What if the bill never reaches GWB's desk?  Will you still vote for him knowing that he would have signed it?

Ha! Who would you guys vote for if not Bush?

Yes.  If it doesn't reach his desk I'll still vote for him.  He's a better option than any candidate from the opposition.  

IF HE SIGNS IT?  I don't know.  I might abstain from voting for the first time since achieving the franchise.  For the first time, a "lesser of two evils" candidate won't be enough.

And therein lies our problem.
The GWB folks know we will still vote for him because he's so much better than the alternative. We really have no choice here, vote for bad or worse. Whether we like it or not, the AWB issue is a SMALL part of the overall gun control debate, and the easiest to compromise on.
The GWB bunch KNOW that if he signs the AWB they will lose votes, BUT they also know that the amount they lose won't affect the overall outcome of an election and will probably GAIN them more votes from moderates/sheeple/soccermom types than they will lose from angry gun owners.
They have us over a barrel and they know it.

This poll is asking the wrong question because the question makes an incorrect assumption. Even if the AWB makes it out of committee that DOES NOT mean that the AWB will automatically be renewed. The renewal bill will still HAVE TO PASS BOTH SIDES OF CONGRESS IN ORDER TO BECOME A LAW. If the renewal DOESN'T PASS BOTH SIDES OF CONGRESS then it WILL NOT become a law REGARDLESS OF WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN IN THE house and senate COMMITTEES. If the renewal doesn't pass BOTH SIDES OF THE WHOLE CONGRESS then the renewal bill won't reach Bush's desk. If the bill doesn't reach bush's desk then he won't have anything to sign or veto. If the bill doesn't get signed then it WILL NOT BECOME A LAW. If the renewal passes the house and senate subcommittee but then is voted dopwn in either the Senate or the HoR (or both) then the AWB will be D-E-A-D DEAD until or unless another renewal is voted for at some other time later on down the road.

I am extremely pissed and confused at Bush's stated support for the ban.  However, if the ban does not reach his desk, I will most likely go ahead and vote for him.  I remain cautiously optimistic that he is playing a very carefully scripted game here, where he is trying to defuse potential criticism for not supporting the ban (which he said he would during the campaign... what a boneheaded move), while working behind the scenes with select GOP congressmen to ensure he never actually has to sign it (hoping that we will be so happy about the ban sunsetting that we'll forget all about that tiny little "the president supports renewal of the current ban" statement made back in 2003).

If he pushes Congress to pass it, and he signs it, I will personally become so anti-Bush that I'll make Michael Moore look like Ari Fleischer, and will encourage everyone I know to do so too.

When a Republican president, with a Republican-controlled Senate and (strongly pro-gun) House enacts a ban on scary looking guns, which by all accounts does nothing for public safety and only violates my Second Amendment rights, it's time to take my vote elsewhere.

Yeah, I know this would, in a way, be shooting myself in the foot, but at some point we need to make a stand.

--Mike

Yes, I'll vote for him if it never reaches his desk. If it does and he signs it W. won't get my vote, I'm sure I'll abstain, and the RNC will get a very nasty letter registering my complaint.

This a.m. I wondered if maybe he said he would sign the bill to get gun owners all riled up and making sure it won't reach his desk. If he siad he wouldn't sign it most gun owner's would sit on their fannies and let him take the heat. Create a "popular mandate" and he gets no heat.

Looking strictly at the poll numbers, I'm relieved to see some sanity prevailing here....

I'm with Mr. Caswell here. Bush can say anything he likes, that is politics. If he actually takes action on it or signs it, then that is a different story.

I figure at least 25% of the folks here wouldn't vote for Bush anyway, simply because he isn't perfect.

[noclue]

I, too, still have this same suspicion. He's jockying for position and, most importantly, TIME.



This is where we part company. I'll be outraged, of course, but I won't commit political suicide, either.



On the face of it, I agree with you. It's just that there is NO viable party out there that will be able to pick up the mantle and defeat the Democrats soon enough to prevent the liberals from utterly destroying what's left of our rights.



Make it in the primaries. Make it at the local level. Remember, it's going to be easier to convert wayward Republicans to our view than to start a new party, defend against another all-Democrat government, or convert Liberals en masse.

It won't go through committee, it'll get tacked, as a "rider" to an important spending bill, or attached to some "New, And Improved" anti-terrorism legislation. It will pass both House's, and Bush will sign it.

Please read this [url=thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html]How Our Laws Are Made[/url]

A rider is just a fancy name for an unrelated amendment to an already existing bill. In the House, amendments may not be introduced from the floor.

That means that the Judiciary Committee chairman decides whether an amendment can be added or not and in the even of a dispute the Rules Committee (Chairman David Dreier R-CA, GOA Rating B-) hashes it out.

So for a rider to be attached governing assault weapons, it would have to be approved by both the chairman of the subcommittee on Crime, etc. (GOA A-rated) and the chairman of the Judiciary (GOA A-rated)

I don't believe, under current Senete rules, the repubs can prevent it.

 I just got an e-mail, saying Fienstien will introduce the AWB renewal tomorrow in the senate. Cited an article at sfgate.com , I haven't verified it....

Not only must it pass the Senate, (better than even chance, I'd say) but it must also pass the House.

I don't think it will pass the House.  Senators will howl, and the President will feign disappointment, and life will go on.

Just wait until the next "incident" happens (which is long overdue). Then the republicrats and democans will be trying to outdo each other (just like they did after 911) on a new improved more restrictive AWB.

If Bush signed the AWB it would hurt him.  IMHO it would hurt the congressmen who voted for it much more.  Therefore it will not get to his desk.

Shok

exactly.  I guarantee there won't be a candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of winning this next election who is a better option than Bush.

Anyone hear Ari Fleischer this AM?

Yes, I heard him.  He said, "at the time, President Bush supported the ban as it is written"

He also siad they are going to analyze the effects of the ban since it was passed.  He did, however, state that Bush agrees with the ban

Q Let me ask you something about the assault weapons ban. I realize the President was for the reauthorization back in 2000. Why does he support that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President thought, and said so at the time in 2000, that the assault weapon ban was a reasonable step. The assault weapon ban was crafted with the thought that it would deter crime. There are still studies underway of its crime deterring abilities, but the President thought that was reasonable, and that's why he supported it. And that's why he supports the reauthorization of the current ban.

Q Does it work?

MR. FLEISCHER: There are, indeed, studies underway that will determine that. And we'll await those studies to make any final conclusions. But that's exactly what the President said in 2000.

Q But he's willing to disappoint a pretty big supporter here, the NRA, based on some ongoing studies, or does he have a more fundamental belief that these kinds of weapons should not --

MR. FLEISCHER: He believed it in 2000, before studies were completed; he continues to believe it now. We'll see if the studies provide any additional information. But the President focuses on this issue like he does on all -- he focuses it on the merits. He makes his determinations. Often the President will agree, of course, with the National Rifle Association. On this issue he does not.

Q One more point on this. Forgive me for wading into the politics of issues like this, but he doesn't think that there's -- is he concerned about taking steps that put him at odds with his Republican base, or does he feel like really he's built himself up so much it's not an issue?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think when you look across-the-board at the positions the President takes, the President evaluates the issues that come before him based on the facts, based on the merits. He makes the determinations, and then others are free to say whether they agree or disagree with the President. I think his view to whether it's an issue that's important to one party or another party, or to many people in the middle, his view is, do what's right, and let people interpret it from there. In this instance, you know what he said, as you pointed out, in 2000. He continues to believe it today.

Q Ari, on that, last night Karl Rove was in New Hampshire, and he spoke with one of the leading gun activists in the state, who says on his website today that Karl Rove said Congress isn't going to pass this extension anyway, and so gun owners don't have to worry, the President is going to be for the extension, but Congress isn't going to pass it anyway. Is that the President's attitude, that this bill isn't really coming his way?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you can talk to any number of handicappers about any number of issues that are pending before the Congress and probably get an equal number of opinions. So this is a matter that the Congress will be taking up, and they will be taking it up now, knowing what the President's position is on it. And I can't make any predictions about what Congress ultimately will do. It's a business that outsiders engage in and insiders engage in; we'll see who's right.

Q According to this gentleman, Karl Rove was engaging in that. Given the fact that Republicans do control the Congress and that getting this passed, getting it onto the agenda will require Republican leadership, is the President willing to fight for this, to fight for the extension of the assault weapons ban?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made his position known. And during the course of the debate, I imagine that people will refer to the President's position and cite it, and I will continue to repeat it. The President, you will watch his actions and judge for yourself over time.

[red]Q So no plan to make any calls on this, to spend political capital to get this done?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, as I indicated, I think you'll be able to judge the President's actions by observing them yourselves. [/red]

A "Rider", gets put on in the Senate, on the floor without debate, just a simple majority.
The senate rules;

[b]The rules of procedure in the Senate differ to a large extent from those in the House. The Senate relies heavily on the practice of obtaining unanimous consent for actions to be taken. For example, at the time that a bill is reported, the Majority Leader may ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill. If the bill is of a noncontroversial nature and there is no objection, the Senate may pass the bill with little or no debate and with only a brief explanation of its purpose and effect. [red]Even in this instance, the bill is subject to amendment by any Senator. A simple majority vote is necessary to carry an amendment as well as to pass the bill.[/red] If there is any objection, the report must lie over one legislative day and the bill is placed on the calendar. [/b]

This is a way of by-passing the committees, and bringing it to the floor for a straight up or down simple majority vote. It also sends the bill in it's entirety to the house floor, no committee.

Amen and Halleleujah!

If he never sees the bill, I figure that our legislature is doing its job.

I'll vote for him - I won't like it, but I will vote for him.

If he signs that POS, blatantly unconstitutional, sack of $%|&!!, I will write in George Washington and send hate mail to the RNC.

What does that mean? Does it mean if a single senator objects to the rider - the whole bill has to be reworked???? Or is that BEFORE the rider's attached???? Or can a single senator object to the rider????

This is why I don't like watching sausage being made. [whacko]

The bill, as passed by the Senate, goes straight to the house floor for an up or down vote. If voted down, yes, it goes to a joint committee, for "reconciliation". Note, on "important" legislation, pressure on the house will be enormous. Example: Budget, or Terrorist crises...

No! Not on a spending bill.

[b]"Under the rules, a "rider," an amendment proposing substantive legislation to an appropriation bill, is prohibited.  However, this prohibition may be suspended by two-thirds vote on a motion to permit consideration of such an amendment on one day's notice in writing."[/b]

It means, the bill is deferred to the calender, and goes no where until it's debated by the full Senate. This would not be desirable if it's attached to an "Emergency" spending, or anti-terrorism bill. The AWB is not worth it to senators, so will prolly skate right through. The repubs will say "They tricked us"!![:D]
And vote for the bill...

I don't think your arguement qualifies, as the AWB renewal would not have a significant impact on spending, since it's impact has been budgeted for 10 years. And, it doesn't change any existing legislation, it "just" makes it permanent.




Why hell, looking at it like that, it don't seem so bad!![;D]

This only bypasses the appropriate Senate committees - the amended bill will still go to the Judiciary Committee once it reaches the House.

"When the Senate passes a bill that originated in the Senate, it is sent to the House for consideration unless it is held by unanimous consent to become a vehicle for a similar House bill, if and when passed by the House. The Senate bill is referred to the appropriate House committee for consideration or held at the Speaker's table for possible amendment following action on a companion House bill."

Actually the way I thought it read was that you couldn't attach a rider to an appropriations bill - not that the rider itself couldn't be a spending bill. But I'm no politician (whew!).

But even so, if it did get attached to some bill the way you're saying, I still think the House Leader can sort of 'unattach' it if it's a controversial amendment and send just the amendment to the appropriate House committee with no time restraint.

No matter what though, I seriously doubt it will pass even the full House no matter what it's attached to. With regards to gun-control, this is NOTHING like the House that originally passed it in 1994! In fact, it seems even MORE proRKBA than the House that passed the repeal of the AWB back in 1996.

I'll vote for Bush as long as he doesn't sign. It doesn't matter if it doesn't reach his desk.

If he signs, I'll vote for a Libertarian.

Republicans have to understand that they will not get my vote if they compromise on basic principles. Even if that means letting a Democrat get elected.