Posted on 03/29/2002 2:12:56 PM PST by baxter999
Let's see if I understand the Bush "strategy".
1. Lie to the American People. According to the Bush supporters President Bush is saying positive things and signing the bill even as he works behind the scenes to have the SCOTUS destroy the bill because he really hates the bill: By lying to the American people and pretending he likes the bill, he will convince more liberal voters to vote Republican this fall and then he can appoint more conservative judges. Although why the American voters would vote for the republicans because they are impressed by being lied to is beyond me.
2. Break his campaign promises. Of course Bush Senior pioneered this strategy with his "Read my lips: No New Taxes" remark. As I recall, Bush Senior won reelection in a landslide in 1992 keeping Clinton/Gore out of office. What's that you say? Clinton won? Well, maybe this time this strategy will work better.
3. Break his presidential oath to defend the Constitution. By doing this, Bush will show his support of principle- well, at least the principle of "the end justifies the means". Now where have I heard that phrase before?
4. Force conservative groups like the NRA, without whose support Bush would still be attending Texas Bar-B-Q's wearing a big hat, to spend millions trying to get a court to rule on this bill. And of course this money will not be spent on electing Republicans, but on lawyers and courts.
5. By removing the free speech of people for 60 days prior to elections, the solidly conservative press from CNN to the NY times will then be free to preach unopposed conservatism to the uneducated masses. (That Goldberg guy must be a nut to think the press has a liberal slant.)
6. Ignore the expressed wishes of the people who voted for him and over 2/3 of the Congressmen of his own party so that the liberal public will elect more conservative Congressmen (who will oppose the people's supposed wish for campaign finance reform). (Logic like that would have added at least 400 points to my SAT scores. Thank God we have intellectuals like Bush and his supporters to show us the way. Where was that pray for Bush web site again?)
So to summarize:
1. Lie to the American People
2.Break campaign promises.
3. Break his Constitutional oath.
4. Waste conservative groups money in court.
5. Allow the conservative press from CNN to the NY Times to have sole input for 2 months before the election.
6. Ignore the majority of his own party because they're all idiots anyway.
Did I leave anything out?
BUSH IS A GENIUS!
Where can I send my 2000 dollar hard-money check?
Either you care about the gun issue, and you vote that way, or you don't. Those in the former can be informed over 60 days prior to the election and they will vote accordingly. You can block out the sun with a locust like airdrop of NRA voting guides to the latter, and they won't care and will probably be annoyed.
I want the NRA to be involved in crafting Statewide legislation in real political bodies ... their campaign efforts are a black hole. NOBODY .... NOBODY .... is going to change their vote after some Monday night epipheny. "Holy shit! Carl Levin is against guns??? WHAT THE ....????"
There are countless limitations to your, mine and everyone's free speech during campaigns. Campaigns are strictly regulated, they always have been, and this 60 day blockade is no more an attack on my 1st Amendment rights than is my $1000 limit on direct contributions ... or a candidate's prohibition from advertising or campaigning on election day ... or the prohibition on a candidate's campaigning on government property ... or the limits on a candidate's independent fundraising to be eligible for taxpayer provided "matching funds" ... or the restraints on the places and times of my brochure handouts ... etc. etc. etc.
This is nothing. I pledged to JimRob that I'd donate $200 smackas if Bush vetoed it ... I wanted to. I preferred that he did veto this just to give McCain the old Steely Dan.
But I give the man I vote for President a proxy to make political decisions ... whoa, hang on cowboys - even change his strategy! ... based on my trust in his wise judgement and his view of the political environment at hand. That's life in the real world, politics and such.
"I'm going to tear my Bush bumper sticker off my car, and suffocate myself with it while I sit in that same running car in my closed doored garage after I've gobbled radon looking asbestos and tasty lead paint chips ... Hold the boat Joseph Hazeltine ... the "Ms. Fitness Hopkins" pageant is on Community Channel 14? Hey, there's plenty of time to die, but to watch emaciated and breast enhanced jumping jacks?"
Caught your attention, didn't I?
To be perfectly honest with you, no. These threads are a dime a dozen lately. This first paragraph indicated to me where you were coming from, and that is an intellectually dishonest place.
If you heard the president offer what he likes about this bill, you also heard him say that he has reservations about it and believes that parts of it may not stand up to a court challenge.
How you were able to find a "lie" in there is beyond me. Criticize him if you must, but please don't carelessly fling around accusations like this. Way too much of that goes on around here.
"On all fundamental issues, most people are wrong most of the time.
As a result of further research, the above is now amended as follows:
On all fundamental issues, most people are wrong all the time."
Can everyone agree that it is the meaning of what is written in the Constitution that must be protected?
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Alan Keyes.
For one, Bush championed a tax cut. Clinton raised taxes. Daschle would undo the tax cut.
But you already know what the differences are. You ascribe no importance to them or would rather not acknowledge them.
Actually, we had quite a substantial discussion about it here just last night. Feel free to check it out, there's a lot of good material over there from all sides. I think the conclusion among most was that the Congress and Prez have a duty to eliminate legislation they know to be unconstitutional; but if they act in good faith and pass questionable laws, SCOTUS is there to act as the final arbiter.
Bush is a conservative with a moderate manner which, for some reason, some conservatives cannot abide.
As am I. Recess appointments are provided for in the Constitution. I'm just challenging some folks around here to show a bit of consistency, instead of falling in line behind the GOP and supporting the same things they condemned in a Dem.
I see 1992 all over again.So, you're leaning towards Perot? :)
In the first place, why would McCain and the media RATs insist on this provision unless they thought these ads were effective?
Let's take the example of the NRA. I think you overlook the number of gun owners who agree with the NRA, but never joined for whatever reason. I don't have the stats, but I'm pretty sure there are several times as many gun owners as there are NRA members.
The TV ads are a way for the NRA to reach these potential voters in a way they otherwise could not.
An effective TV ad campaign against an anti-Second Amendment RAT, in the crucial 60 days before election day, could increase the turnout of sympathetic gun owners enough to make the difference.
It must be the conservative 11% increase in education funding, the conservative expansion of big government, the conservative signing of unconstitutional CFR bills, and the conservative amnesty for criminals under 245(i) that some conservatives just don't understand. These conservatives must be too stupid to understand why advancing the liberal agenda is a conservative thing to do.
Oh, wait. I suddenly get it. It's so that Mr. Bush can win re-election so we can have another 4 years of this type of conservatism. Never mind.
HAHAHAHAHAHA...
I thought Uncle Milty was dead.
Bush signalled his concern with the Constitutionality of the 60 day limit ... that's but ONE part of the bill. He has no obligation to veto what is otherwise in his judgement a legally defendable and good policy legislative bill.
I am always amazed by the number of Constitutional scholars here on Free Republic. I don't want start a Michael Rivero-esque conspiracy, but I think cable-TVs "whippersnapper smart but could somebody put a mirror in front of his mouth" Jonathan Turley is posting under 1200 distinct screen names here. I don't want be a tattle tale, but that's a bit much.
Ann Coulter, sassy and smart legal scholar is a woman who needs no cover, and to my knowledge, she has only one psuedonym ... "Buckeroo".
Well ... she's doggone blonde maned, leggy and purty ... Buck's doggone blonde maned, leggy and purty too ... I rest my case. They're like identical cousins.
These phonies and bloviators we are paying about $190K avoiding actually working in Congress didn't have the balls to make this world changing law applicable to the 2002 elections. That would have necessitated waking Strom, giving Fritz his "night night" food, and assuring Robert Byrd that yes, Augustus Caesar did hear his oratory on Appian Way upkeep, and no, Cicero is not still mad at him.
They expect the Supreme Court to beeayatch slap this too. There is no valid angst or outrage associated with this con game.
Stay Safe !
By George, I think you've got it...
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.