Posted on 03/27/2002 12:46:17 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
Any check of the threads on FR will reveal that....but today I had a long nap, just woke up, and have a few thoughts. I'd appreciate FREEPers responses to this....KNOWING of course that a Bush veto could have been sustained and perhaps would have been preferable! But hear me out on this:
I'm not as angry about this as I thought I'd be. I, as a Recovering Democrat, have come to appreciate the Constitution and was an outspoken critic of this horrid law. I wrote both my Sin-ators, snail mailed President Bush twice, faxed him once and even sent a telegram...hoping to get his attention about the travesty that was McLame-Find-gold.
I lost the battle, but may have won the war.
President Bush's attitude in signing the bill into law was about as low-key as I've ever seen in a "major" piece of legislation. What does this say? I interpret it as the President planning to use the good aspects of this law (increased hard money) as much as possible, and not planning to put up much of a challenge to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL aspects of the law. Bush is rolling the McLames, Dash-holes, and Mini-Meehans of the world...and he barely said a word about the legislation! :) THINK ABOUT IT, FREEP FRIENDS:Why else would these jackasses have looked, essentially, GLUM on the day of passage?
Bush called their bluff--knowing he'd get hard money increases, the Unconstitutional CRAP would be tossed, a 'rat/RINO issue would be OFF THE TABLE, and where would they be in '04? On the losing side of the issue!
Bush is covered from not enforcing the 60-day nonsense by saying, "This is an issue before the courts...", all the while he's garnering TWICE as much hard money as before!!!!
Add to the fact he didn't allow McLame to mug for the cameras in a big South Lawn ceremony, and you've got good political moves here.
Now some might say I'm trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, or that I'm just kissing G.W.'s butt because he's the best choice I've got. But I don't think that is entirely true: the President may have outfoxed the foxes on this...any thoughts??
Recovering Democrat.
I'd sure hate to see GWB get "Perot'd in 2004". Now how can we encourage Nader to run again? ;^)
And this is probably why he made the remark about how fast he would sign it when he was in South America last week. A little psychological warfare, perhaps...
As a libertarian I certainly have no sympathy for Bush's decision to sign CFR, nor do I have any desire to defend him for doing so. But I will say that the above rationalization is the best I've seen presented so far: A Bush veto would have allowed the issue to fester indefinitely, perhaps into a subsequent Democratic Administration that could have appointed more "flexible" Supreme Court justices who might have managed to uphold it.
At least this way the worst aspects of CFR will certainly be struck down. I'm very confident that the Supreme Court will do so, based on my readings of a number of prior Court decisions over the past few years. Despite its many other faults, the Supreme Court has been surprisingly strong in its defense of the First Amendment. Both the liberal and conservative factions have been active and cooperative in ruling against most First Amendment infringements. This case is a slam dunk against CFR, and everyone knows it.
McCain and the Democrats nevertheless pushed hard for CFR because they never really expected it to pass or get signed into law. They were pandering to the liberal media establishment, which wants to outlaw competition (especially from non-liberal groups). And the Democrats wanted an issue to attack Bush and the Republicans with. (I think McCain wanted an issue to justify a break with the Republican Party and Bush, and to serve as an excuse to run for President as an Independent in 2004 to try to tip the election against Bush.)
So from a purely political viewpoint, Bush did the only logical thing he could do when he signed CFR. From a purely practical viewpoint, it may indeed be the most effective long-term method of driving a stake through the heart of CFR. From a purely principled viewpoint, it was definitely the wrong thing for Bush to do. But since I don't expect Bush to be driven by principles or consistency in most things, I'm neither surprised nor disappointed. Instead I just feel lucky on those occasions when Bush's actions do (coincidentally) happen to be correct, and I feel happy that we no longer have a Clinton (or Gore) in the White House whose actions would be consistently and deliberately evil.
The only problem is...the primary reason there was no fanfare is that Bush knows that the conservatives are pissed.
I tend to agree with you generally - although I was suspicious up until the very last that the President just might veto it and surprise everybody.
I have been wondering if Bush had already conferred with McConnell regarding his plan to file a law suit. If Bush was sure of the law suit, he would have had more confidence in signing it. Yes, it is flawed - and I do believe the Supreme Court will rip those parts out. Sooooo, I guess I agree that this has been a big win-win for the President, and since he didn't give the dems any face time over it - that makes it even sweeter to me. Especially since the President made such a big issue out of the education bill with Kennedy. It definitely takes the issue off the table and McCain out of the spotlight! I don't necessarily agree with the President's method, but I can see why he may have done it.
Will I vote Republican in 2002, 2004 and even 2008 - yes indeedy.
I'm more conservative than most people that post here, and I was furious that GW signed that piece of $h*t, but after a few martinis and much FR time I do believe he just "got 'em by the short and curlies". The part of this legislation that is going to be stuck down by SCOTUS is a RAT making (need to point this out during Senate campaigns). The vote of SCOTUS, if not 9-0, need to be pointed out to the electorate as well (highlighting the need for more conservative appointments to the Court).
If the SCOTUS vote is 5-4 to strike down GW can point to the Libs as examples of that kind of Justice being dangerous to the Constitution. If the vote is 7-2 the same scenerio plays. If the vote comes out 9-0 (as it should) the President & the Pubbies attack (and I mean ATTACK) the socialist bastards that pressed to violate the Constitution, and their sacred oath with the insertion of the parts of the bill that were unconsitutional (well documented in the Congression Record).
We have a winner here people, and I think the RATS have just figured that part out. They just gave us the ballbat to beat their brains in, now we have to use it.
It just goes to show you what a couple of martinis, a good cigar, and good debate from good friends here at FR can do. I'll bet that if we put our minds (collectively) to it, we could cure cancer. So, let's be calm, and patient, and watch this thing play it's self out. This is like the Klamauth (sp, remember--tee martunies, er, uh) thing, it take time, faith, and perserverience to win, but win we will!
In short, the socialists gave us lemons. Now let's just get a little spring water and some sugar, and a little touch of mint, and we'll be serving some good old west Texas lemonade before you know it.
Add this factoid to the list of plusses. The RATS need to explain to their own liberal groups why they shut their speech down. Even the ACLU is angry. They would have been fine if the bill was veto bait but Bush didn't bite.
3)It's a piece of master strategy
2)Free speech be screwed, we will (may) win in 04
1)I just know SUPreme Ct will rule this unconstitutional
The facts are that Bush wanted this bill and loves it and signed it YYYYYYYeeeeeeeeeeehawwww
Stop with the hysterics and tell us what is "BAD, REALLY BAD". The hard money limits are too low ? What ?
besides I'm sure the Editorial boards of the Post and Times will voluntarily stop their attacks on all things conservative.
So after this part is thrown out by SC whats your beef ?
What do you think of the above statement? The man is not unhappy with the CFR bill.
IT has its best chance with the current cast of members of getting shot down now rather than after Dashcle picks the replacements. However, if they don't shoot it down then your argument he signed an UC bill falls apart.
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.