Why Bush MUST be moderate on guns...

C

CMOS

New member
I found this excellent post on the AR15.com site.
___________________

Bush’s position on gun control is (publicly) far from the firm pro-gun stand most of us would like to see. There is, however, a very real reason for this strategy, in the “world" of politics. Take, for example, the story on the link below: www.nypostonline.com/news/31276.htm

It’s a story about Algore’s opposition research team, who by the report, spend about 100 hours each per week trying to dig up dirt, and looking for information that the balding little wus can use against Bush.

It’s very easy for Pat Buchanan, or Harry Browne, or even Alan Keyes to come out with positions advocating the unfettered access by any citizen to any weapon of his choice. I’m sure that these people (generally) really believe what they are saying, but then none of them have ANY possible chance of actually winning the Presidential election. They have nothing to loose.

Imagine, if you will, that G.W. comes out and voices a “rock-solid” pro gun position, and vows to work to repeal, for example, the ’94 Demo sponsored “Assault Weapon” ban. Algore’s Opp/research team, with direct links to the media, would have the evening “news” plastered with Bush’s words, juxtaposed against scenes of Columbine, the L.A. day school shooting, and every other event documenting the misuse of firearms they could find. All other “News” would be placed on hold for days, while they exploited this.

It would scare the living crap out of the Soccer Moms, and their feminized husbands. There are, unfortunately, more of them, than there are of us.

I have no doubt, that the Dems will try to portray G.W. as a reckless advocate of gun violence later in the campaign anyway, but he would be crazy to give them any ammunition at this point.

The only thing I think that I know about Bush, is that he apparently does not harbor any strong sentiment AGAINST the ownership of firearms. That cannot be said about his opponent.
______________________________

Link to the thread http://forums.ar15.com/Forum3/HTML/013969.html

Please take the time to read this.

CMOS




------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!

The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The only thing I think that I know about Bush, is that he apparently does not harbor any strong sentiment AGAINST the ownership of firearms.[/quote]

Complete ban on "civilian" ownership of uncrippled magazines.

Complete ban on "assault weapons," the definition of which is subject to change without notice.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMOS:
Imagine, if you will, that G.W. comes out and voices a “rock-solid” pro gun position, and vows to work to repeal, for example, the ’94 Demo sponsored “Assault Weapon” ban. Algore’s Opp/research team, with direct links to the media, would have the evening “news” plastered with Bush’s words, juxtaposed against scenes of Columbine, the L.A. day school shooting, and every other event documenting the misuse of firearms they could find. All other “News” would be placed on hold for days, while they exploited this.[/quote]

And just how would this be different from what the Gorers did when that idiot from the NRA made his foolish comment about working from inside the White House? The disinformation campaign you describe has already been underway for months.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have no doubt, that the Dems will try to portray G.W. as a reckless advocate of gun violence later in the campaign anyway, but he would be crazy to give them any ammunition at this point.[/quote]

They're doing it now, just as they're claiming that he's personally responsible for all the air pollution in Texas.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The only thing I think that I know about Bush, is that he apparently does not harbor any strong sentiment AGAINST the ownership of firearms. That cannot be said about his opponent.[/quote]

And THAT's supposed to be a reason to vote for him?

[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited June 21, 2000).]
 
Personally, I'd rather vote for someone who has no strong sentiment against guns than to vote for a gun hater any day. We have a chance--and IMHO a good chance--with Bush. We don't have a prayer with Gore.
 
If Republicans really gave a damn about the American people, they would not have thrown their dirty trick politics at McCain, (sorry if that is misspelled Senator} McCain was not in favor with the hardliner right-wing Republicans. Being in the moderate zone put him outside big bizz...the Godfather of that ilk. Bush will not stand up for all Americans, but he will dance a mighty nice jig for the Godfather. Don't ever expect all Republicans or Bush will ever champion your RKBA with any worthwhile conviction. There has got to be a real shakeup with those Republicans. There's more to American than big business, its the little people that keep her flag flying, and its the little people who have to shed their blood to keep it flying. That is my opinion and I don't care if there are those who don't share it.

James
 
All I know is that before Bush was governor, I couldn't carry a concealed weapon in Texas. Now my Glock 30 goes with me everywhere I go because of him. Gore would just as soon watch me rot in jail for even owning a gun, much less carrying one.

------------------
NRA Life Member
GOA Member
GSSF Member
 
Some of you don't seem to get the drift of that article. Honestly, do you really believe if GWB came out and vowed to repeal the AW ban, etc. that he could actually get elected?

Think about it. Think about the gullability of the American sheeple and how they would react at the polls to 6 months of media headlines like, "Bush want to put Assault Weapons in your child's hands!" What a feeding frenzy that would be - and you know it.

I don't like to hear GWB profess to support banning high-cap magazines, gun shows or mesisng with the minimum legal age to own long guns however, I also cannot ignore his ACTIONS as my governor.

Another tid-bit - SB717.

SB717 was a bill in the last Texas state legislative session. This bill would protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits. The bill passed both houses by a 2/3 majority which meant that it would become law even IF GWB did not sign it.

In a heated Presidential campaign, agsinst the advice of his campaign manager, he signed that bill in a formal ceremony.

That took some guts.

Be realistic people, I really want someone like Keyes in there too however, it's not an option right now. GWB is our best option - for now.

Hers's more.
___________________________

WASHINGTON - They call themselves the "Men of Zeal" - even though two of the seven are women - and they all work 100 hours a week to zap the enemy.

Their first target was Bill Bradley; now it's George W. Bush.

They're Vice President Al Gore's opposition research team. All day long, they pore over records, newspapers, anything they can find on Bush, hunting for ammunition to hurt him. They're young, mostly 21 to 25.

"They work 24-7-365 - nonstop. It's a young people's game," says Gore press secretary Chris Lehane.

They take any Bush plan and scour it for holes. Sometimes, their rebuttal gets e-mailed to reporters before Bush speaks. It could be source material for TV attack ads.

"The question is, can they turn this stuff around in time to have an impact?" says Lehane. "In some respects, it's where the rubber hits the road."

It's grunge work that brings the giddy joy of being at the center of the action to operatives like David Ginsburg, who's just 25 but heads the Men of Zeal. He made his name in 1998 by digging dirt to upset a Republican and elect Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.).

"I call it the brains of the campaign," says Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile. "David is there all the time. There is never a time when I've come in, no matter what time of day, that he's not there."

Ginsburg's Men of Zeal struck in January, when Bradley tried to attack Gore for flip-flopping on tobacco. Pow! They sent reporters every remark Bradley had ever made vowing he wouldn't go negative against Gore.

The Gore and Bradley camps agree that's why a lot of news reports that day focused on Bradley breaking his pledge instead of Gore's embarrassing tobacco ties.

Now, the Men of Zeal are aiming at Bush.

"By now, they should have collected every single public document about George W. Bush, everything he's said, everything he owns, everything he's ever done, and it should all be categorized and computerized so it's easily retrievable, ready and waiting," says a Democratic operative.

The Men of Zeal aren't Gore's only oppo resource. The Democratic National Committee has a second, bigger team of at least a few dozen (the DNC won't say how many). Many cut their teeth digging dirt on Whitewater-Sexgate prober Ken Starr.

But it's too early to waste good attacks on Bush, so the Gore team is saving its best stuff. With apologies to Franklin D. Roosevelt, they say their stash is called "The Arsenal of Democracy."


When Bradley ripped Gore's flip-flops on abortion rights at a New Hampshire debate last January, it was just minutes until reporters had a stack of back-up documents dumped on their desks.

But the proof didn't come from Bradley's staff. It came from the Republican National Committee's research team led by Barbara Comstock, 40, a soccer mom of three who's a lawyer and paper-trail expert - and Gore's worst nightmare.

She was an aide to ex-Rep. Frank Wolff, a Republican from suburban Virginia, when she got pulled into the Clinton scandals because some White House career staffers fired in Travelgate - to make way for Clinton cronies - lived in Wolff's district.

"What makes Barbara so good is that she just has an amazing ability to see connections and fit things together," says a reporter. "She has a wonderfully devious mind."

When Comstock heard the Gore team had dubbed itself "Men of Zeal," she quipped to her staff: "We're Chicks with Attitude." Even if a lot of them are guys.

Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer acknowledges having a few researchers on the campaign staff, but says the Texan's team mostly relies on Comstock's RNC unit. It's older than Gore's team, averaging mid-30s.

The RNC also refuses to say how many researchers it has - maybe 30 or so - but Comstock's boss, political director David Israelite, says he deliberately chose to have older, more seasoned people. More than half have law or master's degrees.

On the Internet, RNC e-mails to reporters are full of detail and painstaking footnotes. Some have Web links to original documents to support charges against Gore.

"The Internet makes a real difference in this campaign," says Israelite. "So does the widespread availability of video. It's much harder to say different things to different audiences."

Over the Internet, the RNC monitor TV broadcasts from Tennessee, like the Channel 5 reports on charges by Gore tenant Tracy Mayberry that he's a slumlord - and make sure other reporters hear all about it.

Comstock's expertise is plowing through dense documents. It was her team that plowed through a big stack of publicly released FBI files from the funny-money probe - and found Gore's "iced-tea defense."

That's Gore's claim that he missed a dicey discussion because he had been drinking iced tea and needed lots of potty breaks. An unlikely excuse, since it turns out the meeting was halted whenever he left the room.

Everyone does oppo research, but no one likes to admit it. That's why the star diggers don't want to be interviewed or photographed. They want to be invisible.

Still, both sides insist that 2000 will be different from the presidential campaigns of the scandal-scarred Clinton years. They pledge their oppo research will be about public policy, with no private eyes digging dirt on private lives.

One reason is that, after Sexgate, voters seem revolted by dirt-digging. Besides, there's never been a whiff of marital scandal about either Gore or Bush.

Spokesmen for the Bush and Gore campaigns - and the Democratic and Republican national committees - all told The Post they have not, and will not, use private investigators in this presidential race.

But if they break their word, it'll be hard to catch. Fees paid to private eyes can get hidden on campaign spending reports by funneling them through consultants - the way the Gore camp hid its hiring of controversial feminist Naomi Wolf.

Oppo research is like underwear - it works best when you don't see it.

One expert puts it this way: "The ideal outcome is when a story appears in a newspaper and there are no fingerprints on it. You don't even know we put the stuff together and handed it to a reporter."

But oppo experts pay for all those hours hunched over tiny print. DNC spokesman Rick Hess says: "I have yet to meet a researcher who didn't have to get glasses."
_____________________________________

CMOS
 
Listen to CMOS and mjsarge.

Gore must not become president. Once you accept that, you know what you have to do. It's not a perfect choice because it's not a perfect world.

And, btw, the best way to defeat the young staff of spittle scrapers is for them to fall prey to "disinformation," and make Gore look like the fool he is. Their output must be scrutinized and Gore held responsible for the inevitable slander that will result. How will the internet be used in these efforts, I wonder.

[This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited June 21, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMOS:

...
Think about it. Think about the gullability of the American sheeple and how they would react at the polls to 6 months of media headlines like, "Bush want to put Assault Weapons in your child's hands!" What a feeding frenzy that would be - and you know it.

...

Be realistic people, I really want someone like Keyes in there too however, it's not an option right now. GWB is our best option - for now.
[/quote]

If you look to politicians to save your ass, people like GWB will be the only option we'll ever have.

Looking at it one way, Bush can slow down the advance of Leviathan a bit and give us some breathing space. Looked at another, Bush will lull most gun owners to sleep so that when the hammer finally comes down, we'll be in the same situation that Generalissimo Santa Ana was at the Battle of San Jacinto.

Vote for Bush if you want, but don't stop there. We need to take our case directly to the American people. Citizens of America has made some hard-hitting pro-gun radio and magazine ads, and needs our help getting them circulated. Go to http://www.citizensofamerica.org to see how you can help.

-- The Beez
 
Beez, welcome. You were posting while I was editing. Nice to have another Californian on TFL; I am similarly afflicted.

You are right, BTW.

Regards,

Ledbetter
 
I'm with CMOS and others. As things stand now, I will vote for Bush.

I admit to being disgusted with the Republicans in Congress, especially with the Speaker of the House. But Bush is not in Congress. I believe that he's a far better man than most politicians, and that he will be the most rational and most principled leader that this country has had for a long time.

Maybe Bush really has me suckered. But I've been following him since he was first elected to the governorship of Texas, and I've liked most of what I've heard from him. This is in total contrast to Gore on practically any issue and particularly on gun issues.

This is just my $0.02, but flame away. :cool:
 
I have to agree on this GWB might not be the best option but he is the only one we have. People can talk about Voting for a 3rd party candidate but it is pointless. Think of it this way. I personally think A lot of people from here would make a better president than Bush. But I sure as hell am not going to put any of them down and vote for them. Why? Because it is throwing my vote away. Not untill we do away with the Electorial College will a third party candidate stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
 
Not only is Bush going to dance a mighty nice jig for the Godfather, look's like its going turn into 'line dancing' for the who else is there to vote for crowd. The die has already been cast, the casters are the two party system. This ain't working out for us, folks. Maybe the Lord will take a hand. God and politics...rather doubt that. May God help us against such political greed. Is anyone listening up there?
 
I'm here to eat crow...Ladies and Gentlemen, please disregard any of my previous criticism concerning the Republican Party. Please understand that I have no elusions that they will ever give a rats --- about the American people in general...the aged, disabled, homeless hungry people, those on medicade or medicare, nor social security. But I am at a lost to comprehend the evil design that the Clinton Administration has lodge against our American Veteran. I am refering to the bill signed into law today that with heartless stroke of the pen has erased our vets to not being able to have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS. This has got to be a rallying call for all Americans to put aside their likes and dislikes, and vote those evil SOB socialist out of office. To do what they did to those vets is an unconscionable act of treason to the American Veterans and this nation. Vote for Bush.

James
 
"Some of you don't seem to get the drift of that article. Honestly, do you really believe if GWB came out and vowed to repeal the AW ban, etc. that he could actually get elected?"

Actually, yes, I DO believe that he could get elected. The catch is that he'd have to do something Republicans seem to be pathologically unwilling to attempt: He'd have to actually DEFEND his position!

With upwards of 2.5 million people defending themselves with guns a year, you don't think Bush could produce some good commercials, too? Go through back issues of the Rifleman, track down the people in the "Armed Citizen" column, and bring them forward to testify as to how they'd defended themselves with guns? Maybe after a well done re-enactment of the crime? WE'VE got sob stories too, you know; WE can move emotions, too!

The problem is a fundamental difference in the approach of Democrats and Republicans to politics. The Democrats know that, with enough effort, public opinion can be shifted amazingly. They're relentless in their efforts to mold the way people think. Republicans? They do a bit of polling, push the parts of their agenda which are already popular, and clam up about the parts Democrats have succeeded in demonizing. THAT is why they keep losing in the end, even if they manage to win the office.



------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Unfortunately, the assault weapon and personal defense issues don't track well together; not a lot of people defend themselves with assault weapons. (Of course, not a lot of people actually commit crimes with assault weapons, either, but that's another issue.) GWB is unlikely to get any credit for a repeal of the AW ban based on "sob" stories of actual or potential self-defense scenarios. Sure, I'd like to see the Electoral College abandoned, to give a third-party candidate a chance; I'd like to see Alan Keyes be a viable Republican candidate; and I'd like to see Bill Clinton in prison stripes. But for the moment, where the pin meets the primer, GWB is our best shot. Accept it. Give us four years to try to undo some of the damage of the previous eight; while we may not achieve all of our goals, we will likely keep them from sliding any further away from our grasp.

------------------
Every nation has the government it deserves. - Joseph de Maistre
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top