George W. Bush today in Minnesota:
The press gaggle on Air Force One on Monday:
MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree. His position has always been well-known, and it’s been clear going back to his first campaign for President.
Q That he was for the ban?
MR. McCLELLAN: For a reauthorization of the current ban.
Q Let me follow up on this point. For a guy who goes around the country and says, I say what I mean, and you should take me at my word — so if he’s for the ban, and he doesn’t do a thing —
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, keep in mind that the Congress is the one that sets the legislative timetable, and Congress has made clear that it’s not going to be coming up. I think you’ve had leaders in Congress state that.
Q But the President didn’t work for it to come up. I mean, nobody — everybody understands how this process works. The President wants tax cuts, he lobbies all over the country —
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s why the President has taken strong steps to make sure we are combating violence committed with guns. And that’s why we have a strong record —
Q He was happy to let the authorization lapse, wasn’t he?
MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, you know that’s a ridiculous assertion.
Q Name one thing, one step that the President took to have the assault weapons ban reauthorized?
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s why I said, Ron, his position has been very well-known. We’ve restated that position. It remains unchanged. But he does not set the legislative timetable. Members of Congress set the legislative timetable. And Congress has stated — congressional leaders have stated that it’s not going to come up for a vote.
Q Is there one congressman, one congressional leader who he has called in Congress, and said, please put it on the timetable?
MR. McCLELLAN: Let’s debate the real issue here — and we’re proud to debate the record on combating violence committed with guns, because we have a strong record of strictly enforcing our laws and reducing crimes committed with guns, if you look at the record.
Q And the President has a strong record of lobbying very hard for legislation he truly supports. Name one person who he called to lobby on behalf of legislation.
MR. McCLELLAN: — his position has been made well-known.
Q So there’s nothing more he could have done to get the ban extended?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think members of Congress have stated — congressional leaders have stated that it’s not going to be coming up for a vote.
Q Has he ever mentioned it in a speech that you can remember, I mean, as he goes around the country, ever mentioned the assault weapons ban?
MR. McCLELLAN: Certainly we’re going to continue to talk about the strong action that he’s taken to combat violence committed with guns, Ben. I think that’s the — it goes to the real issue here. You brought up the issue of whether or not this was effective, in terms of the assault weapons ban. That’s something that people have continued to debate. But this President has led when it comes to combating violence committed with guns. And so we welcome a discussion of the record.
Q I’ve heard him bring up lots of legislation he wants passed as he goes around the country. I’ve never heard him bring up, I want to see the assault weapons ban —
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he’s made his position very well-known. So I disagree with that assertion.
Q Can you name one person who he’s called on the Hill on behalf of this legislation?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look, members of Congress know his position very well, Ron.
Q So has he made a call to any of them?
MR. McCLELLAN: His position is very well-known, Ron, and members have known his position. And it’s been discussed with members, too.
UPDATE: Though the White House doesn’t credit who the speakers of the “Q’s” are, it may be safe to assume that the questioner here is Ron Fournier of the AP. As much as I bash the press, it’s only fair to try and give credit to those who don’t roll over for the White House!
…but Brad, your position on this administration is very well known. Why CONTINUE to post data supporting your position?
If we were to follow our president’s lead here, you need only SAY SOMETHING ONCE, then everyone will be expected to remember what you said four years later.
I say you take the whole site down, and leave the words "Brad’s Position on the Bush Administration is very well known"
Oh wait, we don’t live in FANTASY LAND. If you mean something, you typically do and say things to support it.
Brad
blow me
The ban was nothing more than an assault on our second amendment rights. It was designed to be lifted after 10 years and it was. I like the fact that our government can make temporary laws and then they expire. That way, they won’t keep a bad law permanent. A good law can always be made permanent or extended.
The Patriot Act, the law you say takes away our freedoms, has been recommended by the 911 Commission to be expanded. I know you are for their recommendations. Don’t be a hypocrite!
I think many would approve of amending the Patriot Act first, then adding to it.
Expanding the Patriot Act wouldn’t necessarily mean that it would limit all freedoms. I would be fine if they were to retool it; not all of it is infringing on a citizen’s right to privacy. I would support it only if they were to expand it, and rewrite (omit) some of the portions that reasonable people (and the courts!) find unnecessary and potentially harmful to personal security.
As for your second amendment nonsense, why do you refuse to acknowledge the necessity of this law? Even the PRESIDENT says that he felt the Assault Weapons Ban should be continued (despite doing nothing about it). So why the obstinacy here?
I agree that it’s great that laws can come to pass, and once they are deemed irrelevant or unnecessary be taken off the books. The Assault Weapons Ban is hardly in this class, however.
Paul…no matter how many guns you own, they won’t protect you from a JDAM or Cruise Missle. If only you cared about all the other amendments like you cared about your guns,
"I would be fine if they were to retool it; not all of it is infringing on a citizen’s right to privacy. I would support it only if they were to expand it, and rewrite (omit) some of the portions that reasonable people (and the courts!) find unnecessary and potentially harmful to personal security."
How sensible and intelligent. You know, that’s John Kerry’s position. It’s funny that the Republicans would say Kerry’s against the patriot act. Judging from that statement you seem to be for most of it and against some of it.
You’d have to be a mental midget not to understand the logic in that…or Dubya Bush.