Replies

More and more I think this is a replay of stem cell research. Bush is keeping his power dry and talking to advisors who know exactly what they are doing. In the last two days I've come to the conclusion that Bush is taking exactly the right steps, including the delliberately leaked ambiguity to contribute to defeat of this bill in the Senate.

If that fails, I expect Bush to veto the bill, and ask for time on TV to tell the American people exactly why this bill is an assault on the Constitution and deserved to be vetoed. He will couple that with a demand that Congress go right back to work and pass an honest campaign reform bill that applies NOW, in this election. The general reaction of most people will be, like on stem cell research,"Now there's a leader I can respect." And Congress, having been painted into a corner, will have to pass a bill that DOES meet Bush's six criteria.

As I stated to a similarly minded Freeper, my post #58 is for you. As for your touting of Bush much vaunted stem-cell decision to allow continued federal funding of aborted baby stem-cell research, that was an absolute betrayal of the pro-life cause that was roundly condemned by the majority of pro-life!! How can you cite as a cause for respect, a President who states over and over again that he is against federal funding of aborted baby stem-cell research and then addresses all Americans and tells them he is overturning his temporary ban on this evil practice? The fact that you cite that as an example of Bush's supposed committment to conservative principles merely tends to show that you are not a conservative or at least not a pro-life conservative.

Look, maybe you don't get it. There is a way to do the right thing without pushing people over a cliff.

Sorry, but frontal banzai charges into the teeth of a waiting enemy (which the Dems and media are) do not work, and cost way too much. Better to kill this thing in a way that can take the issue off the table, if possible.

The stem cell decision was not perfect, but it was the best one could do, especially since I do not see 51 pro-life votes in the Senate, much less competent leadership there that could make use of them. Sadly, the same holds true here. We have enough to sustain a veto if we fight smart.

You need to get a grip and think with your head as opposed to other items.

Either you do not understand the President's order on stem cell research, or you are one of those fire-breathers who will hack to death a politician who agrees with you 95% and thereby install in office a politician who agrees with you 0%.
Politics is the art of the possible. Campus bull sessions where you play the PPG game, "President, Pope and God," are where you "apply" pure theory to the real world. I grew out of that halfway through college, 39 years ago. I recommend that you give it a try.
And don't assume you know my views generally from the specifics I post on on any FR thread. I say what I mean, and mean what I say, on the subject at hand. As other things come up, I'll address them.
I will say this: The driving force in my life is the Constitution, the people who wrote it, and the people now who are required to enforce it. That's why my first question about anyone running for President or Senate is, "What kind of judges and Justices will this person appoint or confirm?"
It's a lonely task, because most people do not think forty years down the road ahead (the life span on the bench of the average judge appointed for life). And most do not think 200 years down the road behind us. As I say when asked about my clients, "Most of my clients died 200 years ago.
In the long haul I am the best friend that any "true conservative" who believes in the Constitution, ever had. And that includes you, always, regardless of what you think of me, or say about me.

Congressman Billybob

Phil & Billybob in the mornings.

Billybob on the Net, new column up now.