W on the 2A (original title: Bush's talk on terrorism draws cheers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kharn

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,999
Location
Maryland
Source Link

Bush's talk on terrorism draws cheers
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
PITTSBURGH — Crowd reactions to President Bush's new campaign speech provide more evidence that his management of the war on terrorism is his best political asset. Audiences cheer louder and longer for his tough-on-terror lines than for criticism of Democratic nominee John Kerry or any other issue.

President Bush, center, poses with employees of Cabela's, an outfitter in Tri Adelphia, W.Va., during an impromptu campaign stop.
Charles Dharapak, AP

The Bush lines that elicit the most cheers: "When it comes to better securing the homeland, to fighting the forces of evil and spreading peace, results matter. ... When it comes to choosing a president, results matter."

The other big applause lines also are reminders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Bush's aggressive foreign policy:

• "This nation had a choice to make: Either forget the lessons of Sept. 11 and hope for the best ... or take action to defend our country. Given that choice, I will defend America every time."

• "I will never relent in bringing justice to the enemy and protecting our country, whatever it takes."

• "If America shows uncertainty and weakness ... the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."

The muscular rhetoric reflects the Bush team's strategy to capitalize on what a new USA TODAY/ CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday and Saturday found: 54% of Americans think Bush would better handle terrorism, vs. 42% for Kerry. (Related item: Poll: No boost for Kerry after convention)

Bush gave the speech five times Friday and Saturday in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Bus tours are a splashy way for candidates to get attention, but people who line the streets to watch them pass dream up their own gimmicks to get noticed.

There were lots of professionally printed protest signs along Bush's 267-mile route through Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania on Saturday, and plenty of official Bush-Cheney '04 signs, too.

But handmade signs can be more entertaining. One little girl in Broadview Heights, Ohio, held a sign reading, "Stop by — we made you breakfast." He didn't.

In Dover, Ohio, another little girl's sign read, "My grandpa lost his job — your turn!" A Harley-Davidson dealership in Dover tried to tempt Bush with a sparkling new motorcycle and a sign that said, "Ride this to re-election." The president whizzed right by in his luxurious custom bus.

A woman in Cambridge, Ohio, held a sign that read, "Hope you got my letter about my husband." A sign in Wheeling, W.Va., conveyed the author's view of Democratic candidates John Kerry and John Edwards: "Flush the Johns."

Soccer moms and other women are not the only voters the rival campaigns are targeting. Bush and Kerry both are touting their macho credentials to appeal to outdoorsmen.

Bush stopped briefly Saturday at Cabela's, a Triadelphia, W.Va., store that stocks hunting, fishing and outdoor gear. It hopes to eventually create 1,200 jobs.

"I've come by because, first, I love to hunt and fish," Bush said. "Secondly, because I heard you're expanding the job base here." Earlier in Cambridge, Bush said, "We stand for the Second Amendment, which gives every American the individual right to bear arms. I've got a record on that issue. It stands in stark contrast to my opponent."

Meanwhile, at rallies across Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, Kerry advertised his own manly pursuits. "I've been a fisherman all my life," he said repeatedly. "I've also been a hunter. I've been hunting since I was 12 years old."

Many Republicans believe the news media have liberal inclinations, so they're not always happy to see journalists who travel with Bush. In 1992, his father's campaign printed caps and bumper stickers that read, "Annoy the media: Re-elect Bush." When reporters traveling with that campaign arrived at rallies, it wasn't unusual for audiences to cuss them out and yell, "Tell the truth!"

So reporters were surprised Saturday when they filed into a muddy park in Cambridge. "Welcome to Ohio," one smiling person after another said. One man wasn't quite as hospitable, probably because the usually punctual Bush was running 40 minutes late. "Where have you been?" he demanded of the arriving reporters.

The stage at the Canton, Ohio, Memorial Civic Center where Bush spoke Saturday was right in the middle of the arena. That meant much of the crowd had to look at his back while he spoke.

"I appreciate the warm welcome," he said. "I particularly thank those who are sitting behind me. You've probably got the best view in the house."
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm. :cool:

Kharn
 
Nada.

Platitudes here...get yer platitudes...:scrutiny:

Dig the "Flush the Johns" sign, though.

Sawdust
 
I think he honestly believes that we have the individual right to keep and bear arms.

However what arms he thinks are reasonable for citizens to keep and bear, along with what actions by the government result in infringing upon that right are doesn't quite meet my definition.

Basically, he's a far better choice than Kerry, but hardly as pro-gun as many as us would like.

With him in office, there's a good chance at not having any new federal laws restricting our rights. Even restrictions he supports, he doesn't support strongly enough to beat up congress about them, such as the AWB.

Is he likely to push for laws that remove restrictions, or do so throughthe exectuive branch's powers? Well, his administration already has done some things.

They stopped abuses of NICS data by the FBI. THey changed the AG office's policy on how the 2nd ammendment is interpreted to be support for an individual right.

What's the most important thing he could likely do as president? He may get to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices. GIven the choice of Bush or Kerry appointing those, I think it's a clear choice.
 
Lets see I want at least 3 things to happen..

1 . Federal Law striking down ALL state laws that are MORE restrictive than the federal laws.

2. Federal National Carry (Vermont Style of course)

3. No more NFA.

That would be good start.
 
THey changed the AG office's policy on how the 2nd ammendment is interpreted to be support for an individual right.
Click to expand...


Personally, I think this is huge. With the activist courts we have these days, we need an executive branch that is our advocate and fighting in the courts for our rights, not against them.
 
Information disconnect:

"The RKBA is an individual right."

"I support the renewal of the 'Assault Weapons Ban.'"

Which is it?

A right, subject to nearly unlimited restrictions (all those current laws on the books we know to be unconstitutional and counter to the views of the Framers) is no right at all.

Rick
 
Rick, you've been around THR and TFL more than long enough for me to come to admire your opinions and views.

Bush's "support" for a renewal was pure political subterfuge. He knew it wouldn't happen. Would I like for him to say that he opposed the ban? Sure. But it made sense to tell the bed-wetters that he supported a ban that would never be renewed.
 
Well, heck, Monkeyleg.

I agree, and I know well of the tactics, but that would have taken me more time to write and my daughter was tugging on me to go to the water park.

I had to make a choice, albeit, a difficult one.

I'm not proud of my decision (I should have put her in a time-out/severe beating), but... I was weak.

Yes, truth be known, (and I have said this before on the net) my hunch is that Dubya is well aware of our position. Just ask Melissa? (the chick from Virginia with the AWC-suppressed Model 7) whose friend interviewed Dubya back in 2000. Dubya was asked if he would sign the revewal of the 1994 Crime Bill. Dubya's response was something like, "That would cost me the election, wouldn't it?"

And I can well-imagine that the road block to the legislation was orchestrated by Leadership in both houses of the Congress.

Yes, I'd rather that he come out and take a stand for us, but he doesn't want to risk invigorating the Demo base. Now we know who the pro-abortion Demo activists feel when Kerry says abortion is bad but he supports a "woman's right to choose (something-not-otherwise-named).

One last thing, Monkeyleg. Beware of praising me too much. I would hate that guilt-by-association drag your good name down with mine. :cool:

Rick "Bull in a china shop" D
 
Personally, I think this is huge. With the activist courts we have these days, we need an executive branch that is our advocate and fighting in the courts for our rights, not against them.
Click to expand...

Ashroft made the statement that he thought the 2nd amendment was an individual right in a congressional hearing, not a courtroom.

To my knowledge, the present administration has not fought any court battles for our rights.

If you know of any examples, I would love to hear them.
 
If there's one thing that I've learned in my 50 odd years on this planet (and I've learned it the HARD way), it's that if it's coming out of a politican's mouth, it's generally a lie.

But if it's coming out of a Republican politician's mouth, you generally aren't going to be screwed nearly as badly by the end result of the lie as you generally are if it's coming out of a Democrat's mouth.

When I realized that, my political affiliations began to shift dramatically.
 
If there's one thing that I've learned in my 50 odd years on this planet (and I've learned it the HARD way), it's that if it's coming out of a politican's mouth, it's generally a lie.

But if it's coming out of a Republican politician's mouth, you generally aren't going to be screwed nearly as badly by the end result of the lie as you generally are if it's coming out of a Democrat's mouth.

When I realized that, my political affiliations began to shift dramatically.
 
I'm still amazed that supposed gunny individuals either ignore or aren't aware of this:
Click to expand...

Thumper, I scanned through that thread, but am not sure I see where the Bush Administration was fighting any court battles. It all looked like legislative actions.

What court battles specifically are they fighting that you are amazed that I don't know about?
 
Not a court battle...much more important than that. Surely you agree that the Dem attempted amendments to the Lawsuit Immunity Bill were the last best chance of the AWB.

Do you argue that this wasn't a serious attempt by the Bush administration to kill any hopes of an AWB extension?

Remember, this memo was released after cloture and the only amendments to the bill up for discussion were the AWB extension and the closure of the "gun show loophole."
 
Rick: "One last thing, Monkeyleg. Beware of praising me too much. I would hate that guilt-by-association drag your good name down with mine."

Well, triple :D :D :D back to you!
 
Thumper, I don't think we are on the same page.

The reference you cite is all well and good, but my question was in reference to court battles that another poster said the Bush Administration had been fighting on our behalf. I am not aware of any court battles, and that was what I was asking about.

The stuff you cite is all legislative, and while good, is not relevant to my question about the court battles.

You kind of spanked me a couple of posts back by saying :

I'm still amazed that supposed gunny individuals either ignore or aren't aware of this:
Click to expand...

Then nothing cited in the thread you posted had anything to do with court battles.

Bush trying to block the AWB does not have anything to with fighting in court, which is the comment I was responding to.
 
Bush trying to block the AWB does not have anything to with fighting in court, which is the comment I was responding to.
Click to expand...

I agree, the support didn't happen in a court room. Sorry for the misunderstanding. He DID go out on a limb to block it, though. Many here ignore that.

Just trying to point out that Bush's support for us in tangible and on the edge of what is politically permissible.

That phrase "individual right" didn't just sneak into that speech, either.
 
Its tangible, but just barely tangible.

One thing that worries me about him is that he signed the Campaign Finance Reform, despite having concerns that it was probably unconstitutional.

If he will take that kind of liberty with the 1st, why wouldn't he do it with the 2nd, if he found himself in a situation where it was politically expediant to do so?

He is a heck of a lot better than Kerry, but he is a long long way from ideal.
 
One thing that worries me about him is that he signed the Campaign Finance Reform, despite having concerns that it was probably unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Hey, I wish he would've vetoed it too, but evidently he believes in the concept of Separation of Powers.

His last comment, as he was signing, was "I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."
 
I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law
Click to expand...

Yes, he passed the buck on to the Supreme Court, and now we have a bad law.

If a president believes in his heart that a bill he is about to sign into effect is or might be unconstitutional, then he shouldn't sign it. Its his duty to veto it.

I don't know if he believes in seperation of powers or not. He mainly just goes along with what everyone wants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Kerry Hunting?
2
Replies
25
Views
981
John Hicks
J
H
  • Locked
Brady Campaign, Million Mom March Endorse John Kerry For President
Replies
15
Views
938
Silent-Snail
S
W
  • Locked
Police Union Rejects Bush, Backs Kerry (AP headline)
Replies
18
Views
975
Bartholomew Roberts
B
G
  • Locked
Kerry woos Ohio voters in Bush-dominated areas (Great White Hunter alert)
Replies
18
Views
715
NoHarmNoFAL
N
H
  • Locked
Neal Knox Report: Bush misses his chance with gun owners
Replies
13
Views
966
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top