Replies

Let's face a few facts. Two weeks ago 99% of the posters on this board were vehemently opposed to CFR, and were certain Bush would veto it. Ever since Bush indicated he would sign the bill into law there have been rationalizations on this site as to his reasons. Over the past few days, these rationalization have grown into full-blown support for the signature, claiming Bush is a political genius.

I believe most right-thinking people would agree that Bush signed the bill because he perceived it would be politically expedient to do so. There is no grand conspiracy here, rather a case of the simplest explanation being the correct one. I'll leave it to each individual to judge Bush's credibility after this reversal, and I know there are wide ranging opinions on this forum.

That said, this daily change from opposition to the signing...to indifference...to support...it's unsettling. If many conservatives choose to line up wholeheartedly behind Bush after this "setback", I can understand that. We fight vehemently during primaries, but present a united front to the world for the general election. But let's not delude ourselves into believing that signing CFR was a brilliant action on Bush's part; it was a mistake and I suspect most of us realize that. Admit it, and let's move on.

From Nittany Lion, this bears repeating: "...Two weeks ago 99% of the posters on this board were vehemently opposed to CFR...Ever since Bush indicated he would sign the bill into law there have been rationalizations on this site as to his reasons. Over the past few days, these rationalization have grown into full-blown support for the signature, claiming Bush is a political genius."

Those are true words. Long live Joe Paterno. Now the PartyLine crowd will say:

*The SC will strike it down (although they dont KNOW that - and would that mean that if they dont strike it down, then in a vacuum Bush is all bad?) No, it just means you have lost some more freedoms, that of free speech - no biggie, move along now.

I believe you are confusing rationalization and realization.

I initially thought he would veto this bill. JohnHuang2 thought he would sign it, and posted his opinion before the Presiident announced his intentions.

My clue to understanding the President's methods and reasoning was the content of the bill itself, coupled with the increased talk about Enron as the bill moved through the Senate. When the President asked for the bill to be effective immediately, and the Rats wouldn't even put THAT measure in, I think the President realized the bill was veto bait.

I still thought he would veto it, but when he didn't, I asked myself "why?" We all know he has political capital built up. We know that he takes his job seriously. I couldn't understand at first, because signing the bill seemed out of character to someone who ditched Kyoto and pushed missile defense in the face of media and democrat opposition.

BUT, we also know a couple other things that I failed to consider. Conservative judges are being held up (Pickering, for example). It is obvious that any conservative appointment is going to be blocked. Daschle and others have also been making noises about holding up funding of the war. The ONLY way to get this stopped is by keeping the House and taking back the Senate. Vetoing the bill would have allowed a big campaign against Bush but more importantly against Republicans in the fall elections. I think Bush was willing to take the hit from people like you in order to remove an issue that would have endangered the Senate elections.

In the best of all possible worlds, President Bush could have done a public veto and made a speech to the American people, who would have supported him. In the REAL world, President Bush cannot get air time for anything except the war, and once he had vetoed this bill the entire Republican party would have been on defensive.

So, I believe that John was right after all. In my opinion getting the Senate back is THE priority politically, followed by getting a larger majority in the House. If we lose, we lose the war, pure and simple. I have explained my thinking on this earlier.

Here is an analogy: before we began the war in Afghanistan, many here were growing impatient. Where were the ground troops? Why weren't we bombing now? AFTER the war in Afghanistan began, it was easier to see that the deliberate and understated way we prosecuted the war was the right thing to do.

You are just going to have to accept that some people think this may have been the best course. I accept that you don't. Time will tell who is right.

Let's face a few facts. Two weeks ago 99% of the posters on this board were vehemently opposed to CFR, and were certain Bush would veto it.

I fall into the 98% of the population who could care less about CFR. When Daschle allowed the bill to come before the Senate, I thought to myself, sheesh, there are so many more important concerns, why are we wasting our time with this one. I'm ready to drill in ANWR, I could handle another tax cut, let's fill these judicial vacancies, we've got work to do. Hell, there's a war going on and we're wasting legislative time on political contributions.

I'm glad it's over and done with. Bush plainly stated he considers several aspects of the bill unconstitutional, practically paving the way for the SCOTUS to rectify it. He's still got my vote.

...of you who have been hanging out on the CFR threads, rope in hand:

Yes, I was opposed. Am still opposed to the portion of this bill which is so ambivalently worded that it allows almost unlimited opportunity for abuse by corrupt politicians. I even wrote the president outlining EXACTLY which portion and which wording. I included examples of more obvious opportunities for abuse.

He signed the bill with with a public expression of faith that the Supreme Court would strike any unconstitutional portions. So be it. I believe the SCOTUS will strike any portions which are unconstitutional.

...and I will vote for him in 2004. Our country needs him.