|
He still says he favors the ban on assault weapons, but he let it die -- and yes, if he had used the kind of party discipline he has used in other cases, he could have generated enough replutocrat votes to extend it!
Now, everybody knows Bush lies, including Bush supporters. But Bush supporters don't hold the lies against him, because they believe they themselves will benefit from the lies. (In fairness, a lie in a good cause is at worst an abiguous act, from a moral point of view. "White" lies, for example.)
Now, let's see how that has worked for the advocates of free markets. Bush said he was a "compassionate conservative," in favor of (more efficient) social and industrial policy. His free-marketeer supporters knew he was lying, but saw the possibility that the lie would gain him enough votes to set the stage for the elimination of those very policies. They expected that Bush would cut taxes to make it impossible to finance them soundly (he did) and then use the threat of national insolvency to abolish these programs, including subsidies to business that a consistent free-marketeer hates as much as "welfare." But he did not, and there is some evidence that he never met a subsidy to business that he didn't like, so long as it goes to a crony or a contributor (or a crony of a contributor). The free-marketeers are beginning to realize that he was not lying in their interest, but in the interest of getting and keeping power, in order to enrich himself and his associates. Poor free-marketeers.
He's not lying in your interest, either. Prediction: within three weeks, if it looks like the assault weapons lapse is hurting him in terms of votes, he will flip-flop and call for the reinstatement of the ban. (By the way, I'm as near a neutral on this issue as it is possible to be.)
When somebody seems to be lying in your interest, the one thing you know for sure is that the person is a lier. You can never be quite sure in whose interest he is lying.
|