SubscribeWP Attacks McCain For Finance Reform Hypocrisy
From a scandalized Washington Post:
McCain Taps Cash He Sought To Limit
Onetime Reformer Calls on Big Donors
By John Solomon
Sunday, February 11, 2007; A01Just about a year and a half ago, Sen. John McCain went to court to try to curtail the influence of a group to which A. Jerrold Perenchio gave $9 million, saying it was trying to "evade and violate" new campaign laws with voter ads ahead of the midterm elections.
As McCain launches his own presidential campaign, however, he is counting on Perenchio, the founder of the Univision Spanish-language media empire, to raise millions of dollars as co-chairman of the Arizona Republican’s national finance committee.
In his early efforts to secure the support of the Republican establishment he has frequently bucked, McCain has embraced some of the same political-money figures, forces and tactics he pilloried during a 15-year crusade to reduce the influence of big donors, fundraisers and lobbyists in elections. That includes enlisting the support of Washington lobbyists as well as key players in the fundraising machine that helped President Bush defeat McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries.
After enduring his own brush with scandal in the early 1990s, when he and four Senate colleagues pressured regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, chairman of a failed savings and loan association, while collecting donations and favors from him, McCain became a leader in the effort to eliminate "soft money" in elections — large donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. In 2002, McCain joined forces with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) to finally push through legislation ending soft money and placing strict limits on donations.
But now the contrast between McCain the presidential candidate and McCain the reformer can be jarring. McCain’s campaign says that he is still studying whether to forgo the public financing and spending limits he has long supported, but that he will not be handicapped by restrictions his competitors will not face in 2008.
McCain the reformer worked unsuccessfully through Congress and the courts to try to stop nonprofit political groups known as 527s from using unlimited donations to run political ads and fund other activities aimed at influencing voters in the run-up to elections. He reintroduced legislation last week to end 527 donations, but there appears to be little appetite in Congress to pass it.
McCain the candidate now expects Republicans to use the same big-money 527 groups in the 2008 elections to beat Democrats, if the groups remain legal. "The senator believes that both parties should be subjected to an even playing field. If Democratic organizations are allowed to take advantage of 527s, Republican organizations will, too," said Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser. The senator declined to be interviewed.
McCain the reformer relentlessly argued that six- and seven-figure "soft money" checks that corporations, wealthy individuals and unions were giving to political parties to influence elections were corrupting American politics. "The voices of average Americans have been drowned out by the deafening racket of campaign cash," he warned just a few years ago.
McCain the candidate has enlisted some of the same GOP fundraising giants who created and flourished in the soft-money system, including Bush’s fundraising "Pioneers" and "Rangers," who earned their designations by raising at least $100,000 or $200,000 for his campaigns.
At least six of McCain’s first eight national finance co-chairmen have given or raised large donations for political parties or 527 groups, campaign and IRS records show. In all, the finance co-chairs have given at least $13.5 million in soft money and 527 donations since the 1998 election…
Lobbyists have been a favorite target of McCain the reformer, who proposed legislation requiring so-called grass-roots groups that organize average citizens into lobbying forces to disclose their financial backers.
But McCain the candidate switched positions and last month voted against that disclosure requirement after influential GOP groups such as Focus on the Family and National Right to Life strongly opposed the idea…
Our one party media will never give a sucker an even break.
Senator McCain foolishly thought he could buy his way out of the "Keating 5" scandal by giving the news media unchallenged power to influence elections with his (preposterously named) Campaign Finance Reform.
(Under CFR, only our unbiased news media is allowed to shape the debate in the final weeks of a campaign.)
But now that McCain is finally being treated seriously as a presidential candidate, it’s the first thing they trot out:
After enduring his own brush with scandal in the early 1990s, when he and four Senate colleagues pressured regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, chairman of a failed savings and loan association, while collecting donations and favors from him…
Of course Mr. McCain has no one to blame but himself.
The mainstream media’s first, last and only purpose is to elect Democrats.
To blame them for turning on a Republican would be like blaming a scorpion for stinging you.
34 Responses to “WP Attacks McCain For Finance Reform Hypocrisy”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
The MSM just can’t WAIT to put a throw down on any and all potential Republican presidential candidates. Even before they thrown their stovepipe hat in the ring, the MSM are going to beat them back as many notches as they can, and splooge all over the Hildabeast and Osamabama. Sickens me to the core.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Two years of this crap….solid entertainment really. We need to be the eyes and ears of the populace….to expose the MSM hypocrisy, and keep people informed on the media’s takeover of our governmental election process. It is serious business….because you may be under the leadership of a deranged demagogue woman or a totally unqualified empty suit who knows how to talk, and all because qualified leaders have been crucified by our socialist media. Sounds implausible? Stick around…..it aint even gotten hot yet. Wait till next year.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
McCain is a fool in my book, plain and simple. He got suckered by the MSM who billed him up all these years as the “Maverick” who would dare stand up to the Republican party in general. He was the lone Republican who was a hero to the MSM. He got invited to all the Sunday Morning shows, got the kudos and props, etc etc. How naive of McCain to think they were going to continue giving him the same “good press” that is spewed out like DGA said above, especially now since he is running for President.
He’s not a Democrat, so the Keating 5 scandle will not be forgotten by the MSM, you know, just like Abscam, Whitewater, Sandy Burgler, William “Freezer” Jefferson, FALN terrorists being pardoned, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
Edit: I don’t like McCain but I’ll vote for him in a heartbeat if it means the difference between Billary and/or Osama.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
McCain knows what real torture is…and he sat back and let the abu garib crap be spouted as torture….and for that he will pay the price with my vote. Or lack of. Anyone who endures real torture….who was considered a real hero…and turns their backs on our military when he could have easily spoken out about how stupid and ludicrous the charges were….and are…..doesnt deserve a position of leadership.
Guilianni is the only runner on the Pub side that has a chance….and that is now, with only 22 months of solid smearing in the media to tear him to shreds in the minds of the public….and Obama will be billed as the second coming, and Hillary will be billed as the answer to all our ills….
Just watch and pay attention to who Europe, and especially the muslims support. Those are the people who will sell us out in a heartbeat. Kerry could have, but he isnt welcome on the playground any longer because even the smarmy weasles that make up the democratic party think he is a shit bird. See who Fonda supports….watch Hollywood….those are the true enemies of the state….and whoever they support for president should be avoided like the snag’s panties after a good rain.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
“I don’t like McCain but I’ll vote for him in a heartbeat if it means the difference between Billary and/or Osama.”
I don’t like him enough that if it comes to that, I just won’t vote. I cannot bring myself to support this Republican turncoat under any circumstances. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that and Rudy gets the nomination. As of now, he is our only hope and I don’t see anyone else on the horizon that hasn’t alread self-destructed.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Do you really want McCains finger on the nuke trigger?
February 11th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
anyone that agrees that panties over one’s head is painful vile and inhumane torture shouldnt have the luxury of his finger on any trigger….unless it is pointed at a real enemy, and not at our soldiers.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
John McCain is stating that this report from the Washington Post is a false hit job. Lets keep in mind that John McCain is a Republican and that the Washington Post is part of the left wing partisan media before launching into attacks on John McCain, which I for one think are short-sighted.
In my view, Republicans and conservatives need to be a bit pragmatic and accept that the likely Republican presidential ticket in 2008 will not be perfect on all issues or in his past record. But it is very important for the sake of the future to keep the Democrats out of the White House, and the Republican candidates that we have in John McCain and Rudi Guiliani do have virtues that the nation will likely need in the days ahead. There was wisdom in Dennis Miller’s humorously put endorsement of John McCain and Rudi Guiliani on the Hannity and Colmes Show last week.
Since John McCain is the subject of the Washington Post hit job, let me say a few words in his behalf. John McCain taken the pledge before the Federalist Society to nominate the same kind of traditionalist judges as George Bush did in John Roberts and Sam Alito, and John McCain has remained pro-life. John McCain also is very much a fiscal conservative, but most importantly, he is extremely knowledgeable about military and national security matters. I don’t want the nation denied what may be his needed military expertise in the days ahead because of past issues. I think that the campaign finance reform law will be in the hands of the courts in the future, and it will progressively be cut back. That John McCain played a primary role in the Gang of 14 may turn out not to be so bad: the Senate compromise allowed for John Roberts and Sam Alito to take their seats on the U.S. Supreme Court, the “constitutional option” may have failed given the likes of RINOs Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee, and an untrammelled filibuster power may just come in handy in the next two years for the favor of Republicans. So let’s keep in mind that John McCain is the son and grandson of U.S. Navy Admirals; he is a patriot whose personal war story is gripping; his books on courage and character are gems; he is genuine in his care for our military men and women and for military families. His criticism of past Iraq strategy and call for more boots on the ground has turned out to be correct. John McCain deserves praise for his recent stout efforts to stop the U.S. Senate from adopting resolutions undermining the President’s new strategy and new commander in General Petraeus and undermining the troops. For the future struggle against the radical Islamists, what John McCain brings to the table may be essential to the nation’s future.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I’m sorry, but I think people are getting all upset over people who do not have a prayer. Hillary and Obama will smear each other so badly, they might ruin their careers, not just their presidential aspirations. Even if they did not, sad to say, our country is not ready to elect a woman or a black person as POTUS. McCain will never win the nomination either. I have no clue who will win, so far none of the candidates thrill me. I am rooting for Gingrich / Watts, but neither of them are running yet. Mrs. Cheney might not be bad either. It is too early to fret about any candidate, we should just be enjoying the fun of them dismantling each other.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
I am not getting upset at all…I calls em like I sees em….and not everyone will agree! That is why I like it here…you can speak your mind without getting pilloried in the process….well, almost, but usually, someone is going to disagree with your stance on an issue….that is America! Amber is correct though….let it play itself out over the next 23 months…so much can happen, and it will be an enjoyable time.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Personally, I’d love to see Alan Keyes get the nomination, but the media would devote a section out of each day’s paper to slandering him.
John McCain isn’t as bad a RINO as Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Todd Snowe, I’ll grant that, but he’s known to turn on his conservative roots in order to get a break from the liberal attack machine. Imagine what he’ll give up once the media gets into high gear? I think it’s too much risk. Add his absolutely atrocious work in the McCain-Feingold bill and his part in the flat-out traitorous Gang of 14, and you’ve got a just-plain bad candidate.
Guiliani, on the other hand, has several problems. One is that he’ll approve homosexual marriage, and if he gets his way charities, counselling services, insurance companies, banks, and any other group or business across the country will be facing the same choice that Catholic Charities of Boston had–violate your beliefs or get shut down. Likewise, he supports abortion–and the two together mean that we can’t let this guy pick the next Supreme Court justice. On top of that, when he was mayor of New York he declared that he would not work with the INS to capture illegal immigrants, and that’s an invasion that we need to put a stop to.
So on the one hand, should it come to a vote between McCain and Guiliani, I’ll vote for McCain–not because he’s a qualified candidate, but because we can’t have Guiliani in the spot. Likewise, if McCain or Guiliani win the primaries, I’ll vote for them in the election because whatever harm they’ll do is nothing next to the harm a Democrat president would do. But neither of them are qualified to hold office.
On the other hand, McCain has made a living out of turning on his fellow conservatives in order to get the admiration of the media. Now that the media’s dished out to him what he’s helped them smear onto so many real conservatives, I’ve got absolutely no sympathy for him at all.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:41 am
upset…I was not refering to just the people here. People here seem to just be discussing it. On the radio… that is another story. People call in all of the time, frantic that Hillary may be our next president, and Sean Hanity (not the best radio personality, but he was on) spent almost his entire show telling people they should support Guilliani, despite his gun and abortion stance, because he could beat Hillary. That is crazy to me. It sounds silly, but there is no way I could vote for someone who would like to take my firearms away, I might be able to fudge on the abortion thing because there are still enough pro-lifers to cancel out a pro-baby killer, but guns? Not a chance. I know most of the radio hype is to increase ratings, but come on, it is way too early in the show to be settling. Newt said he won’t declair till September if he decides to.
I like Alan Keyes a LOT too, but he does not have a chance. He is too strong, his face is very serious, and he tells the truth without any sugar coatings, all honorable qualities, but just not marketable in politics. As an example, I read one of his books and he said that all of the AIDS medicine, education, and money in the world would not cure the HIV epidemic in Africa. He said it is a moral and spiritual problem. Take care of that and you take care of the AIDS problem there. He is right, but most people do not see it that way. Love his tax policy too. Great man, and I would support him.
February 12th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Even though it’s early in the campaign “season” there is a reason all these people are coming out of the woodwork now…..because they have to if they are serious about running. Unfortunately, it takes obscene amount of money to run a campaing and it takes at least this amount of time to acquire it.
And since we are almost forced to start taking a look at these candidates now, let’s be sure we know what their true stance is on issues.
Rudy: He doesn’t support abortion. He doesn’t like abortion and he doesn’t encourage abortion. What he has said all along is that he despises abortion. He also says he believes a woman has the right to choose, even if it means she chooses an abortion. That’s a whole lot different than “supporting” abortion. It’s also a clever way to somewhat appease centrist dhimmis that any Republican will need to get elected. He is absolutely against late term abortions. But on the abortion issue, no president is going to be able to overturn Roe v Wade. Congress can’t do it and the president can’t do it. Only SCOTUS can overturn it and that ain’t going to happen folks. On gun control, he doesn’t advocate taking all the guns away from people. He was the mayor of NYC when crime and gun related murder was out of control. He wanted and implemented gun control (not gun banishment) in his area of jurisdiction to get a handle on that problem. He cleaned up crime (especially violent gun related crime), ran the porno’s and streetwalkers off time square, busted the mafia control of the docks and fish markets when an AG, and most importantly, showed more leadership than even GWB after 9/11. And how Not in the presidents realm of authority to stop the states from allowing it. That politic is local so vote for people who are against it at the state and local levels. As to all his other warts, at least we know what they are up front so nobody can blindside him with them.
“I might be able to fudge on the abortion thing because there are still enough pro-lifers to cancel out a pro-baby killer, but guns? Not a chance.”
I find that statement to be very curious. Rudy may be a lot of things, but he is not a pro-baby killer.
John McCain: Yes his grandfather and father were Navy Admirals. What difference does that make? Yes he was a POW and I respect him for that. Two reasons I won’t vote for him…..his stance on the torture issue and his playing footsie with J F’n Kerry during the last POTUS election. Just saying that Kerry was his best friend in the Senate tells me all I need to know about him. Throw in his lovefest with Chris Matthews and he’s a loser.
Keyes, Gingrich, Watts, Mrs. Cheney…..unelectable. They all have good qualities but it will never happen.
All that being said, we do need to be pragmatic. We must nominate someone who can win despite any warts that may have. And they all have them. Even if I liked McCain, I don’t think he can win, if for no other reason, his age.
February 12th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Oh, hell, I forgot he was a gun-grabber too. Guiliani will get the libertarian support, since the homosexual marriage and abortion will upset Christians, and as far as libertarianism is concerned a day in which Christians cry is a good day, but between McCain and Guiliani, it’s only slightly fortunate that McCain would win.
But I don’t think Hillary can be so easily dismissed. Remember that her husband has control of the DNC. In addition, she’s the absolute darling of the media–and if you think paint covers a multitude of sins, you ain’t tried newspaper yet. And to top it all off, her and her husband have already organized a machine, ready to immediately smear anybody who dares to speak against her, back in the days of his presidency and still active for her Senate campaign. More important than all of that, though, is her absolute lust for power*. She will stop at nothing to become president, and when you combine criminal acts with a media willing to hide them, you get a Democrat president.
If Guiliani wins the nomination, I will give him my vote to make sure Hillary doesn’t get into the White House. Likewise, in the primaries McCain will get my vote to stop Guiliani from getting the nomination. But I’d really like to have a candidate to vote for. I haven’t heard much about Ms. Cheney, but that’d be interesting to see. I’d still like to see Jeane Kirkpatrick run, and I’d vote for Condi in a heartbeat. Watts I haven’t heard from lately, and it’s too bad Zell Miller won’t run.
*To those experiencing stomach cramps, nausea, or projectile vomiting at the use of “lust” in reference to Hillary Clinton, I offer my deepest apologies.
February 12th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Here is Rudy’s definition of gun control. It really doesn’t have anything to do with gun control but that’s the way it has been spinned by the gun lobbyist. I think he had a valid reason for filing the lawsuit, if for no other reason, to get the gun industry’s attention.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/htm.....38-00.html
February 12th, 2007 at 2:21 am
From the article…
“This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people,”
-Refusing to manufacture safer guns, with such features as trigger locks and “personalization” measures that allow only authorized persons to fire the weapon.
-Council Speaker Vallone said, “More than 30,000 people, including 4,200 children, die every year in the U.S. from firearms-more people than in any other country in the world. I join with the Mayor in this lawsuit to send a message to gun manufacturers that New York City will hold them accountable for their reckless and irresponsible practices.”
Defendants named in the suit include most major gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers currently operating the United States, or who export large numbers of guns to the United States.
That ain’t exactly a vote of confidence. I’d be a little less wary if he were willing to put his gun-control schemes before the people to vote on, rather than trying to do it through the courts.
If it is illegal to purchase a gun in New York, and gun manufacturers are making it easier to purchase one illegally there, then they deserve medals for their defense of the Constitution–and the people who made the laws they’re breaking deserve a swift kick in the backside.
But here:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/97a/ccc.html
Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani—March 6, 1997, 8:15 a.m.
I know many people argue that keeping and bearing arms is federally guaranteed right as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
But even in the Second Amendment, it refers to firearms in the context of a well regulated militia, and well regulated is what we’re trying to accomplish.
Just as unimpeded interstate travel is Constitutionally guaranteed, but we reserve the right to regulate driving automobiles, so too must we sensibly regulate gun purchases to preserve the safety of all Americans.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/record.....70302.html
-Sunday, March 2, 1997
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.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:29 am
I see I screwed up my post on Rudy/McCain……
What is missing or confusing is: Rudy does not favor nor does he want to allow gay marriage. He said he would support gay “unions”. There is a big difference between the two, the gay unions being mostly for employment benefits. But this is really a state and local issue to be regulated by them. To stop the gay “unions”, vote for those who oppose it at the local and state level. The POTUS really has no control over it.
And I agree with Rudy’s statements on gun control…..and I own guns. Owning one should be as restrictive as getting a driver’s license. In fact, it’s kind of crazy that obtaining a gun OR an abortion is easier than getting a driver’s license.
February 12th, 2007 at 9:48 am
About Rudy and gun control, I think Redneck handled that one perfectly. About Rudy and abortion, if you think it is murder, then you do not allow it, it is murder, not a choice, so yes, Rudy is a pro-baby killer.
Newt might surprise you, everytime he is polled he is right behind the #1 guy. He is very likeable and he is campaigning like a mad man, OK, so he is pushing his new movement, but same thing. He could win, and especially against Hillary, he is too likeable. Mrs. Cheney migh not have a chance, but we don”t really know, no one has even brought it up, but I would have to agree, I do not think we will elect a woman yet. Watts, he could only run as a VP, not enough people know him.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:52 am
You forget, Warmonger, that the president appoints the Supreme Court Justices. So while the president can’t put homosexual marriage (by its own name or any other) into place except to rubberstamp Congress’ will on the matter, he can put more make-up-rights-as-we-go Supreme Court Justices who can (and will, considering liberal judicial history) enact legislation to not only legalize it, but protect it for decades. That’s how we ended up with abortion, and Ford didn’t have the guts to say “Blackmun has made his decision… Now let’s see him enforce it.”
February 12th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
WI,
I hesitate to go here, because you generally say what I’m thinking, and you’ve several times paid me the supreme compliment of saying that something I posted “eloquently” covered whatever you wanted to say. Having said that, I probably know better than most Americans what draconian gun laws are all about.
I looked over your link to Giuliani’s lawsuit against the gun manufacturers.
Deliberately manufacturing many more firearms than can be bought for legitimate purposes such as hunting and law enforcement, and knowingly targeting these excess guns to criminals, youths and other persons unqualified to buy firearms;
OK, when you’re manufacturing something, it’s go go go -whether it’s guns, 2X4’s or diapers.. You have people on the shop floor and there’s no money to be made by trying to guess how many you’ll sell. Granted guns are dangerous and should not fall into the wrong hands. That’s not up to the manufacturer however.
That “knowingly targeting these excess guns to criminals” is a damned serious charge. If it’s true, then fine -go after the manufacturers. Solid proof is a must.
Deliberately undermining New York City’s gun control laws by flooding markets with looser gun laws with firearms that the manufacturers know are destined to be illegally resold in New York City;
“The manufacturers know are destined to be illegally resold?” -again, damned serious charge. Do the gun manufacturers have a union psychic on staff? Proof !
Ignoring the illegal practices of gun distributors, many of whom openly engage in the above practices;
This one and the next one are what really get me. This makes one responsible for the actions of another. That, to my thinking, is how liberals go about things. Sue the damn distributors if they’re out of line.
Refusing to manufacture safer guns, with such features as trigger locks and “personalization” measures that allow only authorized persons to fire the weapon
I’m all for safer guns, but again, things like trigger locks should be the responsibility of the owner. Ditto for “Personalization” measures (if the manufacturers are flat out refusing to offer that as an option -fine- sue ‘em. But again, proof of that is required).
I’m in no way flaming you WI, but I personally think that your RKBA should be a major issue in whoever’s running the country. I’d be questioning him more closely on this. Personally I’m hoping Giuliani makes it to the Oval Office (out of the candidates listed) but I can’t stress enough the importance of your second amendment rights.
Don’t ever lose them, or -IMHO- the US is well and truly screwed.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
DW,
If I have the frigging gun in my hand, I AM authorized to use it. [(;>)
BTW, Where is the frigging new story?
I am using all the cuss words hoping I will get a high paying job as a dem blogmaster like that lib slut did.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Regardless of the namby pamby efforts on gun control….everyone knows that if you want a certain weapon, you can get it. It may take a while longer, cost a bit more, (usually less, being stolen) and it will never be easily traced, no record kept, and most of all, a “normal” gun with a bit of ingenuity and tinkering can be turned into a massive killing platform…..all done without any government control, and without the knowledge of anyone, especially the authorities.
This was done to a laughable degree during the “assault weapon ban” that just flat didnt work. As long as there are tools and a machine shop with a person who is capable of doing the work…..there will be “assault weapons”. What I always marveled at was the definition of assault weapon was by how it looked….not by how it shot.
I can be far more effective with a 30.06 with a five round clip that some idiot dork spraying a full 40 shot clip from an Uzi……point being….I aim, and fire. Work done. End of story, and of perp. Shotguns werent exempted at all……just rapid fire “cool looking” weapons that people wouldnt be able to hit a car with, much less a determined adversary who knew how to shoot back.
Again, sue who you wish…..gun manufacturers still have yet to kill people with their guns. The people who pull the trigger kill people with those guns, and trying to keep weapons out of American hands will be just as easy as getting everyone to convert to Islam. You can try as much as you want….but it will not happen. Not now, not ever.
Even if every gun were somehow confiscated, there would be people manufacturing them out of whatever they could…..remember the arms embargo England put on Israel in 1948? They couldnt buy them, so they made them instead. Now, the Uzi and the Galil are top line weapons sought after by everyone who wants a great gun……so that embargo really worked…didnt it? The whole idea is bullshit….and it makes for great talky talk on news shows, and wonderful issues for politicians to skate around for votes, but there will be no effective ban on firearms in the United States until there isnt a United States left…..which is the goal of the democrats, the liberals, and the left. Oh, hand in hand with the pit bull muslims….who dont really give a rats ass about gun control at all….do they?
February 12th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
DW, I disagree even with that much. If they were deliberately allowing citizens to excersize their Second-Amendment rights in violation of New York law, then these companies deserve medals.
February 12th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Why is gun control different from slavery?
They are both States Rights.
February 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Your right SJ.
I am a Journeyman tool and die maker. And making a serviceable weapon is not complicated.
I made my first workable firearm at 16, Simple as it was, It was and still is capable of killing.
I imagine every machinist or tool maker is at some point approached to make parts, Alter a gun,
Make a silencer or just simply drill and tap holes for a scope.
I have always said NO to altering anyone’s firearms, And I sure as hell wouldn’t make a silencer.
My point is there are thousands of people in this country perfecly capable of making firearms.
February 12th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I made a very small part from a soup can which made a SKS fully auto.
But I did not say that.
February 12th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Did you say something 1st.
Nah, I’m imagining things.
Thinking of soup cans does bring back memories.
With a few soup cans, Duct tape and lighter fluid you can launch a tennis ball a mile or so.
I just wouldn’t recommend it. :-)
February 12th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
DW….I wasn’t advocating the repeal of the 2nd ammendment. I have 14 weapons in my house, all legal and unaltered, at least not that I will admit to.
Here’s my point about Rudy and gun control when NYC filed that lawsuit. I had been in NY on a couple of projects during that time, and let me tell you, I was afraid to walk even the so called safe streets at the time because of the amount of gun related crime going on. Crime ranging from stranger on stranger streetcorner robbery, carjackings and just everyday run of the mill murders for no apparent reason. The city was in a crisis and Rudy did what he thought best to try and get a handle on it. Did he know it would cause an uproar? Of course he did, but he had the balls, as politically incorrect for conservatives that it was, to do what he thought needed doing to get control. I have no problem with that.
As to some of the other points about:
Trigger locks. Of course it’s the owner’s responsibilty to safe his weapons. But we have irresponsible owners that get others killed by their negligence. We could say the same thing about seatbelts in cars, car seats for kids, dangerous prescription drugs by drug companies. Yes, the end user is ultimately responsible, but because most aren’t, we have enacted laws to protect us from ourselves.
Weapons licensing vs. drivers license. You know, it does really make sense to ensure that only responsible citizens can legally but weapons. I know, it doesn’t stop the criminal from getting them anyway. But drug laws do not stop drugs….are you willing to repeal all of them? Speed laws do not stop speeders….are you willing to repeal all of them? Laws against murder by butcher knife or poison doesn’t stop killers, but we do have laws against it.
Bottom line….Rudy saw a city our of control with gun related crime and did what he thought best to try and lower the crime. That’s what the leader gets paid to do…..whether anyone agrees with him or not.
And 1st is right….it’s a State’s Right’s issue and should be handled by the states. In Rudy’s case it was. Of course it also never got to court.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
DW….I wasn’t advocating the repeal of the 2nd ammendment. I have 14 weapons in my house, all legal and unaltered, at least not that I will admit to.
Sorry WI -I know you weren’t. That post wasn’t very well expressed -allow me to claim victim status: I’m working nights and it’s f***ing cold here (had minus 60 windchills last weekend) so my mind is not the finely honed precision instrument of “muse destruction” that it usually is. (whew !)
So here’s the deal:
“Gun crime” is a huge buzzword up here now. It bugs the hell out of me because again they are concentrating on the gun. I’m worried about violent crime -period. Even in Canada the papers are full of atrocities committed on innocent citizens by criminals. Swarmings, home invasions, rapes, muggings, vicious assaults -sometimes for no apparent reason. Guns seldom play a role in them.
I’m far less worried about whether criminals have guns as I am about the fact that I don’t have one (when I’m oot and aboot). I like to think I’m reasonably tough, but if a half-dozen arseholes decide they want a piece of me, it isn’t going to matter if any of them have a gun. I’m a huge proponent of the armed citizen.
To be sure, we have our shootings and shootouts and the odd school shooting, but the first two are almost always gang and drug related (and you know my solution to that), the latter are generally committed by individuals who are properly licensed.
I’m all for people having to prove competence to possess a firearm, but unless those regulations are drawn up by people who know about firearms -as opposed to people who hate them (liberals) then they are useless. I’m not advocating repealing gun laws, but I’m not about to support anything that makes no sense (like silly lawsuits against gun manufacturers).
The same for trigger locks. I don’t trigger lock my guns because the manufacturers include one -I lock them up because I can be charged criminally if I don’t. I’m the one who will face the consequences -which is the way it should be. You can’t legislate against stupidity -all you can do is make people afraid of making dumb mistakes. Suing Smith&Wesson because I screwed up isn’t going to deter my neighbour from screwing up -it’s just going to make his next S&W that much more expensive. Or put S&W (or whoever) out of business -not a good idea IMHO.
I heard that when Giuliani cleaned up NYC, he started very simply -with graffiti and vandalism- and worked his way up from there. I do not know the whole story of how he did it, but I’m willing to wager that it took far more than tightening gun laws -look at Washington DC.
I think he did a fine job cleaning up that town, and he was magnificent on 9/11 -I can overlook his liberal tendencies if he keeps Hillary Clinton out of the White House- but that whole “suing the gun makers” idea raises a serious red flag with me.
Like I said before, I support Giuliani over all the others -just not without some reservations.
But what the hell, I can’t vote anyways. Unless I become an illegal and go work in construction.
Where did you say you were? :-)
February 13th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
DW…so again we agree a whole lot more than we disagree….eh?
I just think we all, yeah all of us need a reality check about guns and abortion. Yeah I’m going to combine the two issues into one post…..that ought to get me flamed really bad, but here goes.
First with guns. Right now, those of us with guns or who want to buy guns are pretty much free to do so. And those of us (not us, us) that are criminals and people with intent to do harm, are also pretty much free to do so, either thru a legal gun shop or from a car trunk somewhere in Harlem (insert any high crime city here). My point is that nobody is really in danger of losing their legal guns or losing their right to buy them. Now, there are a lot of people in this country that want to change that, but it’s really a local vs. a national issue. Most attempts to actually impead peoples 2nd ammendment rights have been shot down eventually in the courts. As evenly as this country is divided politically, that probably isn’t going to change for the next 10-20 years, if ever. As far as POTUS’ control over this, I don’t care if he is the biggest anti-gun or pro-gun guy (freudian slip….I said guy) on the planet, unless he can stack the SCOTUS with pro or anti 2nd ammendment people, this isn’t going to change. Even if you have a Republican President and congress…as we have had the last 6 years, unless there is a very big majority in both houses, POTUS’ hands are tied because he can’t get his supreme court nominees to the bench. And that also assumes there are openings to nominate people for. The next pres could serve a long time without the opportunity to change the court….if ever.
Now abortion……agree with it or disagree with it, or even despise it as I would put myself in the catagory of doing (despise that is), it isn’t going to change for the same reason I stated above. We are a gridlocked nation, so no major changes are going to happen. That’s just the reality of our world right now. Do elections matter? Hell yes they do, but there are some things that aren’t going to change, probably in our generation, and these two are just two examples.
So how do you evaluate a candidate? Look at national defense first (and that includes crime and border control)….will he and can he do the job, and will he fire all the twits at HSD?. Look at fiscal practices….will he take care of our bank account. Look at social issues last, because these are the issues we have the least chance of changing and POTUS has the least amount of control or influence over. Change what you have the ability to change and hope in later years, someone will have the ability to change the other issues.
Simplistic? Yes. Pragmatic? Damn right. Inflammatory? Don’t know. Go Rudy!
(Adjusting flack jacket and helmut for the flames).
February 13th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
And BTW….if anyone can find a perfect candidate out there, I’d be glad to vote for them. In reality, most candidates probably have more bad traits than good ones No matter who you vote for, there are going to be traits and views of your candidate you don’t agree with, and may loudly disagree with.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
WI, the problem about gun control is just that non-existant in most places… but not all. If you live in Washington DC, for example, good luck getting a gun legally. You can get one illegally, of course, but you shouldn’t have to. That’s what the Second Amendment is all about. And as I think someone else already pointed out, look at Washington DC if you think strict gun laws mean less crime.
As for SCOTUS, Clinton didnt’ have a huge majority when he put Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court, who is clearly as nutty as a squirrel-turd. This was the woman who had moved to lower the age of consent to 12, and said that rape was originally defined as a property crime, because the rapist was stealing/vandalizing the woman’s chastity, which belonged to her husband or her father. Yet she was voted in by better than 70% the elder Bush didn’t have a majority at all when he put in Clarence Thomas, one of the two Supreme Court Justices worthy of the name. And despite people smearing him in every way they could think of, he got in. Even if an anti-life candidate couldn’t get some right-thinking justices into SCOTUS, he could at least stop us from getting the Ginsberg-types that Rudy would put in.
And let me note again–Rudy won’t enforce our borders. One of his biggest moves as mayor of New York was to declare that he wouldn’t cooperate with the INS at all.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Screw it, I am going to announce my candidacy for President…..the hell with them all. I will form the Tater Party…..and everyone who knows this site will understand what a “tater party” will entail……oh boy oh boy. that’s it. Get the media on the phone so I can lie about everything I did or didnt do at one time or another maybe perhaps I did didnt could have for it against it line of political bullshit that will get me elected.
Hell, I will make crap up! The media will go broke trying to track down all of my skeletons, I got millions! I have done everything wrong, I am against everything, and for everything! Whatever you believe, I am for it, or against it, depending on where you stand.
sounds absolutely stupid, doesnt it? Then why are we putting up with politicians who do exactly the same thing, and it counts????
February 14th, 2007 at 2:29 am
You’ve got my vote, sj. After all, you’re the “rightest.”
BTW, can I be your webmaster for your campaign? I don’t know crap about running a website, but on the other hand I am a pathologically snarky basket case.