Uncle Ted endorses Mitt Romney

[EconDoc]

I'm voting the Republican "ABO" (Anybody but Obama) ticket in November, even if I have to carry an airsick bag into the booth with me. We cannot stand four more years of Obama, and, with a third term for O forbidden by the constitution, he has no further incentive to tiptoe around the gun issue. Plus, whoever is elected in 2012 will get to appoint about three new Supreme Court justices, including replacements for some of the five who voted with us on Heller and McDonald. If they are Obama appointees, like Sotomeyer and Kagan, we can kiss Heller, McDonald, and any Second Amendment rights good-bye.

[gdanaher]

Everyone here seems to be getting all worked up, and that's a good thing, but y'all are overlooking the electoral college in which the state's votes go as a package. If you want to be helpful to the Republican cause, move to New Mexico, Florida, Missouri, or Ohio--states that have voted marginally in the Democratic column. You might make a difference if you vote. As for voting Republican or Democrat in Texas during the general election, it hardly matters if you do or not. The state will cast its electoral votes for the Republican candidate. Done deal. Texas is a RED state. As for Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich, well the situation is sad. Yep, the hardcore Republicans will vote for Snoopy if he is the nominee, just as the Democrats would vote for Linus if he was their's. What you have to shoot at to win is the population in the middle with a swing vote--you know--the folks who care about the direction of the nation and vote for the candidate, not for the party. The Republican nominee must be able to capture the soul of that middle group. Not doing so will result in failure. The Republican leaders have all been out courting the Tea Party folks and overlooking the swing voters. Wrong. I predict another Democratic win because the Republicans have forgotten who their power base actually is. Didn't Nixon talk about the silent majority? It still applies but the Republicans have forgotten who brought them to the dance.

[Hoosier Daddy]

I hope the conservatives get some votes today. Otherwise it will be a tough four years for America no matter which socialist heath care pioneer wins.

[Heartland Patriot]

I hope the conservatives get some votes today. Otherwise it will be a tough four years for America no matter which socialist heath care pioneer wins.

I have a little bit of confidence (not much but a little) that a Republican-majority Senate and House would keep short reins on any tendency for a weak social conservative to try something that a lot of us wouldn't like, regarding our firearms rights. THOSE are the sort of things we come onto this forum to discuss, though we sometimes get off onto tangents, myself included. So, with that said: ABO, 2012.

[Hoosier Daddy]

I hope the conservatives get some votes today. Otherwise it will be a tough four years for America no matter which socialist heath care pioneer wins.

I have a little bit of confidence (not much but a little) that a Republican-majority Senate and House would keep short reins on any tendency for a weak social conservative to try something that a lot of us wouldn't like, regarding our firearms rights. THOSE are the sort of things we come onto this forum to discuss, though we sometimes get off onto tangents, myself included. So, with that said: ABO, 2012.

I think a Republican-majority Senate and House would let a Republican get away with more shenanigans than they would allow a Democrat. History supports that. Look at the George Bush gun ban that's still being enforced.

[Heartland Patriot]

I hope the conservatives get some votes today. Otherwise it will be a tough four years for America no matter which socialist heath care pioneer wins.

I have a little bit of confidence (not much but a little) that a Republican-majority Senate and House would keep short reins on any tendency for a weak social conservative to try something that a lot of us wouldn't like, regarding our firearms rights. THOSE are the sort of things we come onto this forum to discuss, though we sometimes get off onto tangents, myself included. So, with that said: ABO, 2012.

I think a Republican-majority Senate and House would let a Republican get away with more shenanigans than they would allow a Democrat. History supports that. Look at the George Bush gun ban that's still being enforced.

Please refresh my memory...what is the "George Bush gun ban"? I'm familiar with the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, the FOPA of 1986 and the AWB of 1994...but not the one you are referring to. I admit that my knowledge does have gaps, though.

[74novaman]

I'm assuming he means the import ban of 89 (an executive order, so congress has nothing to do with it anyway)

[Heartland Patriot]

I'm assuming he means the import ban of 89 (an executive order, so congress has nothing to do with it anyway)

Okay, yeah that one is pretty annoying, but still doesn't seem like an actual gun ban like under those others I mentioned...for instance, getting AKs imported requires some effort on the part of the importer and the assembler, but it can still be done and obviously is done...I have one in my cabinet to prove that...any idea of the name of that regulation?

[74novaman]

I was wrong...apparently it wasn't an Executive order...

Interesting read on it here:
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/George-Bus ... he-NRA.htm

The aptly titled drug “czar” William Bennett—on his first day in office—convinced the Treasury Department to outlaw the import of several models of so-called “assault weapons.” The NRA, attempting to preserve a relationship with the White House, praised the “temporary” import moratorium as providing a cooling-off period for a rational discussion of the “assault weapon” issue.

But a few weeks later, President Bush dramatically expanded the import ban to cover many dozens of additional firearms models. Bush Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater added that President Bush wished that he had the additional authority to simply outlaw the domestic manufacture of so-called “assault weapons.”

As the New York Times explained, the White House decision to back gun prohibition was based less on deep conviction than the desire to get out in front on what appeared to be a popular issue, after the political setback stemming from the Senate’s rejection of John Tower as Presidential nominee for Secretary of Defense.

But it was still something driven by the White House and the Executive branch, with no input from Congress at all....so not sure how Bush's import ban is an argument against supporting even a soft republican like Romney over a dedicated anti gun Obama....

[03Lightningrocks]

I was wrong...apparently it wasn't an Executive order...

Interesting read on it here:
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/George-Bus ... he-NRA.htm

The aptly titled drug “czar” William Bennett—on his first day in office—convinced the Treasury Department to outlaw the import of several models of so-called “assault weapons.” The NRA, attempting to preserve a relationship with the White House, praised the “temporary” import moratorium as providing a cooling-off period for a rational discussion of the “assault weapon” issue.

But a few weeks later, President Bush dramatically expanded the import ban to cover many dozens of additional firearms models. Bush Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater added that President Bush wished that he had the additional authority to simply outlaw the domestic manufacture of so-called “assault weapons.”

As the New York Times explained, the White House decision to back gun prohibition was based less on deep conviction than the desire to get out in front on what appeared to be a popular issue, after the political setback stemming from the Senate’s rejection of John Tower as Presidential nominee for Secretary of Defense.

But it was still something driven by the White House and the Executive branch, with no input from Congress at all....so not sure how Bush's import ban is an argument against supporting even a soft republican like Romney over a dedicated anti gun Obama....

I still remember the media campaign to ban "assualt weapons". They must have shown "the 99 dollar AK" on TV a hundred times a day. It was unreal. Before the shooting happened, we could buy AK's at gun shows for under a 150 bucks all day long. A buddy of mine and I saw it comming and purchased four Colt Green label AR15's and two Colt Blue Label AR15's for about 300 bucks each...if memory serves. We also purchased six AK47's. Less than a year later we sold them all and made anywhere from eight to ten times our money back. Bush caved in to the media pressure... everyone was flipping out and the media was stirring the histaria! before that, most people didn't even know what an AK47 was.

He did it right on the heels of this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The 1989 mass shooting at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, in which Patrick Purdy executed 5 children and wounded 30 others, resonated around the country. Even President George H. W. Bush, a staunch pro-gun Texan with strong political ties to the National Rifle Association, softened his stand just a bit by signing a temporary ban on the importation of foreign-made assault weapons, which did little but advance the interests of domestic firearms manufacturers.

[Razgriz]

I've disagreed with Teddy in the past, and this is another one of those times when I have to disagree. Wasn't his excuse for signing the AWB something along the lines of "Well, it was going to pass anyway"? Do you really want someone who is *that* much of a defeatist protecting your rights? That, coupled with his John Kerry Syndrome removes him from being a viable candidate in my eye.

Obligatory Ron Paul 2012.

I just want to make a couple of simple statements since what you wrote confused me a bit. You do know that the OP was about Ted Nugent, former wild man rocker from Detroit and now vocal firearms and hunting enthusiast, right? I don't remember him signing the AWB in the 90s. And I'm not sure how he has a "John Kerry Syndrome"...like I said, confused.

I was referring to Mitt, the guy Teddy endorsed apparently.

[tbrown]

But it was still something driven by the White House and the Executive branch, with no input from Congress at all....so not sure how Bush's import ban is an argument against supporting even a soft republican like Romney over a dedicated anti gun Obama....

It shows that it's foolish to expect a Republican majority congress to do anything to stop anti gun acts by a Republican President.

[74novaman]

But it was still something driven by the White House and the Executive branch, with no input from Congress at all....so not sure how Bush's import ban is an argument against supporting even a soft republican like Romney over a dedicated anti gun Obama....

It shows that it's foolish to expect a Republican majority congress to do anything to stop anti gun acts by a Republican President.

Or in the converse....it shows that a republican congress would be pretty darn powerless to stop this type of shenanigans from an anti gun democrat executive too.

The soft republican who probably won't do anything about guns or the hardcore marxist who would love to do anything he could to ban them....

make your choice.

[Liberty]

I am a Berkinstock wearing, yankee redneck Galvestonian that works for a living, pays to much in taxes and values freedom above anything else. The only thing I want my government to do is protect my freedom and stay away from me. I want the government out of my wallet, and out of my home, out of my Drs office and out of my bedroom. I do want my government to destroy the enemies of my freedom, including the Islamic terrorist and their nations. I don't want my government grabbing my gonads when I travel, nor telling me what insurance I have to buy. I don't want my government restricting my right to own and carry arms. I want the citizens to have more influence with my government than the big campaign donors.

My point is I can't expect to find a candidate that is 100% aligned with me, but our current president pretty much is against everything I believe in or want. My wife isn't perfect either, but she's still the best. I suspect that any of the major Republican candidates would keep most of us happy over 99 percent of the things that matter. Those 1 % things will always be an irritation , just the nature of the political animal just as it is with married life.

[The Annoyed Man]

I've disagreed with Teddy in the past, and this is another one of those times when I have to disagree. Wasn't his excuse for signing the AWB something along the lines of "Well, it was going to pass anyway"? Do you really want someone who is *that* much of a defeatist protecting your rights? That, coupled with his John Kerry Syndrome removes him from being a viable candidate in my eye.

Obligatory Ron Paul 2012.

I just want to make a couple of simple statements since what you wrote confused me a bit. You do know that the OP was about Ted Nugent, former wild man rocker from Detroit and now vocal firearms and hunting enthusiast, right? I don't remember him signing the AWB in the 90s. And I'm not sure how he has a "John Kerry Syndrome"...like I said, confused.

I was referring to Mitt, the guy Teddy endorsed apparently.

In Romney's defense:
You do realize, don't you, that he was a republican governor (the first in decades) who had to contend with something like an 80% democrat majority in his state's legislature? ANY bill they passed and sent to his desk, they had enough votes to override his veto, regardless of his own views in the matter. When the MA state legislature decided to take up an AWB, Romney had exactly two choices available to him: 1) veto it, and have it rammed down his executive throat by an overwhelming legislative vote; or 2) try to have some sort of influence on it, assuming that it was going to pass anyway—hoping to modify its toxicity some small amount. In case you haven't figured it out, #2 is the responsible thing for a republican governor of overwhelmingly liberal democrat Massachusetts to do. Romney did the responsible thing. By abating the bill's toxicity some small amount through getting an amendment included which simplified things for MA CCW holders, Romney did the responsible thing. That is the unvarnished truth....but in your eyes he's a defeatist because he didn't take his toys and go home? I think you have it exactly backwards. Taking your toys and going home is the defeatist thing to do.

Committed Ronulans aren't interested in responsibility. They are interested only in bomb throwing, and then taking their toys and going home. They don't have the stomach for grown up politics. Romney has the stomach for that. We can all cry and wail about how ungentlemanly and crass one has to be to play successfully at hardball politics, but that doesn't change the reality that it is, for better or for worse, a blood sport. I would love it if all politicians had the personal integrity and love of freedom that the Founders possessed.....but they don't, and that is just a FACT that has to be dealt with. Self-righteous indignation about honor isn't going to cleanup American politics anymore than increasingly restrictive NASCAR rules are going to stop raceteam crewchiefs from finding ways to beat them. It isn't right, but that is the reality of the situation. Intellectual honesty should compel Ron Paul and his supporters to transfer their allegiance to the Libertarian party—which is where their sentiments more properly reside. Instead, they choose the spoiler role within the republican party which will guarantee Obama's reelection. And you call that being responsible? Please. How can you accuse Romney of defeatism, when your very own tactics and your failure to give due consideration to context are what is going to lead to a defeat for any kind of conservatism?

I dearly love the U.S. Constitution and hold it to be a sacred document. I never served in the military, so I never formally took that oath to protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic; but I carry that oath every day in my heart and, at just shy of 60 years old, I would gladly give up my life to protect it. But that said, only a fool would refuse to play the game the way it is currently being played in this day and age if he/she were going to run for public office. Taking your toys and going home IS NOT GOING TO STOP the other side from trampling all over the Constitution at every opportunity.

If that is the hand you've been dealt as an elected executive—and that happens to be exactly the hand that Romney was dealt as the republican governor of overwhelmingly democrat Massachusetts—and you don't have enough legislative support to thwart leftist attempts to subvert the Constitution, then the only responsible thing you can do is to try and modify the toxicity of their actions to the best of your ability. Refusing to play and taking your toys and going home is childish. If Romney had vetoed that AWB, it would have passed over his veto without the amendment to somewhat ease up on CCW holders, and MA gun laws would have been even more restrictive than they currently are. So when political naifs refuse to stare truth in the face and accept it for what it is, and instead keep trying to pin the MA AWB on a former governor who did the only responsible thing he could do, who is telling lies now? Acting responsibly in office takes a bigger pair than most after-the-fact critics possess, and sniping from behind trees is easy when one never has to consider the implications of refusing one's duty. Put yourself in Romney's shoes as MA governor........what would you have done? Refuse to sign the bill, refused to try and modify its toxicity, and had it rammed down your throat to preserve your precious honor? Placed a bigger burden on MA residents for the sake of your precious honor? If your answer is "yes," then please don't ever run for public office. You're not ready for that kind of trust from the voters yet.

Is Romney the perfect candidate for me? No, he isn't. I agree with him when he says that healthcare reform is not a federal issue, but I completely disagree with him if he means that to say that states have the right to force citizens to enter the stream of commerce for a product simply because they are breathing and have a pulse. NO government at any level should have that much power over the individual. However, if he is true to his word, then he will at least act to dismantle Obamacare at the federal level, and we all currently reside in a state where something like what MA has can never be passed. If Californians want to place that burden on themselves, that's fine. Those useful idiots deserve whatever they do to themselves. As long as Romney stays true to his word about Obamacare, then I am happy to vote for him.

So in response to your "obligatory Ron Paul 2012" remark, your refusal to take context into account is no different than when someone quotes the Bible out of context to deceive someone else into accepting an erroneous supposition about Christian faith. As I observe my country's political landscape, my personal political convictions become progressively more libertarian (small "l"), and in a perfect world I would be your natural ally. But I could never find a home in the Libertarian party because of Ron Paul's (and his followers') poisonous effect on republican politics. If he and his more virulent followers represent the face of American libertarianism, then I find that lack of intellectual honesty and the refusal to allow for context to be something with which I cannot in good conscience associate myself. Love her or hate her, at least Ayn Rand had to intellectual courage to lay her cards on the table and she was unflinchingly honest about what that meant in the greater scheme of things; and it was for you or me to decide whether to accept or reject that world view.........but she was never deceptive about what she stood for. In contrast, I find the Ron Paul camp to be either deliberately deceptive, or politically naive. Take your pick. I haven't decided for sure which it is, but in either case that is not something I want any part of.