Thoughts on the Presidential campaigns.

L

LawDog

Staff Emeritus
Who to vote for? McCain, Bush or Keyes?

L. Neil Smith?

If I vote for Keyes, people will tell me that I'm throwing my vote away.

If I vote for Bush or McCain, I'm just voting to kill the RKBA slower then would happen if I vote for the Democrats.

How many times do we hear, "A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil?"

*migraine salute*

These are my feelings on the matter. They are not representative of the Firing Line or any of the Staff there on.

People, in the November elections, vote as your conscience dictates. You will not be throwing your vote away if you vote for Alan Keyes, L. Neil Smith or anyone else.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years,
and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected,
as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit
under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.[/quote]

The United States Constituition, Article 2, provides for ground rules for electing the President.

I can't find it anywhere on the 'Net, but does anyone know if the number of Third Party (Libertarian, and others) voters is enough to sway the Popular Vote (and thus, the Electoral College) one way or the other if they could be persuaded to vote a differnet way?

For example, if we could get all the Third Party voters to vote Republican in a Democratic State, cold we change the State to GOP?

Conversely, is the number of Third Party voters who fled the GOP enough to sway a GOP State to the Democrats?

Past research indicates no, but that's in the past. Any numbers, guys?

Vote as your conscience dictates.

LawDog


[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited March 08, 2000).]
 
I see the situation through different glasses.

First, I don't think the anti-gun mood is going to last forever. America is fascinated with trends and status and class.

Right now, to be pro-gun is to be a little on the redneck side. How many of us buy our coffees at chi-chi coffee emporiums. How many of us no longer buy "spaghetti", as I used to call it growing up, rather than "pasta". How many of us love to run around with our PBS book bags in our SUVs. A lot of us, and I guarantee you that whatever is in today will be out tomorrow.

If we were smart, we'd align with the chi-chi set, and show them the fascination of our fine shooting machines. Did any of you see "American Beauty"? I actually saw that as a pro-gun film, for the chi-chi trendy realtor got fascinated with shooting, just as she had been fascinated so many times with the likes of Jane Fonda's work out, or not eating red meat, or Tai Bo. I like to think my letter to Mother Jones got printed because it strikes a chord with some patriotic fantasy of the far left.

What we've got, in my mind, is a situation which WILL change, and if you look at the numbers, the antis are actually loosing ground.

A holding action is what's called for, and going to Algore is not, in my opinion, a holding action. This delegate talk fits right in with the antis, since it takes a vote away from a candidate who is chosen by the electors who are chosen by our votes. No ifs ands or buts.

You want more gun restrictions, then vote for Algore. You want a holding action against more restrictions, then vote for W. One of those two are going to be elected based on OUR vote.

Any other vote, in my humble opinion, is a vote against RKBA, whether it be for Keyes, who believe me you wouldn't want as president even though he says things that make you warm, or a vote for the trendy Libertarian Party. Ya'll can talk about it after Algore wins, down at Starbucks.

ABG!
Roon
 
a vote for the trendy Libertarian Party.

Trendy?

Since when is personal freedom and personal responsibility "trendy?" IMNSFHO, if the LP were "trendy," we wouldn't have to constantly go out and confront people with their own hypocrisy; they'd come to us on their own.
 
Coinneach,

I stand by what I said.

And, by the way, who gave you the almighty wisdom to call me, and others who disagree with you, hypocrites. Don't you think your arrogance is showing?

Why do you find it necessary to sow discontent and dissension here among allies. Sounds like if people disagree with you, then ship 'em off to the antis.

I thought there was a rule around here against personal attacks. Maybe you should review it.

Roon
 
While the presidential race is always viewed as the big enchilada, it is the House and Senate races that are more important to protecting our rights.
It matters little who occupies the White House if we can manage to elect a solid majority of pro-gun candidates to Congress.
Politics is the art of deal making. A President who has to keep a majority of a nationwide constituency happy to keep his job is more likely to sell us out if he finds himself in the position of having to appease another segment of the voting population in order to get something that he wants through Congress. A Senator or Congressman only has to keep a majority in his district happy. If it is made plain that he or she will be voted out if they fail to stand up when it counts, they will be more likely to do so.
Bill Clinton is, without doubt, the most anti gun rights President in our history. His term in office has seen an almost unending orgy of highly publicized shooting incidents. He has been the beneficiary of almost total support on this issue from the media, and yet, he can't even get a mandatory trigger lock bill through Congress.
I'm not saying that the Presidency is unimportant to our cause. Between his EO's and other questionable legal maneuverings, Clinton has done a lot of damage. But I think that we really need to concentrate more on increasing the number of pro-gun members of Congress. That is something that can be more easily accomplished at the local level.
 
Karanas, I agree that we need to work toward a pro-gun majority in congress. But Clinton has done things with executive orders that I didn't think could be done without legislation: the ban on perfectly legal imported "assault weapons," gettting HUD to sue the gun manufacturers, as well as the land grabs out west. I don't want to take a chance that Gore will use executive orders to
put in place the "commonsense" gun control schemes he wants.

As for Bush, I've said it before and I'll repeat: I don't think he's an anti. He's been accused of waffling on gun control, and of not coming forth with a firm gun control policy. If he's waffling, I believe it's because he doesn't want to say--before the election--that he opposes gun control. It's just a hunch, and maybe just a wish.

Dick
 
If the electoral college worked as advertised, then we never would have elected a draft dodger as president. It was placed there to save us from our own collective stupidity ..it didn't work did it?.
 
You know, Monkey, I think you're right; The Bush isn't anti-gun, he's just afraid, and so he's ducking the issue. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM!

Six years ago we, that's right, WE, gave his party control of Congress. Clinton admitted it. The exit polls confirmed it. And today he's afraid that saying he's against gun control is going to hurt him in the election??? I'm sorry, but we haven't lost THAT much clout; Public attitudes haven't changed THAT much!

But the attitudes of Republican officials have. They've bought this line they hear constantly, that gun control is popular, and that it's political death to oppose it. They figure that they'll just duck the issue, give a few back room assurances to our "leaders", and get our votes without riling up the other side. IDIOTS!

You better believe the anti-gunners are going to show up to vote; They smell our blood in the water, and they've got both Gore and Bradley psyching them up. And if Bush goes into that election with THEM pumped, and us dispirited because he won't say one word in our defense, he may well lose... but it won't be because he's pro-gun, it will be because he's gutless.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Tell me, wise ones, what is the stratgegy for the day after Gore is sworn in, possible with Dem control of the House or Senate?

That's it - tell me more than give money to the GOA? Gun in PVC.

Tell me what you will DO, besides moan and groan?

Wait for the next election you will loose?

I hate to tell you that there will be no revolution.
 
Brett, after all the press in the last week regarding the 6 year old shooting, and the Pennsylvania shooting, along with the daily "ten months ago at Columbine" stories, I don't blame Bush one bit for waffling. If I were in his shoes, I'd bob and weave like Mohamed Ali rather than let the press label me as a pawn of the "gun lobby." Face it: you and I aren't real popular right now with the media and the sheeple. Bush needs the centrist vote to win, and he won't be able to
if he's painted into a corner. The subject _will_ come up in debates with Gore, and Bush will have to point to the lack of enforcement under Clinton/Gore. Or he'll have to endorse
more gun control laws, which would be political suicide if he wants the grassroots Republican voters like me. Will Gore promote and sign more Draconian gun laws? You better believe it. Will Bush sign more Draconian gun laws? I don't know. I hope not.

What I _do_ know is that I don't have a lot of money. I have a very good life insurance policy to take care of my wife in the event of my demise, but it does not cover acts of war or criminal acts. Which means that if I have to go head to head with Gore's Goons, my wife will be left with nothing to live on. So, I can throw away my vote and leave my wife a pennyless widow, or I can work to get Bush into office and keep pressure on his administration to protect RKBA. A tough choice? Not for me, not now.

Dick
 
LawDog,

You state that you don't feel that the people determine who is elected President, that the Electoral College does and that it does not matter how anyone votes. You are correct to a degree.

The people of each state go to the polls and vote for their candidate of choice. The winner in each state is then assigned the total Electoral College electors for that state. The electors then cast their vote for the new President.

At NO TIME in the history of this nation has the Electoral College vote from each state been different from the popular vote from each state, NEVER. Only once has the Electoral College vote varied from the popular vote and only once has the election been determined in the House of Representatives.

In some ways it is good that the Electoral vote can be different than the popular vote. If not, three or four states would determine the election and the candidates would pay attention only to the largest states. IE: If New York, California, Texas and Ohio voted 95% Democrat and 5% GOP while the rest of the states voted 55% GOP and 45% Democrat, the Democrat would win the popular vote and the election. The Electoral College insures that the desires of the entire nation must be taken into consideration, not just the desires of the most populus states.

It is misleading and disingenuous of you to suggest to people that their votes do not count in the Presidential election. If this were actually the case, the candidates would not be spending millions of dollars trying to influence our votes.

Make no mistake about it people, your vote does count!
 
I just finished with my weekly letters to Phil Gramm, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Lamar Smith. The subject was gun control, and how I will be voting Libertarian in the next election IF they don't start doing somthing. You folks who think Republicans are our friends should examine the voting records of them and not just on Gun Control. I could rant all day about how they will make your Great-Great-Great Grandson pay whopping taxes for our parent's luxuries, but you still wouldn't care. They've had the congress how long? Only Rep. Ron Paul has challenged any gun control laws, and although he's on the Republican Ticket, he was the Libertarian candidate for President in '84. Ron Paul gets my money, and my time. I unfortunately do not live in his district, so I will continue to vote Libertarian until a Republican or Democrat can show me that he has read and understands the Constitution of the United States. I read it every week, and I still haven't found any asteriks in it. I guess I'll keep looking 'til I can find where the Federal Government gets all this authority over each and every one of you. And if Al Gore gets elected? Who Cares!?! Maybe the Republicans shouldn't have squandered their majority in Congress. My vote although you may consider it wasted, is a vote on my children's rights. I will not contribute to the delinquents who have utterly neglected to attend to the business of Liberty.
 
Greetings, One thing for sure. Cindy McCain
would make for a beautiful first lady; can't
say that for the rest of the pack. :(

Regards,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
Monkeyleg: I politely beg to differ; That's WHY we're losing ground; Because the guys on our side remain silent, while the enemy dominates the airwaves. So public opinion, hearing only one side, gradually shifts... Let this one sided conversation go on long enough, and we are DOOMED.

It wouldn't hurt Bush to come out and publicly defend gun ownership; The facts would be on his side, the folks who'd vote against him because of it are ALREADY going to vote against him, and WE would turn out in record numbers, the way we did in '94. He'd win by a landslide, and bring Congress along with him!

Check out the head essay at www.conservativehq.com ; It sums up my feelings exactly.
Date Posted: 03/06/2000
McCain's Folly
by Richard A. Viguerie, President, ConservativeHQ.com, Inc.


The words most closely associated with the McCain Moment have been "insurgent," "intelligent" and "inclusive." Indeed, Sen. John McCain was quickly anointed the premier "New Republican," and the aura surrounding his campaign has been reminiscent of the blissful expectations of a long-ago Palm Sunday.
But McCain is not the Republican Party's messiah. Quite the contrary. Those of us who have been in politics awhile see in McCain a stock Republican type that is neither insurgent nor inclusive, nor particularly smart, at least in a political sense. Instead, the way McCain has run his campaign is a vivid illustration of why the GOP is still known as the "Stupid Party."
McCain is merely this year's version of the Republican power-groper who hoped to climb to high office on the bodies of the party's core constituency, particularly religious conservatives. While his cheerleaders in the media hailed him for attacking Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in their home state, this was hardly an act of inspirational bravery on McCain's part. Republicans with an "eye on the prize" have been doing it for decades. Sometimes the ploy works, at least temporarily. But the long-term effect has been to keep the Republicans from creating a solid electoral or governing coalition.
I remember well the first days of the Reagan Era. Everyone knew Ronald Reagan owed his victory to religious conservatives, and The Washington Post's Lou Cannon rightly asked a high-ranking (and, of course, anonymous) Reagan official what religious voters could expect as a reward. The response: "We'll give them symbolism." This was one promise the administration kept. Similarly, Jim Baker repeatedly told cultural conservatives that the president would get to our issues after the president's economic agenda had been instituted. Eight years later, we were still waiting.
McCain, to be sure, offered more than symbolism. He fired harsh rhetorical broadsides directly into the heart of the religious conservative movement. You won't find this sort of constituency trashing among the Democrats. Unlike Republicans, they practice what Ronald Reagan preached: Do not speak ill of a fellow party member. Do not attack your base. This is one reason Al Gore will be hard to beat, despite his association with one of the most corrupt administrations in our national history. The Democrats know who their enemies are, and they are not members of their own party.
Can you imagine a Democratic leader riding into Detroit to denounce unions as corrupt and, in a follow-up interview, characterize union officials as "evil"? Or can you imagine a Democratic presidential hopeful pulling into San Francisco to denounce gays? Or going to New York to announce that African-Americans had better get on the stick and steer clear of racial demagogues such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, or launching similar attacks against feminists, environmentalists, consumerists or pro-abortion activists?
Of course not. Strafing your friends is a Republican trick. At best, Republicans treat many of their core constituents like mistresses: Come to the back door after dark, knock twice, and we'll strike our deal. But whatever you do, do not come looking for me at my club, or speak to me in the street. Republican leaders don't want to have their pictures taken with all those religious people, gun enthusiasts, home-schoolers or pro-lifers because, quite simply, they are embarrassed to be seen with them.
The Democrats, meanwhile, openly greet their core constituents on Main Street, at high noon. Yes, they will have inner-party disagreements, such as over the World Trade Organization, but after the vote they pull together and walk arm-in-arm toward the future. Sure, Al Sharpton perpetrated a horrendous fraud in the Brawley case, and played a crucial role in a New York protest that ended in mass murder and arson. But Democratic candidates have no trouble kissing his ring. They know that coalition building requires the willingness to stand with the activists and shock troops and to be quick to forgive transgressions. The Republicans, by contrast, hold grudges for years. They love a good feud, and delight in stoking the fires of inner-party recrimination.
John McCain heard the media sirens singing, and dreamed he could ascend the throne by trashing a central part of the Republican base. Today he is limping toward the political graveyard, where he will find plenty of Republican company. The larger questions for the GOP are these: When will the party realize it will never create a winning coalition, or attract large numbersof Independents and new voters, until its leaders stop trashing the party's base? When will it recognize that no sensible person wants to join a club that clubs its own members with such regularity and glee?
My guess: No time soon.


------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!

[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited March 08, 2000).]
 
Brett Bellmore

I posted a long rant on the thread http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25545 about this.

The problem with the republicans (this includes GW) is the damn moderate Republicans (Senate and House) from mainly the North East. Without their votes the Republicans dont have the votes to pass squat. Want proof of their power look who the speaker is, he is hardly cut from the same bolt of cloth as the rest of the republican leadership.
Everything the republicans are doing right now is aimed at keeping these mavericks in the fold, they know it and are using it to their advantage. Get rid of them or make their votes unimportant and I'll bet things start to change. (In my book T Lott isn't much better) but you cant change the party from the outside.

Stand up and defend gun owner rights, yes we should but the truth is the facts have ALWAYS been on our side and we are still loosing. If GW stands up now (or any other Republican for that matter) the media and democrats will demagogue them so bad no one will vote for them , where will we be then? The only way we can counter right now, is at a grass roots level. We sure can’t compete at anyother level right now.

The Media and the Democrats have proven time again that they will tell any lie to promote their agenda. If GW or any other republican comes out too strong on gun rights right now, they will be buried by the Media and democrat lies. And the sheeple believe what they are told. I heard some gal today on the morning news, telling about the Million mom march and how they wanted to register all hand guns, but they didn't want to take them away. She either doesn’t understand or is lying, the two are not inseparable. She was staunchly defending the position that registration doesn’t lead to confiscation even though there is not one case of this being true.

Right now we are fighting a war, and we are out matched for the moment. We are going to have to pick the time and places were we are going to fight. If we can get the right people elected this fall then maybe we can start dictating the terms of the fight but right now the anti-gun media and politicians are making us dance to their tune.



[This message has been edited by Alan B (edited March 08, 2000).]
 
Brett, I'll agree with that article. There's basically two Republican parties: the country club northeasterners and the grassroots folks from the rest of the country. The pro-life movement and the 2nd amendment defenders are part of that grassroots element that the country clubbers are embarrassed by. The Republican party may be the "stupid party," but that's because there are so many disparate points of view. Contrast that with the Democrats. Is there a single Democrat at the national level who will oppose abortion, gun control or affirmative action? They march in lockstep and use bumper sticker phrases like "risky tax scheme" or "breaking the stranglehold of the NRA," which the public repeats like a mantra. When Republicans talk in terms of facts and logic, they win.

The fact that Bush reached out to the pro-life crowd tells me he understands the
positions of the grassroots element of the party. And, I hope, that includes us.

Dick
 
There has been a noticable shift towards the center by Falwell and Robertson. One of them, I think it was Robertson, said he would understand if W. picked a pro-choice running mate, given the realities of the race. I just about fell out of my chair.

I think the leaders of the Christian right have been hammered enough and they see that they can be a big liability in the final race. They need to hold power, too!

[This message has been edited by Joseph (edited March 08, 2000).]
 
I am a staunch conservative, with a wide libertarian streak. But a vote for the LP is a wasted--no, a misdirected vote. That's not a commentary on the LP, whose principles I admire, it's just a fact. Like it or not, ours is a two party system.

Something I encounter over and over in political discussion is an apparent presumption that what we really need to do is just elect the right candidate and everything will be OK, or at least everything will begin to change. It won't.

Electing the right (best) candidate is only the beginning. Then you have to 'ride them like the wind'. We will never free ourselves from the price of freedom--eternal vigilance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top