Replies

OK, for those loyalists who are saying this legislations is a good thing for Republicans, please explain something to me.

Please explain how this will help in the fall elections. If this will gain us seats, please help me by indicating what the windfall is expected to be.

Next, please help me to understand how these newly acquired seats will help the conservative cause. Please, be specific!

I would offer one tidbit for your digestion: when Bush took control, "we" held both houses and yet we're still the ones that have to compromise our principles in the interest of maintaining power.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this helps conservatism one iota, even if the phantom gains in the House and Senate come to fruition. Please illuminate me.

Their only argument being, "would you rather have gore, or hillary?"

Another fine argument being, "the court will decide"

I would offer one tidbit for your digestion: when Bush took control, "we" held both houses and yet we're still the ones that have to compromise our principles in the interest of maintaining power.

How many times do I have to teach you newbies the facts of political life. You dont dont control the Senate with 51 votes. You cant get permission to sneeze in the Senate without 60 votes. Any single member can hold up any bill or any appointment unless you can get sixty senators to vote with you on stopping the filbuster. The same thing is true to a lesser extent in the House. Gingrich had much more fun and success as being the minority guy that got to throw a wrench into the works and prevent legislation from passing. A tough minority can stop legislation but a numerical majority doesnt ensure its passage.

Being in the majority did help from the standpoint of chairing the various committes giving you some discretion on when to schedule meetings, etc. But that was lost with Jeffords betrayal.

Raw numbers such as having 318 in the House or 51 in the Senate dont mean you have a majority. As soon as you all learn that, perhaps you will get out and vote some more Republicans in.

It won't do anything relative to this fall's election since it doesn't go into effect until after that date - IF it survives court, which is unlikely.

Does the name Jim Jeffers mean anything to you?

He defected because GW was pulling the party to the right and he wanted to stop it.

Some people are so far left that the Dems look right, and some are so far right that the Pubbies look left.

I love America...

While I hate that he signed it, the best logical argument I can see is that he's trying to get the quickest resolution to shut up debate on the issue.

Say he had vetoed it(which is what I lobbied him to do, BTW). Now the Dems would keep harping on it and using CFR as an issue. He can say it is unconstitutional until he is blue in the face, but all the Dems have to do is ignore that and keep harping on it as a wedge issue to portray him as the stereotypical GOP tied to "Big Bizness". You can't get a Supreme Court ruling on a law that hasn't past, so debate about its constitutionality is only that, debate.

Instead he has chosen to allow it to become law, fast-tracking it to the Supreme Court, and will likely get a quick ruling. So by this time next year(and likely before the Fall elections) everyone will know whether it is constitutional or not. Easier to fight it in the next go round if you can soundbite it to "the Supreme Court already declared it unconstitutional".

IF this is actually the administration's thinking on this, they must be pretty confident it will be struck down. Certainly not what I would have done(I actually believe in the Constitution), but just trying to expain what MIGHT be their logic behind allowing it to become law. But even with that strategy, he didn't have to sign it. Of course BillyBob's solution would have been classic, too.

Please explain how this will help in the fall elections.

Less scandlous, dishonest and sickening tv commercials?