[colorado tanker]

Seems to me this bears out what the Bushbots said at the time, that there was no need for Dubya to take a political hit (that Congressional pubbies weren't willing to take, either) by vetoing CFR because the POC would never make it through the courts.

[Congressman Billybob]

As an absolutist on the question of the US Constitution myself, I fully agree that the principled decision by President Bush would have been to veto this bill because it was unconstitutional. President Washington was the first to issue a veto for that reason.

However, I fully understand the politics of quietly signing the bill (no ceremony at all), and let the courts slap it down. I offer one additional reason for that course of action:

If a President vetos a bill and claims it's "unconstitutional," the immediate partisan response is, "Says who? Don't the courts have the ultimate power to say that?" That argument would have some traction with some constitutional fools in the US -- and we have an ample supply of those.

On the other hand, if the trial court says its unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court agrees just before the 2004 election (which is now the schedule), that argument falls apart. The President is clearly right for raising questions about the constitutionality of this Act, and McCain-Feingold are obviously wrong for pushing through an Act that is clearly unconstitutional.

By a narrow margin (because I am an absolutist myself), I agree that Bush made the correct call on the CFR Act.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI and FR, "All-American Arrogance"

Latest article, now up on UPI and FR, "The Iraqi Constitution"

[Mulder]

Seems to me this bears out what the Bushbots said at the time, that there was no need for Dubya to take a political hit (that Congressional pubbies weren't willing to take, either) by vetoing CFR because the POC would never make it through the courts.

Bush blew an opportunity to veto the bill, make the RATS look bad, and give a nice speech about defending our Rights.

Instead, he signed the bill, which violated the first amendment. This angered many conservatives, and legitimately so. Some are still upset about, as they should be whenever any politician attempts to infringe upon our Rights.

Now, the RAT candidate will be able to criticize for Bush for signing such a flawed bill into law since it was overturned. He'll be criticized for not vetoing it and forcing Congress to pass a better bill.

All in all, it probably won't be that big a deal during the election except as one more sticking point for some conservatives. The American people really don't care about CFR, otherwise McCain and Bradley would have won their respective nominations.

Not only that, but the RATS will have bigger things to focus on such as massive budget deficits, a sluggish economy, and the Patriot Act.

[RAT Patrol]

So far, the worst part of CFR stands and the best part (relatively) was tossed. The RATS can collect all the soft money they want but they speech restrictions live on -- and were actually made worse.