Pruden on Bush - Important Read - The Firearms Forum

Marlin · 08-14-2004, 01:42 PM

Here it is for all to read, Pops.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stiffing your friends for your enemies

By Wesley Pruden
Published August 13, 2004
The Washington Times

Like father, like son?

George H.W. Bush blew his re-election chances in 1992 with a big tax increase and a lackluster campaign, never taking Bill Clinton seriously until it was too late. The lasting image of that campaign was of the president looking at his watch midway through the final debate. In more ways than one he didn't know what time it was.

George the junior hasn't blown his chances, not yet, but he shows signs of making the same fatal mistake, of scorning his base much in the way his daddy did 12 years ago.

Early on in the '92 campaign the Bush campaign chiefs openly scorned the social, or religious, conservatives and the issues important enough to get them out to vote. "Where else can they go?" his campaign chairman asked editors and reporters at a memorable luncheon interview at The Washington Times.

Sometimes the voters apply painful lessons, and millions of evangelical and other church-going Christians found somewhere to go, and it wasn't to the polls. Months later, the 41st president told me, with no small measure of rue: "I got good advice, and I got bad advice, and I took the bad advice."

George W. is getting similarly bad advice now, and the president's poll numbers show it. The numbers are not in free fall but are nonetheless slipping with discouraging speed. The closely watched Rasmussen daily tracking poll credited John Kerry with 48 percent of the popular vote yesterday, down a point from the day before, and President Bush with 45 percent. Monsieur Kerry has held a similar three-point advantage on 10 of the past 21 days. Mr. Bush has been ahead, by only a single point, on only two days in the last three weeks. The two men were tied on three of those days, and the rest of the time Monsieur Kerry was up 1 or 2 points. Rasmussen shows the Democratic candidate with a modest lead in the Electoral College.

The race is close by any measure, and that is not news to cheer an incumbent. The bad news is that if the election were held today Monsieur Kerry would probably win. The only nugget of good news is that if the election were held today we would all be very surprised. The election is in November, still 80 days away and time enough for voter enthusiasm to go around the world several times.

The president's ace in the hole is John Kerry himself. Nobody, not even Teresa some of the time, seems to like him very much. Even his fans, if you can call them that, find him weak, indecisive, stiff and arrogant. John Edwards, as cute and cuddly as everyone says he is (I'll take their word for it), has hardly helped. John the Smaller swept through Arkansas the other day, softening his r's and dropping his final g's and calling everybody "y'all" to remind everyone of what a good ol' boy he is, but when he dropped in at Craig's, a famous shrine to the barbecued pig in DeValls Bluff, his media men had to recruit from his traveling press claque to cast the place with enough "customers" to make the television pictures credible.

But an ace has to be played to win a hand. The president, like his daddy, is reluctant to play his strong hand. It's the Republican disease, by no means restricted to the Bushes, a weakness for trying to win by persuading voters that "Republicans are not really as bad as you think." In politics, as in love and courtship, the prize goes to the bold.

The president is bold only in the kisses he blows to the opposition. His gurus appear to think they can win only by shunning his natural base, by keeping a decorous distance from the controversial issues, and by peeling a few hundred thousand Hispanic votes away from the Democrats by pandering to illegal aliens, mostly Mexicans. Why else would Asa Hutchinson, who as the undersecretary of Homeland Security is the guardian of the nation's border, gush effusively about the necessity to ignore immigration law so illegals won't "have trouble sleeping"? Mr. Hutchinson, a good man who must know better, no doubt had his fingers crossed when he offered that testimony to satisfy Teddy Kennedy and the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who so easily intimidate the administration. The White House imagines that a back-door amnesty for the "undocumented aliens" -- i.e., those who flout U.S. law to get here ahead of those who go by the rules -- can be a rich vein of votes.

Blowing kisses to those who despise them is always tempting strategy for a certain kind of Republican, to whom smash-mouth politics does not come naturally. There's still time for George W. to pull up his socks, but even in mid-August it's getting late.

Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times

© 2004 News World Communications, Inc.

Remington597 · 08-14-2004, 02:35 PM

It would seem that history is fully capable of repeating itself. There is a tremendous amount of apathy on our side. I am very active on the grass roots level, contributing time and money, but I tell you that there are times that I really feel like giving up.

armedandsafe · 08-14-2004, 06:07 PM

Remy, my experience has taught me that some of those most apathetic souls you lean on will at least think about it on election day. Some of them will go to vote, even though you would have once sworn they wouldn't be found in an voting booth if it was full of free beer.

Keep the faith and use a big club.

Pops

offeror · 08-14-2004, 07:56 PM

Every vote counts this election, or so they claim, and you'd think a grass roots group as large as the NRA membership would be listened to. What is it, 3-4 million members now? As it is, if the Democrats are vile enough to succeed in ramming through an AWB onto Bush's desk in September, and George W. is stupid enough not to veto it before the election, that fact is likely to tick off enough voters to make the difference. His only hope is that the AWB does not reach his desk. Granted Kerry would still be worse in the White House, but you can't count on angry gun owners who are still stinging from the betrayal -- they'll still be saying "what's the point of voting for Bush if he's not going to support my gun rights anyhow? Might as well vote for good jobs and health care." They're liable to just trust that a Republican House will defeat additional gun control, and vote for Kerry out of disappointment in Bush.

In fact, either party could win based on guns if they weren't getting what Pruden refers to as "bad advice," but the Democrats particularly don't realize that gun control is becoming a Jonah for them, and that they'd lose nothing by dropping unconstitutional gun controls as a good 'ol platform plank -- and gain everything. A lot of people (on these boards and elsewhere) are saying they are tempted to vote Democrat because of the way Bush is selling the common man down the river by failing to staunch the flow of jobs to India, failing to provide direct help for the unemployed, and by giving our money (and legal advantages) to our sickest corporations -- the banks, insurance companies, and drug firms.

If the Democrats would simply swear off gun control for real -- just forget about it as a misguided effort and relegate it to the ash heap of history -- they could easily win the heartland and become the "real" party of the people, since they do champion other social issues that benefit middle America (while the Republicans continue to court us with some conservative values while selling us out by giving our tax money to the rich). But the Democrats are addicted to gun control, and I mean addicted literally -- obsessed against their own best interest; compulsive, and self destructive (since continuing to attack the Second Amendment costs them election after election). Even though it's not in their self interest to continue, they can't give it up. That's addiction.

An NRA News poll last week asked listeners how important gun rights were in their voting. 100% of respondents said either that it was "the most important issue" or "one of the most important issues." Nobody rated it any lower than that in their deliberations on whom to vote for.

If Kerry loses in 2004 despite a platform of better jobs and health care for all Americans, you can truthfully say that if the Democrat party had put what they know into action (that gun control loses them elections), and had the sense to swear off and abandon gun control (for real, not as liars), they'd have freed up plenty enough votes from "single issue voters" to have won the election and probably changed the equation of partisan politics.

Imagine a Democrat party without gun control in it... Since both parties have their radical fringes, let's cancel them out for a moment, and imagine a Democrat party whose moderates are fighting for better jobs, incentives to keep jobs at home, and a health care system that matches our country's wealth and technology for ALL Americans. But who have decided that attacks on the Second Amendment, especially in an age of Homeland Security, are a misguided and unconstitutional attack on citizens' rights after all. They wouldn't be perfect by any means, and once the Republicans were forced to make adjustments the net effect might not last too long, but how many more votes could they win without the gun ban threat, especially among all those single-issue voters who might like to vote for jobs but CAN'T vote for anyone who is going to further strangle Second Amendment freedoms. I wonder if the Dems would ever consider such a "radical" notion as dropping their interest in writing wrong-headed laws that hamstring law abiding gun owners...

A footnote -- in Australia, where guns HAVE been banned (maybe they don't have a "second amendment"), criminal use of guns has remained at exactly the same percentage, while home invasions are up a full 20%.

08-14-2004, 01:42 PM	#1
Marlin TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: At SouthernMoss' side forever! Contributor Posts: 13,854	Pruden on Bush - Important Read Here it is for all to read, Pops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stiffing your friends for your enemies By Wesley Pruden Published August 13, 2004 The Washington Times Like father, like son? George H.W. Bush blew his re-election chances in 1992 with a big tax increase and a lackluster campaign, never taking Bill Clinton seriously until it was too late. The lasting image of that campaign was of the president looking at his watch midway through the final debate. In more ways than one he didn't know what time it was. George the junior hasn't blown his chances, not yet, but he shows signs of making the same fatal mistake, of scorning his base much in the way his daddy did 12 years ago. Early on in the '92 campaign the Bush campaign chiefs openly scorned the social, or religious, conservatives and the issues important enough to get them out to vote. "Where else can they go?" his campaign chairman asked editors and reporters at a memorable luncheon interview at The Washington Times. Sometimes the voters apply painful lessons, and millions of evangelical and other church-going Christians found somewhere to go, and it wasn't to the polls. Months later, the 41st president told me, with no small measure of rue: "I got good advice, and I got bad advice, and I took the bad advice." George W. is getting similarly bad advice now, and the president's poll numbers show it. The numbers are not in free fall but are nonetheless slipping with discouraging speed. The closely watched Rasmussen daily tracking poll credited John Kerry with 48 percent of the popular vote yesterday, down a point from the day before, and President Bush with 45 percent. Monsieur Kerry has held a similar three-point advantage on 10 of the past 21 days. Mr. Bush has been ahead, by only a single point, on only two days in the last three weeks. The two men were tied on three of those days, and the rest of the time Monsieur Kerry was up 1 or 2 points. Rasmussen shows the Democratic candidate with a modest lead in the Electoral College. The race is close by any measure, and that is not news to cheer an incumbent. The bad news is that if the election were held today Monsieur Kerry would probably win. The only nugget of good news is that if the election were held today we would all be very surprised. The election is in November, still 80 days away and time enough for voter enthusiasm to go around the world several times. The president's ace in the hole is John Kerry himself. Nobody, not even Teresa some of the time, seems to like him very much. Even his fans, if you can call them that, find him weak, indecisive, stiff and arrogant. John Edwards, as cute and cuddly as everyone says he is (I'll take their word for it), has hardly helped. John the Smaller swept through Arkansas the other day, softening his r's and dropping his final g's and calling everybody "y'all" to remind everyone of what a good ol' boy he is, but when he dropped in at Craig's, a famous shrine to the barbecued pig in DeValls Bluff, his media men had to recruit from his traveling press claque to cast the place with enough "customers" to make the television pictures credible. But an ace has to be played to win a hand. The president, like his daddy, is reluctant to play his strong hand. It's the Republican disease, by no means restricted to the Bushes, a weakness for trying to win by persuading voters that "Republicans are not really as bad as you think." In politics, as in love and courtship, the prize goes to the bold. The president is bold only in the kisses he blows to the opposition. His gurus appear to think they can win only by shunning his natural base, by keeping a decorous distance from the controversial issues, and by peeling a few hundred thousand Hispanic votes away from the Democrats by pandering to illegal aliens, mostly Mexicans. Why else would Asa Hutchinson, who as the undersecretary of Homeland Security is the guardian of the nation's border, gush effusively about the necessity to ignore immigration law so illegals won't "have trouble sleeping"? Mr. Hutchinson, a good man who must know better, no doubt had his fingers crossed when he offered that testimony to satisfy Teddy Kennedy and the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who so easily intimidate the administration. The White House imagines that a back-door amnesty for the "undocumented aliens" -- i.e., those who flout U.S. law to get here ahead of those who go by the rules -- can be a rich vein of votes. Blowing kisses to those who despise them is always tempting strategy for a certain kind of Republican, to whom smash-mouth politics does not come naturally. There's still time for George W. to pull up his socks, but even in mid-August it's getting late. Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times © 2004 News World Communications, Inc. __________________ *The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing.* *The only criminal class native to the United States is Congress.* -->

08-14-2004, 02:35 PM	#2
Remington597 Former Guest Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,201	Re: Pruden on Bush - Important Read It would seem that history is fully capable of repeating itself. There is a tremendous amount of apathy on our side. I am very active on the grass roots level, contributing time and money, but I tell you that there are times that I really feel like giving up.

08-14-2004, 06:07 PM	#3
armedandsafe Former Guest Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Moses Lake, WA Posts: 10,344	Re: Pruden on Bush - Important Read Remy, my experience has taught me that some of those most apathetic souls you lean on will at least think about it on election day. Some of them will go to vote, even though you would have once sworn they wouldn't be found in an voting booth if it was full of free beer. Keep the faith and use a big club. Pops

08-14-2004, 07:56 PM	#4
offeror Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: NE Indiana Posts: 586	Re: Pruden on Bush - Important Read Every vote counts this election, or so they claim, and you'd think a grass roots group as large as the NRA membership would be listened to. What is it, 3-4 million members now? As it is, if the Democrats are vile enough to succeed in ramming through an AWB onto Bush's desk in September, and George W. is stupid enough not to veto it before the election, that fact is likely to tick off enough voters to make the difference. His only hope is that the AWB does not reach his desk. Granted Kerry would still be worse in the White House, but you can't count on angry gun owners who are still stinging from the betrayal -- they'll still be saying "what's the point of voting for Bush if he's not going to support my gun rights anyhow? Might as well vote for good jobs and health care." They're liable to just trust that a Republican House will defeat additional gun control, and vote for Kerry out of disappointment in Bush. In fact, either party could win based on guns if they weren't getting what Pruden refers to as "bad advice," but the Democrats particularly don't realize that gun control is becoming a Jonah for them, and that they'd lose nothing by dropping unconstitutional gun controls as a good 'ol platform plank -- and gain everything. A lot of people (on these boards and elsewhere) are saying they are tempted to vote Democrat because of the way Bush is selling the common man down the river by failing to staunch the flow of jobs to India, failing to provide direct help for the unemployed, and by giving our money (and legal advantages) to our sickest corporations -- the banks, insurance companies, and drug firms. If the Democrats would simply swear off gun control for real -- just forget about it as a misguided effort and relegate it to the ash heap of history -- they could easily win the heartland and become the "real" party of the people, since they do champion other social issues that benefit middle America (while the Republicans continue to court us with some conservative values while selling us out by giving our tax money to the rich). But the Democrats are addicted to gun control, and I mean addicted literally -- obsessed against their own best interest; compulsive, and self destructive (since continuing to attack the Second Amendment costs them election after election). Even though it's not in their self interest to continue, they can't give it up. That's addiction. An NRA News poll last week asked listeners how important gun rights were in their voting. 100% of respondents said either that it was "the most important issue" or "one of the most important issues." Nobody rated it any lower than that in their deliberations on whom to vote for. If Kerry loses in 2004 despite a platform of better jobs and health care for all Americans, you can truthfully say that if the Democrat party had put what they know into action (that gun control loses them elections), and had the sense to swear off and abandon gun control (for real, not as liars), they'd have freed up plenty enough votes from "single issue voters" to have won the election and probably changed the equation of partisan politics. Imagine a Democrat party without gun control in it... Since both parties have their radical fringes, let's cancel them out for a moment, and imagine a Democrat party whose moderates are fighting for better jobs, incentives to keep jobs at home, and a health care system that matches our country's wealth and technology for ALL Americans. But who have decided that attacks on the Second Amendment, especially in an age of Homeland Security, are a misguided and unconstitutional attack on citizens' rights after all. They wouldn't be perfect by any means, and once the Republicans were forced to make adjustments the net effect might not last too long, but how many more votes could they win without the gun ban threat, especially among all those single-issue voters who might like to vote for jobs but CAN'T vote for anyone who is going to further strangle Second Amendment freedoms. I wonder if the Dems would ever consider such a "radical" notion as dropping their interest in writing wrong-headed laws that hamstring law abiding gun owners... A footnote -- in Australia, where guns HAVE been banned (maybe they don't have a "second amendment"), criminal use of guns has remained at exactly the same percentage, while home invasions are up a full 20%. __________________ The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the gun rights you like. It exists to protect the gun rights you hate.