Whenever you think of an option to take in a political fight, ask what Clinton could do to respond. Then plan responses to the hypothetical responses, and game it out a second time. Plan for contingencies.
The veto plan was solid prior to Enron. Prior to Enron, you couldn't get the public to care. But Enron changed that. You would have attack ads that the Dems could make stick with the Enron mess.
Their soundbites would be along the lines of "President Bush, with his veto of campaign finance reform, has allowed corporate crooks like Ken Lay to continue buying influence." You'd hear it on ads, from the Dems on the Sunday shows, and from Dems on the campaign trail from now until November.
Get heat for what? If nothing else, I hope to convince you that we're not going to make any meaningful difference without taking at least some heat, even if it's only of the most irrational sort.
And you have the ads accusing him of not being serious.
So let me get this straight: the Democrats who pushed for the bill are going to complain that Bush isn't seriously opposed to it? How can we expect him to get anywhere with such abject timidity? The libs will have him by the you-know-whats and will be able to drag him around anywhere they want.
The rest of you're post is off the subject, since it concerns the veto option, which he did not take, and which I wasn't talking about.