Posted on 03/20/2002 7:54:47 PM PST by Texasforever
Texasforever, thank you for taking the time to examine this bill. I wish that he would have vetoed it, but I also know that Daschle has been making noises about reviewing the Defense Expenditures (a la George Mitchell in 91) so perhaps this was necessary in order to avoid delays in things necessary to the war.
Would the democrats do such a thing? The House passed a bill on immigration reform WITHOUT the 245(i) extension. Byrd had THAT bill bottled up as well. His use of the immigration rule extension is just a convenient ploy, because he DOESN'T want any tightening of the INS.
I am disappointed in the Senators who voted for this (like my own Senator Lugar) and will make my opinion known to them. In my opinion they are more culpable than President Bush, because as a Senate campaign issue this is a non-starter. They are afraid of the press.
By the way, the same people who won't vote for Bush over this issue already said they wouldn't vote for him again over the education bill, the stem cell decision, and immigration. Unless I am mistaken, they therefore don't count in that high approval rating because they were gone from the support column months ago.
I will be interested to hear what the President says today.
LET'S NOT FALL FOR THE 'RATS STRATEGY, PEOPLE!
I am extremely disappointed in the President's decision. It won't make me not vote for him (I am not looking to elect the Democrats who are even worse), but this was a bright line issue for me. I may vote for him, but I sure as heck won't be working for him actively or going out of my way to sell him to anyone.
I am further to the right than Bush; I knew this all along. However, based on his track record, I thought I could trust him at his word. This made it easier for me to accept where he was to the left of me- I could evaluate his position and decide if it was too much for me to accept.
But now, I know that his word doesn't have the sanctity that I expected. When he says that he will defend the constitution and doesn't, how can I expect him to know a strict constructionist when it comes time to nominate one? When he says he is pro-life but accepts some pragmatic exceptions, how can I buy that his goals are really the same as mine but just the tactics are a little more incremental? The fact is, this makes me question highly what I thought I knew about the guy.
And you know I am not some knee jerk anti-Bush person. But if the pollsters come calling, he won't be getting a vote of approval from the Daly household. I can't reward him for being just another politician.
I don't know about the line item veto, but what happened here was that the rep's passed a bill they knew was unconstitutional, the sen's passed a bill they kew was unconstitutional, and the prez is intending to sign that unconstitutional bill into law. We'll pass anything, and have no respect for that oath to the Constitution we took -- oaths like that are for the Supreme Court, we all are just buck passers.
So the Bushes *require* that folks show *respect* by forbidding jeans and requiring jackets to their Oval Office, but Mr. Bush disses the Constitution as easily as any Clintonian slacker grunging in that oval office.
Just like the Senate, really. One must Dress Well, but being true to one's oaths is scorned.
* * * *
And even for such "pratical" politics as was played, there will be a great cost, I think. That is when the Supremes take out this trash legislation -- and it's trash for many reasons, not the least its complexity and length -- when the Justices dump this, why the media and dimwit Senatorial caste are gonna raise quite a ruckus and bitter lament.
They are grudge bearers as fond of grudges as of dressing well, and when Mr. Bush brings a Supreme position before them they will have at him on this point -- they will bark and bite and nip and tear until the only Justice passing muster will be as slackerified as any of them. A slacker as to the Constitution.
A "living" Constitution, alive for all the rot invading it.
Shortly after being sworn in, the story was floated about how when Bush met with Daschle early in his term, he told Tiny Tom "just don't lie to me". Everyone whooped it up when hearing about it. It felt good to think that the truth mattered again, and that a gentleman's word was considered by him to be a binding contract.
Bush, while campaigning, said to me, as a citizen, that he would veto this legislation. Bush laid out four criteria which he said a CFR bill would have to meet in order to pass his judgemental muster. This bill violates each of those criteria. And now he is going to sign it.
His freaking father's fate obviously did not teach George the lesson I thought was the first one he should have learned: "just don't lie to me", the base of your support.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The speech issue was the thing with me. I am unsure what is going on, although I remain hopeful that we will receive an explanation today. I do think the veiled threats about holding up the Defense budget may have entered into it. I don't know what else to think, so I am not going out on a limb one way or another. (I suppose that sounds moderate..LOL!)
I do think Texasforever made some good points, but I am leary of risking this on the decisioin of the court, even though I am pretty sure they would strike it down.
Anyway, I understand and can appreciate your feelings. My counsel would be to wait and see...sometimes there are things going on we just don't know about. But I am disappointed as well.
Re-establishing the primacy of the Constitution is part of what made me support him in the first place. This was his time to step up and say "I put my hand on the Bible and said that I would defend and uphold the Constitution, so help me God. I am charged with this duty. While I am confident that the Supreme Court would strike down this bill, my job is to prevent unconstitutional bills from becoming law in the first place. I am charged with that duty; it is my charge to keep. And America, when I said a promise made is a promise kept, I meant it."
Heck, he had all the language set up. It would have been a powerful reaffirmation of Constitutional principles. And he pissed it away.
I am leary of risking this on the decisioin of the courtThat's just it, Miss Marple. The founders set up a system of checks and balances, with our liberties and our entire American philosophy protected by defense in depth. The Congress had a role and a duty to protect the principles in the Constitution and its amendments. The President then also had a role in doing so. And if both of them failed, then the Supreme Court would be the final line of defense.
We have devolved now to where the Congress doesn't even think Constitution any longer. If the President doesn't uphold his end, then we are down to a single line of defense. The system isn't supposed to be like that.
This President had a charge to keep. He was going to be honest with us, and he was going to uphold the Constitution, so help him God.
Miss M, I think he misunderestimated how much this would tick off people like me. Either that, or there aren't enough of people like me to matter.
But damn, I am bitterly disappointed. I feel betrayed.
There comes a time when a president needs to use some political capital on an essential issue. This is one such time. I can understand it when people say, let the Dems win the little battles, but we'll get the important ones. Is this not an important battle? When will a time come when an issue is important enough to make a principled stand?
I thought perhaps after a night's sleep my feelings would moderate, but in fact I'm just as angry this morning. As a practical matter I can accept defeats on unsubstantial issues, but when I worked to elect President Bush I expected a commitment to conservative principles. And I cannot think of any issue more important than defending the Constitution. If the President refuses to stand up and fight for conservatives when his approval rating is 85%, what will happen when it's 55%? And that potential fight may be for a Supreme Court justice, PBA bill or gun control bill. I can't help but to feel he's broken faith with all of us.
I know you're hoping for a good explanation today, but I truly don't think it's going to happen. For some inexplicable reason Bush has chosen to alienate his base over an issue that doesn't even resonate with the public as a whole. I can't think of a single legitimate reason for signing this bill.
I do think the veiled threats about holding up the Defense budget may have entered into it.Miss M: Bush has an 80% approval rating, and if Daschle would have tried this stunt it would have been ridiculously easy to portray him as putting partisan politics ahead of the well being of our fighting men and women.
And given that scenerio, it is Bush who caved with nary a fight and not Daschle? I can't buy that.
I really hope you are wrong about the veiled threats having anything to do with it, because if it did, then it is even worse.
No way are they not hearing from me.
(Now if we could do something about Arlen, maybe this bill never gets there in the first place...)
We must take the Senate back, or else we are toast.
Or would you rather have the rug pulled out from under our troops with the job not done? The media will take Daschle's side in this.
If Daschle had threatened to yank funding for the war, Bush could have used his bully pulpit to destroy Daschle's position. In fact, the White House could have used the issue to deflect attention from their veto of CFR to Daschle's partisan politics.
We must take the Senate back, or else we are toast.
I agree. And I believe we will.
I know. At least Santorum stood up for his principles, including during the cloture vote. I'm not quite as certain as everyone else here that SCOTUS will take the case and strike it down - IMO the court is not so predictable as that. If Bush is looking to pass the buck to them he could see the strategy implode. Even if the law is struck down, I'll still be disappointed he's playing politics with issues this important.
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.