[Charles Martel]

Bush not signing this bill will not mollify most of these critics.

I think that's an overstatement. Certainly, there is some overlap among those who want to give Bush the heave-ho because of runaway spending, CFR, etc., and those who simply want him to allow a putrid piece of Clintonian legislation to die. If the AW Ban renewal lands on Bush's desk and in a surprise move, he vetoes it - there will be mollification aplenty. I don't hold out much hope for that scenario, but that's the result I'd expect if Bush did the right thing, rather than the politically expedient thing.

To me, the far bigger question is this: Whose votes does Bush *really* expect to GAIN by signing that AW ban renewal? I seriously doubt that many proponents of the AW Ban were Bush supporters in 2000.

[looscnnn]

"rather than the politically expedient thing."

The question that Bush needs to ask himself is which is the politally expedient way to go? Sign it and most likely loose more votes than he gains by signing it or not sign it and maybe loose a few votes because of other issues and not gain those for the ban, but keep those that would have left him if he signed.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't think it an overstatement at all. There has always been a sizeable clique here which has opposed him from day one and they are some of those threatening him again.

Nor do I think it to be political expediency which would cause Bush to sign this bill. I think it is because he does believe that vetos should not be used for much of anything but for legislation that is outrageously unConstitutional. If this law has been held as constitutional already then it doesn't fall into that catagory.

I don't really believe he thinks he will gain many votes in allowing it to stand and would be happy to see him veto it.

Certainly his enemies will not be converted.

Can't say that I agree with that thinking but it appears to be operative.