Stealth Signing: Dashing out the door, the King of Hard Money Leaves Behind a John Hancock.

ABCNEWS ^ | Thursday, March 28, 2002 | Mark Halperin, Elizabeth Wilner

[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, March 28, 2002

Quote of the Day by pragmatic 0/327/02

[Rocko]

Bump for consideration.

[Carolinamom]

I hope you post this EXCELLENT essay on ALL of the anti-Bush threads. And while you're at it, send Rush a copy so he can get back on the rails.

Thanks a million (or more)!

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks for the bump. Gonna get some sleep...see y'all later.

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks a million (or more)!

You're welcome =^)

[FreedomPoster]

I second Carolinamom's idea.

Let's look at the politics, even more simplified, for a moment.

A) Bush doesn't sign. Dems create an issue out of this, Pubbies don't take the Senate in the Fall. Judges in general are much more Leftist in order to get them through at all, up to and including the Supremes. In the reasonably near future, a more left-leaning court approves a future CFR.

B) Bush signs to eliminate the political issue. Pubbies take the Senate in the Fall, allowing many more conservative judges who will influence the country for years to come. Current Supremes dissect CFR, taking this issue off the political table for decades.

But the "we must be ideologically pure, instead of politically sensible" crowd continues to excoriate Bush over this signing. Nuts.

[rodeocowboy]

Bump for the beautiful explaination. I was, I admit, going to jump off of the Bush bandwaggon and bash Bush. But, your common sense explaination makes the big picture very clear. Thank you.

[Miss Marple]

John's essay captures much more eloquently my own thoughts. FreedomPoster, you have the possible consequences of a veto exactly right.

President Bush could have vetoed this, but the consequences would have been to the fall elections, because the media would have gone on and on about it. Now they are left whining about how McCain didn't get a photo op in the Rose Garden (HAHAHAHAHA) and in the face of all that's going on, it looks a bit silly to be complaining about that...after all, McCain was doing this for the good of the country, wasn't he? I mean, McCain wasn't doing this for publicity and revenge, was he?

Thank God we have someone who thinks more than 2 steps ahead when weighing his actions.

[mombonn]

Thanks, John - I feel much better about CFR after reading your thoughts today, along with those of DJ88 and Miss Marple a day or two ago.

[KS Flyover]

As always!

[B4Ranch]

John, Once again you have written a fantastic essay. You have divided the issues into comprehendable sections. This is just another star that demonstrates your worth to the members of FR.com. The one issue that you did not cover and the one that I feel will bring America to her knees is President Bush's stand on illegal aliens or as Presidente Fox says "migrants".

Thank you, your friend.

[Howlin]

Bump for later reading.

I am STILL smiling about the way Bush finessed McCain yesterday.

[Wurlitzer]

"I hope you post this EXCELLENT essay on ALL of the anti-Bush threads. And while you're at it, send Rush a copy so he can get back on the rails."

You know Carolinamom, sometimes it is difficult to be a conservative. To believe strongly in the constitution, means that sometimes you have to be intellectually honest (something a dumbocrap could never do) and say to your friend, I think that is wrong. Does this mean you are anti-friend or anti-Bush. No! It means simply you have strong, well founded, beliefs and you are let down when someone you voted for does not live up to his oath of office.

Don't try the "well would you rather have Gore mis-directive with me because I would rather have hemorrhoids removed without any pain killers then have that lying slug in the Oval Office.

I think any government official that violates their oath of office should be removed. There is too much power, more than the framers of this country wanted, in the hands of the Federal government right now and someone who does not obey their own oath to the constitution should be taken to task. I still like Pres. Bush but I am very disappointed in a few of his actions.

Call me anti-Bush if it makes you feel better, and if you think it diminishes my viewpoints but the fact remains, an oath is an oath. If you don’t adhere to your own words, how can we trust you on anything else?

[AppyPappy]

C) Bush signs it and the courts shoot it down. Immediately, the Democrats and RINO's scream for a Supreme Court "More like America". Meanwhile, Bush is criticized as two-faced for signing the bill "for political purposes" while "stealthly" opposing it. Democrats vow to hold up all judicial nomination until Bush agrees to pick more "progressive" judges who will "stand up to the corporate cash machine". McCain is seen as a martyr and is given even MORE face time to denounce the "power of money that reaches to the highest court in the land".

[Armando Guerra]

Well said. I argued the same thing yesterday about CFR. A veto only ensures it keeps coming back year after year, it gets used continuously as an issue, and McCain keeps getting face time with the press. By signing it and ensuring it dies in the court, he has driven a wooden stake through the heart of the issue. I said it before and I will say it again: Those who really want to see the end of CFR know Bush has done what he needs to do to effectively kill it and should be applauding him. Those who are complaining the loudest aren't really against CFR but just wish to use this issue to bash Bush.

[Carolinamom]

I have NOT tried any put-downs on you, Wurlitzer. At first, I too was dismayed about Bush's not vetoing this bill. But the longer I thought about it AND the likely club it would hand the dems AND the longer view of how this lack could speed up the demolishing of the bill's unconstitutional aspects, I became reconciled to Bush's action. Let us both just admit that we differ on different grounds. Color me any color you like, but time will tell, won't it?

[Zack Nguyen]

Though I am not completely convinced of it, Bush may have made a smart political decision. But the fact remains that this bill attacks the Constitution in a way that few bills have in recent history.

No, Bush was wrong. No one can be certain that the Supreme Court will even hear this bill. No one nows what will happen. Two years from now, National Right to Life and Christian Coalition may not be able to mention the name of a candidate 60 days before a general election.

[IncPen]

Excellent post, John.

I have been making similar, less eloquent arguments, like on this thread.

Bush and his people are very sophisticated in using the media against their opponents, frequently maddening them with the result. Recall the fall of 2000, where Bush would run an 'issues' ad in some backwater locale, and the next night the Democrats would be raising hell on the nightly news (where the ad was repeated over and over again, for free).

I think Limbaugh knows this, as he's the one that's been beating the 'veto' drum the loudest. Viewed in this light, it's a brilliant strategy.