Let's see.
Mr. March,
I do share some of your sentiment regarding GW and some of the things his administration has done, but for the most part I think he's doing well. What I do see is a portrayal of what is being "said" as being what has been "done" however. Case in point the AW ban and GW. GW said he would sign an AW ban if it comes across his desk. Understandable that we fear that he will do this especially after CFR was signed (and I will get to that to tie this altogether in a moment) which is an constitutional violation of our right to free speach.
Here's my thinking and it is all hypothetical but stay with me here. I'm going to pretend that I'm the President for a moment.
AW ban coming my way and asked if I will sign it I would say "You bet I will! Get it to my desk and my John Hancock will go right at the bottom in thick black ink." Huh? What do you think? Sounds pretty bad, but what you wouldn't see or hear about would be me off camera and off the record talking to key people in congress and asking them to make sure that the AW bill never makes it to my desk for signing in the first place. Politically I would be covered because I "said" I would sign it if it crossed my desk, but if it never makes it to my desk...?
Then there's CFR; and this is going to be a big stretch but I hope it holds with either the second term for the Bush administration or the following Conservative administration, which we will get I can assure you. All that has to be done is allow CFR to run until you get a few key points on your agenda done and then have it brought up for review in the Supreme Court...oh, say after one gets ones judges appointed
Once CFR is brought to the attention of those that don't wipe their rearends with the constitution it will go the way of the Dinosaur.
Politically it is a win/win situation if it plays out the way I described above:
"I said I would sing it but it never made it to my desk." AW ban.
"I signed it and then the courts deemed it unconstitutional and threw it out. It's not my fault and the court makes their decisions independent of me and I will abide by their decision." CFR
As President I would be covered from every angle on these two issues once it was all said and done. Politics at it's finest but like I said it could all play out the other way and we could all get upset about it legitimately but let's wait to see if these things actually come to pass before we condemn another.
Someone brought up the Patriot Act again and Homeland Security and while I have been slacking on my reading over the holiday season I have still been reading the text of the Patriot Act. So far other than the inclusion of some words and specific definitions the rulings and amendments already existed in the form so many seem to be up in arms about. I'm not sure why some became so disgruntled when it took on the title of the Patriot Act but were completely unaware that these Acts already existed prior to the Patriot Act being brought to the forefront and have for years. The Patriot Act seems (to me thus far but still reading) to merely put all these Acts and Articles in one place. So why was it better when they were all scattered around but still in existance? That's what I'm finding hard to understand.
Again, I agree with your sentiments and think it's high time a Conservative stood up and did what was right to protect the constitutional rights of the American public, but politically it might not be the best way to get things done in this day and time, unfortunately.
Take care all,
DRC
