Abdicating His Responsibility

Washington Times ^ | 3/22/02 | Washington Times

[RamsNo1]

Please click on link to read good article chastising Bush for his weak stance on CFR. Sorry I can't copy this article here for you. My computer doesn't allow me to copy and paste.

[Risky Schemer]

What is it about praise and approval from the left that apparently makes it so much more desirable than praise and approval from the right?

Is it because leftists are seen as more exciting, worldly, sophisticated, "in," intelligent, pretty, "connected," or something? And conservatives are "conventional," or "hicks" or some such?

Whatever it is, it must be an overwhelmingly hypnotic and influential brew.

[Reagan Man]

Abdicating his responsibility

     It is bad enough that the self-appointed political reformers finally succeeded in passing their First Amendment-eviscerating Shays-Meehan campaign-finance "reform" legislation. But it is downright inexcusable that President Bush, residing in a White House that is overflowing with political capital, cannot muster the courage to veto a bill he genuinely believes is unconstitutional. The president will be violating what he has personally conveyed are his convictions about the First Amendment when he signs into law, as he has said he will, the blatant attack on free speech that Shays-Meehan represents.
     It isn't even a close call. Until recently, Mr. Bush had compiled a solid track record of defending First Amendment freedoms against those who want to silence Americans seeking to exercise them. Appearing on ABC News' "This Week" on Jan. 23, 2000, Mr. Bush was asked by columnist George Will if a president "has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional." Mr. Bush briefly, but emphatically, replied, "I do." Mr. Will then asked Mr. Bush if, on those grounds, he would veto the Shays-Meehan bill, which, contrary to Mr. Bush's views on constitutionally protected freedoms, would have banned soft-money contributions by individuals. Mr. Bush replied, "[Y]es, I would."
     Mr. Will, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had previously struck down the congressionally mandated limits on political expenditures but not those on contributions, then quoted Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has stated, "There is no constitutionally significant difference between campaign contributions and expenditures. Both forms of speech are central to the First Amendment." Asked if he agreed with Justice Thomas' position and if he would appoint like-minded justices to the Supreme Court, Mr. Bush replied, "Yeah, I agree with that."
     On March 15, 2001 — less than two months after Mr. Bush's inauguration and just before the Senate was to consider campaign-finance "reform" legislation sponsored by Sen. John McCain — the president sent a letter to the Senate majority leader outlining the type of reform the White House would support. One important requirement was "paycheck protection." As Mr. Bush had earlier explained to Mr. Will, that would require that a union member be "able to make his or her expression known as to whether or not they want their money spent on a political campaign or an idea." But this was anathema to Democrats, who demanded that their party continue to have unfettered access to union treasuries as the price of their support for "reform." Thus, all 50 Senate Democrats voted against the proposal, which, by the way, also would have required corporations to get permission from shareholders before using certain funds for political expenditures. Another of Mr. Bush's reform principles required "protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy." In fact, Shays-Meehan drastically curbs this fundamental right during the very period it matters most:60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.
     By signing Shays-Meehan, Mr. Bush will violate an important campaign commitment and stomp all over his own stated constitutional principles. And he will be complicit in shredding the First Amendment. For shame, Mr. President, for shame. . . .

[RamsNo1]

Thank you for copying and pasting, Reagan Man!

[Brett66]

Welcome back to FR. I knew your OPUS wouldn't be your last post. :)

[RAT Patrol]

YES! They nailed it! I'm so thankful for the media friends that we do have. God bless 'em!

[RAT Patrol]

Excellent observation.

[RAT Patrol]

Bump! This is good.

[Reagan Man]

You're welcome. =^)

[hcmama]

Appearing on ABC News' "This Week" on Jan. 23, 2000, Mr. Bush was asked by columnist George Will if a president "has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional." Mr. Bush briefly, but emphatically, replied, "I do."

Hey wait a minute..I know I have read several freepers vehemently deny that Bush had a duty to make such determinations or to veto such legislation. I guess the President would emphatically disagree with them. (Or he used to anyway.)

[oldtimer]

All I can hang on to now, as a GWB, full blown supporter, is that he is setting up the rats for a big fall in November per Rush.

If he gets the majority in the House and Senate minus the RINO's, we will have another Reagan in the White House.

I think he is trying to defang the rats for now.

[Risky Schemer]

Welcome back to FR. I knew your OPUS wouldn't be your last post. :)

It's not exactly that. The money ran out, baby ran off with a volume tire dealer, and the luxury import and high rise were repossessed. I did manage to get the old home place back though.

So I was sorta hoping to sneak back in here too. =)

[rwfromkansas]

I have mailed the article to Karl Rove and the President's addy. I hope they also saw it today in the print edition....surely they did. Maybe they will pay some attention.

[Texasforever]

On March 15, 2001 — less than two months after Mr. Bush's inauguration and just before the Senate was to consider campaign-finance "reform" legislation sponsored by Sen. John McCain — the president sent a letter to the Senate majority leader outlining the type of reform the White House would support. One important requirement was "paycheck protection." As Mr. Bush had earlier explained to Mr. Will, that would require that a union member be "able to make his or her expression known as to whether or not they want their money spent on a political campaign or an idea." But this was anathema to Democrats, who demanded that their party continue to have unfettered access to union treasuries as the price of their support for "reform." Thus, all 50 Senate Democrats voted against the proposal

Let's try one more time to insert the facts. The WT either did not know or did not care about the following EO that Bush issued in his first month in office

Four executive orders were issued by President Bush on February 17, 2001, which the Administration stated "are based on the principles of fair and open competition, neutrality in government contracting, effective and efficient use of tax dollars and the legal right of workers to be notified of how their dues may be used." Reacting to the reports, AFL – CIO President John Swenney issued a statement saying he was "appalled and outraged" by the decision to issue "four mean-spirited, anti-worker executive orders."

One order would require government contractors to notify employees of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 holding in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, "affirming the right of workers to be notified and object, if they so chose, to their union dues being used for purposes other than collective bargaining." Government contractors will be required to post notices informing union–represented workers of their rights under the Beck decision. A similar Executive order was signed in 1992 by the President's father, which was rescinded in early 1993 by former President Clinton.

[olliemb]

where were the republicans during the vote? Where were the interest groups protesting the vote? Nowhere may I say. Now we are all worried about CFR. Did Bush make a campaign speech where he promised not to vote for Shays Meehan? Or did he answer George Will's question. There has been a lot happened during that year, and I think President Bush should line veto those things that he doesn't think it flies. You know there are a lot of people who do not think that it is unconstitutional.

[RamsNo1]

I see what you mean and I used to think that way until CFR. If Bush can abdicate his responsibility to the constitution so his party can get elected in mid-term elections, it still isn't worth it. I, too would like to have republicans get a majority in the senate, believe me---but this is not the way to do it!

Rush had a caller on yesterday that noted Bush may be wanting to get these domestic items out of the way to get on to more important foreign terrorism issues. But if that is the case and the war lasts a long time (like we are constantly told it will) then Bush may never have a real domestic agenda for the next 3 years or 7 years. I don't think the country can wait that long for a president who needs to step up to ALL his responsibilities.

[gunshy]

Oldtimer, I think you are losing your mind. But you can fantacize all you want about the honest, and honorable GWB, a man of integrity (barf). But you know as well as I that he is no Ronald Reagan.

[Benjamin Dover]

I am so sick of all of these Bush bashers who jump ship every time he doesn't walk lockstep with them. They demand the President should NEVER think of politics on policy. He has outfoxed the competition virtually every step of the way throughout his political career.

Let's consider this: We're in an election year. 60 Senators voted for it. He can't veto it without suffering a political setback when his own party members help override the veto(and you know Dasshole will bring it to a re-vote immediately to make Bush look bad.) Bush prefaced his tacit approval with reservations. Very smart. "I'm for reforming the ridiculous laws that we now have, but there are some Constitutional questions." He doesn't get beat up by the press, Dasshole or McCain; who would be living on the Sunday morning shows. Bush takes an arrow out of their quiver. He knows Diana Ross will thump it on appeal(after the next election cycle) and it will be a mute point anyway. Remember, everybody loved the Line item veto passage, but the Supremes kicked it back. "Oh well, we tried" and the outrage died a quick death.

This issue was so low on the radar screen of voter interest that it didn't make sense to veto it and create a media frenzied faceoff with Dasshole and McCain for an inevitable Congressional loss for Bush. There is a method to Bush's supposed madness. November is fast approaching, and this bill doesn't affect this election cycle. Also, remember, the objective is Republican majorities in both houses after November. If Bush can gain seats,(rare, if ever done); highly likely, he's much stronger politically.

For whatever reason (avoiding predictable attacks in close re-elections for Republicans), too many in his own party voted for this bill; negating his veto power. Don't pick a fight you can't win. Pretend you're cautiously for the concept, but with reservations. Disarm your combatant. It's a win-win for Bush. He appears to squintedly defer to the Senate's wisdom, and looks like a substantative thinker who warned all along that there were problems with the bill.

Dasshole will continue his Tylenol drip and McCain will self-destruct on Larry King.

Also, think about this; If Bush vetoes the bill, McCain has an excuse to jump ship to the "Independant" Party...one more seat to try to pick up this November. The press would immediately break away from regular programming to "Condit-ize" the event. McCain would get massive media exposure, and Bush would be labeled as "in the pocket" of big business (Enron revisited). That would be the spin.

Bush is smart on this one. The current court already thumped this issue 2 years ago. It'll be a repeat. He knows that.

[Texasforever]

Oldtimer, I think you are losing your mind. But you can fantacize all you want about the honest, and honorable GWB, a man of integrity (barf). But you know as well as I that he is no Ronald Reagan.

Every principle Bush laid out is incorporated into the CFR or by executive order. He did his job, why did the congress do theirs

President Bush's Reform Principles

Protect Rights of Individuals to Participate in Democracy: President Bush believes democracy is first and foremost about the rights of individuals to express their views. He supports strengthening the role of individuals in the political process by: 1) updating the limits established more than two decades ago on individual giving to candidates and national parties; and 2) protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy.

( Both items incorporated into the CFR)

Maintain Strong Political Parties: President Bush believes political parties play an essential role in making America's democratic system operate. He wants to maintain the strength of parties, and not to weaken them. Any reform should help political parties more fully engage citizens in the political process and encourage them to express their views and to vote

. (National parties lose influence and state parties gain influence in the CFR…good thing)

Ban Corporate and Union Soft Money: Corporations and labor unions spend millions of dollars every election cycle in unregulated 'soft? money to influence federal elections. President Bush supports a ban on unregulated corporate and union contributions of soft money to political parties.

(Both items in CFR)

Eliminate Involuntary Contributions: President Bush believes no one should be forced to support a candidate or cause against his or her will. He therefore supports two parallel reforms: 1) legislation to prohibit corporations from using treasury funds for political activity without the permission of shareholders; and 2) legislation to require unions to obtain authorization from each dues-paying worker before spending those dues on activities unrelated to collective bargaining.

(Done by executive order)

Require Full and Prompt Disclosure: President Bush also believes that in an open society, the best safeguard against abuse is full disclosure. He supports full, prompt and constitutionally permissible disclosure of contributions and expenditures designed to influence the outcome of federal elections, so voters will have complete and timely information on which to make informed decisions.

(CFR requires Web access to donations and donors DONE)

Promote Fair, Balanced, Constitutional Approach: President Bush believes reform should not favor any one party over another or incumbents over challengers. Both corporations and unions should be prohibited from giving soft money to political parties, and both corporations and unions should have to obtain permission from their stockholders or dues-paying workers before spending treasury funds or dues on politics. President Bush supports including a non-sever ability( defeated) provision, so if any provision of the bill is found unconstitutional, the entire bill is sent back to Congress for further adjustments and deliberations. This provision will ensure fair and balanced campaign finance reform

(Unions now under same restrictions as corporations…. DONE)

[toenail]

Did you watch or read the transcript of McConnell's press conference yesterday, introducing his legal team?