Lose/Lose
It just occurred to me that I have been getting all worked up about the Presidential race due to the Assault Weapons Ban for no good reason. The four guys who actually have a shot of winning all have the same position on the issue. These same four guys also have virtually the same position on all other gun issues. Because they are all wrong, this annoys the hell out of us darn near single issue voters.
The Assault Weapons Ban issue will be settled before the November election (September 14, 2004). It will either sunset or be renewed by that date (sure, it could come up later). I guess then the question for me would remain What part did Bush play in it? If he signs it into law, he will likely lose a significant portion of pro-gun votes. Mark my words, the spineless NRA will support Bush anyway.
The big question for me then is If it sunsets, should I vote for Bush? I tend to doubt I will. I share Spoons’ sentiment that it is in the best interest of us conservative/libertarian types if Dubya loses due to the precedent his administration is setting on spending, campaign finance, the NEA, ad infinitum. He’s vote buying. He’s out-liberalling liberals.
Because of this, today’s liberals sound like 1990s conservatives. Liberals are complaining about deficits and spending, ferchrissakes. It does fit a common sentiment I’ve found lately that the party of smaller government is the one not in power.
But he did give me a tax cut, which is something the Democrats are threatening to take away. And the Democrats would spend more than him.
Democracy popularity contests suck.
February 2nd, 2004 at 7:44 pm
Ain’t it the truth!
February 2nd, 2004 at 8:39 pm
I’m thinking of just sitting at home. Haven’t made up my mind, yet.
Is it too late to run Zell Miller under the Southern Party ticket?
February 2nd, 2004 at 8:48 pm
If only for national security, if I’m going to vote, I’m going to vote for Bush.
If he signs a renewal of the AWB I won’t vote for Pres.
There’d be not a single bastard on the ticket I’d want to see in office.
February 2nd, 2004 at 10:14 pm
Why on earth are you basing your vote on one single issue?
February 3rd, 2004 at 2:15 am
I never really considered myself a liberal until recently when the concept started to include the words “balanced budget”. And quite frankly, if you look at all the things that Bush is doing, (i.e. spending money like a drunken sailor) along with his desire to make the taxcuts permanent, AMT relief, etc. even if he is re-elected, I doubt that he will be able to go through his whole term without raising taxes..just like pappa.
February 3rd, 2004 at 9:04 am
Why on earth are you basing your vote on one single issue?
Do you read my blog?
Seriously, I’m not a single isue voter per se. But some issues (guns and taxes, particularly guns at this point as they are under attack) are more important to me.
February 3rd, 2004 at 12:54 pm
The trouble is, he’s not “out-liberalling liberals” by any stretch of the imagination. Democrats were up in arms over his socialized medicine package, and it wasn’t because they thought he was spending too much. And they’re not the least bit thrilled by his ostensible support of the AW ban, which he is supporting even more tepidly than most of his judicial nominees (Pickering excepted).
The rhetoric of conservative deficit hawks and their born-again Democrat counterparts often takes on a very similar tone, but that can be deceptive. All you need to remember is this: when a Republican calls for a balanced budget, what he means is, “stop spending so much.” When a Democrat does, he means “start taxing us more.”
February 3rd, 2004 at 6:08 pm
Xlrg:
All you need to remember is this: when a Republican calls for a balanced budget, what he means is, “stop spending so much.” When a Democrat does, he means “start taxing us more.”
I’d submit that this isn’t an entirely fair assessment. Look at Governor Dean’s record in Vermont. He actually buttressed key social programs, balanced the state budget, and provided a tax cut. It can be done.
The problem is that Bush has created a fiscal crisis that will require either him or his eventual succssor to do one of the following:
The fact that Bush cut taxes, by itself, isn’t a problem. It’s how much he cut, and for whom. A fact that frequently gets missed is that if he had cut only the bottom bracket, everyone, including the richest Americans, would have received a tax cut.
February 3rd, 2004 at 6:11 pm
Let me clarify my position. You want to cut taxes? Fine. Let me know exactly how you’re going to afford to do so, i.e., what programs are you going to cut.
You want a new spending program? Fine. Let me know exactly how you’re going to pay for it, i.e., what taxes are you going to raise or what other programs are you going to cut.
For too long, neither party has done either of these things.