Former president Bush sr. lost an election for one reason, and one reason alone. He offended the American public by breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" promise....Even with the Gulf war in his back pocket.
George W. is about to break his promise to not sign any CFR bill that violated certain principles.
Thats not a good thing.
Yes, X41 lost because enough morons were stupid enough to think that a Dem woudn't screw them into the ground, sell / give away the vast majority of our state secrets, and ignore , TOTALLY the classified info that permitted 9/11/01 to happen undeterred. I guess that you haven't learned that lesson either. YOU DON'T GUVE A DAMN WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR COUNTRY AND TO YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS.
You don't read what I type, so can the hyperbolic bloviation. Your entreaty is about as sincere as Yasar Arafat's claims that he isn't in any way responsuble for the detahs if the inncent Israelis. You can't refute what I say, so you pull this ploy ? You aren't fooling anyone; least of all me.
If daddy Bush's signature on the tax hike had gotten run through the Supreme Court by the executive branch and had been selectively snipped by the court rulings until the end effect was a tax cut, then Daddy Bush would have been commended for a brilliant tactical move. The problem was that the the dem's tax hike went right through and was not opposed or altered. It was allowed to stand as a concession.
I don't know what the bill is going to look like after the executive branch challenges it in court, but I bet the administration knows darn well what it should look like after the ruling, asuming the justices will see the obvious and predictably rule. If the constitutionality is obvious, then the ruling should be predictable to the executive branch since it knows exactly what parts they are going to challenge, effectively allowing the executive to legislate through cut-and-paste selective reengineering of the bill. Like my opponents in chess, those who created the bill in effect may find themselves trapped by their own short-sightedness.
Or maybe not and Bush has wimped out. I don't know, to be blunt... using the court to trap your opponent in such a way is not something I would have thought of doing. I would have simply not signed the thing and then just suffer through the inevitable accusations of supporting big money, etc, in elections. But then, I'm not a world class chess player; nor a world class lawyer. The Bush team on the other hand is stocked very well with world class legal strategists. These are not your Democrat-style lawyers who got through law school by snorting crack with the professor or by wearing kneepads while serving as interns.
I'm betting that you know no more about the end result of the court rulings than I do. And both of us together know less of the ultimate outcome than do the lawyers who are about to fight it out in the courts. That they are planning to fight suggests that they have a plan already in motion. I'm more inclined to believe that the only thing libs have on their side is the relentless corruptibility of human nature. The thing conservatives have on their side is a wealth of experience and the habit of meticulous planning and judicious risk-taking. In the short run the corrupt guys make advances; in the long run the guy who can think outside of the box and who can predict his opponent's moves even before his oponent thinks of them, is the guy who wins. But going outside of the box frays the nerves of those not privy to the plan. So when results aren't instantly obvious, people tend to prematurely mock moves they don't understand.