I could too, considering that it was in the midst of Clinton noting that the Democratic plan was to take assault weapons off the street and put more police officers on, and the current administration’s plan appears to be to take police off the street and put more assault weapons on.
I’ll trade you the pro-assault weapon Republicans and swing voters for the pro-law and order, public safety Republicans and swing voters any day, and twice on Sunday.
Actually, you weren’t too far away, judging from the sentiment at some of the gunboards I participate in. But blatant treachery wasn’t my concern so much as potential apathy. Billy took care of that nicely.
If I am not mistaken, did not GW Bush also support the AWB? If so, then how is the Democratic position treacherous and Bush’s not?
Bush was for the AWB running for his first term. Now he’s for letting the law expire.
I guess that would make him a flip-flopper, wouldn’t it?
Oh, wait – he’s not a Democrat, so that makes him, uh… open-minded and able to adapt to changing circumstances.
Or something.
It’s like so: Bush stated he would sign the AWB renewal if it was presented to him, but wouldn’t push for it, before the 2000 elections. Gore stated he would sign a renewal if presented and that he would push for it. Also some rot about national firearms registration.
End result (for us gun nuts): Bush, not so bad, but not great. Gore: No good.
Fast forward a few years, and you have the Bush administration (via Ashcroft) saying:
Music to the ears of the gun crowd. Flip-flop? Heh, only Kerry flip-flops. Bush takes ‘nuanced positions’. In this case, his ‘nuanced position’ will get him votes. How many? Dunno. But don’t forget, part of Bush Sr’s defeat can be traced back to being abandoned by the gun crowd for his pro-gun control stance. Remember that Perot got something like 19% of the vote?
I really don’t think that a lot of people realize just how important getting rid of the AWB is to the NRA crowd. Clinton’s little blurb probably won’t earn many votes for Kerry, (how many single-issue pro-gun control voters do you know of?), but will certainly send some votes to Bush.
Every vote counts, you know. Diebold can only do so much for us!
What Bob said. The NRA is a highly motivated, overwhelmingly Republican, tiny part of the electorate. We already know who they’re voting for. The vast majority of Americans, though they may not understand the issue very well, are big damn fans of the AWB.
But forget I said that. I said nothing like that. You Republicans are a sure ticket if only you base your platform on repealing the assault-weapons-ban: it’s a tremendously popular stance, and your supporters will come out of the woodworks to vote for you if only you keep harping on it!
I heard bits of the convention on the radio this morning; most impressive was Clinton’s devastating, “Strength and wisdom are not opposing values.”
Daniel
And gay marriage! Don’t forget to keep harping on gay marriage!
That was a stand-up moment – I was on my feet at home in front of the TV. (Scared the cats.)
Do the Republicans have any speakers who can compare with Clinton? Good oratory is hard to find these days, and I’d like to hear more.
First of all, Ashcroft is the first Attorney General ever to take an ‘individual’ view of the Second Amendment. This of course runs counter to the 65 year-old precedent set in Miller. The fact that Ashcroft endorses this view means quite little- the Supreme Court isn’t going to overturn Miller in our lifetime.
Bush I was not exactly forced out of office in a cliffhanger election. The support or lack thereof of the NRA therefore likely made very little difference. The number of gun enthusiasts who were prepared to vote for Kerry is very likely quite tiny. The fact that Clinton said something unpalatable to those who weren’t going to vote for Kerry in the first place had little overall impact.
The “strength and wisdom” line needed to be earthier, on a bumper-sticker level, I thought. What impressed me was Clinton’s choice of *himself * as the only example of the pampered rich who benefited from the tax cuts. Everything he said the GOP had cut was paid for by “*my * tax cut”. That completely took pre-empted the opposition’s traditional charge that the Democrats are practicing class warfare and simpleminded bashing, etc. That was the cleverest rhetorical tactic I’ve seen in a long time, and it even outranks the speakers’ apparent agreement not to mention Bush by name.
The Daily Show will have new shows with convention coverage starting tonight, according to Comedy Central.
Really? And here I was thinking that this would be a great bumpersticker: it’s almost like a proverb in its obvious truth, it’s memorable, it’s identifiable as part of Clinton’s speech, and it’s a brilliant riposte to Bush’s attack on Kerry as soft on defense.
Every time folks see it, they’d think about Clinton’s point. Or else they wouldn’t recognize it, and they’d ask someone else in the car what it meant, and that person (who am I kidding?) would tell them it was the tagline from Fox’s latest reality show, in which professional wrestlers and priests duke it out in truck stops.
Daniel
As a liberal who has almost nothing good to say about the Democratic Party, they are doing a damn fine job so far. Not mentioning Bush by name is a fantastic strategy, one that I hadn’t even considered.
They are (so far) taking the high road, using facts and wisdom to attack the opposition, and leaving rhetoric behind. No wonder Michael Moore looked so pissed off - his way is the opposite.
I even sent in some money this morning, something I haven’t done since Clinton’s first term (to the party, I do support candidates).
If only they would flip the ticket, put Edwards at the top and Kerry in the VP slot.
But it’s preaching to the choir. The target audience needed to be those who support Bush mainly because of his “strength”. Being a visceral reason, it needs to be addressed on a visceral level - and Clinton’s quote just has too many words of too many syllables to punch through that wall.
I realize I’m setting myself up here, so here’s this non-rhetoretician’s lame tries at a better bumper sticker:
Kerry: Strength with wisdom
A strong and wise America
An America the world respects
Kerry, a fighter *and * a planner
I almost see it as a “good cop/bad cop” exercise, myself.
Not only that, but they’re depriving the RW media of pithy anti-Bush soundbites they can report as being representative of Democratic views, and therefore deride and dismiss the whole. Instead, they can either report the speeches as is or not at all. Gotta be frustrating for 'em, huh?
I think it’s more a tactical decision to take the high road.
I did a paper ages ago on voting patterns in campaigns that featured an inordinate amount of ‘attack’ ads and what I found was that regardless of the party doing the attacking such ads depressed voter turnout for both sides.
Since the democratic ticket this year can largely be hinged on getting people to the polls attack campaigning is contra-indicated at this point.
Toss in Edwards consistently upbeat and positive message during the primaries and it’s a no brainer.
They’ve also got plenty of 9/11 tributes (CNN hinted that we’ll be seeing more, is that right?) and tonight, a real, live, Reagan.
What’s the upcoming GOP convention in NYC going to be chock full of? Reagan and 9/11 tributes. It’ll be old hat by then, and at the least they won’t be able to say the Democrats didn’t pay their due respects.
Oh, they’re good. They’re very, very good.
Well, I’m not a Democrat so don’t really want to insert my opinion into this thread. Just wanted to say I just caught the speech by Barack Obama, and was fairly impressed. I don’t agree with a lot of the things he said (though I certainly agreed with other things), but that man will go far…he’s really a very good orator IMO.
So far what I’ve seen of the convention the 'Crats seem to be doing fairly well. Time will tell of course and I think they’d be smart to have people other than Kerry do the heavy lifting and sing his praises.
-XT