***George W. Bush: Master Politician and Great American***

Stardate: 0203.28 | the Wizard

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

Thank you so much for your reasoned, cogent analysis of CFR. A welcome change from the "GWB sold out, I'll never vote Republican again" screeds from the past couple of days. Keep up the great work!

[WaterDragon]

I agree with you 100%, JH2. That is one heckuva screed, and beautiful!

[WaterDragon]

Terrific post, Wizard. I love you for it!

[Neets]

Bookmarked to read after the coffee kicks in.

[Quilla]

Tax Cuts: $1.35 trillion

The Dow: 10426.91

Your two cents worth: Priceless

I completely agree with your eloquent assessment. Thank you and God bless you, Mr. Huang.

[rbmillerjr]

lol, it seems the PartyLine is defending strong early in the morning,,,,,it is also quite clear that whatever Party one belongs to - as long as somebody has the Party view, it is careful reasoned and cogent analysis. Actually it pitiful and pathetic rationalization - LOL.

[Kakaze]

" "The two political parties should represent opposed ideas and policies," Quigley insisted that "the two parties should be almost identitcal, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." When the electorate grows weary of one of the Establishment parties, Quigley continued, "it should be able to replace it , every four years if necessary, by the other party, which . . . will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies." "Campaign finance reform" is a vital element in Quigley's formula for creating a self-perpetuating political cartel. "

Just thought it should be repeated....perhaps even heard over the cheerleaders here.

The fact that Quigley's, "premonition", exactly mirrors todays political scene, will be lost on the "dubya" can do no wrong crowd, is a shame. Nice to see though that some freepers still think independantly and can provide literate examples of what this country faces.

[dansangel]

Thanks to both The Wizard and JH2 for putting a definitive spin on the issue at hand. While the right-wing "presstitutes" are howling about the injustice of the bill-signing, JH2 is dead-on with his take of the president's motives.

Which only goes to show that no matter which side they are on, left or right, the "presstitutes" continue to show their boundless ignorance.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

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.

[Miss Marple]

Thanks to both of you for your analysis. I agree, with one caveat: I think McCain was not an accomplice to Bush in this, but rather a sad tool for the democrats. If he had been an acomplice then there would have been a Rose-garden signing ceremony for him. Instead, he was called by a White House staffer after the bill was signed and the President was on his way to South Carolina. I just heard that Imus said his staffers are really PO'd that there was no photo-op. Ha!

Now, I see that the bashers are still at it this morning. The fact that they continue this AFTER the bill has been signed indicates to me that the primary motive is not to influence the President, but rather to divide the base. We have see this same mind-set before. Hopefully, people are going to catch on pretty soon that the President was about 8 steps ahead of their thinking AND the dems are left with Plan B, which is to use this bill to try to divide the base. I think when people calm down and THINK about all the potential consequences of a veto, they will realize that this is the best alternative the President had available to him.

It is VERY obvious that the Rats were going to try to leverage CFR and Enron into a win in the fall elections. If we lose, that means NO conservative judges, including Supreme Court appointments. It also means constant nit-picking and foot-dragging on the war, which we CANNOT afford to lose. I would think that eventually people will understand where their priorities should be, and get with the program.

Of course, my post will be followed by the expected 7 or 8 rants about how principles are the only thing that matters, that we are shredding the Constitution, that he could have vetoed this with no harm (HA!) and such.

Well, I am not going to be driven from this board by people who want to push their agenda, which is NOT what they portray it to be. I am here for the long haul...because this is MY part of the war on terror.

[taildragger]

The question I have wizard did he sign it for reasons we don't know? What do I mean, I am not a doctor but quite frankly Sen McCain does not look good. Could this be a good will gesture to a friend who's health is not good, the same way GWB honored and tried to comfort Joe Moakley from Mass. before he passed on from cancer. a penny for your thoughts.

[rbmillerjr]

Well, I am not going to be driven from this board by people who want to push their agenda, which is NOT what they portray it to be. I am here for the long haul...because this is MY part of the war on terror.

No reason to rant. Just laugh. The day that reason and principle are ridiculed as bashing (ooh that sounds liberal). I wont even comment on the boldfaced part in hopes that you are writing in jest.

[Southern Federalist]

Bravo! Reason has not fled the earth (or FR) after all!

[otterpond]

When should a president veto a bill?

At the very least, when the bill contains provisions that are clearly unconstitutional and signing it would violate the President's oath of office.

[steve50]

Patriot Act, EOs restricting release of presidential papers, FBI corruption is a "national security" issue, and now CFR.

I guess "Great American" doesn't mean as much as it used to.

[rintense]

Great post, Wizard! I love the chess comparison. You are completely correct.

[pt17]

it is also quite clear that whatever Party one belongs to - as long as somebody has the Party view, it is careful reasoned and cogent analysis. Actually it pitiful and pathetic rationalization

Let's see if I understand you. When you say something, it's reasoned and cogent but when others disagree, it's ascribed to being a pathetic, rationalized, party line view. Is that what you're saying?

[Miss Marple]

Nope, not kidding. I am way too old to enlist, even if my knees were in good shape. The best thing I can think of to do to help the President is to stand up for him against those who would destroy this administration either for their own personal gain or through misguided priorities.

If we lose this administration, we will lose the war. Period. A democrat will not have the confidence of the military, will acquiesce to the European appeasers and the UN, and will quit. The terrorists will be emboldened and within a generation we will see the USA looking like Lebanon.

It is therefore my opinion that while disagreeing with a policy issue is fine, and I am willing to understand the opinions of those who preferred a veto, the issue is NOW what the Courts will do. Either Bush acted wisely or not, and we will have to wait for the SC decision. Meanwhile, those who continue to threaten supporting someone else and attempt to divide the administration's support are viewed by me with great suspicion.

And if you think that is silly, well, feel free. It doesn't affect my opinion one whit.

[uncbob]

All I know is there exists a tape wherein Bush states that CFR is unconstitutional and that for that reason if elected president he will veto it. He said it unequivically. And you can bet it will be used just as READ MY LIPS was by the very democrats who pushed the bill

He has very high poll numbers and is in no political danger and could have easily explained his reasoning to the public for his veto

Now we have a GOP senator leading an effort to have a law that a GOP president signed OVERTURNED

We now also have a situation where the NRA MUST use bafdly needed funds in an effort to protect its members right of free speech supposedly protected by the First Amendment

In the past the SCOTUS WARNED the congress that it was not good lawmaking practice to use the SCOTUS as a constitutionality filter. I would assume the same goes for the president