Posted on 12/10/2003 8:57:44 PM PST by jwalsh07
Of course.... but that IS the Legislative Branch according to the Constitution.
Given the opposition that Bush has been trying to navigate regarding appointing judges, fighting terrorism, repairing the economy, etc, and given the fact that our so-called "majority" in the House and Senate are not solid ones, Bush cannot stomp all over Congress at will. As you pointed out, he has already gone out on risky limbs (ex. partial-birth abortion ban)... unfortunately for us, he is not a King that can constantly cater to only the small conservative percentage of the total electorate.
The way to prevent legislation such as this is to elect a right-leaning super-majority in Congress and educate the public about why a law such as this is harmful.
Yes, but does it prevent them from spending untold amounts of free labor and busing services to "get out" the vote.
The big spending Education bill, the SCOTUS ruling on sodomy, Ridge's 'endorsement' of amnesty for millions of illegals and now the SCOTUS ruling on CFR, a ruling that should never have happended in the first place!
Told them I am really upset at W for signing the damn bill in the first place! And, I will not forget the Senators that voted for this bill.
Also told them forget asking me for contributions any time soon. I am deeply concerned with what is happening. On the one hand W is doing a good job fighting the terrorists while on the other hand ignoring the enemies within. That is a recipe for losing the overall WOT.
Lastly, I told them to not automatically count on my vote next November simply because I am a conservative. I would need a conservative to vote for first!
I don't feel like voting R this time, all of a sudden!
So Bush ignored a huge public outcry against this measure? I don't recall any such outrage by the "masses". Did you spend as much time writing letters to editors and informing liberals about this legislation as you did spending time complaining about it to fellow conservatives?
Every piece of legislation that passes against our wishes is OUR fault for not educating our fellow voters and our fault for allowing Democrats to still hold so many seats in Congress.
If you truly want legislation held to conservative interpretation by the Supreme Court (which just ruled this legislation as permissable), then we would do well to support Bush as fully as possible so that he'll be appointing the next Supreme Court Justices and NOT Howard Dean.
My comment about Bush not being a "King" is aimed at fellow right-wingers who seem eager to sneer and rain poison down on Bush every time he doesn't follow the pure conservative line. The venom directed toward Bush at FR is overwhelming lately and he is our best opportunity at continuing the right-ward movement of the American voters.
Now, I have not yet completely determined what I will or will not do for the upcoming election. I doubt I will be putting as much effort into this election cycle as others in the past.
But, I am confused about your post:
Exactly what are the long term goals of the Republican party? Can you tell me? I certainly do not know and I am considered a political junkie. So far we have had a couple tax cuts, which is a good thing, and the WOT, which is a good thing.
We have also had the Education spending bill, designed to appease Kennedy.
We have had the SCOTUS tell us sodomy is a constitutionally protected right and W said nothing.
We have had the Prescription Drug bill, designed only to garner the senior vote.
We have had Tom Ridge now advocate the amnesty of millions of illegals, just to get the Hispanic vote.
And now we have had the first step in our eventual loss of freedom of speech.
So, are Republicans now the big spending party? Are they now the party that condones breaking the law (illegals)? Are they the party that is just going to sit back and watch the Constitution be completely destroyed? Sure looks that way.
So I ask again: What are their long term goals?
You talk about Supreme Court Justices. This is vitally important as the SCOTUS is destroying our country. Yet, the Republicans in the Senate, and the President, have yet to show me they are willing to fight for their appointees. The Senate Republicans in particular have no backbone. What is going to change that? A few more seats?
I just do not see any backbone transplants coming.
I have not seen ANYTHING coming from W or the Congressional Republicans that things will change. The occassional sound bite, but that't it. No backbone.
Uhhh yeah, that would pretty much do it... or are Bush's proposed appointees not conservative enough for you?
You asked me a litany of questions failing to answer my single one to you... how much worse will it be if President Dean appoints the next few Supremes? We might as well just throw America away then and there. Saving our country from a full-blown takeover by socialist leaders is MY long-term goal. We are at a pretty critical point in our history and at risk of becoming a despised subsidiary to the U.N. You are more than welcome, of course, to withhold your assistance in this endeavor because you prefer to bicker about items we have had to compromise on to satisfy the other HALF of our electorate.
I fully accept you may be a political junkie, but I propose your strategy for getting what you claim to want will only prove counter-productive to your own aims.
Believing that one party will get away with skirting campaign finance reform while the other one won't is ridiculous. They're ALL going to get around this law.
Not much worse. The Dems have a new requirement of 60 votes for significant nominations. If they go below 40 seats, they'll just lower the threshold and the ratmedia will back them up.
jwalsh07 wrote:And not one of them deserves a single vote in their next election unless they also vote to repeal this abomination.
11 Republican Senators, 41 Republican House Members and One Republican President Signed BCRA-2002
Actually, they deserve impeachment and/or explusion, along with the 5 Supreme Court Justices who allowed this law to stand.
Give up then... I refuse to.
If the opposing point of view can't pay to put it on TV when it matters...what will they do with the loss of half their revenue? Is it worth it?
The image that springs to mind is the genie in Disney's "Aladdin: " Phenomenal cosmic powers...itty bitty living space."
All upstate NY liberal Republicans. Is it any wonder that Hillary won the state when her political adversaries are these clowns? And is Walsh the James Walsh representing Syracuse?
BOVINE EXCREMENT!!! Candidate Bush repeatedly promised that he would NEVER sign McCain Feingold. He PROMISED a veto. Flat out promised. Then he went right ahead and signed the damned thing. He needs to hear, in an overwhelming volume, just how p.o.'d we are. P.O.'d at him, Congress and all the so-called conservative pundits and Freepers who told those of us alarmed by the passage of CFR, and then outraged at W's signing of it, to sit down and shut up...the Supreme Court would fix everything. Well they sure fixed everything alright!
What a load of crap! I've spent my whole adult life working for a GOP government so we could rein in big government, cut taxes, end entitlements and reduce the size of government.
We've finally succeeded and now we get the First Amendment shredded, the largest Education Spending Bill EVER passed (remember when Conservatives wanted to end the Dept of Ed?), the greatest increase in Federal Domestic spending in history and a brand spankin' new Federal entitlement program.
The Republican Party as governing party is a despicable failure. I would laugh if it wasn't so damned sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.