Although I am against the CFR as written since I believe that it is unconstitutional (I favor no caps, no restrictions, and full disclosure)GW should not veto it. Why should his favorables take a hit (and they will)? A)It doesn't affect presidential races, B) It's what the Republican controlled House wants, C) If the gutless Republican senators don't filibuster the bill, they deserve it, and D) The SCOTUS will throw out the worst of the CFR anyway.
I believe GW took the same "I'll sign it" stance with the stimulus package; 'lo and behold', the bad package never made it to his desk. I'm really getting tired of our congressional "leaders" hiding behind the 'skirts' of the president, and one way to stop them is to hold them responsible for their actions.
When GW goes before Congress and asks then to declare formal war against Iraq (he has no other choice), we will find out what our representatives are made of.
Heaven help us if President Bush has to go to Congress for permission to continue his fight against terrorism.
How do you know, Robert Paulsen, that SCOTUS will throw out the "worst" of the "campaign finance reform." Who in his right mind would depend on two Reagan appointees to the court: O'Connor and Kennedy. Also one GHWB appointee: David Souter; he's no help to conservatives. I don't think we can "assume" anything but that the Supreme Court is generally the first three letters of the last word in this post typed in quotation marks.