Saturday, September 22, 2007

Preparing to Cowboy Up...

...and pour the beer.

Apparently, Brother Giuliani's message at the NRA didn't play so well. This from the Baltimore Sun:
His remarks at the National Rifle Association's "Celebration of American Values" conference left many members uneasy, especially after Giuliani struggled to answer questions about whether he still thinks gun-makers should be held liable for criminals' actions.
Hey, the problemo is that Rudy is every bit as antigun as the Hillary/Osama Democratic ticket, except that as I have been pointing out now for the last two years, the Republicans do not have a snowball's chance in Phoenix if we — the gun culture — stay home.

I would feel much more warm and fuzzy about this if the Republicans had noticed that we matter back when they still swung a big stick. John "Close the Gunshow Loophole" McCain sounding like a Second Amendment stump preacher; Mitt "No Duck in Americais Safe from my, er, Shotgun" Romney; Rudy "New Yorkers are Too Freakin' Stupid to Have Guns" Giuliani...sigh.

Fred, OTOH, rocked. This from the New York Post:
Fred Thompson strolled into the National Rifle Association yesterday firing shots at his GOP presidential rivals, but he also took aim at Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Introducing his young, blond wife, the former "Law & Order" star said: "She would make a much better looking first lady than Bill Clinton."

The crowd of influential conservatives roared with laughter and applause as Thompson, sounding like the sheriff in an old Western, spoke passionately about God and guns.

"My relationship with you folks can be summed up very shortly," he began. "Check the record."
[...]
One argument Giuliani makes is that different gun laws are needed for New York City than, say, South Carolina.

Thompson shot that down, saying, "My philosophy does not depend upon my geography."

The first question Thompson got from the audience after the speech was whether gun rights should be different in New York than elsewhere.

"Nope," he answered.
As usual, Jeff over at Alphecca has an excellent summation, including Mike Huckabee's hysterical line on the UN:
Huckabee said he wouldn’t mind if UN headquarters in New York “were to break off and float in the East River never to be seen again.”
It's a bit late in the game for the Republicans to once again notice that the crazy uncle in the closet — that woud be "us" — is the difference between winning and losing. Is there anyone on our side with an IQ higher than boiling water who believes for one minute that Rudy would not sign a new AWB? Is there anybody who actually believes that that Mitt Romney has had some sort of epiphany and thinks that we're anything but an undisciplined pack of backwoods peckerwoods?

I still say Fred Thompson is our hope...unless the Dems totally self-destruct and put up Bill Richardson, whom I could vote for. Of course, that's about as likely as a Ron Paul sweep...

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would feel better about this bunch if anyone of them stuck to their opinions on anything!

Maybe Fred and Richardson should re-form the Bull Moose Party.

The only way Ron Paul get my vote is if he runs for the head of the Federation of Planets.

Ratcatcher55

Chris Byrne said...

The Dems could run Zell Miller and I still wouldn't vote for him; because you aren't just voting for president, you are also voting for THOUSANDS of executive branch positions.

As you well know Michael, the Clinton era appointees in all the executive branch agencies are our biggest problem in government today.

So long as the democratic party stands for what it stands for today, I will never brook any possibility of them having power over executive branch offices. A president may only last four year, a bureaucrat may last 20 and a judge may last a lifetime.

The Big Guy said...

IMHO Mike Huckabee came across as both the most convincing PRO gun candidate and the most animated of the presenters. I am looking forward to Mr. Thompson getting off the thorazine. He just isn't doing it for me. He seems to lack the zest I would expect from someone looking for about 40 million people to vote for him. Huckabee in the last several appearances is impressive. I thought John Ashcroft was fabulous. Intelligent, animated and funny. Hell how come he ain't running. He NEVER came across as this personable while AG.

Anonymous said...

Most of the gun sites are big on Thompson. For now, I'm just not seeing it. I think he expects to be coronated or something. Altho it's early, Thompson may well fall flat on his face. No matter how attractive "I don't believe in evolution" Huckabee is he would be made to look an ignorant backwoods boob in an general election. I am afraid we may very well have to "gulp" in Nov '08 and vote for Rudy or McCain or Romney. No, that's not attractive but a Repub, any Repub, would be better than Hillary or Obama. This far out 2008 is shaping up to be a bloodbath for Repubs.

Anonymous said...

"As you well know Michael, the Clinton era appointees in all the executive branch agencies are our biggest problem in government today."

I don't know if he knows this or not, chris; he SHOULD know, but when he makes statements like some in this post, I wonder.

Michael:

I can understand your needing a rest and taking a break from travel in missing this event, but I think your viewing/hearing/reading audience, as well as yourself might be better served if you could reprioritize your attention. I would not mind at all a show (or two!) devoted to the elections, and judging from the banter on the various forums I am not the only one. And I think you could probably get audience with any of these candidates, and you could get a better idea from personal association, of these candidate's authentic beliefs instead of relying on prejudice. The rest of us cannot get a personal audience; you might. Did Romney really have an epiphany (ask him yourself!), is he a closet gunhater, or has he actually really aspired to be or always considered himself a fellow "backwoods peckerwood" at heart all along? (Why doesn't he get the same welcoming reception I got as a middleaged shooting novice who always felt compatriot to the shooting community philosophy, but "never got around to it" until recently?)

Warm and fuzzy feeling or not, you (and all of us) have to make a choice. The thing you have to ask yourself on these candidates (Fred Thompson excluded) is, Do they want restrictions on gun rights at heart, and are they only saying what they thinks gun owners want to hear to get elected (Maybe Guiliani)? Or, Does he support gun rights at heart and has only appeared to flag in support in the past in order to achieve/maintain effective power for worthy goals when he deemed it unavoidable (e.g., Romney, who had to operate in the bluest of blue states-- Massachesetts)? Or, Is this candidate lacking in personal priciples altogether, and will bend anyway he thinks the wind MIGHT blow (McCain, in my book)? Remember, they are all politicians (meaning they will speak and act in the sorry political manner from time to time), however; that is the reason Thompson has no chance (as you all but admitted on Fri.)--he lacks the political skill.

I cannot understand this phenomenon in the shooting community to prefer mortal enmity to allies. If someone wants to fight with us, we want to disqualify him for whatever past offense we can find, real or imagined (see ZUMBO). This might prove a fatal flaw of our collective character with regard to our legal ground as gun owners and shooters.

I think Romney is genuine. Look past the fact that he is a handsome(? so they say), smart, and very rich (wealth achieved on his own) man. Often, (not always) you can tell a lot from a man's roots and the character of the people he came from.

You are in a position you could learn much better the authentic character of these candidates through personal aquaintance, and it would serve your audience(s) to take advantage of your position to do so. Hopefully another opportunity will present itself.

Anonymous said...

If Romney's heart is in the right place, maybe what he needs is a savvy mentor more than a critic.

GeorgeH said...

This is my 10th presidential election. If the republicans pick Rudy or Romney I will be voting demonrat for the first time in my life.

With Hillary in hte whitehouse, conservatives have a hope of blocking the worst legislation in the Senate. With a republican president, it will all go through.

Anonymous said...

Have to agree with The Big Guy on Huckabee. I was surprised at how comfortable he was with the subject. He talked about hunting like a guy who hunts and likes to hunt. I also really like the fact he said that being a hunter doesn't mean you're pro-gun. He is dead on right about that. Have to watch him a lot more.

Fiftycal said...

The Republican candidate for President will be Thompson, Guiliani or Romney. The rest TOGETHER don't get 25% of the vote. And not even with devine intervention does 25% WIN a nomination. And there is not a millimeter of difference between Guiliani, Romney and Hillary. Rudy said;"We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions -- and really stronger ones -- that exist for driving an automobile." http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/97a/me970302.html Now does that sound like Rudy has had a convienient conversion? I believe the "federal government" that existed in 1995, when he made that statement, and that exists today are the same.

And Rommney? He is either a liar or a fool.
"Stephanopoulos: Let's talk about guns. You were supportive of the Brady bill, the handgun waiting period, in the past. You signed an assault weapon ban into law and you said, in the past, "I don't line up with the NRA."

Now, you…

Mitt Romney: Well, on that issue.

Stephanopoulos: Now you're a member of the NRA.

Mitt Romney: Yes, and I know the NRA does not support an assault weapon ban. So I don't line up on that particular issue with the NRA, either does President Bush. He likewise says he supported an assault weapon ban.

Today we don't have the Brady bill because we have instantaneous background checks. That's no longer a operative or needed measure.

But I'm a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights. I believe people, under our Constitution, have the right to bear arms.

We have a gun in one of our homes. It's not owned by me, it's owned by my son, but I've always considered it sort of mine.

Stephanopoulos: When did you join the NRA?

Mitt Romney: Within the last year and I signed up for a lifelong membership. I think they're doing good things and I believe in supporting the right to bear arms.

I've been a hunter all my life, not frequently, but as a boy, when I worked on a ranch in Idaho, we used to go out shooting rabbits, because they were eating all the barley, and I got pretty good with a single shot .22 rifle, and been quail hunting more recently.

So I'm a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population.

So you think Rudy or Romney would be "better" than Hillary?

HOW?

Anonymous said...

fiftycal,

Yes, Rudy or Romney would be better than Hillary. If Hillary wins it will likely be big, meaning the Dems may get to the magic 60 in the senate and another 20-30 seats in the house. If a Repub wins then it is likely Repubs hang on and keep most of the congressional seats. As previously pointed out, appointments to the federal buracracy matter. Rudy or Romney would have to keep conservatives happy with appointments (remember the conservative rebellion when Harriet Myers was appointed by W?). It was a Repub congress that kept a new AWB from passing, not W. Anyone who thinks a Romney or Guiliani adminsitration would be no different than a Hillary admin is a fool.

Fiftycal said...

Someone that thinks Rudy or Romney is going to stand behind gunowners is fooling themselves. Did you not read what I wrote? Are you such a sycophant that as long as a person has a "r" behind their name, they can do no wrong? Do you remember who appointed Souter? Do you remember who said "Read my lips, no new taxes?

If Hillary is elected, conservatives MAY wake up and be active. If a neo-lib with an "r" behind his name is elected, everyone will think "it's OK" and go back to sleep and then we'll get the AWB of Sarah Brady's dreams.