Recovering Democrat on CFR: How Bush May Have Done the "Right" Thing After All!

Free Republic ^ | 3/27/02 | Recovering Democrat

[Paul In Cape Two]

President Bush even said today that he's going to concentrate on electing Republicans to the Senate, and keep the majority in the House. Once that's done, he has 2 years of clear sailing for judicial nominees and SCOTUS (3-4) appointments without putting up with Leahy et al vomitous.

Thanks for starting this topic.

[woofie]

If cfr is a snake (and Im a bit in the fence as to how mean a snake it is) the only way to really kill it is to use the courts ....if he vetoed it, the thing would never go away

[Recovering_Democrat]

gee, thanks for a thorough analysis of what I actually said. < /sarcasm>

[rbmillerjr]

Well, when the editorial boards for the Post, NYTimes, LaTimes etc agree to stop posting enorsements and editorials awash of their socialist beliefs 60 days prior to the General Election - I will think that Bush outfoxed them.

Can anybody else here Jennings, and the Editors of the Post and Times laughing their socialist asses off?

[uncbob]

will accuse him of usurping the power of SCOTUS to be the final decision-maker on what's constitutional or not.

SCOTUS has asked in the PAST that congress NOT use them as a FILTER for the constitutionality of laws they pass

And how come Bush DIDN'T state in the George Will interview that he WOULDN'YT veto a bill he thought was unconstitutional because that was SCOTUS job ?????

[cinFLA]

Well said and i hope you're right. Bush is often underestimated after all, so maybe there is a masterplan here.

GOP President, House, Senate in 04. Lot's of judges appointed and lots of government changes made quietly behind the scenes.

[peekaboo]

I have some of the same thoughts as you do today. Perhaps I am just numb voer the whole thing. I have made my share of calls as have you. At least John Breaux listened and voted against this bill, no luck with Landrieu. I even called the white house and after 42 minutes on hold, reluctantly left a message. I just got the bill today. Was it worth it? Well at least Bush did not give a rose garden signing as Dashole and mccain wanted.

I just heard Major Garrett on CNN telling our "friend" Judy Woodruff, that McCain called his friend in the whitehouse (an office aide, don't know which one, maybbe our other friend, Mary Matlin) ans asked why Bush did not have a formal voting. Well, as he was told, according to Major Garrett, that the President was busy this morning, meeting with Condi RIce and Cheney, when he signed, but the aide told mccain that he would get one of the signing pen. The smirk on Judy's face was worth it all and that silly little hummm, that she ends her comments with was equaled by her favorite comment, "well, wonder what that will mean for future relationships" ( I am paraphraisng here) Now that is bitter sweet isn't it. THa was my one dreaded thougth that there would have been a big flashy signing, with mccain breathing down our great president's throat, at least he went that far for all of us, and for that I am grateful. He will take political heat no matter what he has done.

Reading your post has made me feel better.

THANKS, By the way, I am a recovering democrat too. For years in Louisiana, if you were not registered as a democrat you could not even vote in the primaries.

[gunshy]

Great idea. Bush gives up his integrity to suck in the democrats. If your scenerio is true, bush has less credibility than the democrats. IF true, why would anyone want to follow this man. You should post your idea over on the good things george has done thread, they're looking for help.

[Hans]

I fully agree. How many times do Republicans have to go down the rat hole. Ask our Democratic Senator from Illinois how much of a win he had in voting against Judge Pickering. When Bush had lunch with the Daley's after the St. Patrick's Day Parade, he was asked by the boy genius, Mayor Daley, when the O'Hare Airport extension funding could be expected. President Bush's response was, "not in my lifetime". Senator Durban refused Trent Lotts phone calls on Pickering. Payback time is in full force. Next time Dick Durban wants to vote against Bush, he will think long and hard.

[Registered]

Still, this is not the only issue on which Dubyuh has sold conservatism--and the conservatives--down the river!!

Federal funding of stem cell research? Education bill? Where have you been?

[rbmillerjr]

as to the other part - THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS WILL BE RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Just because it is UC, that doesnt mean that it will be ruled that way...Is not a 1000 dollar contribution limiting speech. Sure.

...and yet it is so.

[Kakaze]

" gee, thanks for a thorough analysis of what I actually said. < /sarcasm> "

It was more a reply to the overall attitude around here.

But to be honest know one who relies on granting a state of law to a unconstitutional act is not a conservative, I hope recovery continues and becomes full.....but as of now you are nothing more than a dem in conservatives clothing.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Once again, Bush continues to out-fox everyone.

Except for Fox.

[ravingnutter]

From Newsmax...there already is a precedent in previous SC decisions...

The Constitution and the Supreme Court are clear on this subject. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition ... for a redress of grievances." This applies to organization, speech, and political activity.

The court has called voting "the most basic right," because all other rights depend on it. It has also said "freedom of expression" is essential to elections.

Two cases predict what the Supreme Court would do. In First Nat'l Bank vs. Bellotti, 1978, the court struck down a Massachusetts ad ban against corporations in referendum elections. A bank concerned with a tax referendum won the right to publish its views. In Virginia State Board of Pharmacy, 1976, the court struck a Virginia ban against druggists advertising their prices.

In Bellotti, it was not the speech of citizens, but merely of a corporation. In Virginia Pharmacy, there was no political content. Still, the court called the ban "highly paternalistic," concluding that the First Amendment has "made the choice" between "suppressing information" and the "dangers ... if it is freely available."

In dozens of cases, political speech by citizens is the most protected right in what Thomas Jefferson called "the marketplace of ideas."

This will not be a narrow decision, split between "conservative" and "liberal" justices. Such analysis is irrelevant here.

Newsmax

[Recovering_Democrat]

but as of now you are nothing more than a dem in conservatives clothing.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr. There is a rule against personal attacks on these boards, ya know.

[jz638]

I was always of the opinion that Bush is calling congress' bluff here.

He is calling the Democrat leadership on their empty promises of real reform, when it was obvious that their goal was to use his veto as political ammo in upcoming elections.

He is calling McCain's bluff that he is working for what he thinks is right by signing the bill in private, not allowing him to steal his much beloved spotlight. He is calling Republican (mis)Leadership on their expectations that they can be strong with words but not deeds but in the end the President will make it all better with a veto.

It is unfortunate that politics has sunk to this level, but vetoing this bill won't help things get better. What sends chills up my spine is the possibility that this is a sign that more issues will be surrendered in the name of placating the enemy, and by the time the Republicans and President Bush decide to mount their offensive, that it would be too little, too late.

[Jaidyn]

I was upset, too, so called Dad in Fl., who is with the majority of us. We have agreed that there is something going on behind the scenes that the public is not fully aware of. It is not wishful thinking (at least I hope not) but Bush has shown himself to have a lot of common sense. He didn't choose the people around him by accident but had no voice in who is our senators. I think he is one up on all of them, including republicans. I don't think he would play around with CFR and take for granted the SC would overturn the unconstitutional parts. The man knows something that we don't know, or, in the least, are sure of. He does know what the Constitution means to his supporters and will protect it with all his might.

[WhiteKnuckles]

any thoughts?

I think you got it just about right. Chess vs checkers and all that ...

[habs4ever]

Good post.

[rbmillerjr]

You guys are giving Bush much to much credit. This is not a strategy, it is simple politics. He actually lectured Congress several times, quite clearly himself and via Ari, "to send him a bill he can sign". Well, he signed it.