I’m still contemplating this presidential election thing. As a gun owner/single voter kind of guy, the Bush administration hasn’t really been my friend. The NRA has endorsed him and I’ve never been a fan of the NRA. I voted for Dubya in 2000 in the Anyone But Gore category. People have advocated the following strategeries for us gun owner types:
Hold your nose and pull the lever for Bush. He may not be a friend to gun owners but Kerry is definitely an enemy to gun owners. Bush did, after all, sign concealed carry into law in Texas and supported the immunity bill.
Stay home. Don’t vote. I don’t like this option because, well, I like voting. It’s my duty, and all.
Vote for Kerry hoping Bush loses to send a message that the Republicans need to get their collective shit together.
Vote third party to send a message that, while we’re voting, we’re not voting for Bush.
I don’t really like any of those options for a variety of reasons. Damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
Related
Posted in uncategorized on April 28th, 2004
by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |
April 28th, 2004 at 2:13 pm
It’s a tough one. I have a friend who thinks our best hope is gridlock: Kerry in the White House, with a Republican-controlled Congress—think Clinton administraion, post-1994.
The problem, as I see it, with voting strategerically is that it’s very difficult to predict the future (ok, duh). Anyway, here’s what I think we CAN predict for sure:
We will have more anti-gun legislation, regardless of which party controls the White House.
The reason is that almost all politicians and a good many of the people are convinced that every perceived problem MUST be solved (and can be solved) by Federal legislation and regulation. Until that changes, we’re just re-arranging deck chairs.
April 28th, 2004 at 2:50 pm
Thibodeaux, I disagree with your prediction. We haven’t seen any new gun control proposals during the first four years of the Bush Administration, so what makes you think that will change? At worst, Bush hasn’t pushed as aggressively as we’d like to get rid of existing gun laws, and has voiced tepid support for one particularly bad law he inherited. That law will, in all likelihood, expire this September, due in part to the tepidness of Bush’s “support” for it, and to his opposition to efforts to peg the issue on gunmaker liability.
Come January, no third party candidate will be President. Neither will “None of the Above,” even if Mr. Above captures a majority of the registered voters in every state. It’s either going to be Bush, or Kerry. From a gunnie’s perspective, Bush would be so-so while Kerry would be simply awful. That’s all you really need to know.
Then again, as we were all reminded in 2000, The Popular Vote (TM) doesn’t count for much, so if Tennessee is a safe red state, why not vote your conscience? Better still, cast a protest vote for Nader, which Nader himself will interpret as a vote for Nader to foul things up for another (presumably anti-gun) Democrat in 2008.
April 28th, 2004 at 3:17 pm
Thibodeaux, I disagree with your prediction.
I hope you are right.
April 28th, 2004 at 4:25 pm
You might just have another option if Kerry continues on this path of self-implosion. If he does manage to self-destruct prior to the convention in July, we might get another lousy Dem candidate to choose from come November.
Not that it would make any difference.
April 28th, 2004 at 5:19 pm
Couple things. First, I reject the notion that it’s your duty to vote. If you decide that all choices are equally bad, or if you decide that you don’t know enough to choose, or if you just don’t feel like it, you have every right to not vote.
Second, if you do vote, don’t let anyone guilt you into voting one way or another. Vote your conscience. Vote strategically. Vote for the least evil. Whatever you want to do, do it. It’s your vote, after all, and no one else’s.
These issues are near and dear to me, as I’m struggling with the same choices. The only thing I know I won’t do is vote for Bush. Don’t make it harder for yourself worrying what others think about your vote, though. You’re the only one who has to know what you decide.
(Personally, I’m leaning towards going to the polls, but submitting a blank ballot, at least for President).
April 28th, 2004 at 5:36 pm
My $.02: Voting third party to “send a message” doesn’t do any such thing. All those Nader votes in 2000 did nothing to “wake up” the Democratic party — if it had, the Democrats wouldn’t have campaigned so incompetently in 2002.
It wasn’t until Howard Dean hit the scene that the Democratic Party got its wake-up call, and it had nothing at all to do with third-party protest votes.
But honestly, for hot-button issues like guns and abortion, it’s far more important how you vote for legislators — the president can’t sign a bill that never sees his desk. All the president can do is “propose” legislation and hope it makes it through congress, and veto legislation he doesn’t like.
With Dubya, you needn’t factor the veto thing into your deliberations. He’d sign a third-party extended warranty agreement if it crossed his desk… 😉
April 28th, 2004 at 5:49 pm
far more important how you vote for legislators
Yup.
He’d sign a third-party extended warranty agreement if it crossed his desk
Yup.
Looks like we won’t have to worry about voting; world’s about to end.
April 28th, 2004 at 6:57 pm
I think Tom’s right about the “sending a message” thing. It doesn’t work.
Uncle: I think you and Spoons are both too purist. Politics is about compromises, not purity. Not voting for Bush is the same as voting for Kerry. Do you think Bush or Kerry is better for gunowners? If you think Bush is even slightly better (and realistically he’s a lot better) you should vote for Bush.
April 28th, 2004 at 7:11 pm
Compromise? My ass. To paraphrase publicola:
If you want 10 gun laws, I want zero, five is a compromise. Screw that
It’s us purists that keep it at about 3.
April 28th, 2004 at 8:07 pm
Unless you lose, in which case you keep it at 8.
April 28th, 2004 at 8:57 pm
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the compromise in this case is GWB saying that he, too supports renewal of the AWB and closing the gun show loophole. Note that he isn’t doing anything about it, despite Republican control of Congress, and in fact the AWB renewal just got dealt a defeat.
So the compromise in this case isn’t passing 5 laws instead of 0 or 10. It’s giving lip service to passing a law. I can live with that to keep gun rights, prosecute the war on terror, and keep Kerry out of the White House.
April 29th, 2004 at 12:29 pm
I find it odd that gunnies who voted for Bush in 2000 are considering voting against him in 2004 based on that issue. It’s not as though Bush’s position on guns has changed during that period – at all. He made it clear in 2000 that he supported the “assault” weapons ban. The only thing he didn’t make clear, and which is pretty clear now, was that this “support” was just lip service.
April 29th, 2004 at 12:34 pm
I can’t speak for others but i voted against Gore not for Bush.
April 29th, 2004 at 1:57 pm
Uncle:
i voted against Gore not for Bush
Doesn’t this underscore Les’ point? You wouldn’t be voting for Bush this time, either. You’d be voting against Kerry. Believe me, nothing would make me happier than for you to vote for someone other than Bush. But if it makes me happy, it should make you reconsider. 🙂
Thib:
I’m not sure the world is going to end just yet. We don’t always disagree. Just almost always. 😉
April 29th, 2004 at 5:37 pm
He could have voted against Gore by voting for, e.g., Nader or Browne.