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.
What is happening to Republicans?
I never would have predicted that the NRA would be suing the Bush Administration over a bill that so obviously restricts free speech.
I know most of you believe you're not rich enough for this to affect but what is next? Do you doubt that one inch down the road of restricting free speech is a terrible thing and likely to lead to further infringements in the future? This bill puts forth that if you, or your group, have money your civil rights mean a little less than those with less money.
My God, Repubs, who do suppose this will benefit? The leftists that's who. They have the media squarely behind them. Your sorry butts won't have anything to say about politicians close to election time!
Sheer lunacy on the part of the American people.
I campaigned hard for Bush but he has lost my vote.
At this point I'd almost rather have a Democrat as President. At least then people on the right are paying attention.
But you all can go ahead and return to your slumber - convince yourself that the administration is "doing the right thing", or playing a great "game of chess."
When he's not giving amnesty to ILLEGALS, growing the government, backing-down from Democrats, he's on to restricting free speech.
1)Ban all oil drilling and nuke plants (ecogeek vote)
2)Come out for race quotas (black vote)
3)Open borders (oops we already have that one, but mexican and Al Quaida vote)
4)All govt contracts must be union, all private contracts must be union (union vote)
I MEAN WINNING IS THE IDEA AND GOAL RIGHT?
Well, why don't you enlighten us on how this is "just what was needed"?
Do you simply hate the wealthy or do you hate groups that would challenge politicians around election time.
Which is it?
Dan
I have news for the people who want to portray this as a great chessmatch.......the fact that the ceremony was as quiet as possible is because Bush knows he garners no votes for it but can lose core support. The ceremony in hiding was for the likes of FR types and other conservatives.
Fear not, the issue is not on the radar screen in relation to political votes.........ITS JUST FREE SPEECH THAT S IN DANGER...that's all, minor thing for a fine Republic.
I second this! If people would just check the ACU Ratings they would find that even our moderate Republicans are more conservative than the RATS!
"This legislation is the culmination of more than six years of debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens and groups. ... It does represent progress in this often-contentious area of public policy debate," Bush said in his written statement. "Taken as a whole, this bill improves [emphasis mine] the current system of financing for federal campaigns and therefore I have signed it into law."
AP Story
Now if words mean anything, it seems to me that he is not signing the bill with a gun behind his head, but sees it as a positive contribution to the American regime. Someone please explain his statement here! How can we turn this statement into brilliant strategy? If it does not mean what it says, then he is lying. If it means what it says, then he did not sign the bill as some sort of distasteful but sadly necessary strategic political move, but as a freely chosen act, chosen over other possible moves, e.g. VETO.
For those who get angry when conservatives like myself ask these questions, I would only echo the apostle in Galatians, "Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?"...
Sad, isn't it? And disillusioning. We seem to have just as many party-before-principle whores as the other side.
And I think more people are seeing it that way. We'll see how it plays, but in the long haul I think this will be another win for Bush.
I think many voted for it so they wouldn't be seen as against it. They were probably counting on a veto from President Bush at first or the Supreme Court to save their sorry butts from this bill. Message from the President is, you vote for something like this again I won't bail you out.
Bill Clinton, in truth, was against welfare reform...but he signed it into law, perhaps for the same reasons G.W. signed CFR. The difference is that CFR isn't something the general public cares about--Bush is counting on the heinous parts of the law to be overturned; and even the legislators that voted for the law believe that, too.
The bill contained at least one good provision: an increase in hard money available to candidates. This element of the law should stay intact--while the chaff should be removed. :)
Thanks for your thoughts, and bless you for being a true thinking American.
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.