform overall.

 

[dinosaur]

Anyone if I can watch Kerry slither back down his rat hole.

 

[Outrigger]

I lived under Dean for ten years as gov. He wil say anything to get your vote regardless of the facts. Believe at your own peril.

 

[Don Galt]

Which throws away your votes on a candidate who can't possibly win which strengthens the incumbent's position.

FALSE.

When a candidate knows he can count on your vote, no matter what he does, and you vote for him anyway, you are throwing away your vote.

When you vote for the best candidate, then the other candidates will actually see the message.

IF you're a pro-gun republican and you vote for George Bush, you are not pro-gun. You have told George Bush loud and clear that he can be as anti-gun as he wants and you won't do anything about it.

Hell, in these forums republicans are so much in denial tht they pretend Geroge Bush hasn't done the things he's done, or taken the positiosn he's taken. They want' to support him so badly, that he knows he can count on their votes no matter how many guns he bans.

Furthermore, the only reason these candidates "Can't possibly win" is the unconstitutional way the republicans and Democrats have the system rigged.

Vorting for a third party candidate is voting for the constitution--- you make the choice for one of the main party candidates because they have rigged the elections and you're afried you'd be throwing your vote away otherwise, and you're giving your support to unconstitutional election rigging.

 

[Don Galt]

Don't know who the libertarian front runner is. They haven't had their convention yet, either.

But at the end of the day, I will have voted for a candidate who is pro-RKBA.

If you vote for Bush, Dean, or any of the others, you will have voted against the RKBA.

What is the point of voting if it isn't to vote for the best candidate?

 

[Standing Wolf]

I sincerely hope Shillary Snopes Clinton wins the Democratic (sic) party's presidential nomination. The sooner that leftist extremist is defeated once and for all, the better.

 

[dustind]

Standing wolf: You think she would loose? I was hoping like heck that she would not be picked because she scares me. If she runs I will vote for Bush, otherwise I will take a good look at the Libertarian candidate.

 

[Don Galt]

My LP presidential candidate of choice is Michael Badnarik. But that might change.
http://www.badnarik.org/

I think Gary Nolan might be a good guy, but his issues page isn't filled out enough yet, and he really needs to work on his image. Hate to judge a guy by looks, but he looks kookie. Trim the eyebrows, work on the haircut, and get some better pictures for the website. He's not ugly, just doesn't photograph well, apparently.

His website is: www.garynolan.com

Nolan has been ahead in the straw polls, but Badnarik is coming up strong.

 

[c_yeager]

I want Dean to get the nomination simply because i dont think many Democrats will be excited enough about him to find their way to the voting booths when the election rolls around. He isnt a candidate that will please the more radical elements in the party. this is a good thing for us. Remember that want these guys to lose. Dean can make that happen

 

[Bainx]

Which throws away your votes on a candidate who can't possibly win which strengthens the incumbent's position.

I am simply beyond caring.