[Texas Eagle]

The NRA is about to find out what it feels like to be at the receiving end of Compassionate Conservatism. Get out the vaseline.

[ysoitanly]

Better show their colors now - to me, this is the MOST IMPORTANT judge of character in a president. The 2nd amendment is absolutely the one that has no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts' about it - this is critical. The nation is watching. Of course, what is always left out, is the absolute, undeniable right, when these gun 'proposals' come up, is that those who propose them 100% understand why the Constitution guarantees the 2nd - to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government.

[Mulder]

Why does Bush support this ban?

Does he not believe in individual Rights?

Or is he making a decision based solely on 'political' calculations, without regard to the Constitution?

[kcar]

Screw Bush if this is the case. Screw those who think it's about keeping THEIR power, or posturing just so only so they can temporarily check the REAL enemy here (wink-wink), when it's really only about OUR freedoms, which is not on the table to be negotiated or compromised. Screw em all, all the Republicans who have talked the talk, but woobly walked.

Abstain in 04 if Bush is a whore.

[what's up]

Being on the right side of the gun issue is what got Bush elected Gov. of Texas.

I'd hate for him to get weak on it now.

[IronJack]

I think the analyst hit it on the head: Bush has sufficient political capital that he can expend some of it cozening up to the gun grabbers. Plays well with that "kinder, gentler" crowd.

It also shows that Bush is a "conservative" of dubious credentials. Anyone expecting a conservative messiah from this administration faces a long walk down Disappointment Road.

[newgeezer]

Bush in Tight Spot With N.R.A. Over Gun Legislation

We at The New York Times Overcome with Glee

[The Old Hoosier]

Bush is supporting the ban because it will never reach his desk. That said, it's damned stupid of him to run away from a good issue like this one.

[MJY1288]

It will take a Congressional act to keep the ban alive and it will never happen. This ban will sunset and President Bush is just playing politics. This is a touchy third rail issue that could be used against him with the soccer mom's. I'm sure Karl Rove is telling him to hint that he might sign it if it reaches his desk and make no effort to support it.

I will bet that it will never reach his desk. If it does... He better veto it or lose a large block of support

[Brian S]

To hell with the White House and Senate! We can stop this SOB in the House. Work your Rep's now!

[justlurking]

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities, the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk.

I suspect this is Bush's strategy. He expects that it will never make it out of the House (although the Senate will probably pass it). It can't become an issue in the 2004 campaign -- he didn't oppose it, but he wouldn't have to sign it into law, either.

If the bill does come to him for his signature, Bush should remember gun owners' part in the defeat of his father, and his own victory in Texas two years later. If he has forgotten, he deserves to lose in 2004.

[marron]

He is making a political calculation. The catch is that people who favor gun control aren't going to vote for him whatever happens. So he is alienating his core and getting nothing in return.

He may be calculating that conservative voters have no place else to go, and he is right that they obviously aren't going to vote Dem. Most conservatives will vote for him despite reservations as the lesser of evils. But others will simply stay home, or vote for one of the "third" parties as a protest vote. If you remember how close the election was last time, you realize that it wouldn't take too many protest votes to cost him a second term.

He is gambling, and this is a gamble that could cost him the election and cost us 4 years of Lieberman.

[WilliamWallace1999]

It is ALL a moot issue. Tom Delay will NEVER let this out of the House. The Senate and the President can't do it alone. The law sunsets. Without a new law passed by both houses, the whole thing goes away.

Bush is a weasel on this issue. He knows he will never have to sign it, so it will be a dead issue by election, but he can seem independent of the gun lobby for the RINO's.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

At issue is a measure to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to continue the ban.

Republicans can get USSC nominees past the front door, but Democrats snap their fingers and bills are going to get sent to the President?

This one is in Congress's court. If the Republicans don't pass it, Bush CAN'T sign it.

[supercat]

"I would like to strengthen the bill" beyond what will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday, Senator Feinstein said today. "But I don't want to lose the bill, and important to that is the president's support."

Did Bush ever promise to support an expanded version of the AWB? Seems being given one might provide him an 'out' to veto it.

[Sabertooth]

Seems to me that one is better served by spending accrued political capital against one's enemies, rather than against one's constitutencies.

[Long Cut]

If I may make a few observations on this fractious, emotional issue?

I do NOT believe that the President actually WANTS to sign an extension of this onerous legislation. That is what (I believe) is his core belief.

However, his political calculation is that to come out and oppose it would cost him valuable middle-class Sukker Mommie votes, votes that he and his (highly-paid, highly trained and experienced) political advisors have advised him he needs.

Thus, it is my conclusion that he has decided to let Congressman DeLay and his men kill it in the House, by simply letting it "die on the vine". He then needs not sign it and take any heat. In other words, for a change, Republicans in Congress give HIM cover.

At this point, someone on the thread is thinking (or screaming at his monitor), "That's what we thought about CFR, Cut, you Navy puke! Whaddup wid DAT?"

The answer, my FRiends, is as simple as it is brutal. CFR, in fact, WAS AS DEAD AS DINOSAUR DROPPINGS! It only recieved new life after a single, extreme event, namely ENRON's collapse and the subsequent revelations rescusitated it. Such events as that are completely unpredictable, but they DO have the impact on the public to drive politicians to do things they had not intended.

The same COULD happen to the AW ban, if some mutant shoots up a school or church a few weeks prior to the law's scheduled expiration. Such an extreme, bloody, and spectacular event would not only assure passage of the extension, but would also see it toughened, in ways Schumer and DiFly can only dream of.

So, what's the bottom line? Simply that we have to tread VERY lightly here...AND, we ALL need to stick together!

The namecalling and deadcatting which occurs on these threads helps no one but the Dims, and serves to assure our weakness. I ask those of you who, like myself, wish this ban to sunset, to be patient and let the game be played out. Those of you, also like me, who defend the President against all comers ALSO need to be patient...our FRiends have legitemite fears, and need to be comforted and strengthened, not abused.

You see, should the "doomsday scenario" of extreme events occur as I have stated above, we will ALL need to voice LOUD, CONTINUOUS, and UNIFIED support for a sunset. Let those in the White house know that we ALL wish it to go away, and if it does, then the President can count on ALL of us. Threats of voting for Dims, or mad talk of "making wills and peace" will most certainly NOT help our cause, much as they may FEEEEL good to say.

Let us observe, and react, with cold, ruthless logic; and do it as one, rather than let emotional heat shatter us, the better for defeat.

Just my two bits. FWIW.

[Cacique]

Bump

[WorkingClassFilth]

I've never considered President Bush a genuine Conservative, but over the last three years he has earned a fair measure of my respect. In any event, the alternative was brain-damaged Marxist robot Algore so there was no question about who to vote for in 2000.

However, if Mr. Bush turns his back on this crucial 2A issue, I believe I will have seen enough to undo whatever earned support I hold for his administration. Why help elect politicians that betray the trusts that is given them? There is simply no excuse for support of a continued ban and any fool that holds that opinion knows nothing about firearms, the Constitution or the grassroots base that put Mr. Bush into the White House.

As a side note, I'm actually of the opinion that we, as Conservatives, have a good deal to be thankful to the Krinton administration for. For starters, Krinton energized the conservative electorate like nobody else in the last hundred years. The second biggest thing X42 did was to awaken masses of citizens to the peril that he and the Left posed to the Republic. In spite of despising the slimebag, I have opined from time to time that it might not have been such a bad thing to have a few more years in the pressure cooker for the populace to really see things clearly - if the Republic and our Constitution could survive Krinton II.

Well, we now have the fruit of our anti-Clintonism efforts in the Bush II White House. So far the report card on a range of Conservative issues has been fair to middling. Now, the candidate that our friends in the leadership of the Republican party (no staunch allies of freedom themselves thesedays) deemed the best choice for America, is now alligned with freedom-loving Conservative notables like Schumer, Feinstein and Clinton.

What am I missing? Could the diehard fans of Mr. Bush help me out on this one and help decode the brilliance of his end-run strategery on this basic, grassroots, fundamental freedom, 2A issue?

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

The NY Times got a woody writing this.