Replies

"All of our independent conservative causes just went into the toilet." I give up.

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???

Listen, I understand your point. Bush did it to keep his job and the jobs of his cahorts (or as you may put, to keep conservatives in power). Am I missing the mark on that?

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

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."

A simple rebuttal to that charge would be an explanation of some parts of the bill about which the media has been amazingly silent. It might be good to point out here that many "issue ads" may not be supported by either candidate, because they may be intended (needed) to shame candidates into solidifying their positions on issues they'd rather avoid. If such ads had to be paid for with "hard money" they could not possibly find any sponsorship.