Posted on 02/21/2002 6:22:01 AM PST by rightwing2
Nope. He ain't gonna sign it.
If you win, I can say you're right.
If I win , I expect you to do the same.
He won't sign it.
This reform bill stinks to high heaven, and the longer it is seen as being "in play" (under serious consideration and likely to happen), the more people will realize this.
If Bush says he will veto it, then (some liberal) people will stop considering this bill for what it is, and start thinking of it as a "dead man walking -- a good bill on death row, condemned by Bush, he of the big money interests."
If Bush leaves this bill in play, then some of those folks will begin to see, in various ways, how the bill ain't so hot, and become more ambivalent about it. Heck they might even learn a thing or two.
I sometimes do the same thing when training people at work, or when raising kids. Let them play the hand out, as far as possible, with no reassurance that there is any safety net. That makes the lesson more real. And sometimes, the net isn't needed anyway, and they get the additional reinforcement of having done the right thing, completed the tough task, on their own.
As soon as you even hint that "it's ok -- Daddy will cover for you", the whole dynamics change.
We are in a war between two completely different visions of reality. The Democrats see this clearly and so do Conservatives.
Conventional Republicans (such as Bush, Sr.) do not see it at all. They are moderate "consensus builders" and "better managers". That works for municipal government, but not for the nation's President.
We are about to find out if the son can transcend the father. If he does not, we may win the war on terror but lose our nation anyway.
You mean less than 1%, right. Perhaps. But unprincipled liberals are wiser than conservatives like Lazz. They know we are in a war and stick together even if they don't agree with everything their candidate does. Disgusting? Of course, but they keep moving that ball down the field don't they? So, Lazz would let Hillary Clinton win rather than vote for Bush, right? Give me a break. Until conservatives get smarter and operate as a coalition the liberals will continue to plod along and cram their agenda down our throats.
All this emotion and no one knows what Bush will do. Let's hope Bush does the right thing and vetoes this stupid idiotic bill so we don't lose Lazz and others to whatever reincarnation of Buchanan emerges in 2004. Of course if it's not this vote, it will be something else I suppose that ticks them off. There's just no pleasing everyone.
Thank you for considering the realities of politics!!! Something that seems VERY rare on this board.
Yes. That's what he will do.
People can rant and rave, but Bush will come out smelling like a rose.
Sorry libertarians and DU disrupters. Maybe next "scandle." After all, McVain has already threatoned one. You'll get another chance.
because then I will have the choice between someone who will gut the bill of rights and someone who did gut the bill of rights.
Actions speak much louder than words.
If that's the case, the better move would be to neither sign nor veto.
Good for you. So exactly which electable candidate IS a true conservative in your eyes?? (HINT: Reagan can't run again.)
IF it is a deliberate strategy it is brilliant, and you are right: it's the only way to perform a spine implantation in the Senate. But these retreats, both the Member's only one and the COS one, usually are held out of press earshot to be candid with one another and the administration. That's why it makes me uneasy: normally you wouldn't hear anything about this retreat anywhere in the press, and if partipants think the events are being manipulated they lose their value. Assuming it isn't a deliberate lie, (and Roll Call would normally talk to several sources from different offices to confirm the statement) the administration is taking a risk that folks won't believe what they say in future "let's lay all our cards on the table" meetings.
The only thing for us to do is not get complacent about what Bush will do either way and keep pushing the White House to veto.
I don't think Messr. Bush can afford 'less than 1%' of his voting base.
He won by 500 or so votes.
If he signs the bill, he loses my vote. Cause and effect.
If he signs this bill, he loses my vote. Only two things could subsequently change my mind:
If Bush signs it, how does that differ from Gore signing it?
In both scenarios, the First Amendment is gutted.
If Bush signs this legislation, he loses my vote in 2004.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.