Posted on 12/10/2003 1:09:18 PM PST by Maceman
I'm just noting that under Bush and a Republican majority they have gotten a lot worse a lot faster than even under Klinton.
You mention "risky schemes". If even an idiot like me could predict that a liberal Court would not overrule this law, then don't you think that it is Busch and his supporters that were taking the risk, instead of me and my supporters? Please read my comments on how often the supporters of Busch use terms like gambling and taking a chance when they support Busch and his positions.
The damnable thing about all this is that if Bush would have used his consitutional veto power, there would have been no gambling. We're in the majority in Congress and his veto would have stood. I'm too old to gamble; I like to put my money on sure things. Like vetoing bad laws.
So either Bush and his handlers are stupid (which I don't believe), or they didn't care for whatever reason. Which do you think it was?
Still with the insults sunshine. But what else should I expect? I have stated time and time again what the solution is but I will state it again. Don't know why I bother it will still go over your head. Just as it's gone over the head of your cohorts
Since I don't see any hope of overturning the 17th Amendment in my lifetime, vote for the candidate that is the conservative. Not the 'hold your nose and vote' candidate. Not the candidate that makes you feel good and promises to bring intangible assets or promises of entitlements to the job. The one who states and believes by his or her actions, "This is the founding document to this nation. This is what the national government was meant to do as covered in the Constitution." Who cares what party that candidate belongs to. You want conservative, limited government, it isn't going to come about by one party or the other being elected. It will come about only when men (and women) that believe in conservatism are elected. That may mean four parties sitting in Congress, it may mean two, but it won't be by a majority of one. Been tried for 40 years with Democrats and now it's being tried with Republicans. If the first two years are any indication, it doesn't look any peachier
You want conservative limited government? Then you're going to have to walk into the voting booth and make a decision that you may not have done before. You are actually going to have to consider from multiple candidates and make a decision not based on a letter of the alphabet
Unfortunately for your sort you think this can only happen with the Republican party majority. Also unfortunately for your sort this premise has been blasted straight to Hades. Some Republicans are no more conservative than their Democrat counterparts. Just as some Democrats are more conservative than their Republican counterparts. The problem is we've got people like you pulling down the d#mn R lever without a thought other than "Republicans good, Democrats bad". Don't feel bad though. There's an equal majority of mindless doing the same thing with the D lever all around this nation. You'll vote for somebody just so the Democrat doesn't get in. And more's the worse for conservatives that still remember what we were taught about the Constitution, the rights of the citizens of the respective states and their responsibilities.
It's quite evident that conservatism is a movement and is not tied to one party or the other. But you keep trying to tie it to the Republican party. Keep changing the meaning of the word while you're at it too. Because conservative as I was brought up to believe is not currently found in many corners of the Republican party
******************************
"These provisions of the bill will go a long way toward fixing some of the most pressing problems in campaign finance today. They will result in an election finance system that encourages greater individual participation, and provides the public more accurate and timely information, than does the present system. All of the American electorate will benefit from these measures to strengthen our democracy.
However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.
I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.
I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law." George W. Bush
A political calculation that Bush could not afford to take a hit on this issue, particularly with McCain outside of the tent pissing in. That is what I think.
No reason to slander Buchanan. I don't know him personally but people who I know and trust do know him and like him. And Buchanan wrote a wonderful book in his "Decline of the West". Read it if you haven't - it's a conservative classic right up there with Witness and God and Man at Yale. It's kind of hard not to be negative with all the crap coming down from Bush isn't it? I mean he expands the welfare state, federalizes education, promotes illegal immigration, limits my free speech, etc., etc. He did lower taxes (but not spending) and he did sign the partial-birth abortion bill. I give him credit for that.
Don't mean to seem whiny or shallow, but Bush is not a conservative. In my heart, I know he's wrong. (Recognize that parody of a AUH2O campaign slogan - tell's you I'm an old fart with a long memory)
Regards.
be back in a few
Regards.
See Ya
Did you know I'm old enough to remember when Bush would have flunked a security clearance for his past drug use? When Bush said he hadn't used drugs for x number of years (25 I believe), I think he was tacitly admitting drug use.
Isn't that just a reflection of how bad this country has gotten? That we can discuss the past illegal drug use of a sitting "conservative" president of the USA?
And regarding principled, don't you think Bush's response that didn't really answer the question of "Did you use illegal drugs?" was unprincipled? I mean either ignore it or answer it but don't tap dance around it. But we digress.
Bush's signing that bill was damnable, no matter how you look at it.
But, am I right or am I right? That is the true question.
I also note that most of you have sunk to simple name-calling and ad hominem attacks. So permit me to observe that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel and depart to my well-earned and merited obscurity. Veritas vincit!
By the way, no one has called me fat yet. I weigh 280 pounds! I have 3 children! I'm a veteran! Let's here some insults about these factoids! Did you know that after basic training (where I only weighed 260 many years ago), my graduating class gave me the prestigious "When the shooting starts, man I'd most like to follow" award? (Think about it) And recently when one of my comatose patients woke up in the ICU and saw me she yelled, "You're the fattest doctor I've ever seen?" (The nurses still laugh about that one.)
Bush's actions were still damnable when he signed this law.
Yeah, I'm basically in the same boat, too.
Here in Wisconsin we have Herb Kohl, otherwise known as "Nobody's Senator but yours, definitely not my Senator", and ... what's that other guy's name, Russ Feingold..
Oh boy. Just imagine how receptive HE would be to suggestions of repeal!
Do I need an MBA or a BA to understand all this or is it 25 or 6 to 4?
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.