Recovering Democrat on CFR: How Bush May Have Done the "Right" Thing After All!

Free Republic ^ | 3/27/02 | Recovering Democrat

[Recovering_Democrat]

I FOUGHT HARD AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!

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.

[rbmillerjr]

Oh I'll vote for Bush, but you are right I will be an Independent, because thats what I am now (when I reregister)...and no dollars or activism from me, just my vote but no more because it is not deserved.

I have the guts to criticize somebody who needs to be criticized...and I am one of several few on here willing to do that, so if that makes me fringe, I part Party with a smile within.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Huang2: I'll state it again: you should CHARGE us for the privilege of reading your work. Excellent commentary.

One itty-bitty point of contention, to wit:

The myriad of lawsuits and challenges will test its constitutionality in the courtroom, before a mostly conservative judiciary.

Do you really believe our judiciary is conservative, or are you referring to SCOTUS exclusively?

Thanks for the encouraging words.
rd

[foreverfree]

bump

[rintense]

Right as rain, RD!!!!!

[Dog Gone]

I've been saying essentially the same thing here for a week, but it's hard to be heard through all the calls for his impeachment, etc.

I'm glad you made a separate thread for it.

The end result for this is that the Republicans will get the changes in the law that are long overdue, and favor them, while the unconstitutional parts will be slapped silly. McLame will be permanently shutup, yet Bush has kept the McCainiacs in the GOP camp by signing the bill.

Yes, Bush could have made this veto stick, but at a huge political cost. A veto by the US Supreme Court carries FAR more weight with the media and the public who don't understand these issues.

Bush thought this one through.

[Mr. Bungle]

Interesting take. But there are two words that should inspire fear in those relying on the SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution:

Gun laws.

Secondly, always look at the trends created from such actions. A popular, and justified lament of conservatives is that the United States is ruled from the courtrooms, not from our legislative bodies. This bill, with the severability clause, effectively gives the courts the line-item veto. Given politicans' aversion to political heat, and this method as a means to avoid it, more and more ludicrous bills will be crafted in a similar fashion, and punted to the courts. Appointed jurists, not subject to feedback from their decisions, will essentially write our laws, once more legislation follows this model. And it will follow this model, if Bush proves this method successful to him. Because success is emulative, others will do the same. This is not good in the long term.

Political victories are often the triumph of methods, rather than individuals. We ought not forget this.

[fightinJAG]

Well said, well said. And it seems that some of those most vociferously against going the "Fatchance" candidate route (people such as Rush, et al., who lectured endlessly---and CORRECTLY---during the primary fight against the fatchance allure of McCain) are the very ones who are whining the most about a policy as opposed to character matter viz-a-vis GWB.

[fightinJAG]

Great post. Thank you.