Would you vote for Bush in 2004 if he .....

[daveshoe]

As far as kicking yourself in the teeth it seems thet the only time conservatives act conservative is when a liberal is in the white house. when they''own '' two branches of govt. then they become a bunch of fence sitters and they take a crap on their base ,assuming it is safe to do so .

My state [Ohio] is in heap big budget trouble because of a huge republican majority and republican governor are gobbling up a bigger percentage of the state income trying to act like ''tax and spenders''

 

[illflem]

There are 30 states with Rep majorities running in the red right now. GOP realizes this is going to be a big problem come election time.

 

[Mike Ellis]

merryman,



Slam me all you want, call me bull-headed, whatever. Maybe I am bull-headed. You ask:

How is it standing on principles to in fact help the guy who is much worse on the issue important to you??

It is standing on principles because, quite simply, one of my principles is that I will not vote again for a candidate who betrays me on a key issue. I have become essentially a single-issue voter keying on 2nd Amendment rights, because in most other areas of interest to me the two major parties have substantially similar platforms. I view the 2nd Amendment and my right to keep and bear arms as the bellweather of my freedoms - when it is gone, all else will soon follow. Accordingly, I monitor the actions of my political representatives that affect these 2nd Amendment rights VERY closely. If they displease me, I do my best to effect change - writing letters, making phone calls, and if the positions don't change, taking my vote elsewhere.



If witholding my vote means that the other side takes power, so be it. Better the enemy I know, than a supposed "friend" stabbing me in the back. As I said in my original message, President Bush has 2 years to change my mind. Maybe the majority of his voter base won't decide to kick themselves in the teeth like me, and he can stay in office. Only time will tell.



Bull headed? Maybe. But bull headed isn't necessarily a bad thing. If our American founding fathers had been as fond of political compromise and half-way measures as we are today, the United States would still be a British colony.

 

[The patriot]

Re: The One thing

Originally posted by illflem

Keyes seems to think that the US president is also the president of Christianity.

Won't fly with many folks.

I dont think I ever heard Keyes saying he wants to convert anyone.

Eric

 

[The patriot]

Originally posted by Silver

You guys made me eat my words about McCain. I didn't realize he was so liberal. I guess I need to do my homework before opening my trap.

In MY view he has liberal leanings.

I'm in NJ. A VERY CONSERVATIVE republican from here is probibally a middle of the road in the rest of the country.

You could imagine how a liberal is from here... ... ...

Eric

 

[Champane Flight]

Two words

Too Late!

 

[Eric Kahn]

Please explain "too late" please

I will most likly vote for Bush since the dems won't have anyone better or that even comes close to Bush in any catagory that matters

 

[Champane Flight]

Too late

It is too late for me to even consider Bush for another four. He did real good, and really thought he might be ok until Iraq, lost it. Too late. I will vote for Kerry before him now.

 

[merryman]

Mike;

I don't disagree with your principles at all------I just think that what ever your issue (I too, feel very strongly about the 2nd amendment), you should allways try to lessen the damage if nothing else. If Bush's real oponent (voting for Keys may make one feel good, but it really dosn't do anything but hurt one of the candidates with an actual chance and help the other), has a worse stand on the 2nd amendment, you are in fact helping that guy by not voing for Bush.



Why help the bad guy?? Thats exactly what your action would be doing if you refuse to vote for Bush because you feel let down.

There are no perfect candidates; it often boils down to which is least bad.

Another Churchhill; "democracy is the worst form of government ever invented by man---save for all others"(or about like that)

Government and those who are elected to run it are a terrible thing to inflict on the populace-----its just that we have to have a government and we have to have someone to run it, so just do the least damage you can and hope for the best. :>)

er, and ah, keep your powder dry!!! This discussion makes me want to go coyote hunting;



Ya hear about the two low-lifes, who were not content to shoot and trap coyotees, but after catching one in a leg hold trap, straped two sticks of dynamite to it and turned it loose to watch it blow up??

It ran under the guys new Blazer and took it with it!!

I like to call coyotes, yeah, call me blood thirsty, but I get a real kick out of sitting next to a tree or rock watching a coyote comming in at the run thinking I am lunch, and see how close he gets before one of us chickens out.



Vaughn

 

[Mtngoat]

Right now I'd vote for him, but will have to see what else is available and what their policies will be. MY MAIN concern is the economy after the war is over. And, I'm tired of saving money so I can get ahead and then have to send it all to the IRS at the beginning of each year. I make just enough to get by, but not enough to have the investments needed to put something away.

Robin

 

[mcoleman]

Yes I would vote for Bush in a heartbeat. My state is also in the red because of a useless idiot democrat that also saw fit to remove the Confederate flag from above the graves of soldiers who fought for that flag. The state of Missouri is in the worse condition we have ever been in because of the last 2 Democrat Governors. This current idiot is also threatening to veto a new concealed carry law. He has proved to be as useless as the last one.

 

[smartineau]

Guns and Politics a Great subject!!!!!!



If Bush screws me with the so called assault weapons ban I will vote for some pro gun person even if I have to write in a name.



I read a good book on politics several years ago, and the author a former congressman or senator from California made a few good points. You can weigh 5-20 issues and choose the best candidate that meets your needs and wants and then vote accordingly. Or you can be a one issue voter, if this is the case stay with the one issue and don't waiver!!!!!!



He went on to give an example, the gay vote in San Francisco was always supporting the Democrats but they got frustrated when they did not get what they wanted. The Dem's always gave them lip service (so to speak), but never rewarded them. So one year the gay vote, voted for the gay candidate with out a chance of winning and a Republican was elected. The Dem's were pi$$ed.



The gay vote then payed the price for the next four years, but then the Dems came crawling back and got he gay vote. The gays then got a lot of the benefits that they were seeking.



I'll take my chances and pay the price if need be, but Bush got my vote only because of the 2nd amendment and he will easily lose my vote over the 2nd amendment, just as daddy Bush lost my vote.



steve

 

[merryman]

A tactic that worked in California on a very liberal issue is not likely to work nationally on a conservative issue! First, California is a very liberal place so the gays had a head start anyway, and second and perhaps more important, they had virtually all the major media on the gay side. That is not going to be the case on the 2nd amendment.

Not only will we not have much of the major media with us, they will be very much against us.



In the vast majority of issues such as this, voting that issue when your candidate does not otherwise have a real chance, is self defeating-----just making it easier for your oposition. I really have trouble seeing the wisdom of helping those who are out to get you, just because the guy who is basically on your side isn't as strong on the issue as you want him to be.

Vaughn

 

[smartineau]

vaughn, good points. It is always good to look at things from different angles.



steve

 

[Champane Flight]

Please all

A Wise man said "You can't please all the people all the time". So I always vote for the lesser of two or three evils. With the last election I threw my vote away and voted libertarian. When I say throw a vote away, I mean the candidate has very little chance of being elected. Now if the rest of America would vote for the best man instead of voting party lines, it would be a better American in my book. With gun control, it will get worse, who ever is in office. Sorry to say we have a majority of city dwellers that only see the bad in guns and have never owned one. The truth is that a . 22 in the wrong hands is just as dangerous as a assault weapon. Both are in adamant objects, the deciding factor is the man/woman holding the weapon.

 

[RustyJC]

Single-issue "principled" votes are fine - if you don't mind losing. As a pragmatist, I'll vote for the candidate closest to my political beliefs who has the best chance of winning. To do otherwise is, IMHO, akin to shooting oneself in the foot, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, (insert your trite homile here). But, hey, it's a free (relatively speaking) country - vote however you wish.



Rusty

 

[FATCAT]

I look at it as the "only" issue

The "single" issue you all are refering to I believe is the only issue. Without this freedom, all other issues are just quite exercises in debate.



Once the 2nd goes, the rest will follow quickly.



If the Rep. congress hands GW a extension bill for the Ban (1st we need to stop this in congress if there are a bunch of jelly spined Reps willing to go along with the ban), and GW signs, it will be like the backstabbing he did on the Campaign Finance Reform (anti-1st amendment) bill ... what principles would he have left?



Best to vote your principles and let the other side get in, then go down the same path at a slower pace with the candidate that you "think" would preserve our freedoms and liberties. Better to have the final face off in our generation than hand it down to another (i. e. civil war). Maybe after a few million Americans are killed and a few dozen cities are burned to the ground will liberty be reestablished ... it seems to be the way things work every few hundred years.



Better in the near future then hoping for change by future generations (after they have had their brains washed by the Socialist-left in the public schools).

 

[RustyJC]

Re: I look at it as the "only" issue

Originally posted by FATCAT

The "single" issue you all are refering to I believe is the only issue. Without this freedom, all other issues are just quite exercises in debate.



Once the 2nd goes, the rest will follow quickly.

Then, my friend, you have a quite myopic view of life. JMHO, of course.



Rusty

 

[FATCAT]

Rusty,

so then you would view the loss of a inalienable right as no big deal?



What other issue is more important?



If my concern for freedom and liberty is myopic, then so be it.



I would rather be a person focused on a topic as important as this, then be a buffoon who is easily distracted by myriads of other issues that are of far less (or no) importances to free people.



A perfect example of people who's 2nd Amendment rights have been ignored can be found right where I work. I live in NH, but work in Mass and on occasions write my congressmen & senators, both state and federal about issues important to me (mainly the 2nd), my co-workers make statements like"you wrote your Senator! ... Now your gonna be on a list ... I wouldn't want to be you". Or one time I wrote President Bush about the CFR fiasco and had my boss state "... well, its been nice knowing ya. I guess they'll come and get ya some time soon".

These statements were not said in jest, but in belief that I had now made a target of myself by speaking up to my representatives and president.



If we have sunk to a point where average everyday people are afraid to voice their opinion to their elected representatives for fear of being "taken away" ... in a state that has all but banned firearms ... then look at the power these politicians would have if this was true country wide.



As I said, everything else pales in comparison to protecting and preserving our rights to self defense and the ultimate means to abolish a tyrannical gov't.

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by FATCAT

Rusty,

so then you would view the loss of a inalienable right as no big deal?

No, I just said that I think it sad that one's entire life is apparently focused solely on one issue - the right to own firearms. Yes, I'm a firearm owner myself, but I'm far more than that, and my interests and concerns are much more diverse. I suspect that, despite your protestations, yours are as well if you'll really step back and consider life in its entirety. If not, well, that's your choice.



Rusty