Bush s Broken Promise

National Review ^ | February 21, 2002 | Rich Lowery

[Destructor]

"Exactly. A far better use of his political capital would be to do something useful, like work for repeal of unConstitutional gun laws. But I'm not holding my breath."

Good! Don't. That would be political suicide for any candidate Dimocrat, or Republican!! The mainstream Media would see to it that their career was abruptly ended.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

I think you underestimate Freepers.

[Howlin]

You'll get no argument from me on this; I am still waiting to see EXACTLY what he does about this -- and what he says when he does it -- but I will be very disappointed if he does, in fact, sign this bill.

That being said, I'll not desert him just because I disagree with him on a few things; he has to KNOW parts of this bill are unconstitutional; since he knows more than I do about what is "really" going on, I'll have to wait and see what the fall out is. I do have some concern about what Bush vetoing this bill would do to the press and the Dems, who already believe he stole the 2000 election. Imagine what they could do with a veto, not that that is any reason not to.

I don't know about the rest of you all, but there have been times in my life when I have given my word and have had to take it back; until I know all the facts, I'm not going to judge him.

[Kermit]

On the War on (some) Terrorism Bush is half-right. He makes an exception for Palestinian Terror. His tax cut plan was pitiful. On missile defense he's been good. On everything else, Bush has been bad news: Campaign Finance Reform, education, foreign aid, environment, war on drugs and the steel tariff. Them's the facts.

[LS]

How so? You mean they WOULD "hold their noses" or do you mean that Freepers carry so much political clout that it would in fact hurt Bush in 2004? I can be persuaded on the former, but don't think the latter is accurate.

[CaptBlack]

But you all go ahead and moan and ignore politics and if you are looking for a non-politcal President, you will be looking for a long time. There has never been a non-politcal President.

Help me out here, somebody. Isn't this just another way of saying, "You can't trust a politician"?? I'm just totally amazed that the crowd of people who decried Clinton's "lack of character" now resort to this kind of reasoning when "our guy" shows himself weak. (and I'm not saying I know Dane railed on Clinton, but his comment is representative of many that I KNOW spoke out against Clinton's character and who are now saying something just like what Dane has voiced here)

Now it's asking too much to ask your representative to rise above the average, spineless, prevaricating, lawless, politician and simply DO what he said he was going to do?? What's different between this and something Clinton would do?

The thing that is so aggravating is that to even question this is to risk having one's conservative credentials yanked (and your home foreclosed and your dog kicked, etc., etc.) because you dared to question the brilliant "strategery". Doesn't the adage run thusly, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em", and not, "If you want to beat 'em, join 'em"?

[Lazamataz]

I will not be voting for Bush in 2004, even if he is running against Hillary Clinton.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

BEFORE his statement yesterday, I did not even expect or hope for a veto. Simply not signing the bill would have been adequate.

AFTER his statement yesterday, to do anything less than a veto tells me that he has no interest in upholding the Constitution. He will have already publicly admitted as much.

[CaptBlack]

I wonder if all of the Bush bashers would really be happier, if the Dimocrats resurrected Al Gore, and he won in 2004? Or better yet- Hillary! I'll bet that would make them real happy!!

Can we PLEASE put this stupid, tired threat away once and for all?? My vote is not going to be forced from me by the "It coulda been Gore" nonsense. The fact is, it ISN'T Gore and we expect a conservative to do what conservatives pride themselves on, ACT ON PRINCIPLE.

[cactmh]

That's foolish.

[LS]

In principle, I agree with you, but in reality, find me a politican who has never, ever, reversed course on an important issue. Slavery? Lincoln said that he would not touch slavery where it existed in 1860, then issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

And there IS such a thing as people actually changing their minds. Have you NEVER said something in good conscience, thinking you would do something, then later deciding it was a serious mistake?

[Dane]

What's different between this and something Clinton would do?

Uh like selling military secrets to the Chinese, rebuilding the military, not having trysts with bimbos in the oval office, etc. etc.

But Bush is a politician, just like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Lincoln, etc.etc.

[CaptBlack]

On the War on (some) Terrorism Bush is half-right. He makes an exception for Palestinian Terror. His tax cut plan was pitiful. On missile defense he's been good. On everything else, Bush has been bad news: Campaign Finance Reform, education, foreign aid, environment, war on drugs and the steel tariff. Them's the facts.

Amen!

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

I disagree with your expectation that Freepers will stay home. They will not. Freepers are politically active.

I will not join you in bashing Freepers.

[diotima]

Thanks for the ping!

WRITE/FAX/EMAIL BUSH HERE and tell him not to sign it!

[mountaineer]

That is an incredibly irresponsible and destructive vow, but you're welcome to make it and keep it. Just be prepared to accept responsibility for the consequences.

Bush is not as conservative as I'd like, but no one as conservative as I'd like would have a chance in hell of being elected president of this nation. Being realistic does not mean one has abandoned one's principles.

[Reagan Man]

I don't care about CFR or the political game he's playing. I really don't.

I hear you.

You don't care.

Okay.

Well, whether you like it or not, politics is the name of the game. Now that Congress has given Bush that portion of CFR legislation he can support, the next step would be for the USSC to overrule those portions of it that are unconstitutional. If that happens, Bush wins all around.

I don't believe Bush and his people want him to veto CFR and then be trashed by the Democrats and the liberal media. Handing the loyal opposition CFR, as an issue to exploit, could explode in the administrations face. From my point of view, such action is irrational and illogical and would only damage Bush's overall agenda.

[LS]

This is a pretty bogus and simplistic account of everything. I am VERY pleased with the "war on terror," but I'll be the first to say that we can't MEASURE the effectiveness of this for years, and WHO KNOWS where the Palestinian issue will be when Bush is ready to deal with it?

In WW II, we completely ignored Japanese garrisons on some islands and in China---not because they weren't the enemy, but because our resources were needed elsewhere. That is the case with the Palestinians. So I give Bush an A+ on the war, which is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING US.

On abortion, in those areas where Bush has had executive authority, his administration has done more to roll abortion back than Reagan and Bush 1 put together. That's an A+.

On taxes, he got what he could get. Do you SERIOUSLY think that a Reagan-type cut was possible? If you do, you are deluded. For reality, that rates a B.

On ed, as I have argued elsewhere, the bill introduces two conservative concepts: it sends power to the states, and it introduces ACCOUNTABILITY---something the unions have fought against for decades. There is also a small window---that will become a canyon after the USSC ruling in June---for vouchers. I give that bill, in terms of its potential, a B.

Amnesty? "D." The intent to keep families together has to merit SOME applause, but apparently keeping Hispanic families together is not important to conservatives.

[LS]

So basically you are calling large numbers of these posters, who claim they will not vote for Bush or a Republican, liars?

[LS]

Oh, and I will "bash" any Freeper who deserves bashing.