Posted on 03/26/2002 3:28:09 PM PST by TLBSHOW
I'm reading a Time magazine Reporters' Notebook column and I tell you, I could have written this piece. Is this not amazing? The Boston Globe also has a column on Bush going along with so much of the Democrat agenda, suggesting it's for 2004, not 2002 as is the conventional wisdom. George Will has a column on this same topic, asking why Bush is giving in. Bill Bennett and Charles Krauthammer are also going the same way.
So I think some of you who have been telling me to shut up about my criticism of Bush have a lot of other people to write and tell to shut up. You might want to call or write and ask them to be quiet, because there seems to be a growing chorus of criticism. Yeah, I know, I started it. Is that right? Oh, I'm the one that paved the way? Yeah, yeah, it's my fault. I gave everybody the "go" sign. I made it okay for everybody to ask why the president has stopped pushing his agenda during the war, when, say, FDR pushed the New Deal through during WWII.
It's always going to fall back to me. I'm going to be the one responsible for it all happening since I'm the point man. I led off. But is Time magazine taking cues from me? I mean, they've written the same story that I've been doing since the stimulus package days, and it's quite illustrative of things. There are quite a few of these stories out there that are examining the political strategery of the Bush White House on the domestic agenda side versus the war side, and examining how they're doing and what they're doing and what it's all aimed at.
I just want to prepare you for it, because I know a lot of you think that there's been too much criticism here. We even read that the Democrats are emboldened, and will ask for even more money to buy votes. They know the president won't spend his political capital! This is frustrating, because you hear people saying Bush can do no wrong, so he should do what's right!
I know Bush is trying to get a workable majority in Congress, but this acting defensively to take issues away from the Democrats is not the way to do it. Even those "normal people" on the Jerry Springer Show, an e-mailer tells me, cheer Bush during the show. That's probably scripted, but there it is. They know it!
If his veto dies with his term than he would be better served in the public domain to sign and let someone raise an objection to the court. If his veto extends beyond his term (which I think it does) then the bill would be sent back and congress would have to gather the necessary votes to overide, which they could.
It boils down to a question of whether he stands on principle or politics. I think it's fair to assume he wants to be re-elected and he is weighing the cost of losing a small percentage of his base to not vetoing v. vetoing.
He will sign and get re-elected. Get it?
You do realize that most of the country won't care about this issue until they are told to by the media.
This is un-heard of in American History. When the people hear this, what will they say?
You see they can grasp the words Free and speech. CFR no, but you tell them the democrats attempted to take away Free Speech. What do you think will happen to the democrats. They will be spit on as traitors.
You put it in a simple term like
The American people will not only praise the President and despise the democrats. They will see to it the democrats are destroyed and defeated in November.
Which ever way this goes, if the President thinks a veto is good or sends it to the court to finish it off. Does not matter as long as he stands up for the principal of Free Speech. Tells the American people just what the democrats tried to do and why he is going to stop it by which ever means he decides is best. The democrats can not stand up against a Patriotic people and take Free Speech away during a time of war to save this country from people that want to kill us. Without paying a price which is to be sent so far back that they will think they were just trying to start their party.
So, for the next presidential elections we could score like this:
Bush veto=Advantage McCain
SCOTUS overturns=Advantage Bush
Taking the high-ground and claiming that Bush is against reform?
Once SCOTUS throws the law out, what's McCain gonna do?
You nailed it as always!
If it were, the first thing this president would do is SEAL THE BORDERS. Do you see that happening?
How are you going to "seal" the Canadian border across the Border Waters Wilderness or Glacier/Waterton National Parks? You would have to draft about a million people to "seal" that.
Then there are the coastlines. Heck, we can't even keep all of Florida immune from drug smugglers...how are you going to guarantee a terrorist won't slip in through the Everglades?
We could close the borders, of course. That would strike a devastating blow to the Canadian and Mexican economies, which would boomerang to us. I am certain that if we stopped Canadian people from crossing, then they would stop us from entering their country. Trade would stop, and Canada is one of our biggest partners. (Don't forget, most of the terrorists entered through CANADA, not Mexico.)And terrorists would still sneak through in unguarded areas.
Oh, yes, now I get it. Like my first wife, those who disagree with you just can't "understand". Well, most of us not only can, but do, understand--and agree with your premise while disagreeing with your conclusion. He IS President of the entire country and the world's future is, in large part, on his shoulders. That's why we're worried--because we DO understand.
A hint: the way to assuage our worries is to point out some counter evidence to those points made that criticize him, rather than condescending to his critics.
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt, 1759-1806)
Ah, I see, so you don't buy that whole "seperation of powers" thing that our forefathers meticulously wrote into the Constitution to make sure the legislative branch legislates, the executive branch executes, and the judicial branch determines the constitutionality of the laws? What a shame you weren't around when the document was drafted, I'm sure the founding fathers would have welcomed your rather unique thoughts on where they went wrong.
Read the Constitution!
Isn't that something for Marta to decide???
A trench and a fence couldn't hurt.
Side benefit: When digging the trench you will uncover the undiscovered Mexico/US tunnels used for narcotics smuggling.
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.