[Mr. Bird]

I appreciate and agree with your sentiments on CFR, but any number of calls or letters will have zero impact. Bush knew it was crap when he signed it; he probably still thinks it's crap; he probably wanted the SCOTUS to overturn it. Had he vetoed it, he'd have been roasted in the press and every news item about fundraising in '04 would begin "Bush, who vetoed CFR...".

The political calculus is that he can do more good by signing CFR and remaining in office than vetoing it and letting Dean sign it in '05.

[AppyPappy]

Had he vetoed it, he'd have been roasted in the press

Oh Puh-lease. He's getting roasted anyway. What a cowardly approach.

[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.

[bdeaner]

On . . . the . . . nose.

Big picture, people. Look at the big picture.

[Salvation]

We're talking about Campaign Finance Reform aren't we?

[L.N. Smithee]

The political calculus is that he can do more good by signing CFR and remaining in office than vetoing it and letting Dean sign it in '05.

That's nuts. I don't know people whose vote was hanging on whose party was in favor of "taking the money out of politics" -- how many people would vote for a Demo over a President who deserved re-election based on CFR alone?

If your hypothesis is correct, Bush is counting on the inability of the national media to launch a squelch-proof late-in-the-game offensive that his campaign -- in normal circumstances -- would have had to spend megamillions to address.

Now, post-CFR, it is possible that the media that will inevitably slime Bush may make the difference between victory and defeat -- and there's nothing that he could do about it, because he has cut off his own access to the airwaves.

[proud American in Canada]

"Had he vetoed it, he'd have been roasted in the press and every news item about fundraising in '04 would begin "Bush, who vetoed CFR..."

I agree. However, he could have explained to the AMerican people that he valued freedom of speech, etc.

That being said, I will do nothing to help elect Dean or Hillary. I will, however, make my views known to the White House and participate in efforts to have this law repealed.

[Samizdat]

See, the only problem is that I can't tell the difference between the D's and R's now. What difference does it make if we have D or Bush in there anyway? Iraq maybe but I'm thinking if any D was in Bush's shoes, they would probably have done the same thing he is doing. Tax cuts? Don't make me laugh. What tax cuts? The IRS is still in business and continues to terrorize U.S. citizens and will continue to be under either Bush or a D. So tell me the difference.

[WOSG]

Mr bird you are correct about the political calculus.

But there is also the political calculus that says if we wanted a president who would sign CFR, push for massive entitlement expansion, and keep increasing govt spending with pork and welfarism, we'd have voted for Gore.

This is triangulating away our freedoms. Bad policy is never good politics.