Posted on 02/16/2002 7:27:55 AM PST by TLBSHOW
I respect him because of his integrity, character and courage......things that you're obviously unfamiliar with. Wash your mind out with soap before you make such stupid comments to anyone else who has respect for this this country, this man, and his office.
Check out the rules. NO personal attacks. NO foul abuse. Your post is the most obscene thing I have seen on FR. But then again, that was your point, wasn't it?
Your Language is not necessary !
I hope he listens to us!
You're gut is correct. It's the liberal media. They have 100% control over the liberal media and according to this bill, that's who is going to tell us everything we need to know about all candidates for 60 days prior to an election.
Am I hallucinating or does anybody else remember this and what the issue was?
Lott, R-Miss., told reporters the Senate will act on Bush's education bill before the campaign finance measure comes to the floor and possibly on a budget as well.
The campaign finance measure would outlaw large, unregulated "soft money" donations from corporations, unions and individuals. It also includes other provisions to curtail the influence of money in politics.
Similar bills have died in the Senate in recent years, victims of filibusters supported by GOP leaders.
I'm NOT a Libertarian; they want NO restrictions on immigration!!
I almost completely disagree. Rush Limbaugh knows that his audience is firmly behind Bush. If Rush starts trashing Bush, it will take no more than one or days before you will begin hearing many of them say, "You know, I always liked Rush, but lately he's . . ." Rush Limbaugh knows this and so you should not expect to see him begin trashing Bush. Rush will have his pom-poms out for Bush in 2004 no matter what Bush does on this or any other bill. Rush simply has no choice and he knows that.
I also think that you are underestimating Bush's abilities both as a spokesman and as a politician. He has become increasingly effective in both areas. He is clearly running the show at this point.
Gee, maybe that's what Daschole is so "enthusiastic" about . . . more than getting the economy going, getting justices in place, worrying about social security reform. He needs to be voted out.
Does Congress usually put such language in bills these days?
Personally, I don't see anything in the bill that makes any sense or that is going to change anything. For the most part the bill's language is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to lull the sheeple.
Politically, I think it would be best if it were found unconstitutional in USSC. Any other result will only provide opportunities for the Democrats. Far better for Bush to announce that he believes that there are valid criticisms on a constitutional basis and, as I recommended in my post, announce that he has directed Ashcroft to pursue this in court. Once USSC declares it to be unconstitutional, it becomes a dead issue and does not expose Senate Republicans or Bush himself to attacks that can be avoided. Besides, this takes away one of the few issues the Democrats have.
Now as for the President's obligation to "defend" the constitution. That can be accomplished in many ways. Our major difference is one of tactics, not objectives. I prefer the defense that achieves the objective while minimizing the opportunities for the opposing side. I think my approach is far better than a "Hi Diddle Diddle, Let's Run Up the Middle" approach that seems so popular in conservative circles. Why play into your opponents strengths when you can attack his weaknesses? Why play on the Democrats turf where the media will support them, when you can de-politicize this issue by getting it before USSC as soon as possible?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.