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.

[My2Cents]

There is no reason for me to vote for Bush in 2004.

To borrow your own screen name, "you've got to be kidding me." No reason to vote for Bush next year? How about keeping Howard Dean out of the White House? How about continued prosecution of the war on terror? How about control over judicial nominations (which I would think you'd care about since it was the court which approved the CFR)? The final straw for you is the approval of the Campaign Finance Reform law? You've got to be kidding me.

[CyberCowboy777]

Iraq, Afghanistan, Tax cuts, De funding of some Abortions, Ban on Partial Birth Abortion and reaffirming the personal right to own a gun - we would never get those under a democrat.

[Recovering_Democrat]

One other thing to add to my previous post: This vote was as narrow as narrow gets: 5 to 4. I firmly believe another strong conservative on the bench would join the Constitutionalists and overrule the law...it would be a watershed on the level of Dred Scott.

And it would enjoy the support of ultra liberals like the ACLU and the conservatives....in fact, the Roe question might be moot in the coming months as liberals and conservatives who oppose this muzzling of free speech becomes more and more apparent. The question of the First Amendment might be important for future judge nominees.

I am more determined than ever to vote Republican. We cannot allow Chuck Schumer's choice for judges to get on the Bench.

[My2Cents]

Just because Bush has done well in the war with the Islamofascists, doesn't mean he is above criticism with these issues.

I agree with you on this -- no one is above criticism. My political hero, Ronald Reagan, maintained US membership in the UN, still kept the Department of Education in place, never adequately reformed welfare, signed the Brady Bill, granted amnesty to illegal aliens, caved-in at the first sign of opposition from Middle East terrorists, and signed a tax increase bill in 1986. I still love the guy.

While no public leader is above criticism, the kind of self-righteous strutting around I see in threads like this, like that posted by others here, people telling us what they think the First Amendment allows and what it doesn't allow, is childish. If they want to leave the Republican Party over something like this, I sincerely doubt they were ever Republicans in the first place. They're "NITS" -- "Naysaying Ivory Tower Snipers," always shooting from their ideological ivory towers at allies in the trenches who are doing the heavy work of turning back the incarnate evil that is the leftist Democrat Party.

[Clara Lou]

Bush knew it was crap when he signed it; he probably still thinks it's crap; he probably wanted the SCOTUS to overturn it.
I thought we discussed this here at FR weeks ago and that very point was made-- the thing is garbage, it won't stand, and Bush is simply dodging a Dimocrat campaign issue by signing it. And everyone KNOWS the Democrats would use it against him.

[kittymyrib]

When you depend on Squirrely Girl O'Connor to pull your chestnuts out of the fire after signing a bill, you are really courting disaster. Why did we ever get the idea of appointing justices for life, when life in colonial days was 50 years and now it's 90, with senility guiding our laws as a result.

[My2Cents]

I have to admit that I'm not going to lose any sleep over the SCOTUS giving its approval to this law, but is it perhaps possible that CFR, just maybe, actually doesn't violate the First Amendment?

[Dolphy]

Iraq, Afghanistan, Tax cuts, De funding of some Abortions, Ban on Partial Birth Abortion and reaffirming the personal right to own a gun - we would never get those under a democrat.

And how much of this would we have if Bush took every issue to the mat? That bill should have never have gotten to Bush's desk leaving him alone to pay a political price. The Dems and McCain counted on disabling the Bush agenda with this issue and Bush rolled, not giving them the satisfaction or political issue they wanted. But how different would those midterm election been had the Dems had this issue? And who is getting hurt the most right now?

[billbears]

It is time to start removing judges.

Now would this be the seven judges placed by Republican Presidents on SCOTUS, or just the other two?

[My2Cents]

Why did we ever get the idea of appointing justices for life, when life in colonial days was 50 years and now it's 90, with senility guiding our laws as a result.

Best comment on the thread. What I'd like to know is why these justices hang on, through illness and the ravages of age, simply to do their damage on the republic. One would think that after a justice turned, oh, 80, they'd want to retire and spend their remaining years lecturing about how the nation has been screwed over by the courts.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" They're "NITS" -- "Naysaying Ivory Tower Snipers," always shooting from their ideological ivory towers at allies in the trenches who are doing the heavy work of turning back the incarnate evil that is the leftist Democrat Party."

Do you remember the howling and outrage,when President Bush announced that we were sending a small contingent of Marines to Liberia? There were quite a few FReepers who announced that was the final straw and they would never vote Republican again. Tom Brokaw just said on the Nightly News that today's ruling helps one man and one man, alone-George Bush.

[nicmarlo]

CFR and AWB? Is this like AM and FM or AC and DC?

I think we should also complain about NPR, too; maybe GW will get the IRS to a-u-d-i-t? : )

[My2Cents]

Your point is a valid one, but the reality is that even a President has to pick his fights wisely. Why didn't Ronald Reagan get rid of the Dept. of Education like he'd promised? Answer: He had bigger fish to fry (tax cuts, and military build-up in his grand strategy to end Soviet communism). My respect for Reagan isn't diminished by the fact he didn't go to the mat on defunding the Dept. of Education.

[Digger]

...And everyone KNOWS the Democrats would use it against him....

And LEADERS rather than politicians stand up to insanity. SO what are you GW - a leader or a RINO? I go with the RINO. Where is a candidate to challenge this compassionte RINO next year??? Where! Where!

[Mad Dawgg]

Hey, "You Gotta Be Kidding Me,"

If I were you I wouldn't stand in front of this:

ZOT!

Whoops,

"You Gotta Be Kidding Me: This account has been banned or suspended.

Too Late!

[Sci Fi Guy]

I am outraged. Nevertheless, come next fall, I have two real options in the general election. Maybe the decision really is between "bad" and "worse," but I'm not going to see that "worse" gets elected

How I'm going to respond (aside from many e-mail to Bush and Cheney) is to NOT give any money or time to Bush's re-election compaign. I'll support the senate campaign because this election we have a chance to gain some seats and maybe break the rat's obstruction. But most of my money will go to pro-gun groups, right to life, club for growth, etc.

[My2Cents]

For once, Tom Brokaw is probably correct. I suspect the Democrats are kicking themselves for passing this bill, since most of the soft money it regulates comes from labor unions, environmentalist wacko groups, pro-abortion feminists organizations, and George Soros. I suspect the Dems climbed on the bill with the expectation that Bush would veto it and then they could skewer him for doing so; when he didn't, they swollowed hard, crossed their fingers, hoping that the Court would bail them out from their "over-strategerizing." Now the court has approved what they "wanted," much to their dismay.

BTW, I've come to look upon those who claim about four times a week that they are "through" with Bush and the GOP for some outrage, really weren't with Bush and the GOP very firmly to begin with.

[My2Cents]

Excellent photo.