Posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
OK, I'll try once more. If you do a Rove type analysis, I think this bill favors conservatives, particularly when you factor in the hard money increase and the liklihood the 60-day ban will be overturned. People thought the world ended with the first CFR enacted during Nixon's term. They were wrong - Republicans still dominated presidential politics the next 30 years.
I don't see that Bush had any room for maneuver on this. Enron changed everything. Nothing Daschle has tried since November has resonated with the public, but this would. "Bush vetoed CFR so his Enron buddies in the energy industry could keep corrupting politics by buying White House access with millions in soft money." Wrong? Yeah. Effective? Yeah. Enough to turn Congress to the Dems when the margin is under 10? Maybe. Wanna take that chance? No.
You are an NRA member. I also favor 2nd Amendment rights. You think you're gonna like the gun bills that would come out of a Dem Congress and Senate???
Phew! For a second I thought that you might have respected me personally, to the exclusion of my views. I knew you didn't agree with me, but thought that you might have meant that you respected me, not disagreed with me in a respectful manner.
(the truth is I knew exactly what you meant, but was just having a little fun)
"Some" freepers undoubtedly also do and believe many, many other bad things. Perhaps "some" Freepers have kicked a little doggie. But you don't see me starting a thread entitled "Is FR now the place for people who kick little doggies?"
Why is that?
Because I'm not a straw-man-attacking idiot, that's why.
And how will the media accept an illegal ad? (especially one that is counter to their own philosophy) They won't, then they'll report you to the authirities. They put a nice little knot around the whole process with this bill.
EBUCK
Good for you. Maybe I'll start a thread in your honor.
I'm all for dissent. Trouble is, most of them are gone.
". . .MR. Magoo, playing Don Quixote . . ."LMAO!
Hard to rationalize the abdication of rights as a way to win liberty.
Apparently, some people are born with a stick up their butt called gross hyperbole.
FreeRepublic: A place for "grass-roots conservatism on the web" or not?
Your use of the title suggests you abhor truth in labeling laws? Didn't you mean to entitle this,
"Pat & Bay and I are pooping our pants while the rest of the world is busy making a loser look like a president...and we ain't gonna take it no more."
...overlook the clear unconstitutionality... and
...violated the very solemn oath he swore to keep, that being his promise to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Humor me here just a touch, will you please? Thank you.
Where do you teach and/or where is your bench?
And what I'm saying is that our First Ammendment rights are more important than his job. And judging by the turmoil created here he may loose his job because he was trying to keep his job.
We'll have to wait and see how the SCOTUS rules on this.
Question for you. Do you think that the office of the pres. has a duty to the Constitution? If so can the pres shirk that duty in order to keep his popularity intact regardless of whether or not he thinks that the SCOTUS will act as a backstop?
EBUCK
I keep waiting for someone to tell me how the Presidents Choosing of the Battleground to fight CFR, is a Constitutional Abrogation.
Such a thread certainly wouldn't be any less reasonable than the one you did start.
Yes, if we could get these bastrads out of the influence peddling business, we wouldn't have sane rational people like me, arguing with raging gross hyperbolists.....
As usual, we agree on the ends....I can dig that.
Respectfully, I don't understand how this could be construed as winning liberty. I think a veto, along with an explanation to the American public regarding rights and the Constitution, would have been a brilliant defense of liberty. I also believe it would have been a politically adept move, cementing Bush's image as a principled fighter.
I've never used that term before and I clearly thought that Dubya was the clear choice during last election. He still may be, however, I definately don't like that he signed the bill. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, we'll see...
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.