[husky ed]

Delay will do his job.

To bad Bush didn't do his and say he "wouldn't" sign any unconstitutional laws and would have those already on the books thrown out.

He's the one that took the oath of office of President, not Delay.

[Godebert]

Well said.

[Fraulein]

To bad Bush didn't do his and say he "wouldn't" sign any unconstitutional laws

But it's all part of a brilliant strategy! /sarcasm

[El Gato]

He's the one that took the oath of office of President, not Delay.

Actually Delay, like all Congress critters, judges and military officers as well as many uncivil servants, all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US. The Constitution requires it, and it includes state legislators, judges and executives and other "officers" of the states to do likewise.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

To bad Bush didn't do his and say he "wouldn't" sign any unconstitutional laws and would have those already on the books thrown out.

He's the one that took the oath of office of President, not Delay.

You shouldn't be allowed to vote. You don't have the brains God gave one of Tom Harkin's dung heaps.

Bush is playing good cop. Delay is playing bad cop.

The objective in politics is to WIN, not say things YOU want to hear.

You don't win by stomping around like Joe McCarthy (who was right about the Commies but made being anti-Communist a joke) giving everybody an easy target to shoot at.

Which would you rather have, genius:

(1) Bush says "WE NO GONNA RENEW AWB" and lose to Hillary, who implements it anyway when she becomes President? or

(2) Bush says "I will sign AWB if it hits my desk," Delay never lets it out of committe so it can't be signed, and Bush gets reelected?

Do you have enough brain cells to comprehend which is the more desirable situation?

[Southack]

"To bad Bush didn't do his and say he "wouldn't" sign any unconstitutional laws and would have those already on the books thrown out."

That's the same as saying that "I wish Al Gore had won, Leiberman resigned, and Hillary was appointed to Gore's VP, followed shortly thereafter by an accident that took Gore out and promoted Hillary into the Presidency."

Why?

Because George Bush was precisely as far to the Right as our nation would allow to be elected in 2000. Even the slightest bit more Right Wing, and those 577 winning votes in Florida would have gone for Gore.

Over 100 million Americans voted in 2000, but 577 people made the difference. The slightest change in policies would have given the election to Gore. There was simply NO MARGIN FOR ERROR.

With Bush, you get what you see. He keeps his promises. Don't fault the first politician in decades for keeping his campaign promises. Disagree with him on that one issue, fine.

But this constant bickering and childish whining about how Bush should be more Conservative than a Southern Baptist preacher at a Church of Christ social function is pure grade A bunk.

Being more Conservative in 2002 was acceptable. In 2004 it will be even more acceptable, but back in 2000 Bush was as far to the Right as we could legally elect.

It was even worse in 1996. Back then our choices were Clinton, Perot, and poor old Bob Dole (hardly a right-winger, as Dole gave us the original 1968 gun control act that registered machine guns, as well as gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act, among other things).

But as Bush piles up success on top of success, you'll see the whole nation shift over more towards the Right. Each year we'll be able to elect slightly more Conservative politicians, presuming that we don't get stupid by jumping ahead of the curve (e.g. Goldwater circa 1968) going after some "ideal" right-wing candidate.

This culture shift will only work if we move the nation in baby-steps. If we pull a Hillary and try to make the right-wing equivilent of her plan to nationalize healthcare, then all bets are off.