1.) It removes the issue from the campaign. Now that the bill has been signed, the tying of Republican Senate and House members to Enron and non-signing of CFR is a dead issue. This removes a huge arrow from the democrat quiver, allowing us a greater chance to GET THE MAJORITY IN THE SENATE, which will allow the judicial nominations to get to the floor for passage.
A greater chance to get a majority in the Senate does not sound like a surefire plan to me when you talk about stepping on the constitution to get there. How many seats is this going to translate into? Even if the "majority" you suggest materializes, there are so many RINOs left in the Senate that I seriously doubt a conservative agenda can be carried through at that point. Plus, it gives the Rats a campaign issue in 2004 against Bush if Republicans do control both Houses and the presidency.
I think efforts to find a silver lining are missing the point. If the constitution is not sacrosanct when it comes to leveraging ideology for political gain, then what on God's green earth is?
2.) By filing the lawsuit quickly (and I have no doubt that McConnell was coordinating this, probably with the White House as well) the NRA has grabbed the venue. If a LIBERAL organization had filed the suit in California, for example, it would be tied up for years. I imagine that coordination with the NRA is why they had a quiet ceremony with NO photo ops so that people like Daschle wouldn't know exactly WHEN it became law.
This ducks the question of why the president should sign an unconstitutional law and passes the buck to someone else. That is not leadership and it will translate into an erosion of Bush's ability to claim the "man of principle" mantle he ran on the first time.
3.) Portions of the bill which will remain after the SC rules on it do not take effect until AFTER November 6, which allows the parties to go ahead with their planned expenditures at this time. For us, this is good because we have way more money, and for the dems it is not so good, because they were, I think, banking on a veto and an override. Hence Terry McAuliffe using a HUGE chunk of soft money to pay up front for the new DNC headquarters.
The things we can do prior to the fall election should be of little comfort to us when the price is reducing the impact of the U.S. constitution. Why should we celebrate the fact that we get another six months of our constitutional right before the government takes it away? This is an Uncle Tom fantasy.
4.) Demonization of President Bush can't be done on this issue (except here on FR, which most voters don't read...sorry) and his campaigning in the contested Senate seats will be more effective.
C'mon. Do your really believe the demonization of Bush has anything to do with the issues? That is absurd! Look at the NAACP Byrd pickup ads prior to the last election. They had NO BASIS in fact. We are deluding ourselves to think that we are "taking issues away from the Democrats" because they make issues up out of thin air and have a willing media to give them credence. This is really a dangerous fantasy that conservatives are allowing themselves.
Secondly, what better issue could there be then defending the constitution!?! If they tried to tarnish Bush for his defense of free speech, cue the violins, baby. Send your guy out there with a steely stare and have him tell Middle America that he is protecting their rights. This does not remove an issue from the table. Rather, it creates a new one for Bush: going back on campaign promises. Maybe that's not a big deal if you ran a campaign like Clinton did which was largely based on creating villains that he would vanquish. But it makes a HUGE difference for a guy who ran on "character."
Democrats will fall back on their favorite social security scare tactics, etc., and pick up more votes because the population is getting older.
The Midwest and Reagan Democrat Southeast were Bush's power bases, but they will not come out for him in 2004 because he walked away from his principles.