Glenn,
We’re all repeating ourselves so no problem there.
I would gently comment that if all you read here is polemics, please help us
by trying to grasp our meaning rather accusing us of mere meaningless
aggression.
------------------
All,
Some folks on TFL believe we should all get behind Bush right now and
abandon all other candidates as unacceptable or unable of winning the
Presidency.
Let’s talk about the Democrats.
Most of us agree that any of the Democrat Presidential candidates would be
destructive to our Constitution. We have seen three scenarios if a (ptui!)
Democrat becomes President.
-- Some folks feel there would be permanent and irreparable damage to our
Constitution, many would be angry, but nothing would be done. Let’s call
this the “Roll Over and Die” scenario.
-- Others believe the Democrats would be so reckless as to awaken the
“sleeping American”. The Democrats would be discredited, the Republicans
would return to a more Constitutional stance and we “could” be better off
than we are now. Let’s call this the “Republican Revival” scenario.
-- Still others believe the Democrats would be so incredibly reckless as to
bring about armed insurrection - a “Fight and Die” scenario.
No Democrat is so stupid as to create the Fight and Die scenario. If they
accidentally moved so fast that a Republican Revival scenario became
possible, the Democrats probably would sacrifice a few peons, maybe a
leader or two would “retire”, some committee assignments could be
switched around, etc. and they would declare “the problem is solved”.
Therefore, I would lay the following odds to the scenarios:
80% Roll Over and Die
19% Republican Revival
1% Fight and Die
We may envision different scenarios but we all agree the Democrats would
hurt us. That issue has not been avoided.
-------
Let’s talk about the Republicans
I think Bush is a shoo-in. Unless he steps on a political land mine, he’s
bought the Presidency with dollars (from profits on goods and services we
have purchased) and with power (established by his Daddy, his party, his
business associates and others who sense “there’s gold in them thar
Bushes!”)
However, if we blindly support Bush at this point, he has absolutely no need
to address our concerns. He can continue to smile, speak some Spanish,
tell us he’s a good guy, and avoid every hardcore political question.
Therefore, it is NOT yet time to narrow the field down to Bush.
If we support Ambassador Keyes vocally, visibly and adamantly, and
publicize to all candidates that our support is based upon Dr. Keyes’ belief in
Constitutional government, then (and only then) we may bring other
Republican candidates (especially Bush) more into alignment with our
Constitution (including the Second Amendment).
We must put pressure on these candidates. It takes hard, consistent,
unrelenting pressure to affect any change in their elitist political programs.
Note that I am not saying we withhold support from Bush. I am saying if
we expect him to address our issues, we must pressure him to do so.
Also, nobody’s crystal ball is so clear to predict with 100% certainty that Dr.
Keyes is not “viable”. (Salute to el Jefe!
)
-------
When it comes to avoiding issues, the Republicans are masters:
Does anyone dispute that Bush advocates gun control?
Does anyone dispute that Bush has *promised* gun control?
If Bush is only saying what he needs to say to become elected, then:
1) What beliefs, if any, does Bush have?
2) If he already is “saying what’s necessary” to become elected, then he is
being neither candid nor truthful. Is he not then a liar who can not be
trusted?
3) How can we predict what he will do if he becomes President?
Who *IS* this Bush guy? Other than being his Daddy’s son, what has he
done? Bush has no real track record.
GW Bush became our Governor by default! Ann Richards completely
misread Texas voters. She committed political suicide when she refused to
let the Concealed Handgun Law(CHL) even be voted upon. Many people
who agreed with Queen Ann were angry that she did not even give them a
chance to vote “NO” to the CHL. Bush merely stepped (unopposed) over
her dead body into the Governor’s office.
Did Bush “give” Texans our Concealed Handgun law? No, he did not!
- The CHL bill was presented and pushed at great political risk to himself by
a true RKBA advocate from Houston.
- State politicians passed the CHL for at least three reasons:
--1) Looking at Ann Richards dead political body scared them!
--2) The success of Florida’s CHL gave them no excuse to fight the Texas
CHL.
--3) The politicians figured they could wash their hands of responsibility for
the CHL by blaming its passage on the popular vote (namely us).
--4) The politicians figured they could come riding in to “save the children”
and revoke the CHL if it went bad - the vocal voters would take the blame
as a “misguided minority”.
- The Texas Department of Public Safety (the State Troopers) were given
the task of creating the CHL system and making it work. Had the program
failed, these poor cops would have “bit the bullet” big time!
- Bush signed the CHL legislation because that was his stepladder to the
Governor’s seat.
(By the way, please note that GW Bush had no background in government
before he became governor - except for helping his Daddy lose a shoo-in
Presidential re-election.)
GW Bush is no champion of our RKBA!
- He took advantage of Ann Richard’s pompous blunder to become
Governor.
- He has promised additional gun control measures.
- He has embraced every single Republican proposal for future additional
gun control.
Is GW Bush “tough on crime”? Who knows?
- He refused to pardon a confessed murderess who became “saved”, “cute”,
and a darling of the “eliminate the death penalty” movement. So what?
- While Bush was Governor, Texas executed a bunch of murderers who long
ago had been sentenced to death. So what?
-------
Glenn asks, “Do you all think that if Gore or Bradley wins and
Forbes/Keyes/Bauer loses we will be in better shape than if Bush won?”
To validate that question, we must make the assumption that only Bush can
run against Gore or Bradley. I don’t believe that is a worthy assumption at
this early date - although it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Among the Republicans, only Alan Keyes voices correct Constitutional
opinions. The others voice the stale “two chickens in every pot”
propaganda.
- Bush and McCain argue about whose tax cut is better, pretend to be
angry with each other, and try vainly to differentiate themselves in the
pretense of providing a “choice”.
- McCain (a Republican) and Bradley (a Democrat) are raising campaign
funds for each other! Can you still believe the Republicans and Democrats
are TWO political parties?
- Alan Keyes voices Constitutional opinions and supports our RKBA.
Alan Keyes is the only Republican Presidential candidate who says
gun control laws are unconstitutional!
For us to support any Republican other than Alan Keyes shames us and
shows our RKBA statements are hollow posturing.
-------
Now,
about those three new Supreme Court Justices.
Obviously Gore or Bradley would nominate anti-Constitutional judges.
After some Congressional pillow fights for the benefit of the voters in the
Coliseum, the combined Democrat and Republican Party would confirm
these disastrous nominations.
But imagine for a moment the nominations that would be made by Alan
Keyes or by a Libertarian President. Imagine the pressure on the
Republicans, and even the Democrats, if Americans just stood up and voted
for their Constitutional Rights! The Republocrat Fruit-of-the-loom laundry
would be working night shifts and weekends!
We could DO this. Why won’t we even try? Why do 80,000,000 million gun
owners refuse to vote for their own Rights? And why do we say nearly a
year before the election that our cause is lost?
Capitulate with the gun control advocates.
Abandon our pro-RKBA efforts.
Compromise yet again.
Appease them by sacrificing our RKBA just “one more time”.
That is a CACA program!
Maybe we DO need to be ruled by a Socialist state. If we truly are unwilling
or unable to simply cast a vote to secure what our forefathers and ancestors
fought and died to give us on a sliver platter, then we deserve to be
subservient to the Democrat/Republican Party and, eventually, to the United
Nations.
We do not deserve to have firearms
if we are too timid to vote for freedom.
And if that simple sentence is considered polemics, then don’t ever read
Patrick Henry’s moving speech.
------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em!
RKBA!
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited January 19, 2000).]
)