FreeRepublic: A place for "grass-roots conservatism on the web" or not?

Me

[sheltonmac]

Of course I'm not including all Bush supporters, just those who can't seem to see the forest for the trees and who label anyone voicing the slightest bit of criticism as "Bush-bashers" or-- in the case of our war on terrorism-- "terrorist sympathizers."

[Dixie republican]

I whoelheartly agree he needed to sign it for political reasons. You're dang right that he would have bashed over the head by McCain & the media, just to have it come up agian in '04. As is, he gets twice as much hard money, plus he to an antidote for McCain's snyndrome. And the onerous parts will be thrown out immediately.

What is the saying about politics and sausage?

[BufordP]

No wait, maybe I'll stay home in November 2004.

[TLBSHOW]

Guess what the democrats call it?

[Clara Lou]

I agree with you-- Bush signs the CFR bill so that it will be declared unconstitutional. Then neither McCain nor Daschle nor anyone can get in Bush's face and say he was anti-campaign reform-- and a Consitiutional issue is settled, not to rear its ugly head again any time soon.

[Sir Gawain]

Time to bring out the kUSS classic:

BUSH REPUBLIC

hehe

[ken5050]

I would have liked to see Bush veto CFR because it's implementation is delayed until 2004. He should have said he wants it effective right away.......that would have put the Dems in a pickle...

[clintonh8r]

Wow...the Bush-bashers have a place of their very own . And just look at the names the B-b's are already spewing at the president's supporters. Man. Lots of vitriol out there. Hope nobody strokes out...

[Physicist]

I hate CFR as much as anyone, and wish Bush hadn't signed it, but I still entertain the hope that he knows what he's doing. It's possible that he knew ahead of time that this law would be DOA with the Supremes. IF that's the case, then obviously the best strategy was to sign it. Then Bush gets the best of both worlds: CFR is deader than it could have been any other way, and he can say to the voters, "Hey, I did everything I could. I signed it into law, but it didn't stick. What more do you want?"

Yeah, I know, I know. I wouldn't have given Clinton such a broad benefit of doubt. But while Clinton did everything not to deserve my trust, Bush (to whom I gave no latitude early on; I carried a sign saying "NO HONEYMOON: CUT MY TAXES" at his Inauguration) has earned my trust through his actions.

This isn't over, yet. If the Supremes uphold it, I'll forever maintain that signing it was a damned stupid thing for Bush to do. If they strike it down, I'll call him crazy like a fox.

[Sabertooth]

I saw thru the Bush sycophants the second they started using the same ambulance-chasing-lawyer style arguments that the Clinton people used to support him.

You mean the fear-mongering and the race card?

Amazing how the agruments for those who lean toward a personality cult so precisely mirror each other.

[ken5050]

If we relabel the "Biush can do no wrong" crowd as the "Boyam I thankful it's Bush and not Gore" crowd...which even Rosie belongs to.....then it's a different argument..

[hobbes1]

It is, the Only way to kill it. Veto, or Filibuster, would only have kept the issue around.

38 senators voted against it. Do these mypoic bastards expect people to believe that McConnell couldn't get 2 more for a filibuster???? He just about declared he did, then changed his tune....After being instructed by the WH.

[hobbes1]

it is not just Political. Mostly, but that is also the only way to effectively kill this bill.

[RAT Patrol]

Applause!!!!!

[Miss Marple]

Have a good time! I won't come on here and trash your thread, and I won't argue with anyone. I have made my case on several other threads.

Have a nice day!

[ambrose]

Bump!

[MarkWar]

>Has anyone read the statement on FreeRepublic's main page?

Notice that Jim & John have chosen now as the time to fragment FR into multiple forums, to Balkanize FR into special interest areas, effectively cutting out the huge number of very diverse eyes which, in a single forum, would have looked at and commented on almost every thread...

First the fragmented threads made it likely that most people wouldn't read entire threads -- only activists would start at the beginning and work their way forward. This reduced the overall audience and participation in what HAD BEEN the normal exchange of ideas and views around here.

Second the fragmented forums FURTHER reduce the diversity and number of people checking out the overall flow of threads...

Free Republic IS NOT what it was a year ago. Perhaps it will grow into something equally fun and dynamic. Perhaps it has been improved to death.

Either way, it is unfortunate (!?) that when the ideas and views of the widest range of conservatives would be most interesting on the activities of our "republican" president, that the double deconstruction (first threads, then the forum itself) of Free Republic makes it very unlikely that we will have that kind of scrutiny here. Too bad.

(And, for tin foil types, it will be fun to speculate about the timing of the "new" FR coinciding with the general, wide-spread recognition that Bush isn't anything like what we'd hoped he'd be...)

Mark W.

[hobbes1]

just those who can't seem to see the forest for the trees

Ummmmm, your shoddy analysis of CFR would out you roughly in the middle of that crowd.

[foolish-one]

Good luck. Hope an honest discussion thread where all opinions are welcome works, but I've seen where they have gone in the past. I'll be lurking and, maybe, learning.

[KC Burke]

It is my position that a President may veto or fail to sign a bill based on his understanding of its constitutionality. His office had an early tradition of that ability that, though clouded by the Marshall Court to appear sence that such ability lies with the Court alone. My heartfelt belief that such was approprite in this instance does not lead me to characterize his failing as "traitorous" as some have.

The intemperate rhetoric has been on both sides.

My anger at where I pecieve the Administration is bound on Illegal Immigrants is based as much on my perceptions of where they are going, as well as what they have done by political manuevors. While I expect my anger to be justified, only the proof of final actions and results will make it turn to outright opposition.

There are those that are impatient to get to such a point.

Finally, as you point out this site is for "grass roots" conservatism and as such should have free ranging discussion. But it is also for promotion of conservatism in the long run and JR appears to be asking us occasionally not to make it a repository of overblown anti-republican rhetoric as a converted, Constitution Defending, Republican Party is still a possibility to many here and elsewhere. As such, I think the Bush-is-a-traitor crowd is just as off base as the Bush-babbies. Either side can make there positions without the hyperbole and perhaps communicate rather than just offend.

Thanks for the well composed vanity.