[BluesDuke]

So why'd he sign it? Because Enron made Bush and Republicans vulnerable to the charge that he would veto CFR to keep the soft money millions flowing from the oil patch. CFR does not resonate with ordinary voters but Enron does.

Perhaps. But Mr. Bush had political capital bulging even more heavily than Enron's former coffers. He had (has?) the kind of approval ratings Ronald Reagan himself could never have imagined. He could well enough have vetoed CFR (as he should have done, without question, and on very solid Constitutional ground, as I think we both know) and taken his case to the American people, and remind them that, oh, by the way when Enron came schnorring around our administration looking for some favours as soon as the proverbial sh@t hit the proverbial fan, our administration told Enron in no uncertain terms to take a proverbial hike - and anyone who says otherwise is either an ignoramus or an @$$.

[Buckeroo]

Q: How many Bush Presidents does it take to re-direct a nation based upon liberty, freedom amd self-responsibility?

A: Two. The Daddy lied to America and the people voted his A$$ out. And his Son lied to America and the people will vote his A$$ out.

[lentulusgracchus]

He could well enough have vetoed CFR ...

Okay, so why'd he sign it, when he didn't have to?

His signing it just becomes harder and harder to understand. I followed hobbes1's argument (though I think he's wrong, and the Pubbies are going to get burned bigtime), but does the President really intend to rely on the Supreme Court instead of stepping up to a piece of legislation he knows is wrong?