Replies

This person supports the president so much that he or she is willing to overlook the clear unconstitutionality of the Incumbent Protection Act. The president ignored his oath of office and deliberately signed an unconstitutional piece of legislation as part of some well-concealed strategy? Please.

It's not well concealed, it's fairly obvious to the undoltish.

Yes, most of the Bill is unconstitutional, So what happens if Bush Vetoes it? The bill gets packed away in Dassholes desk drawer until....A new president comes along and will sign it, and for his trouble, the biggest 2 proponents of the bill,McAnus, and the Mainstream media, Bash the living crap out of him, rekindle their love affair, give him an asspain primary in'03-'04, and use the issue to cost him ground in the middle against his Dem opponent in '04. Oh yes, and it also makes it a campaign issue for the 38 Republicans that voted agianst it in the Senate,where by my count, we need a net gain of 1 seat in '02 to have control.

Your way stalls the passing of the bill, His way Kills it, and helps to solidify Conservative Ground for the Next 2 election cycles.

Fairly obvious, when you take reality into account, rather than tilting at windmills in search of utopia, like MR. Magoo, playing Don Quixote.

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?

"OTOH, sign the Bill, The media is happy, so they leave him alone, McCain has NO SIGNATURE ISSUE to push himself into the Primaries, or to draw media attention, and when the Court shreds the bill, it will be DEAD."

Just like the Supreme Court killed the hopes of pro-lifers with Roe v. Wade, right? Wrong. If the response to Roe v. Wade is any indication, we should realize that one Supreme Court decision does not mean an issue is dead. Besides, the Supreme Court has already ruled that limits can be placed on campaign contributions. What makes you think this will go down in flames? I think the president could have used his position to publicly educate the people as to why this bill is unconstitutional and why he was going to veto it.

So why can't you stake out your position without the name-calling and the derision?

If you think the unconstitutionality or even the fundraising issues of CFR are done, killed, whatever, it's not. There is nothing to stop Daschle & Co. from submitting another CFR bill some time in the future no matter what happens to this particular bill. The difference is that we now have the spectre of setting bad precedent with an unreliable Supreme Court.

The bill gets packed away in Dassholes desk drawer until....A new president comes along and will sign it, and for his trouble, the biggest 2 proponents of the bill,McAnus, and the Mainstream media, Bash the living crap out of him, rekindle their love affair, give him an asspain primary in'03-'04, and use the issue to cost him ground in the middle against his Dem opponent in '04.

I see it now,,,, sign something unconstitutional in order to prevent someone else from theoretically siging it later. Sounds like a sound strategy to me.

Sounds like you care more about strategy than rights. That would put you in lockstep with him.

"Your way stalls the passing of the bill, His way Kills it, and helps to solidify Conservative Ground for the Next 2 election cycles. "

You better hope so buddy, cause if the SC doesn't kill it then you have just witnessed the gutting of the constitution. You realize that the decision rests on one or two people and they are not the most reliable people on the planet.

OTOH, sign the Bill, The media is happy, so they leave him alone, McCain has NO SIGNATURE ISSUE to push himself into the Primaries, or to draw media attention, and when the Court shreds the bill, it will be DEAD. Not Vetoed and Waiting for another President.
Your way stalls the passing of the bill, His way Kills it, and helps to solidify Conservative Ground for the Next 2 election cycles.

Fairly obvious, when you take reality into account, rather than tilting at windmills in search of utopia, like MR. Magoo, playing Don Quixote.

Yep! and that is exactly what I have been saying but you said it so much better.

Already this issue is headed for the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and that was what I had hoped for and I THINK what GW was counting on.

Your post makes some assumptions that I rather doubt many on the board would be willing to accept. The first would be that Daschle, or even the Democraps, will have a majority in the Senate after the fall election--at least many at FR believe they are sitting ducks and the GOP will 'blow them away'.

The second one is that there will be a new President--that Bush will be a one-termer--I can assure you there are many here at FR that would fight you tooth and nail over that.

The third assumption is that the Supreme Court will cut and hack this thing to pieces.....how can anyone be so confident in the Supreme Court when yesterday's ruling regarding public housing occupants being responsible for what visitors do EVEN outside their rented premises--that was a unanimous vote!

One thing is obvious--even yourself said--there is a large amount of unconstitutionality involved with this bill....and that is what we have to live with unless and until someone says otherwise.

And for the record, McCain and his buddies like Shay insist this was only the first in a series. But, why are you so obsessed with McCain and the media....your candidate took care of him!

As it is , the Country has just been shown that the Republican Party s***s on the Constitution, as well--perhaps even more so because it appears from the language the President used in announcing why he was signing the bill, he acknowledges the unconstitutionality, but it didn't bother him--because he signed it--whereas, I've not heard the liberal scumbags talk like that--the Pervert didn't, as I recall. And all the Representatives and Senators (GOP) that voted for it did the same thing....is it any wonder we have youth that have no sense of rightness or wrongness when there are no models to guide them, but there's a ton of models to lead them the other way?

Well, since you like to deal in the "fairly obvious", how about a "fairly obvious" question?

[You]....when the Court shreds the bill, it will be DEAD.

Oh, good. I rejoice. And what if they don't? Who is the Rhodes scholar then? Will you freely present yourself in the public square for flogging?

Mind you, some TV punditary Court followers have already been opining that there's good reason to think CFR will be found constitutional by the Rehnquist Court, so your optimism mystifies me. Given that this Court has already found against your side once on a similar case, where is font of your enthusiasm for rejoining the issue?

Methinks you just want the issue off the table to shut the DemonRats up ..... you've given up on it, in other words, and are now toying with people you consider beneath the salt intellectually, hence all the insulting references.

Well, if I were you, I'd start putting together a collection of nice, soft, comfy flannel shirts. You're going to need them to protect what's left of your skin, after SCOTUS rolls over on you and sends you down to the public square for your chastisement.