I initially thought he would veto this bill. JohnHuang2 thought he would sign it, and posted his opinion before the Presiident announced his intentions.
My clue to understanding the President's methods and reasoning was the content of the bill itself, coupled with the increased talk about Enron as the bill moved through the Senate. When the President asked for the bill to be effective immediately, and the Rats wouldn't even put THAT measure in, I think the President realized the bill was veto bait.
I still thought he would veto it, but when he didn't, I asked myself "why?" We all know he has political capital built up. We know that he takes his job seriously. I couldn't understand at first, because signing the bill seemed out of character to someone who ditched Kyoto and pushed missile defense in the face of media and democrat opposition.
BUT, we also know a couple other things that I failed to consider. Conservative judges are being held up (Pickering, for example). It is obvious that any conservative appointment is going to be blocked. Daschle and others have also been making noises about holding up funding of the war. The ONLY way to get this stopped is by keeping the House and taking back the Senate. Vetoing the bill would have allowed a big campaign against Bush but more importantly against Republicans in the fall elections. I think Bush was willing to take the hit from people like you in order to remove an issue that would have endangered the Senate elections.
In the best of all possible worlds, President Bush could have done a public veto and made a speech to the American people, who would have supported him. In the REAL world, President Bush cannot get air time for anything except the war, and once he had vetoed this bill the entire Republican party would have been on defensive.
So, I believe that John was right after all. In my opinion getting the Senate back is THE priority politically, followed by getting a larger majority in the House. If we lose, we lose the war, pure and simple. I have explained my thinking on this earlier.
Here is an analogy: before we began the war in Afghanistan, many here were growing impatient. Where were the ground troops? Why weren't we bombing now? AFTER the war in Afghanistan began, it was easier to see that the deliberate and understated way we prosecuted the war was the right thing to do.
You are just going to have to accept that some people think this may have been the best course. I accept that you don't. Time will tell who is right.
Miss Marple, with all due respect, I think NittanyLion can express his own opinions and was quite clear as to the rationalization aspect of it.
I do accept that, and appreciate your acceptance of my differing view. What concerns me, is this:
DAY 1: McCain is a maniac, and Bush will never sign
DAY 2: Bush said he'll sign? Outrageous - this will hurt him!
DAY 3: Well, I'm not happy about Bush's decision, but perhaps SCOTUS will take care of our problems
DAY 4: Not only will SCOTUS strike CFR down, but what's left will benefit the GOP
DAY 5: Bush is making lemonade out of lemons. He's boxed in, but he'll make the best of it.
DAY 6: Perhaps there's a master plan. This could be the best of both worlds for the GOP.
DAY 7: Bush is a genius who has manipulated the Dems! Brilliant!
Honestly, it feels like the Democrat talking points that came out every day during the impeachment proceeding. Shift the argument a little each day, and Presto! your man's a brilliant politician who narrowly avoided the trap set for him by his dastardly enemies. I'm not buying it.
I agree with you. When the offending provisions are stricken and all that is left of CFR is increased limits and greater disclosure, I wonder if all the Bush bashers will come back and admit it was the best way to deal with CFR once and for all.
What we won't get to see (fortunately) is the alternative scenario if he did veto it. Months of hammering by the press from here to the election. McCain on every talk show for the next 7 1/2 months. The constant talk from the left (politicians, newspapers, and TV news) of Enron and the influence of big money corrupting politics and this administration. They would all have had the same talking point memos. Come November when the House and the Senate both ended up in Democratic hands, we would have seen only hard left judges confirmed, tax cuts becoming tax increases, military pay being cut to make way for bureaucratic pay, Kyoto again becoming an issue, missile defense being scrapped and some real Constitution shredding being done. All the "but at least I was right on principle" talk would not have made up for the damage.
But what if the Supreme Court doesn't strike the law you say? I ask all of you Bush bashers where in the Constitution it specifically states that campaign contributions equals free speech? Read it carefully because you won't find it there. Where you will find it is in Supreme Court decisions from this court! Your very arguments against CFR come from the very Court in which you have so little faith. Yes, BillyBob and the NRA will spend money in litigating this case, but how much has been spent already and would have been spent in the future lobbying against CFR year in and year out? John Huang was right, this was the smart way to deal with CFR. Kill it once and for all while gaining political advantage for the next issues to fight on.