"Every life is precious!"
The New York Times
October 18, 2005
Editorial
The Gun Industry Rolls Congress
Three years ago, the nation's capital region lived in fear of a pair of snipers who killed 10 people and wounded three in random attacks with a Bushmaster XM-15 .223-caliber telescopic rifle - a gleaming civilian version of the Army's basic M-16 assault rifle popular with recreational shooters. In the aftermath, the rifle was traced to a shoddy gun dealer who claimed he somehow "lost" that war weapon and some 200 other guns to the underground market. Victimized families sued in grief and outrage and won $2.5 million in a settlement that most Americans - except Congress - would pronounce proper.
The House of Representatives, in callow disregard of cause and effect in the nation's harrowing gun carnage, is about to take aim at the Bushmaster settlement by voting what is expected to be final approval of a bill to grant assault-proof protection from damage suits to the gun industry, from manufacturers to dealers. This extraordinary shield, written to the diktat of the National Rifle Association, is so sweeping that it would have barred the D.C. sniper settlement and other valid negligence claims, according to legal experts stunned that any industry could ever win such blanket immunity.
With all the critical issues on the national agenda, from the Iraq war to hurricane recovery, the House's eagerness is obscene as the gun lobby herds lawmakers from both parties behind a bill to deny victimized families their fair day in court. The bill goes beyond barring lawsuits to shielding black-market dealers from administrative loss of their licenses without near impossible burdens of proof.
President Bush talked favorably about the assault weapons ban as a candidate but was notoriously mute when the Republican Congress let the ban expire last year. Surely he would not compound the nation's gun scourge by signing the immunity bill.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
I don't mind the content of the gun bill. If it was a state bill I might even support it. But as a federalist, I have a problem with the way Congress is overstepping its boundaries in this bill. I believe that tort law ought to be developed by the individual states, and that the federal government has no business messing with it the way it is doing here. But on the content, I disagree with the
New York Times and don't have much of a problem with Congress Republicans.
***
On a different note, I would like to record a rare issue on which I am an unqualified Bush supporter:
He selected Ben Bernanke as Greenspan's successor. This choice is almost too good to be true, and based on past experience with this administration I am tempted to ask: "Okay, that was the bait -- now where is the switch?"
thomas
Yes. This Bush appointment seems to be getting positives from all corners.
blatham wrote:thomas
Yes. This Bush appointment seems to be getting positives from all corners.
I noticed that too. But I think I now have an idea of what the switch will be. According to one of the articles I have read about Bernanke's appointment, there are still two governor seats to fill at the Fed. I am bracing myself for the event that Bush will appoint incompetent cronies for the two jobs on a Friday afternoon when nobody's looking: cronies in the image of Mrs. Miers and Mr. Brown who will be "doing a heck of a job".
Let's watch and see. What I'd been wondering was something a little different, that is, perhaps the Fed operations are perceived as something quite different (very much more important) than FEMA or Agriculture or State or even Defense...it's not really a big thing if New Orleans gets drowned and lots of poor black people get displaced, and it's not even a big thing if 2000 plus kids get blown to **** in Iraq (not to mention a lot of folks with unfortunately tinted skin) or it's not too big a thing if during Bush's tenure that, say, 1000 species go extinct in America BUT IT IS a big thing if the serious money framework gets threatened.
Dunno -- how does that theory explain Harriet Miers for example? Even with the mindset you are suggesting, you would think that Bush and his advisors find constitutional law important, wouldn't you?
Harriet Miers has just withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court.
From the BBC:
US top court nominee steps down
Harriet Miers' nomination has placed Mr Bush in the spotlight
The Texas lawyer nominated to the US Supreme Court by President George W Bush, Harriet Miers, has withdrawn as a nominee to the court.
Thanks for the link, c.i.
I'll do it from now until around 8:00 this evening. At that point I'll be eating a pizza with my name on it.
Hey .... I lasted to about 8:30. I did my part.
Thomas wrote:Dunno -- how does that theory explain Harriet Miers for example? Even with the mindset you are suggesting, you would think that Bush and his advisors find constitutional law important, wouldn't you?
thomas
Sure. Many assorted policy preferences would be considered 'important' to various constituencies around the Presidency, this one or any other. The point would be, what constituency might wield the most real influence.
Quote:This late October reversal means this for November: The left will get even more heated in its rhetoric, even more extreme in its attacks, even more willing to distort and demagogue. And this in turn means the Bush administration needs not just to play effective defense, but to go on the offense--making the case for the war, its necessity, and the prospects for victory; explaining the role of the Bush tax cuts in producing economic growth, and fighting to make those cuts permanent; winning the Alito vote in the Senate and the constitutional debate in the country; and counterattacking against the criminalization of conservatives.
It will be a more interesting end of the year than most of us expected.
--William Kristol
The last sentence, where little billie wipes his sweat-dripped brow and offers up the "Whew! Maybe we aren't undone quite yet", tells us rather more about what he really fears and expects than the preceding paragraphs.
Billie reads the polls and he knows his history. He understands the depth of the hole his movement has to climb out of now. Nothing for it but to bluster, accuse and hope for a miracle.
Won't it be really interesting for George W Bush to poll in the low 40's or high 30's and the GOP led Congress to poll in the high teens, low 20's, and the GOP can STILL win elections? Now if you really think about that, what do the Democrats have going for them?
Foxfyre wrote:Won't it be really interesting for George W Bush to poll in the low 40's or high 30's and the GOP led Congress to poll in the high teens, low 20's, and the GOP can STILL win elections? Now if you really think about that, what do the Democrats have going for them?
Not having the worst president in recent history in the white house as one of theirs?
They couldn't get him elected.
