Posted on 03/21/2002 6:03:38 AM PST by Walkin Man
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:33 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON - Ending seven years of divisive debate, Congress yesterday passed and sent to President Bush legislation to make the most sweeping changes in the country's campaign finance system since the Watergate era, including a ban on unregulated ''soft money'' contributions to national parties.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Exactly. Bush never said that he would veto CFR and you are correct this is politics, with help from the liberal media.
It is very easy for people to pontificate from FR, but Joe and Jane sixpack gets their news from the media and we know they are all for this and if Bush vetoes headlines everyday will be shouting Bush vetoed because of Enron.
He signs it and it goes to the courts where precedant states that the most vile part of the bill, the ad bans 30 and 60 days before an election get thrown out.
Bush doesn't have the media blaring Bush is protecting "fatcats", the hard money increase stays intact, and McCain doesn't have an issue to beat Bush over the head with in 2004, but that won't matter to the loudmouths, they don't know the nuances of politics.
And to all the loudmouths name me a President since and including Washington that hasn't played politics.
I will be waiting a long time.
Well, heck so will I be thanks to you, you dirty rotten stinkin' rat fink hater of our Constitution.
Just because you are corrupt and many of your bedfellows are corrupt, honest citizens all have to feel the sting of your quilt?
his mess is going to result in many unpleasant unintended consequences.
A fine choice of words. I agree. We'll see. In any event, I am disgusted that Bush Jr. would play politics with one of our fundamental rights, regardless of the outcome.
Don't forget, the GOP CONTROLLED HOUSE passed this pos in the middle of the night!!!!
As promised, there is now no way I will ever vote for President Bush ever again.
I understand what you are saying but I have to disagree with you. The President put his hand on a Bible and swore to protect and defend the Constitution. This anti-free speech bill is clearly unconstitutional and I believe the President knows it.
He may be doing the "smart" thing politically by signing this bill into law hoping that the SCOTUS strikes it down but he is not adhering to his oath of office, IMHO. All military vets take the same oath to protect and defend the Constitution and many give their very lives for it. I think it is sad that the same oath is sold out for political expediency.
That's because you all are the problem passing unconstitutional law and full well knowing it is wrongheaded, full well knowing it faces lawsuits, full well knowing it is against the people's First Amendment and full well knowing it is in violation of your sworn oath which today is as cheap as the piddly slimey words that froth from your drooling mouth.
If he would sign totally unconstitutional laws against free speech, he would also willingly and eagerly sign a totally unconstitutional law banning all guns.
He has lost my vote, permanently.
Quite incorrect Mr. McCain, you as an incumbent politician, are one of the few left that this bill doesn't render speechless.
You and your sycophants in the left wing press.
With no advertising allowed 60 days before an election, NETWORKS will basically become the information organs for the various parties and candidates at election time.
In other words (due to the law of supply and demand, and hypothetically speaking), CNN will be the network that promotes liberal/Democratic candidates and ideas (business as usual), while Fox will be forced to more boldly satisfy the need for accurate information about conservatives who are running.
I'm sure it would take a while for all of this to develop, but I've got to believe the need for accurate info on candidates and issues will be met one way or the other.
Then watch the libs start pushing for reinstatement of the "fairness doctrine."
Then I would say that the whole Bill of Rights is in mortal danger. Next up would be a total ban on guns perhaps? Who knows?
Correct. And pitting Hillary Clinton against W in 2004, the choice will be for someone who will sign laws intended to destroy the Bill of Rights, or someone who DID sign laws intended to destroy the Bill of Rights.
What is the outcome, if the "last 60 days" portion of the bill is declared unconstitutional (as it should, and will be), while keeping the remainder of the bill intact?
That would have been the thing to do if Bush had the line item veto to work with.
But, since he does not, why not pass it to the courts, that do have that capability??
Seems to be, the remainder of the bill then becomes a watershed of more money for the repubs, because in effect, the limits placed on contributions just went up, straight up, and as the repubs are traditionally better at gathering cash, I believe the dems just got talked into cutting their own throats, and smiling while they are doing it!!!
That, my friend, is how politics is played.
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.