[Dane]

So let's examine that. You've admitted CFR is not resonating with the public. I think you'd agree that Bush's credibility has (he won an election on it). What is the reasoning behind signing this law? He stands to lose more votes by flipflopping than he does by taking a principled stand against CFR and explaining to the public why he vetoed, doesn't he?

CFR is not a big deal with the public. They do not see it as the equivalent of slavery as some do on FR. But if Bush were to veto it, daschle, hillary, and mccain(and their buddies like Russert and Matthews in the press) are there like vultures to capitalize on it.

Look at the political calculus here. Bush signs it and the most vile part(the ad bans 60 days before an election) by previous SCOTUS precedant is thrown out.

The issue is dead. It will not raise it's ugly head again and Bush doesn't hand an issue to the dems.

[NittanyLion]

CFR is not a big deal with the public. They do not see it as the equivalent of slavery as some do on FR. But if Bush were to veto it, daschle, hillary, and mccain(and their buddies like Russert and Matthews in the press) are there like vultures to capitalize on it.

Agreed. But IMO, the vultures will do just as much damage if he vetoes it, if not more. Bush will never win with the press, nor will any conservative. They should factor the media out this decision.

Look at the political calculus here. Bush signs it and the most vile part(the ad bans 60 days before an election) by previous SCOTUS precedant is thrown out.

That I agree with. In fact, in the end this law could benefit the GOP. But I'll still be just as upset.

The issue is dead. It will not raise it's ugly head again and Bush doesn't hand an issue to the dems.

Like I said, that's probably what they were saying the last time SCOTUS struck down a CFR law, in 1976. This issue will come back regardless, as soon as a power-hungry arrogant b****** like McCain takes office.