No options in between?
Might it not vary from issue to issue?
Posted on 03/28/2002 2:45:26 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Finally, a Republican who understands politics.
No options in between?
Might it not vary from issue to issue?
Last year, Miss Marple labled GW as the Stealth President. She did this because of his results in spite of the left wing maggots who control the media and the senate. Also, in spite of the out of touch so called conservative think tanks who would tar and feather Thomas Jefferson or George Washington if they could return and be our presidents.
Howlin commented on another thread that the cable news people as of yesterday afternoon had not even covered his signing of this phoney bill. A sign that the liberal mediots didn't know where to go or what to do, the "dumb" Texan had taken the arrow out their bow, broke it, cut the string, and then broke the bow on this issue.
Immediately the NRA (the evil conservative organization) filed a lawsuit and well as the evil conservative Senator. They will bear the water and take the lightening bolts from the maggots of the left wing media, while GW continues to do his job!
I think you are spot on. Many purists here want that perfect conservative, ignoring the realities of Washington. Sure I would love to see W kill many feel good programs that have no place for the feds constitutionally or otherwise. Such a candidate, however, would garnish 15% of the vote and, like Alan Keyes (who I admire), sit on the sidelines. W sent a message loud and clear that he would sign CFR and it was up to his party to make it right. McComplain and the 'Rats, desparate to have it pass included some good stuff to accomplish that and I think put in some poison hoping W would veto it. He did not and now they don't know what to do. Sure, one can gripe about the "nonconservative" things W has done. He is fully aware and willing to deal with that. I grow more and more impressed with him every day as he kills this nation's internal enemies with kindness and kills the terrorists with the conviction that is absolutely necessary to preserve our way of life. Again, kudos....
As a matter of fact, Rush's repeated use of the word "strategory" while discussing the CFR gave me the idea that he was not as vehemently against this bill signing as his rantings sounded.
On my part, I'm making the same mistake as the Left... underestimating him. However, that still doesn't mean that his 'plan' for CFR will come to fruition. As you say, he's not perfect (and nobody is), which means that this gambit can fail, and SCOTUS just might leave us with a government who now feels like they have the authority, the power, and the ability to legislate what speech is allowed. Then the politicians will have the final confirmation that political game is their very own, and that we 'little people' are not welcome to play.
This may be a bad analogy, but there is a similarity between Bush and Reagan. Reagan did the Democrats in a budgetary fashion: by not holding the Demos feet to the fire when they didn't give him the agreed upon 2-3 dollars in spending cuts for each dollar in tax cuts, the deficits ballooned. Those deficits slowed the growth in government spending, and gave our economy time to catch up, leading to the surplusses of the late 90's.
Bush is doing in the Democrats legislatively: even though he signed CFR quietly, politically it takes the issue off the radar screen. Everybody knows that the real battle over CFR is in the courts. Sorry to all of you hardcore constitutionalists, but CFR isn't even a blip on my radar screen. As a tax CPA, I've learned that virtually every law has loopholes as big as Mack trucks written into them, for the benefit of the well-connected.
And is CFR going to reduce the percentage of incumbents getting re-elected? Don't make me laugh.
Thanks to our President, my boss will be able to contribute $40,000 to her SEP next year, instead of $25,500 this year. Yes, she makes a lot of money, but boy does she pay a lot of taxes. She also has about 15 people who work for her in various capacities. I guess you could call me a die-hard supporter of trickle down economics.
So, while there a plenty of folks out there wailing about CFR, I'll focus my energies on my family and God, and keeping my boss (and my small circle of clients) happy with my work.
Call it what you will, but there is a definite connection to my conversion to Catholicism 4 years ago and the wonderful gifts my family and I have received in that same period. Sure we've struggled, but doesn't everybody?
That's why I just can't get fired up over CFR. However, the NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT is a different matter altogether! If Bush lets Judas Jeffords get away with that, I'll never vote for Bush ever again!!!!!!
Just kidding...Bush may need to use that arrow in his quiver for something down the road (a Supreme Court appointment?). I'll let Dubya do his job, because I've got enough to handle in my own small world.
I am more upset at the 40 Repub Congressmen and the 10 Repub Senators who signed on to this garbage - unnecessarily - than I am at President Bush for signing it and getting it out of the way.
Yes, the President has taken stands that are critical to our country's future - and he has enemies on every side - both within and without. In me, he has no enemy. I am with him and for him. Pray for our President and our country.
CFR is only the second time that I have felt any level of discomfort with a decision the President has made. The other item has been the State Department's decision to list the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia in the same category of terrorist groups that includes al-Qaida and FARC.
I'll commend you on one thing. Unlike another person here, you've not stooped to personal cheap shots with those who disagree with you. I just hope we can work together more often than not.
OK. I obviously don't get it, so please educate me.
During the 2000 campaign, poll after poll showed that out of 15 stated policy issues, CFR rated 15th most important and only got that high because it was included in the list. The 14th highest rated issue was "OTHER". In other words, CFR was not and is not an issue that the American people at large give a flying (sorry) care about to any great extent. If they did, McLame would be President. The only reason conservatives are paying attention to it now is the First Amendment issue.
So, you make the point that the Dems would have this as a campaign issue if Pres. Bush didn't sign it. So what? It was irrelevant in 2000 and it would have been irrelveant now and in 2004. In fact, if the President had gone on TV and explained why it needed to be vetoed in order to preserve the First Amendment it would have at worst been neutral as always and at best, a positive Repub issue.
That's my perspective. Please explain to me why it was so important for the President to trash his oath of office and break a campaign promise in order to remove an irrelevant issue from the Dems' arsenal of irrelevant issues.
This wasn't two cents's worth but the whole nickle. Thank you John.
I would not do that to you Carolinamom. I don't think we disagree that much. I'll give our President an 80/100 so far. The 20 points I disagree with are important to me as they conflict with the US Constituion IMO.
A person is only as good as their word. See why bill clinton was so bad.
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.