G.W.Bush: Gunning for the Center

Status
Not open for further replies.

Randy Davis

New member
Salon.com

Gunning for the Center

George W. Bush is trying to modify and moderate his perceived positions on guns.


- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jake Tapper


May 17, 2000

On May 3, Texas Gov. George W. Bush alleged that Vice President Al Gore was once a member of the National Rifle Association.

The Gore camp said it could find no evidence that Bush's claim was true, and NRA spokesman Bill Powers said that he, too, could find no record of Gore's membership in the organization's microfiche, but the next day Bush repeated the charge.

Pressed by reporters as to how he could make such a claim, Bush said, "He might have been a member, let's put it that way."

When asked who told him about Gore's "membership," Bush said, "a little birdie."

Gore may, in fact, have been a member of the NRA at one point. (One staffer allows that due to the NRA's "aggressive recruiting," the organization might have automatically signed him up when he was a generally pro-gun Tennessee congressman.) But it certainly seems odd that Bush -- whose election as Texas governor was greeted with a banner headline in the NRA magazine that "Gun Owners Win Big" -- would bring it up.


"I think the TSRA [Texas State Rifle Association] believes that Gov. Bush has taken a pretty fair and balanced stance on the gun issue," says Ralph Talbot of San Antonio, the president of the 37,000-member TSRA. "Bush has done a pretty good job in dealing with the political pressures brought to bear by the anti-gun folks in Texas. Gov. Bush doesn't want to antagonize the pro-gunners."

But Texas, of course, is not the entirety of America. Pro-gun positions that may be politically popular in Texas may be detrimental to a candidate running for president. Thus, says Joe Sudbay, legislative director for Handgun Control Inc., we see Bush grappling, somewhat disconcertingly, to run to the political middle on the issue and tar Gore as a former NRA member, evidence be damned.

"It's pretty clear that the governor is trying to run from his pro-gun record," Sudbay said. "They must understand now that the American people overwhelmingly don't share that view."

The Bush press department calls Gore a liar every chance it gets, even sending out a weekly "Gore Report" on the vice president's "adventures with the truth." Gore and his folks do, indeed, have a number of misadventures when it comes to truth telling.

But the Bushies, led by the governor himself, are modest about their ability to prevaricate. That "little birdie" whispering various untruths about guns into Bush's ear has been an awfully busy little creature as of late.

Indeed, it should hardly be worth going into the many ways in which Bush lands squarely on the side of the National Rifle Association on the issue of gun laws.

Whether you agree with him or not, that's where he is, that's where he's been and no doubt that's where he will continue to be. Voters will have a clear choice between Gore, a candidate who supports gun laws written by Sarah Brady, and Bush, who stands with NRA president Charlton Heston.

In fact, as has been widely reported, NRA first vice president Kayne Robinson told an audience of NRA members earlier this year, "If we win, we'll have a president ... where we work out of their office."

If you believe in the world according to Robinson -- that there are already more than enough gun laws; that the Clinton administration needs to enforce the laws already on the books; that this is all just a slippery slope leading to the government banning guns outright -- then Bush is your man.

If you think that society will become safer if there are more people carrying concealed handguns, then Bush is the clear choice.

"He's been open-minded, he's been willing to talk to the NRA and the TSRA representatives in Austin over firearms issues since he's been governor," says Talbot. "He has not been against our issues," says Talbot. "He was very supportive of the concealed carry law" that passed in 1995.

Intriguingly, Talbot is sensitive to anyone portraying Bush as a friend of the NRA and TSRA. "I don't want to paint Gov. Bush as being in the NRA's pocket or TSRA's pocket -- that's not true at all. He's not. I think he's a fair man. He's not an extremist." Asked if he can name a time when Bush disagreed or worked against the NRA or TSRA, Talbot says, "I can't think of any in recent time."

But, he reiterates, "I don't want to paint Gov. Bush into a corner that doesn't give him any way out."

Talbot isn't the only one so sensitive to this issue. The person most reluctant to link Bush directly to the NRA agenda is Bush himself, trying instead to paint himself as a moderate on gun control.

On Friday, right before the Million Mom March in favor of more gun laws, Bush came out in favor of giving away thousands of trigger locks for anyone who wants one, an apparatus he has pooh-pooohed in the past. He also did and said absolutely nothing last year when two pieces of state legislation -- both requiring that guns be sold with trigger locks -- were introduced.

"That's a huge change for him," says Sudbay. "It seems to be a very crass political move timed in conjunction with the Million Mom March and also to diminish his very pro-gun record."

"I think he saw himself being pushed out on one of the wings when he got embroiled with [Sen. John] McCain and he saw that his best way to regain support was to shift back to the center," says TSRA's Talbot.

Why would Bush try to gloss over his previous strong support for the NRA's agenda?

Obviously for votes.

One of the few polls taken in the last few months that had Gore leading was conducted by ABC News immediately after Robinson's comments, showing Gore with an edge, 46 percent to 38 percent.

Clearly, Bush is worried, otherwise he wouldn't have had his handlers rush to book him on NBC's "Today" show to announce his new free-trigger-lock entitlement program for gun owners.

-----

© 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved.
 
Just what the country needs: a "conservative" president who wants to be liked by everyone, especially the "center," which obviously sees the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as extreme right wing propaganda.

Has it ever occured to anyone that there are some people we don't want to associate with, whose help we really don't want?

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Great. Just effing great.
 
Clever writing......conservatives or pro 2nd people are extremists. He examines bush's position and just mentions the clinton/gore's position there by placing there position squarely as the accepted one.......do ya'll know what 200 politicians or lawyers at the bottom of the ocean are?--maybe we should add reporters.....lol..fubsy.
 
[rant]
But we MUST go after the political center! That's where our war to give up our guns slowly will be won! We must give away as much as we can, as fast as we can, so we can compromise with those who don't want anyone to have guns but the military and, for now, the police.

Quick! Let's agree to licensing of all gun owners at $5/year (to be increased to $500/yr in five months) and a "health fee" of $1/yr per gun (to be increased to $1000/yr per gun in five months) so we can appear to be reasonable citizens with common sense.
[/rant]

(I think I'm gonna barf! :mad: )

Aim small, miss small.

PS. (Amost forgot!) Happy Independence Day!

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 04, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Munro Williams:
Just what the country needs: a "conservative" president who wants to be liked by everyone, especially the "center," which obviously sees the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as extreme right wing propaganda.

Has it ever occured to anyone that there are some people we don't want to associate with, whose help we really don't want?

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Great. Just effing great.
[/quote]

Mr. Williams,

I couldnt agree more. Dubya is the best the Republican party can field?

I strongly believe that many of us will regret voting for the man.

The liberal fascist press will tear him a new sphincter, with all the allegations about drugs, wild sex parties, paying for abortions, his dubious Air Guard duties to get out of serving in the Vietnam conflict, ect...

I think I'll vote for Libertarian Harry Brown, this time around. At least they believe in the RKBA, which I dont think
Bush Jr.truly does.

IMO, G.W.Bush can and will stab us in the back on the RKBA. It's only a matter of time.

All this will be done "for the children", of course.

Someone get me a brown paperbag....fast! :(




[This message has been edited by Randy Davis (edited July 04, 2000).]
 
Well, here we go again.

I know what the guy has DONE. He asked for shall-issue, he signed it, he then supported and signed a reform bill making the system even better. He signed a ban on local municipalities suing gun makers.

I don't give a damn WHAT he SAYS in order to kick Gore's totalitarian butt right into retirement.

Face it: right now, the people posting on this board represent the most dedicated, pro-gun 5% or so of GUN OWNERS. Bush has to appeal to the whole country; if that means pissing off this bunch, well so be it.

Think, people.

Jeez!

Jim
 
Jim,

I totally agree. If you will notice, the ones bashing Bush on this thread are your hard core third party promoters who would never back Bush no matter what he said or did.

Have we learned nothing from eight years of Clinton? Clinton takes both sides of almost every issue and comes out smelling like a rose. If there is one thing Clinton IS good at, it is campaigning. If Bush wants to do a little Clinton shuffle on certain issues to get elected, that's fine with me.

Joe

------------------
Need help writing a letter to Congress or whomever?
Do you have a great letter or post that you would like to share with us?
Then stop by the NEW 2nd Amendment Activist's 'Copy & Paste' Forum!!!
 
Bush only decided to grow up when he turned forty. He's still basically a kid who wants to be liked by everyone. He doesn't want to associate with us "extremists."
All he's going to be able to do is give the left time to regroup, consolidate, and then attack.

He WILL NOT confront the liberal/socialist axis. He wants to include them into his "compassionate conservatism" garbage. What good can possibly come of that?

Why not just have a dual presidency? Bush and Gore can alternate every other day.

We'll get exactly the same results.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nralife:
Jim,

I totally agree. If you will notice, the ones bashing Bush on this thread are your hard core third party promoters who would never back Bush no matter what he said or did.

[/quote]

Uh, well I guess that would not include me then.

I am a long time Republican that took a tar and feathering in 1996 elections with Bob "Viagra" Dole as the Republican candidate for President.

If the best the RP can field is globalist corporation hack men like Bob "Archer-Daniels-Midland" Dole and George "Big-Oil" Bush, you can count me out this time around.

Go Harry Brown in 2000 !!

But hey, don't worry: when King George sells more of our American heritage AND our gun rights down the tubes, people like me will be here to softly remind you that "we told you so" ;)

Have a great Independance Day, nralife.

-----

Go Mel "The Patriot" Gibson, go !!!
 
Randy Davis,

LOL You're a funny one. Seen any black helicopters lately? :rolleyes:

I agree there is very little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats have us on a faster sleigh ride to the place that burns with fire and brimstone than the Republicans. Does this mean that I am going to vote for an alternative third party candidate instead of a Republican this fall? The answer to that question is still NO, at least not this time! The stakes are just too high! Here is a post I made a while back on this subject that explains how I feel...


"Dennis,

You have been around longer than me and you have seen a lot more elections come and go than I. I respect your opinion and believe it or not, for the most part I even agree with exactly what you are saying. I want to vote Libertarian this year, but I just can't. The stakes are just too high.

Dennis, I think that if you will really look at our situation this year and compare it to years past, you will see that this is not any "normal" election where people often say that we need to vote Republican "just this one more time." The Second Amendment is under attack like NEVER before. The Supreme Court will need as many as four new judges, Al Gore wants to register firearm's owners and handguns with the ultimate goal of confiscation, and every firearm manufacturer in this country is under direct attack by our own Commander In Chief. Can't you honestly see that this year is different from most?

During any war there is a time to advance and certain times where a strategic retreat is necessary. I really would like to advance with a third party candidate for president this year, but right now it is time for a strategic retreat. We need to fall back and regroup the Supreme Court and we need to bring up some supplies from the rear and take care of these damn frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearms manufacturers. We have got to keep Al Gore from being elected at all costs! Voting third party this year is just plain not smart.

When the weather clears, after we have regrouped, and after we have been resupplied, I will be proud to follow you into battle by backing whatever third party candidate you choose, but until then we have to back Bush. It is the only logical thing to do.

Sincerely
Joe"

It is imperative that Al Gore not be elected! Voting for a conservative third party candidate that has no chance of winning is a vote for Al Gore any way you slice it. Let's get these attacks on honest gun owners and firearms manufacturers stopped once and for all and then we can reinvent the wheel if you want to.

Now you can play games if you want to and take a chance on Al Gore being elected by voting for Browne, but not me. I will not cut off my nose to spite my face. That is just plain childish and very short sided!

Joe

http://second.amendment.homepage.com


Vote third party, Al Gore needs all the help he can get!!!
 
From Robert L. Kocher's Politics in America:

"As the Clintons are prone to say when exploiting this (politically powerful and exploitable organized lunatic and perveted) group by pushing so-called social programs, "It's for the children."

What is really meant, but cleverly avoided is, "It's for the life styles, for the irresponsibility, for the mindless hedonism at other's expense, and for the continuation of pathology that all hell and government can't keep up with."

God, wouldn't I love to hear George W. Bush say something like that? But, George W. was pushed on us precisely because he can't and won't say anything like that. He's a unifier who is going to bring us all together. That mess which he's going to unify me together with is the last thing I need or want. What is needed is not an all-inclusive love-in with what should be intolerable, but instead definition, exposure of reality, and polarization. But the vacuous Bush has been sent to us by God and the liberal media to save us all from the ravages of the irascible Alan Keyes who is confrontational, who won't let anybody get away with anything, and who is apt to make such analysis and statements.

Bush, if he wins, will be the last gasp of the Republican party, and perhaps this nation, because his election will mean business as usual, and that means bland grinning non-confrontation of everything that is destroying this nation. If he loses, the Rebublicans will move farther left because they don't know what else to do since they either don't read, or are too stupid to understand, this series."

Any questions?

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited July 04, 2000).]
 
Can someone (ANYONE) who has been busy using the "The stakes are just too high" argument in favor if Bush please name a time in which the presidential election is unimportant?

That argument can and will be made ad infinitum. It just doesn't hold water.
 
That's a fair question. The thing is, the Supreme Court is up for grabs this year, right in time for Emerson to blow through.

And despite the various calls otherwise, this year pits the most PRO gun candidate we've ever had versus the most anti. If Bush doesn't win, it's a fundamental vote of non-confidence on the whole RKBA thing.

Jim
 
I think he gives a damn. Maybe not to the extent you and I do, but a DAMN SIGHT MORE THAN GORE, and HE'S A DAMN SIGHT MORE ELECTABLE than some third-world-party candidate. We need to stop the erosion now, not just make a philosophical stand to feel better about ourselves. A vote for anybody but Bush is a vote for Gore. Let's not be stupid. The Congress, the Court, and, obviously, the White House, are at stake here. Let's not replay the Charge of the Light Brigade here. We have our backs against it, and cannot afford any more symbolic stands. To quote a popular marriage vow, "speak now or forever hold your peace."

Vote for GWBush. Or we shall all hang separately
 
Bob Locke,

When in this country's history has it's own Commander In Chief led an all out attack on legitimate firearms manufacturers? When have we ever had over thirty states, cities, and even a cabinet department (HUD) trying to sue legitimate gun makers into bankruptcy because they couldn't have their way in Congress? The gun makers are on the verge of bankruptcy and a Republican President and Congress could put a stop to all of this madness caused by the frivolous lawsuits. If gun makers can be sued into bankruptcy, who is going to be next? Bible makers? Automobile makers? No one will be safe.

Gore wants licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms. We all know where that leads... CONFISCATION! When have we had to face this very real posssiblity in the past?

As Jim pointed out, the next president will nominate as many as 4 new Supreme Court justices. Emerson is on the way there, as are some other cases like the one from California, it is an absolute necessity that Al Gore not be picking those judges.

The bottom line is this... The only REAL hope of stopping the antigunners for good without taking up arms in defense of 2nd Amendment rights is a Supreme Court decision that will settle this issue once and for all. We have a very small window of opportunity coming up this November where we can try to stop this thing without bloodshed, and we have to take it. A vote for anybody besides Bush and progun Republicans (and a few Democrats) is a vote to let the shooting begin. Please think long and hard before you decide to take that road!

Sincerely,
Joe

http://second.amendment.homepage.com
 
"HE'S DAMN SIGHT MORE ELECTABLE than some third-world-party candidates."

Well that's part of the problem. Electability has become a popularity contest, and when some one wants to be "well-liked" by the socialist/liberal axis, that is, play to the media and try to distill ethical theory to fifteen second sound bites then the country's lost already. If we are really that shallow and that ignorant, which I'm beginning to think we are, then we'll have confiscation whether Bush or Gore is in the White House. Bush wants to "bring us all together," and that means choosing for the Supreme Court the blandest, most inoffensive of nominees, because he'll want to appeal to the center.
This will result in eventual armed revolt.
As long as we ignore the fundamental issues and focus on this "electability" will-o'-the-wisp, we will have nothing to confront most destructive elements in the country but bland mediocrity.

The Republicans are ultimately using a strategy which is doomed to fail even if they do everything right and win the election.

Remember, having a winning TeeVee personality and being fun at parties is part of the problem.

Part of the solution is being a mean, hard headed SOB. If you're not disturbing to at least five people a day that means you're not doing your bit.

We need a leader for President, for God's sake, not "the national best buddy."

Think of your heroes, if you're old enough to have any. How popular were they when everything went bad?

------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited July 05, 2000).]
 
Originally posted by nralife:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
"Randy Davis,

I agree there is very little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats have us on a faster sleigh ride to the place that burns with fire and brimstone than the Republicans.

"Does this mean that I am going to vote for an alternative third party candidate instead of a Republican this fall?

...Vote third party, Al Gore needs all the help he can get!!!

[/quote]


I heard that four years ago, nralife:

"Lets all get the vote out for Bob "Erectile Dysfunction" Dole. Vote Republican and vote often"

"The country can't stand another four years of King Willy".

"You HAVE to vote for Bob Dole. Voting for anyone else is a wasted vote".

"Besides, good ole Kansas farm boy, Bob Dole, got shot up real bad in Italy (like plenty of good men didnt get hurt and killed in WWII?), he is next in line for the RP nomination (so what?), and he is an honest politician (he stays in the pockets of his benefactors for life)."

Yep, it's all very fresh in my mind, how I wasted my vote on Bob Dole back in 1996, listening to people just like you.

G.W. Bush in 2000? You gotta be kidding!

No thanks, I'll pass this time, nralife.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."



[This message has been edited by Randy Davis (edited July 05, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nralife:
Randy Davis,

LOL You're a funny one. Seen any black helicopters lately? :rolleyes:
[/quote]


Well,there we have it folks: one more loyal supporter of George "Lets just all make nice and be muy bueno amigos" W. Bush. :D



[This message has been edited by Randy Davis (edited July 05, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top