Call the WHite HOuse to Thank Bush for CFR!!!

[Maceman]

For what good it will do, I just called the White House switchboard (202-456-1111) and conveyed my extreme outrage at Bush for not vetoing CFR when he had the chance.

I hope you all will do the same.

BTW, the operator told me "you are not alone."

Let's shut down the WH switchboard with howls of protest.

If I wasn't still even more terrified of the Democrats than I am of the Republicans (albeit barely at this point), I would never support Bush in '04 after this.

[WOSG]

You are new to FR I take it.

Gonzalez may be pro-AA but not 'pro-abortion'.
JMHO.

[WOSG]

" It is a fact that no major links between Iraq and 9/11 exist. "

Whoa. That is a load of BS. I'm not surprised you think that since the major media has "spiked" the story, but ... Go search and read Steve Hayes' "Case Closed" article.

[R. Scott]

I seriously doubt that the Campaign Finance “Reform” will change much. Politicians will still have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on their campaigns, special interests will still “contribute”, and we will still have the best representatives money can buy.

[WOSG]

Because the Bill had a severability clause in it, The next day after Bush signed CFR, Mitch McConnell filed the papers to challenge the parts of the Bill that GWB openly said he didn't like, it was a plan and a gamble, which they lost. I like the restrictions on Union dues being used to fund the DNC, I like the idea of soft money out of elections, I do not agree with the limit on individual free speech and neither did GWB. They took a gamble that they could get the portions of the bill they thought was unconstitutional overturned by the SCOTUS. But this is not the final chapter on this, You can best believe that they working on reversing this law as we speak

I think if Bush comes out and openly supports the repeal of the limits on independent politicking, it would be a good thing.

Moreover, let's be clear - this bill was a lot better than the socialist bill that was campaign finance 'reform' in 1991 or so... they eased up on some restrictions, raised individual donation limits, etc. The threat to our 1st amendment freedoms didnt start with Bush. We have people 50% of the electorate or more, voting for candidates who openly support this attack on the 1st amendment. Our problem is not Bush, it's the 48 Democrats and handful of Republicans who pushed this through the Senate, its the Democrats and RINOs who voted for this in Congress.

And our problem is with Liberal activist judges who use the Constitution as their personal Pinata.

[WOSG]

... I believe the Whig Party was also collapsing at the time, and the GOP soon thereafter became a "second" party that took its place. There have been many more instances where a third party has failed rather than succeeded (Populist, Progressive, Bull-Moose, Reform). Face it, for a new party to make an impact, one of the other two has to go.

That is a good way of saying it.

Furthermore, it is clear that our current state of affairs we have a RINO(Moderate)/Conservative coalition party, the Republicans; and a Liberal Socialist party, the Democrats.

If Conservatives divide and split themselves up, the Republican party will "flip" and be totally RINO/Moderate. The end result will be a loss of political power for conservatives.

If Conservatives want to *WIN*, they need to stand and fight in the Republican party, and make it a conservative party, and THEN make sure the conservative candidates beat the liberal socialists in the general election.

[WOSG]

Those of us that are conservative hoped for some change when 'we' won back the Senate.

I thought a virtue of conservatives was our realism. "We" dont have a majority, when there are 6-7 RINOs and 48 Liberal Democrats. "We" conservatives are still a minority in the House and Senate. Sure we have a republican majority, but we dont have a conservative majority. So we could have hoped for a change, and we got it on some issues, but not on CFR, where the RINO+LiberalSocialistDemocrat coalition won.

Bush hoped to defuse an issue and have the USSC bail him out. Bad move.

We need to be nominating only Scalia-type conservatives and not RINO/moderate judges that end up confirming liberal precedents. What is true of the courts is also true of our political primaries.

[BushisTheMan]

If you read the fine article, you would have noticed that the author still supports Bush in '04.

It wasn't the article I was commenting on. It was the comment that the poster said he was not going to vote for Bush because he was against one domestic issue Campaign Finance. A vote not for Bush (whether not cast or cast for a Democrat) is still idiotic in my opinion. In this country we also have the right to disagree.

[BushisTheMan]

Good comments. The Bush bashers on this site are probably the ones who were going to "send a message" to the Republicans and Bush Senior by voting for Perot. And what happened when the voted Perot? Well, 8 years of the Clintons...that alone gives me chills. But it could be worse. By not voting in a close election, they might even be giving the election to Dean or Clark/Clinton. Is there anything scarier than that?

[billbears]

"We" conservatives are still a minority in the House and Senate

Agreed 100 percent. My point was to ridicule the rallying cry used back in 2002 about 'winning back the Senate'. There's no use in winning anything with a bunch of scrubs even LBJ wouldn't consider conservative.

We need to be nominating only Scalia-type conservatives and not RINO/moderate judges that end up confirming liberal precedents

Unfortunately I don't see that happening. As far as the Republican party has moved to the left, I imagine they would have problems even within the Republican party on confirming another Scalia-type Justice

[Wolfstar]

Yours is also a good list, WOSG. What some people consistently fail to do when evaluating the performance of political figures is weight the positives vs. the inevitable negatives. And there are going to be negatives even in the best adminstrations, congresses, courts, etc. In my opinion, the positive side of the ledger for this Bush administration far, far outweight the negatives.

[WOSG]

I know exactly what kind of judges the Democrats will install. I prefer to take my chances with Bush and the Republicans. I also know that Dean or any of the other Democrat candidates would be a disaster for America. No thanks, I'll stand by Bush even if I hate some of his decisions. - Jim Robinson

Great comment. The Democrat-nominated Judges were 100% bad. The Republican-nominated Judges were 4 good, 3 bad, or 58% good on (2 of the bad are known RINOs).

Quit bashing our wobbly friends, they are not the problem: the ENEMY is right there, leering at us and getting no negative reaction. save your energy and send a note to your least favorite liberal for a change, and tell how they destroyed freedom.

[WOSG]

Your post is confused... the votes supporting this bill were mostly Democrat votes, the only opponents of the bill in Congress were Republicans. Most Republicans were against this bill, and parctially all Democrats were for it. This bill was a RINO+Democrat bill.

I do agree that this bill passed because of John McCain.

[WOSG]

All of the 'good four' on CFR on the court are conservative Republicans: Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy.

Let's not forget that.

[sport]

Along with Finegold whose name is listed as a sponsor of the bill.

It is certainly not the tooth fairy.

What does M-c-C-a-i-n spell to you?

[Orangedog]

ping

[holdmuhbeer]

I agree, nobody has been able to tell me how this violates the constitution. They just want to bitch and rant about it but no intelligent discussion.