Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim Robinson
Bush said, "It will be a signature. I won't hesitate. It will probably take about, you know, about three seconds to get to the 'W.' I may hesitate on the period, and then rip through the 'Bush.'‚"

I think this was made up by the WP writer. We should demand to know if it is in fact true, from who ever we have to get the information from to confirm it is true or not. If it is not true then the WP needs a good freeping too. If it is true and President Bush said just what the WP said, he is a stained President which could just be the start.

76 posted on 03/24/2002 9:24:33 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: TLBSHOW
Can we trust this is what he said from a WP story. Sounds like it was put there for us. Smells a little ratty to me.

I always consider the WP (or any mainstream media outlet for that matter) to by lying whenever they print something.

But I really don't care if Bush said this or not. All I care about is whether or not he signs the bill.

84 posted on 03/24/2002 9:28:35 PM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

To: TLBSHOW
Geez... this is so typical. The liberal press, while praising CFR, is now going to try and tar and feather W with it as it relates to his 'base.' The WP and NYT are totally in favor of CFR but rather than praise Bush for signing it (which I don't think they should but if THEY had any principles THEY would) they are going to try to hang his head with it. Mara Liason has already started the talking points about how this CFR doesn't adhere to any of W's principles outlined last year. She is right of course but her motive is all wrong. The press is circling the wagons and if we, in the base, fall for it, then we are to be blamed.
89 posted on 03/24/2002 9:31:27 PM PST by Wphile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

To: TLBSHOW
His comments were in response to a silly question regarding a "wholehearted signing or a reluctant signing". His point was, as everyone here agrees, who cares what kind of signature it is. He's expressed his misgivings on the bill and the type of signature means nothing. The question begged a "flippant" answer.

Why do people think this "reform" bill is unconstitutional but campaign finance laws in general are not?

The TV ads? Ha! Watch how they leap that hurdle.

In any event, much ado about nothing. Except that he said that he would veto it. That part there is no getting around.

206 posted on 03/25/2002 4:32:55 AM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson