Posted on 03/27/2002 12:46:17 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
This is a bogus reason for Bush signing the bill. If the democrats were to take that line, Bush could have numerous responses -- not the least of which is that if the senate feels so strongly about it, they can override his veto, as the Constitution dictates.
He could also remind the public that the Constituional oath requires him to defend the constitution, and that defense includes not signing into law politically motivated legislation that is unconstitutional on its FACE.
However, you are exactly right.
The decision to veto or to sign was a carefully calculated one. The choices presented were:
1. Veto the bill, use the bully pulpit to "educate the masses", and hope the currently high political standing of the President would allow him to weather the storm.
2. Sign the bill, keep it low profile, and let the courts be the ultimate arbiter as envisioned in the Constitution.I am sure the President has been told that it is much more likely than not the most objectionable parts of the bill will not pass muster.
In choosing the second course, I believe GWB has made the choice which best enhances Republican chances in this November's elections. I support that choice. I believe a 24/7 day in and day out attack by the media on this issue would take its toll before November. Just ask Newt Gingrich. Thus, I believe the President has done the "right thing."
Those who disagree and argue the best political course was the veto route have my respect. We can discuss the various scenarios in a positive way.
Those who object to the signing on the basis of "principal" and whine about GWB, the "sellout", get not one whitt of my respect. They can go support whatever "FatChance" candidate on whichever fringe they choose. I will remain and fight against being dragged to socialist hell by the next liberal democrat who gets elected. I am in this thing to WIN--to me that is doing the "right thing."
Austin, Washington D.C., and Tennessee are full of people who said exactly the same thing once before.
They are also now sitting on the sidelines. . . ..
Bush is not God, he is not omnipotent or omniscient. But gosh darn it, the man is a darn good politician.
Clinton is probably dropping dead watching Bush's moves, and wondering how he does it while all the time projecting integrity. Everyone keeps talking about what a master of manipulation Clinton was, well, from what I can see so far, Bush leaves him in the dust.
I will, thanks.
I will remain and fight against being dragged to socialist hell by the next liberal democrat who gets elected. I am in this thing to WIN--to me that is doing the "right thing."
Then you are no better than the Dems you want to defeat -- you simply have differing political goals.
Well, they'll probably try but unless the majority of Republicans decide to walk away from Bush over this relatively minor issue (no way) the Dems attempts to portray Bush as a liar will fall flat. He's ssen as an honest man by most of the public and the fact that he signed a bill that he said may have some unconstitutional provisions in it but is otherwise better than what we have won't end up as 'read my lips' because singing this bill - remember this - affects very few average people, as they see it, and so, has little resonance with the general voting public.
As many others have noted, this takes CFR off the table for the fall elections and probably helps Republicans with hard money while hurting the Democrats, who can't complain very loudly about the law they cried for.
I expect the Supreme Court will void the 60-day provisions and Bush will be politically home free, but I still wish the Republicans in Congress had simply stuck together and killed the thing. No one in the general electorate cares much about this bill and it would have been a campaign issue that- as in 2000 for McCain - went nowhere. Once passed by congress, Bush had to make a decision and he took the political path and signed it while commenting that parts of it may be unconstitutional, which gives him some cover.
It's Washington hard-ball, big-time politics, not bean bag and Bush is a top-ranked player, so cries of 'sell-out' and so on don't mean much when the pros play. The constitution will survive as will the republic. Those who have loathed George W. Bush since he announced for the Republican presidential nomination can have a field day beating up on him but in a few weeks this will all be in the background and Bush will be stronger, overall, as the elections and eventually, a Supreme Court vacancy draws near and Bush will need every ounce of political capital he'll be able to muster to win. To not use it on CFR was probably a wise political decision but as a constitutional issue, it was disappointing that he was put in a political position where he felt that he had to sign it and worse, that Congressional Republicans let the damn thing ever get to his desk.
Some chess games are won by moves one player makes 13 or 14 moves ahead that only he sees.
Makes them look like they REALLY care about the issue and their vote would look good in the eyes of the voters.
Their plan was to make GW look like someone who liked 'illegal contributions'.
I think he decided not to be the fall guy and bail them out. As far as I can tell - it was a good decision.
You sure got that part right.
I still don't like it but I do like Bush better than any Dim around and unfortunately, he has to play the political games.
Everyone please work to elect a majority GOP Senate.
Also, given the plan of demonization I am sure they had, I am not certain that the veto would have been sustained. It is quite possible that in a panic over poll numbers (as so many of our dear Republician senators are susceptible to)the veto miight actually have been overriden. Then we would still have to go to the Supreme Court and we would be damaged by the press attacks on the veto.
I think we should find out who the last few Republicans were to sign the discharge petition in the House, and what motivated them to do so.
Sometimes to win is to lose. There is a fine line between explanation for an action by supporters and rationalization of an act.
You can rationalize what he did in a number of ways, IT IS STILL WRONG. I will vote for him and conservatives. I will not contribute to the 5-6 GOP groups I give to and I will change party affiliation to Independent. I cant support a Party whose leader would weaken it and give more power to the liberal media.
That's why I said he's playing with fire. He's leaving it to the court to dispense with the unconstitutional parts.
As to purists, I refer to the people who expect pure as the wind driven snow performance from the president.
I've been seeing the posts, saying they wish they had voted for Gore, or Nader or Buchanan. Or the Constitution Party, or the Libertarian Party. Horsefeathers. Like it or not, this is the best we could get in 2000.
Think about it. The dems circled the wagons and maintained popularity through EVERYTHING. Who among our choices could have beaten Gore? McCain? Keyes? Bauer? Forbes? There wasn't enough outrage; the recession hadn't happened yet, we'd had (relative) peace and quiet for eight years, there was no reason for the 'mushy middle' to go Right. This is illustrated by the 49/49 split. If we had all stuck by the 'right man' and voted Pure Conservative, we could have what? Gotten ten percent? And given the election and a mandate to Gore.
"That would have been the best possible lesson?"
I seriously doubt that. I think, rather, that faced with a loss after eight years of Clinton, the RNC would have decided that the nation really did want Democrats, and all the tax cuts and pro life rhetoric in the world just wouldn't get you the White House.
This is politics. And I do believe someone once compared politics to sausages, in that while the end result may be palatable, the makings are disgusting. Well, we're stuffing ground up pig into pig's intestine, right about now. Hopefully the SCOTUS will fry it up with a side of hotcakes, and turn it into something I can swallow.
I'm hoping this all turns out in the end. Will it? I have no idea. But I've been posting for four years, lurking for more. I watched the 'Dole's winning' predictions, I watched the predictions of disaster for Clinton. A good many of us are complaining because Bush isn't playing by our rules. The only problem is, in DC, people who play by our rules seem to lose.
Am I wrong? Possibly. Am I disappointed? Definitely. It would be far easier if I could read Bush's mind, and KNOW whether he does this from fear, or tactical consideration. Is he a coward, or a budding Machiavelli? Which is worse? If, in the end, we are triumphant, is it a prerequisite that our victory be spotless?
Questions, questions, questions.
Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment to the Constitution,,,,,,,George Mason wouldnt even vote for the Constitution withough it, and the 9 others known as the Bill of Rights,,,,,,,,and indeed our Constitution isnt worth the paper it's written on without the Bill of Rights.
THIS MINOR ISSUE EH,,,,,,,,EGAD!!!
You know the phrase, "Too cute by half"?
It's not a compliment.
(and I am referring to W, not you, RD!)
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.