You won't admit it, but that is exactly what you are doing if you condone this action by Bush. If enough of you say you will vote for him anyway, he has nothing to lose by signing. At least you could make him worry about signing it. Can't you see that blind allegience is defacto surrender?
" I would be willing to wager that no vote will take place in the House or if it does it will be defeated."
You can hope, wish or hold your breath all day long. You are putting your faith and our rights in the hands of politicians who care more about holding onto their job than anything else. You have no idea of the pressure that will be brought to bear and what events will occur to increase that pressure.
"Bush will not be detered from doing what he promised by the blustering of tiny minorities which never supported him in the first place."
You continue to assert that he never had our support or votes. He had a substantial amount of that support or he would just be a footnote in history.
"Terrorists have NOT "walked" across our borders they all arrived quite legally."
Walk, drive, fly? Who cares? They haven't been deterred and there are still open borders and we have no idea if others have literally walked across and are awaiting orders.
"Nor are the American people "being disarmed" by Bush. He is one of the few courageous enough to stand up and say such laws are wrong and ineffectual in achieving their ostensible purpose."
You better reread his remarks. First he said that it is an individual right. Then he said that it is subject to 'reasonable restrictions'. When you have to apply to the government for permission to exercise your right, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. What the goernment gives, the government can take away. The administration also has argued against a few 2nd Amendment cases being advanced to SCOTUS for hearings.
"Your concern about tyranny is appropriate but any attack on Bush will only hasten such a thing not diminish its chances."
If that is the intent, then let it be sooner rather than later. But if you can see that outcome, why can't Bush or his advisors? Or do they and they just don't care?
"The alternatives will only hasten the slavery you fear. Yet, that is what you THREATEN Bush with? It is assinine."
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill
"After 8 yrs. of selling defense technology to the Chinese, giving the N.Koreans nuclear technology and oil, allowing OBL to establish the means to kill thousands of Americans IN THIS COUNTRY, Gore was only defeated by the grace of God and Free Republic. Had Gore won you could forget it, it would have meant this country was finished. Now we have been given another chance and the ideologues are threatening to turn it over to our enemies once again?
No. We gave the GOP an opportunity to do the right thing and they are on the verge of blowing it. I will not take responsibility for what the party has done and failed to do. I will only call them to account for it.
"Bush is no Clinton and the inability to understand this is indicative of the shortsightedness and blindness of your position. Just why in hell does the RATmedia hate him with such a passion if he is merely another Clinton? This makes NO sense whatsoever."
I'm not equating their beliefs, actions, or policies only their political drive. They both pander and will do what is necessary to win, not necessarily what is right.
"He owes NOTHING to the extreme far right. It never supported him preferring instead to chase will-o-the-wisps like Keyes."
If the Keyesters (in great numbers) had not backed Bush after the primary, Bush would not have won. If Bush believes or behaves that way next year, he will be another one termer. That will distinquish him from clinton, in that he will not be bright enough to understand the concept of not thoroughly pissing off your base.
"These are the people threatening most loudly and Bush will rightly pay them no mind."
At his own peril.
"Not that he pays anyone or any group deferential attention. Unlike Clinton he does what he believes to be correct no matter how popular or unpopular. THAT is a leader."
So he believed that CFR was the right thing to do? And the Kennedy Education Bill was the right thing? If that is his idea of leadership, then I guess that I just don't share his vision.
Since he has not vetored any legislation thsfar, I can then conclude that he has supported every bill that has hit his desk?