Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 01/24/2004 6:45:19 AM PST by Lead Moderator, reason:

This thread has degenerated into a flamewar. No more replies. Sheesh.



Skip to comments.

Gap widening between Bush and conservatives
Townhall.com ^ | January 23, 2004 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 01/23/2004 5:23:57 AM PST by Apple Pan Dowdy

Gap widening between Bush and conservatives


Jonah Goldberg

I thought President Bush's State of the Union address was fine. It wasn't outrageously long. He drew a bright line between himself and his critics on the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, Social Security Reform, etc. He delivered it well, and the nudity was tasteful and integral to the plot.

As luck - or bad timing - would have it, I was invited to Manhattan to address the New York State Conservative Party right before the president addressed the nation. It seemed only fitting since the subject of my speech was the conflict between Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and traditional conservatism. You see, conservatives in New York City have suffered more and for longer than conservatives in the rest of America. Trust me, I grew up on New York City's Upper West Side. We felt like Christians in Ancient Rome.

Well, after three years with George W. Bush at the helm, many conservatives are starting to feel like we've been sent to the catacombs. Don't get me wrong. Out in real America where most Americans - liberal and conservative - don't focus on politics every day, Bush is still doing very well. And, even among conservatives, Bush has considerable political support. But among ideological and intellectual conservatives, emotional support for Bush is starting to ebb.

I can't point to anything scientific. But if you pay attention to what conservatives are saying at meetings and in magazines, on the Web and at the think tanks, as well as what readers, friends, colleagues and sources say, there's a definite undercurrent of discontent with the president.

For some it started with his plan to offer amnesty-lite to illegal immigrants. For others, it's his fence-sitting on gay marriage. For others, like me, it was his signing of the campaign finance reform bill even though he thought it was unconstitutional. Or maybe it was his support for steel tariffs. Or the farm bill. I forget.

Anyway that doesn't matter. What unites pretty much all of these grumblers is a deep sense of, well, disgust with how much this administration is spending.

When it comes to taxpayer dollars, this is the second most "generous" administration in American history, second only to that of another Texan, Lyndon Johnson. There may be good aspects to George Bush's "compassionate conservatism," though on the whole I never liked it, but it's clear that compassion doesn't come cheap at the Bush White House, on whose watch overall spending from 2001 to 2003 grew at 16 percent and discretionary spending went up 27 percent. That's double Bill Clinton's rate.

Bush's defenders are eager to point to the war on terrorism as an excuse for increased spending. Fine. But that's only a small part of the story.

Under Bush, spending on education has gone up 60.8 percent, on labor 56 percent and on the Department of the Interior by 23.4 percent . The price tag for the president's Medicare plan alone starts, but won't end, at $400 billion. The farm bill was a pork horror show, pure and simple. More people work for the federal government now than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation sums it up this way: "Overall for 2003, the federal government spent $20,300 per household, taxed $16,780 per household, and ran a budget deficit of $3,520 per household."

The reason most Americans haven't heard a lot about all this is twofold. Conservatives have stayed relatively quiet and liberals have controlled the anti-Bush microphone.

Democratic presidential candidates and interest groups have been screeching that the president is gutting education and abandoning the elderly. Obviously this is nonsense on tall stilts, since Bush is spending a lot more on both than Bill Clinton ever did.

In fact, on Medicare and education, for example, the Dems think Bush is being stingy. And a study by the National Taxpayers Union found that each and every one of the Democrats running for president have plans that would raise the deficit even more, from $169.6 billion under Joe Lieberman to - get this - $1.33 trillion under Al Sharpton.

Conservative opposition to such overspending is more complex than the media and the left think. Some just don't like red ink. Others think big government erodes freedom and traditional arrangements. Others believe it slowly inoculates the citizenry to greater levels of social engineering.

Whatever the reasons, conservatives - as opposed to partisan Republicans - have sincere misgivings about the kind of presidency Bush is conducting. A lot of compassionate conservatism is smart politics for the Republican Party, and some of it is even good policy. And, yes, conservatives understand that the GOP is practically the only place they have a real impact in electoral politics.

But I'm not sure George Bush understands how much he is asking from those who brought him to the dance.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; jonahgoldberg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-406 next last
It will be interesting to see here whether we can discuss this very real and threatening issue without "bashing" the President we all love so much. We seem to keep sweeping all this under the table, fearing that to discuss it will hurt Bush's chances for re-election (which we do not want to do). But just how long can we go on pretending to ignore it? If we speak up, will the President hear and respond.... I think he will.
1 posted on 01/23/2004 5:23:58 AM PST by Apple Pan Dowdy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
Gap widening between Bush and conservatives

Ain't that the truth.

Expect him to strenuously push for, and sign, a much more restrictive Assault Weapons Ban.

This ain't your daddy's Reagan.

2 posted on 01/23/2004 5:25:39 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
If we speak up, will the President hear and respond.... I think he will.

Bush being what he is, I don't think so. One of his chief virtues is that he has his own set of beliefs to which he remains faithful to the bitter end--kind of like the Andy Reid of politics. If the beliefs are sound, all is well. Otherwise ...

3 posted on 01/23/2004 5:28:30 AM PST by Agnes Heep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Funny, if he were going to do that, I would have expected him to say he was going to do that. Everything else which has been disappointing he pretty much just did what he said he was going to do.
4 posted on 01/23/2004 5:29:14 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Funny, if he were going to do that, I would have expected him to say he was going to do that.

He said it.

5 posted on 01/23/2004 5:30:02 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I disagree Laz. Why should Bush alienate his base by signing the AWB. That thing is buried and will stay buried by Tom DeLay. Bush does not want it on his desk. Bush made a promise to sign a renewal if it reached his desk. If it sunsets, too effin' bad.

As to Jonah's article, I agree with much of what he says, but I believe that Bush has begun to respond after setting the table for centrist voters with the Ed Bill and the Granny Bill. Domestic spending is set to grow by 1% this year in the 2005 budget.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

6 posted on 01/23/2004 5:31:35 AM PST by section9 (Major Kusanagi says, "If Howard Dean is all Beer Hall, no Putsch, then what's John Kerry?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Please find a quotation from him where he said he was going to "strenuously push" for a "much more restrictive" assault weapon ban.
7 posted on 01/23/2004 5:31:52 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
I wish we had discussed it a year ago. But sometimes wishing doesn't work! In the end truth will win!
8 posted on 01/23/2004 5:34:34 AM PST by TLBSHOW (The Gift is to See the Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Could you provide some proof that the President is going to strenuously push for and sign a much more restrictive Assault Weapon's band.

Thank you!

9 posted on 01/23/2004 5:35:04 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got! (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: carton253
Could you provide some proof that the President is going to strenuously push for and sign a much more restrictive Assault Weapon's band.

You are asking for proof of a future event.

If I could do that, do you think I'd be wasting time with you morons?!??! I'd be cashing my Lotto checks!

Nice try, though.

10 posted on 01/23/2004 5:37:11 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy; newgeezer
Not all conservatives are fiscal conservatives. The statement about marriage is more important than any ideal about small government held by some conservatives.
11 posted on 01/23/2004 5:37:43 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
TLBSHOW AMNESTY!!!!

Wow, maybe Bush is right. Amnesty for our forgotten. :o)

12 posted on 01/23/2004 5:37:56 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
You see, conservatives in New York City have suffered more and for longer than conservatives in the rest of America. Trust me, I grew up on New York City's Upper West Side.

Poor Jonah...always painting himself a victim right out of the gate.

Please Jonah...tell us how you have suffered.
13 posted on 01/23/2004 5:39:14 AM PST by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; carton253
You said he said that's what he was going to do.
14 posted on 01/23/2004 5:39:17 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
You are asking for proof of a future event.

Why shouldn't I ask you for proof since you are posting as if it is an already done deal. I'm just asking you how you've come to that decision.

15 posted on 01/23/2004 5:40:43 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got! (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
"In fact, on Medicare and education, for example, the Dems think Bush is being stingy"

Its important to keep this in mind as we debate.

I am certainly disappointed in several of W's decisions, however, politics will not support a straight-jacked idealouge. And of course, the alternative is major-bad-worse-to the nth f'in' degree.

I'm all for this debate w/i the conservative movement, its what distinguishes us from the libs (that we can debate intellegently) but we must never loose sight of the fact that the demonicrats cannot be allowed to return to power.

16 posted on 01/23/2004 5:40:51 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: section9
I disagree Laz. Why should Bush alienate his base by signing the AWB?

Why should he alienate his base by gutting the First Amendment with CFR? Why should he alienate his base by declaring "Open Border Season"? Why should he alienate his base by signing massive new prescription drug benefits? Why should he alienate his base by proposing Universal Hillary Care?

The answer: Cuz he doesn't care. He doesn't have to. He is counting on the calculus that for every conservative he loses, he'll gain two squishy moderates.

I don't blame him, but I can't vote for it.

17 posted on 01/23/2004 5:40:58 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: carton253
Why shouldn't I ask you for proof since you are posting as if it is an already done deal. I'm just asking you how you've come to that decision.

Informed speculation.

18 posted on 01/23/2004 5:41:46 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
You said he said that's what he was going to do.

You said I said he said that?

19 posted on 01/23/2004 5:42:28 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
Good article and I agree. I support Bush on most things, I do not like the excessive spending at all.

But just like I said to my wife the other night, he gives in to the demonrats, signs an education bill with teddy kennedy, and in no time he is being accused of not spending enough.

The dems will never be happy no matter what, give them nothing and we get attacked, give them what they want and it's not enough, and still get attacked.

I say givem nothing..
20 posted on 01/23/2004 5:43:22 AM PST by The Mayor (The best peacemakers are those who know the peace of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Expect him to strenuously push for, and sign, a much more restrictive Assault Weapons Ban.

Expect him to not even mention the Assault Weapons Ban.

21 posted on 01/23/2004 5:43:26 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I do wish we had a republican running in this election. (SARCASM OFF)

But, to be honest I have read JFK's domestic agenda during his term and he was more conservative the GWB is looking now. And that is just wrong!
22 posted on 01/23/2004 5:43:36 AM PST by RiflemanSharpe (An American for a more socially and fiscally conservation America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pietro; Apple Pan Dowdy
Ted Kennedy went on the record yesterday to ask for $100 billion increase in all Medicare, Medicaid, and Prescription drug benefits.

I think this is just a preview of what will happen to the budget if a Democrat gets into office.

23 posted on 01/23/2004 5:44:58 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got! (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: carton253; new cruelty
BTW, new cruelty reminded me of a quote made by GW Bush in Crawford, Texas last year, in which Bush states: "I will strenuously push for and sign a much more restrictive Assault Weapons ban."

It was reported by all the networks.

24 posted on 01/23/2004 5:45:14 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Expect him to not even mention the Assault Weapons Ban.

I hope you're tight.

I fear you're wrong.

25 posted on 01/23/2004 5:45:56 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Morphing into Wesley Clark is certainly humorous, but it is not exactly a good way to actually win debates.

There are plenty of things for conservatives to grumble about with Bush. No need to embellish. Doing so just spins everything off topic and makes it less likely we'll be effective in getting the administration's attention.
26 posted on 01/23/2004 5:47:35 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; William McKinley
Informed speculation.

I think the word "informed" is in the eye of the beholder. LOL!

To me, it sounds a little like "chicken little" praying that the sky will fall down so she will have something to complain about.

27 posted on 01/23/2004 5:48:23 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got! (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
Whatever the reasons, conservatives - as opposed to partisan Republicans - have sincere misgivings about the kind of presidency Bush is conducting.
28 posted on 01/23/2004 5:50:29 AM PST by KantianBurke (2+2 does NOT equal 5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carton253
I think the word "informed" is in the eye of the beholder. LOL!

Opinions are like aholes. Everyone's got one and usually they stink.

29 posted on 01/23/2004 5:51:39 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; carton253
BTW, new cruelty reminded me of a quote made by GW Bush in Crawford, Texas last year, in which Bush states: "I will strenuously push for and sign a much more restrictive Assault Weapons ban."

It was reported by all the networks.


30 posted on 01/23/2004 5:52:17 AM PST by new cruelty (Better the devil you know than the devil don't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
You always have had a way with words.

:>)
31 posted on 01/23/2004 5:53:23 AM PST by TLBSHOW (The Gift is to See the Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
There are plenty of things for conservatives to grumble about with Bush.

My number one issue is gun control. It's how I discovered conservatism.

This son-of-a-Bush has been so bad on every conservative issue so far that -- and be honest with yourself here -- can't you just visualize him pushing for and signing a much more restrictive Assault Weapons ban?

32 posted on 01/23/2004 5:53:34 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Glad to see ya back, pal. :o)

BTW, Mojo's back too.

33 posted on 01/23/2004 5:54:11 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
"I can't point to anything scientific"

Thus this is merely opinion. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.

34 posted on 01/23/2004 5:54:56 AM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; Apple Pan Dowdy
I have one point I wish for you to consider, if you would be so kind. If a dem spent money they it has been spent in the past few years, if a dem sign the pill bill, if a dem affected our constitutional rights the way finance reform and the patriot act have (I am very skeptical of any attack on my rights for any reason.), if a dem proposed the amnesty, if a dem says that he sign an extention to the assault weapons ban, if a dem grew the size of government the way this President has we would all be howling mad and marching on Washington with torches.

I am not saying that GWB does not have many positives, he does but to me his negative now out weight them. If he, for example, would drop the amnesty and cut spending I would be happy to reevaluate him. I am not naive enough to think I can ever get all I want from a politicain in terms of his views, but now the issues he is for that I oppose are more to me then those I agree with him.

35 posted on 01/23/2004 5:55:26 AM PST by RiflemanSharpe (An American for a more socially and fiscally conservation America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Nice try, though.

C'mon Laz...you said that "He said it", but then try to turn it around by saying you can't provide proof of a future event? All we are asking for is the statement that you stated Bush made. If he made a statement about pushing for and signing a more restrictive AWB, it would be a past event...so provide a quote please. Otherwise, you are merely using your crystal ball to spread disinformation...that's not like you.

36 posted on 01/23/2004 5:55:29 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I couldn't beleive my eyes when I saw you.

Welcome back
37 posted on 01/23/2004 5:55:48 AM PST by The Mayor (The best peacemakers are those who know the peace of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
...It will be interesting to see here whether we can discuss this very real and threatening issue without "bashing" the President we all love so much....

We don't all love him that much.
38 posted on 01/23/2004 5:57:42 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty; Lazamataz; William McKinley
The cartoon is cute...

You are not... LOL!

By the way... I will do your and Laz's job for you.

According to the White House site, the President does support the current assault weapon ban...

Lately, on Free Republic there have been alot of "accusations" and "charges" made without proof. These over generalizations of positions and beliefs about what will happen in the future usually denigrate into a name calling slug fest.

Proof usually melts away any opposition.

That said... can anyone tell me why anyone would need to own an assault weapon?

39 posted on 01/23/2004 5:58:40 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got! (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
You said I said he said that?

In Post #5, you stated "He said it".

40 posted on 01/23/2004 5:59:10 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I disagree with you.

He's been good on guns. In my life, this is the first administration which has taken a stance that the 2nd amendment means what it says- individuals have a right to keep and bear arms.

He's been outstanding when it comes to the judiciary. He's been outstanding when it comes to pro-life issues.

He's been outstanding at telling the UN to pound sand. Repeatedly.

He's been outstanding at balancing the challenges of rising to the terror threat without stomping on essential liberties-- despite the caterwauling of the LewCrew.

He's driven the biggest threat to conservative values, the modern Democrat party, so batty that they may completely implode, which will open the floodgates for restoring the judiciary to its proper role (a task that must be done for any other conservative goals to be reached- right now, any progress we make anywhere can be overturned by a robe somewhere).

Three totalitarian regimes, removed (Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia).

The spending is out of hand, and his amnesty proposal sucked. But overall, he's not just been a good President, but a very good one.

We need to pressure him on his flaws though. They are correctable.

41 posted on 01/23/2004 6:00:05 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Ask and ye shall recieve:

Bush and NRA clash over assault weapons ban

WASHINGTON -- President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, now find themselves as unlikely adversaries over one of most significant pieces of gun control legislation in the last decade.

At issue is legislation to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to continue the nationwide ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. A groundbreaking 1994 measure outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun rights groups have made it their top priority to end the ban. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.

Despite those concerns, however, the White House says that Bush supports the extension of the current law -- a position that has put him in opposition to the NRA and has left many guns owners angry and dumbfounded.

"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover Norquist, a leading conservative and an NRA board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."

Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a bold political calculation: That the risk of alienating a core constituency is outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal. (hmm...no mention of Constitutionality...wonder why) The president has claimed the middle road -- supporting an extension of the current ban, but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has forced Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban.

Bush's position "cuts against the NRA's position, and it will put the president -- for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill -- at odds with his own political base," said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal," but the issue could hurt Bush in Middle America states that have strong gun rights sentiments and are considered critical to his re-election in 2004, Franc said.

The assault ban issue puts the president in a precarious political spot.

When Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top NRA official boasted that the group's relationship with Bush was so "unbelievably friendly" that the NRA could practically claim a seat at the White House.

The NRA has been a major donor to Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including the current push to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft has been a particularly close ally of the gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and initiating law enforcement changes sought by the NRA.

But White House officials said the assault weapons ban was one case where the president and the NRA did not see eye to eye.

"There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans," He added that the ban had been implemented as a way to deter crime and that Bush "felt it was reasonable."

The White House position has heartened gun control advocates. Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports an extension of the weapons ban, said: "I think Bush realizes that, number one, this is the right thing to do, number two, he promised to do this in the 2000 campaign, and number three, he knows that it's good politics and this is an extremely popular measure."

The NRA has maintained a polite civility toward the White House over the issue, even though it insists the ban is an violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters and sporting enthusiasts of many high-powered rifles.

Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that the NRA's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Bush's desk. "Do we agree with the administration's position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that level, but in Congress," he said.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0503/08assaultweapons.html

42 posted on 01/23/2004 6:00:27 AM PST by KantianBurke (2+2 does NOT equal 5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: carton253
That said... can anyone tell me why anyone would need to own an assault weapon?

Why does anyone need to own a Ferarri...or a Hummer for that matter?
43 posted on 01/23/2004 6:01:24 AM PST by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: carton253
That's different though, than "strenuously pushing" for a "more restrictive" one.
44 posted on 01/23/2004 6:01:34 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: carton253
Just having a little fun before I get to work. :)

Y'all have a good day!
45 posted on 01/23/2004 6:02:43 AM PST by new cruelty (Better the devil you know than the devil don't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Why should he alienate his base by gutting the First Amendment with CFR? Why should he alienate his base by declaring "Open Border Season"? Why should he alienate his base by signing massive new prescription drug benefits? Why should he alienate his base by proposing Universal Hillary Care? The answer: Cuz he doesn't care. He doesn't have to. He is counting on the calculus that for every conservative he loses, he'll gain two squishy moderates.

Say it again, Reverand!

46 posted on 01/23/2004 6:03:01 AM PST by thesummerwind (Like painted kites, those days and nights, they went flyin' by)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mr.pink
Well... that is not really an answer.

I'm not saying that one shouldn't own an assault weapon... I'm asking why anyone would need one.

47 posted on 01/23/2004 6:03:06 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got! (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: carton253
The second amendment is a doomsday provision, designed to allow the citizenry to depose the government. It anticipates some resistance to that overthrow by officers of the government or the army.

The whole point of the amendment is to have the citizens armed as close as possible in equality with the military.

The weapons most protected by the second amendment are military grade weapons.
48 posted on 01/23/2004 6:03:42 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty
I totally understand... LOL!
49 posted on 01/23/2004 6:03:48 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got! (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
You are right in that I did ask.

I'm still waiting for the receive part.

What you just posted said this:

the extension of the current law
But the assertion was this:
Expect him to strenuously push for, and sign, a much more restrictive Assault Weapons Ban...He said it.
So again, can you or Laz back up the assertion that Bush has said he will push (strenuously) for a much more restrictive (than the current law) AWB?
50 posted on 01/23/2004 6:04:21 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-406 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson