Bush decisions rankle conservatives

Washington Times ^ | 3/27/02 | Donald Lambro

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

President Bush's about-face on trade tariffs, stricter campaign finance regulations and other deviations from Republican doctrine is beginning to anger his conservative foot soldiers but does not seem to be cutting into his overall popularity

[Boucheau]

"You don't get it. The Bush Administration doesn't like this law, either. How better to get the objectionable parts eliminated than having to put up a "defense" of them?"

Perhaps. We'll see how it all comes down. I'm sick of all the games-the blurring of the lines. This will ultimately weaken the country.

[Theodore R.]

So, are now on board then, snopercod, for E.D., B.D.'s other half?

[Boucheau]

"I wouldn't have signed it if I was really unhappy with it. I think it improves the system," Bush told reporters during a stop at Greenville firehouse."

This doesn't support what your analysis, though.

[rbmillerjr]

HILARIOUS......Cybil or a wifey in the midst?? oops the talking points just got faxed in.

[snopercod]

With all due respect, no, I will not be pleased. An opportunity has been missed...again. Issue after issue, Bush has failed to stand on the side of freedom. Klamath Basin. Airport Security. Arsenic in the Water. Immigration. The list is already long, and getting longer.

Once again, we have a nation of people still in the dark regarding the proper role of government in their lives. Historically, only informed discussion or a hail of bullets have been able to settle such things. Bush chose not to have any discussion (I listened to his words on Rush. He was pathetic, IMO)

Once again, the American form of government has been betrayed.

[snopercod]

I'm sorry. I don't understand your question in #22.

[NittanyLion]

I'm sorry. I don't understand your question in #22.

My guess is, think Viagra and RINOs.

[snopercod]

How better to get the objectionable parts eliminated than having to put up a "defense" of them?

That's the point, isn't it. Bush's time came to uphold his oath of office and actually DEFEND the constution, and he wimped out.

You know, liberals think they are "above" everyone else and therefore they don't need to explain what they are doing to us little people. After all, they know what is best for us.

Bush had an opportunity to differentiate himself from the liberals - to explain to the American people why he was going to veto the bill because Freedom of Speech is a basic right in America - but he chose to act like a liberal politician, instead.

[snopercod]

Oh, am I for Elizabeth Dole???

Not only no, but Hell No!

[borntodiefree]

LIAR

Now I'll just sit back and watch the Bush appologizers come a runnin...I can hear it now..

He's done good in a lot of other areas...

You don't understand politics...

He had to compromise to get reelected...

Let's see what they come back with to complete my list

[skcomp]

The only difference between the wimp Bush and Clinton is that the wimp keeps his zipper zipped...

[Dog Gone]

As a short term solution, I agree with that. And I think I would have vetoed it if I were President.

But a case can also be made that a veto would have cost him and the Republicans plenty. By signing it, they escape the political consequences and get the opportunity to control the defense of the parts of the bill they don't like. A Supreme Court rejection of those parts carries FAR MORE weight with the public and the media than a Bush veto, no matter how well he explains it. It also puts the issue away for at least a decade, which is longer than John McCain will probably live.

Rather than alienating the McCainiacs and suffering the political damage from a veto, Bush appears "moderate" to the stupid public. The result is rather Machiavellian, however. The remaining parts of CFR greatly favor the Republicans, and the unconstitutional parts are dead forever.

Maybe we don't think Bush plays those kinds of strategies, but I can assure you that he always thinks in the long term, not the short term.

[shrinkermd]

The proof of the pudding here is how they signed it. Quietly, no fan-fare and no McCain or Feingold. The signing could be predicted. If CFR is nothing but an abortion of the constitution, who celebrates an abortion? All foul deeds are best carried out in secret.

[Theodore R.]

Oh, snopercod, I meant now that you are disillusioned with G.W., will you still stand with Elizabeth Dole? I understand she is already proving ONCE AGAIN to be a terrible campaigner. It's too bad Jesse didn't find a suitable heir to recommend, isn't it?

[NittanyLion]

Hey TLB, I never did get an answer to Post #20 on this thread. What changed your mind?

[Quicksilver]

Enlightenment.

[NittanyLion]

Enlightenment.

Pretty quick process, I guess. From one pole to the other, all in the span of 24 hours.

[TLBSHOW]

I took some more time to think about it and research my notes. I came to the conclusion this would be best, finished off in the courts. The democrats are into plan B, which is to snooker everyone here. I will repeat what I have said on other threads. Never elect a DemoRat! The President does not and I will repeat does not have time to play this rat game right now. This is about to become one of the most dangeous times in our history. I would much rather having him stop a nuclear attack or any other attack for that matter and not waste time with McCain and his stupid bill.

[TLBSHOW]

The rats plan

How can Enron best be used by the left in the forthcoming general election? In two ways. First, to lend a generally criminal air to Republican fundraising, and fundraising by Bush in particular.

Second, to depress turnout by rightist voters, by inducing apathy through disillusion.

[gunshy]

A question for you. If GWB should be re-elected in 2004 will he take the oath of office again and if so, why?