Posted on 03/28/2002 2:52:13 AM PST by The Wizard
It was so clean it was un-noticed by his enemies, and decried by his supporters, but GWB has just demonstrated a political ability that no-one on the left, and very few on the right ever saw.....
I always refer to the old Zorro scene with Basil Rathbone as the villian slicing a candle to show Tyrone Power how deft he is with a sword, because when "Zorro" does it the candle doesn't move....(The point is then shown that Tyrone's cut was SOOOOO smooth he sliced the candle so well he cut it without moving it....a truly great scene)
The First Lady did the same thing to Algore with her "...My husband sleeps with a teacher EVERY night..." comment that was so smooth a cut most of the media hasn't picked up the wound even today....
Well good Freeper Friends, that's what Old George did to the left with Johnny McCain's unconstitutional CFR Bill....
He fooled them into passing a billl that allowed more hard money, (something they would never ever allowed because it has NEVER, EVER been raised by anyone like our Commander and Chief) allowing them to include provisions that they thought would give them the edge, while knowing that others would attack and have thrown out all the offending provisions before they ever took effect, but the severably would allow the things not challanged to stand: Outcome
hard money limits have been raised and will stay raised, and the bad parts will be strck down, and we can now see that McCain was always working with GWB and the poor dems never knew it.....
What a political play.......cut to the bone and not even seeing it til after surgery is complete......
My ubderstanding is that this bill would allolw the courts to find portions of the bill unconstitutional and allow other parts of the bill to stand. As opposed to the court striking down the entire bill.
Is this correct?
My guess is that Bush was working with McConnell to create a situation where the hard money limits are raised, where the unions & corps can appropriate members& shareholders money, but the limits on ads will be struck down. THis would inflict great harm on the rats. It would also hamstring congressional attampts to limit free speech by outside groups.
How hard do you think the Bush justice dept will defend the noxious portions of this bill in the courts?
Politics with the rats is a war and wars are dirty. We get our noses bent out of shape by the tatics employed, it will be instructive to see how this turns out. Bush is either a Machiavellian genius or a total corrupt fool.
I suspect he is not a total fool.
Once the bad aspects are vetoed, the overall effect of what remains is mostly positive. The doubling of our ability to directly support candidates means a lot. So do some of the other aspects of the bill.
You can attempt to paint us as the fringe element but I'm afraid you'd be very saddened to know that most of us are CORE GOP members and activists.
Really? You were one of the people who was ready to hang me, and I was AGREEING that at least one portion of the bill might be unconstitutional.
While my REASONS for agreeing may be different - I have no way on knowing, since by the time I logged off in disgust, I was the only one out of 300+ posters who OUTLINED my reasons - the fact remains that I am still in agreement.
The fact that I still support the president, while outlining specific reasons, was enough for many to condemn me as a blind party animal. My feeling was that it does not matter that I agree that at least one part of the bill MAY be unconstitutional. All that matters to those carrying the rope is that I'm UNWILLING TO JOIN THE MOB AND LYNCH HIM over it.
The fact remains that many here are overreacting with this "rape of the Constitution" stuff, because the president is unable to UNEQUIVOCALLY prove that the offending portion is unconstitutional. Especially given the current political climate. President Bush has two very powerful and totally unscrupulous enemies, who were the driving force behind the entire situation which led up to the signing of this bill: Daschle and McCain. Both have said they will run for president in 2004.
I agree that Bush has shown an impressive knack for post-constitutional political strategery, and I think he's played his cards just right with this CFR thing. Principle be damned, but that's the way the game is played these days. In terms of character, Bush is a respectable, likable guy. I have full confidence that the oval office won't be defiled on his watch. Ideologically, he's more conservative than the Democrats, which is good, though I don't think he's particularly conservative in an absolute sense.
Overall, Bush is about the best that conservatives can realistically hope for in a president right now. This to me is more sad than happy, but it is reality and as such I will likely pull the lever for Bush in 2004. In the meantime, I will try to distract myself from gloomy thoughts about our Republic by enjoying the sight of our president confounding the Dems with his jumbled public statements and crafty political maneuvering.
I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.
While his 'eye' stays 'on the ball', perhaps he may recall that his oath of office included his promise to defend his country's Constitution. Everyone agrees that 'Constitution' includes all ammendments to it, including the so-called 'Bill of Rights'.
What did you do: sleep through P.O.D.?? Do you not understand the processes involved? Your belief that the Constitution has been raped will not be listened to by the likes of the House members and Senators who passed this bill. Unequivocal proof of blatant unconstitutionality is required. The president had no way of SUMMARILY vetoing this bill. What did you think the whole Enron buildup was about? It was about creatng a political climate which would guarantee the passage of CFR.
Join in the fight to get the SCOTUS to hear the case. That is part of the process. That's where we are right now. At this point in time, I'm still willing to support the president's decision.
Agreed.
In this case, however, I believe they, the dems were working the other way.
They were hoping bush would veto, after they and the willing accomplices of the media had "prepped" the minds of voters as to the nastiness of enron and "money grubbing republicans", then they would have harped ad nasueum through next November, in an effort to regain the house while maintaining the senate, which, after all, is the ball here that we need to keep our eyes on.
The dems sole drive, regardless of anything they say or do, is to maintain the senate and retake the house. They will do ANYTHING imaginable to achieve these goals, and conservatives have to ever be vigilant, and make the best possible play for each and every scenario. Sometimes that involves swallowing pride, sometimes placing a temporary dampner on principles, especially if the end goal is to retain those same principles.
When it works, it is a shrewd move, when it doesn't, the results are disasterous. The game is hardball, no prisoners, and the stakes are the existance of the United States as originally intended.
As I said on another thread: But when does it end? After this period when we MUST WIN upcoming elections, we'll be faced with (for example) additional SCOTUS appointments. Or perhaps it'll be the tax cut package reapproval...or something totally unforeseen.
Will there ever be a time when we can stand on principle, or must we always subvert our principles to getting elected? And if the latter is true, what good is it to even retain power? Power for the sake of itself is nothing - power is only beneficial if you implement your policies.
Yes.
There we go with that "principle" word again. First off, don't take it to me personally because you do not know me. But I'll leave that alone for now. Let's stick to the topic at hand.
If we were to fight, and chose only to use sticks as weapons, it would be "principled" if we both used just the sticks. However, if you use a stick but I use an M-16, you wouldn't even be able to complain because you'd be dead. This is only used as a metaphor, not an actual threat of violence.
Those principles that you are so hung up on are being used against us all the time. Before long, you'll find yourself without the power where those principles will do any good, neither to yourself, or anyone else.
The Left uses any means to accomplish their goals, chief of which is defeating us. We want to remain "principled." Fool! When will you realize that sometimes you must take the gloves off and get dirty? If your enemy seeks to destroy you, shouldn't you destroy him or her first?
I'm a fighter. Therefore, you and anyone else who uses that principle crap, can just shove it. It's stupid to even attempt to maintain principles while engaged with your enemy. You can be principled all you want amongst yourselves, but you better leave that nonsense at the door when you go to war.
Moscow, October 22 (KCNA) -- The Russian newspaper Patriot office published a book "Great Brilliant Commander Kim Jong Il" on the occasion of the 4th anniversary of leader Kim Jong Il's election as General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and the 56th anniversary of the WPK. Hero of the former Soviet Union Nikolai Lashenko wrote the book.
The book, a serial of the book "Great Man Kim Jong Il", consists of four chapters and 17 sections (chapter 1 'commander of Mt. Paektu,' chapter 2 'great master of military affairs,' chapter 3 'outstanding strategist' and chapter 4 'father of soldiers').
It deals with the distinguished trait of Kim Jong Il as a great brilliant commander who is leading the cause of socialism to victory with his army-first politics.
Exactly how much 'proof' do you need? It sounds to me like what you're really saying is that the political climate was such that Bush would have had to really, really believe it was unconstitutional before he vetoed it. Aside from the obvious answer to that, which is Bush himself said it was unconstitutional, you still sound a lot like James Carville and his reasoning for not impeaching Clinton.
I guess I just don't understand why Bush gets a pass. All I've heard so far is that Congress had a responsibility and the Supreme Court will bail him out. Both shine a spotlight on his lack of courage.
I don't deny that this was a brillant political move. I just don't care all that much.
The First Amendment to the Constitution begins "Congress shall make no law" on several subjects, including any law "abridging freedom of speech."
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.