[Torie]

Well, adopting the position that we need to have things go worse in order for them to get better, as you see the better (one step backwards for two steps forward), is not a new idea, but in general it is a bad idea, because it is a risky scheme, without really much prospect for success. That's my call anyway. Your mileage obviously varies.

[baxter999]

Welcome to the debate. Actually, I don't want things to get worse. I want them to get better. I challenge you to find anything on here (other than my sarcastic and witty comments) where I seriously said I want things to get worse.

I'm just noting that under Bush and a Republican majority they have gotten a lot worse a lot faster than even under Klinton.

You mention "risky schemes". If even an idiot like me could predict that a liberal Court would not overrule this law, then don't you think that it is Busch and his supporters that were taking the risk, instead of me and my supporters? Please read my comments on how often the supporters of Busch use terms like gambling and taking a chance when they support Busch and his positions.

The damnable thing about all this is that if Bush would have used his consitutional veto power, there would have been no gambling. We're in the majority in Congress and his veto would have stood. I'm too old to gamble; I like to put my money on sure things. Like vetoing bad laws.

So either Bush and his handlers are stupid (which I don't believe), or they didn't care for whatever reason. Which do you think it was?