"Bush signs campaign finance law" (An oldie but goodie for you BushBots! Have a nice day!)

various wire reports, via Japan today ^ | March 28, 2002 | AP via Japan Today

[VMI70]

"I want to ROLL back all socialism aggressively."

"There's probably only one way to do that - a very unpleasent way, I'm afraid."

Maybe unpleasant, but becoming almost necessary.

Thomas Jefferson: ..."in each generation the tree of liberty must be fertilized with the blood of despots and patriots."

I am to the point that I really hope that Hillary is elected POTUS. Maybe that would be enough to turn Jefferson's sage thoughts a reality.

[jagrmeister]

No. You and I just disagree on this value tradeoff. I think people not special interests should control elections. And I'm willing to accept some limits on speech to accomplish that. Wouldn't it be nice if one day we could disagree without likening one another to Stalin?

[jagrmeister]

The President upheld the principle of fair elections and turned away relatively hyperbolic arguments that free speech is being eradicated. The irony is that the law has no teeth and is skirted at will by 527 organizations- supporters and detractors should really have no reason to cheer or be dismayed.

[churchillbuff]

The President upheld the principle of fair elections and turned away relatively hyperbolic arguments that free speech is being eradicated.

No, the president himself doesn't agree with what you said - - in your sycophancy, you're giving him more a benefit of the doubt than he gives himself. When he signed it, he SAID he thought it was unconstitutional. My point is that he was a wimp - and violated his oath to the constitution - to sign it if that's what he thought. Your excuses for him are totally without credibility - - because even HE admitted it was a bad - and unconstitutional - law.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

The Bush party hacks are now arguing for some form of amnesty. All of a sudden, some of the hacks think amnesty is great. Last month. No one did. And this is with no details.

I admire your tenacity, but why argue with hacks who are shill'ing and really do not care about the larger issues?
(I do not mean the well intentioned)

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Great job campaigning for Dean, churchillbuff!!! With the hate that you repost, copy, and/or spew towards Bush (who we all know isn't perfect) you must be pretty depressed that Algore isn't president.

Rip Bush a new one as often as possible. Get Dean in.

Or, LOL!!!, maybe a libertarian will be the next president! LOL!!!!!

[churchillbuff]

Great job campaigning for Dean, churchillbuff!!!

Great job doing a wonderful immitation of a slavish sycophant - - by coming down on anyone who points it out when Bush does what Clinton would have done. Sorry, but I have this reflexive instinct to tell the truth, and if a president puts on invisible clothers, I (unlike you, I guess), am not going to tell him how beautiful they look - - even if he's a Republican. Sorry about that.

[deport]

because even HE admitted it was a bad - and unconstitutional - law.

---

Really...... You're hyperventilating I think......

[chudogg]

I am reminded about that story of the Jewish woman in Germany in the late 1920's early 30s, who would always read the NAZI publications. When another woman asked why, she said that when she reads Jewish publications she always reads about the plight of the Jews, when she reads Nazi publication, she reads how the Jews control the world!

Often i find myself going over to DU to hear about how this country is slipping into right wing extremism!

[churchillbuff]

Mona Charen weighs in:

Mona Charen (archive)


December 12, 2003 | Print | Send



On Dec. 10, 2003, freedom took two body blows. The first was the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to permit the limitation of political speech. This is not exotic dancing or flag burning. This is "Vote for Sam Smith" -- the beating heart of our democracy. The Supreme Court has just tied a gag around our mouths, and most of the intellectual class is delighted. Apologists obscure the crude reality of this repression by calling it "campaign finance reform." Well, you can call manure a cow pie, but it still stinks.

The second blow was the death of Robert L. Bartley, editor of The Wall Street Journal, whose death at age 66 leaves the world of ideas a bit wobbly, like losing one leg of a four-legged chair. More on Bartley in a moment.

I'd like to say that it's hard to believe that the Supreme Court would uphold such an obvious assault on liberty as the McCain-Feingold bill. But then, this is the same court that finds "constitutional" justifications for race-based preferences and late-term abortions. These decisions, and many others, are unhinged from anything in the text of the document. Anyone who has not noticed that a majority of the court simply enacts its whims has not been paying attention.

Liberals have howled for three solid years now that in 2000, the conservatives on the court stampeded over the law to place their preferred candidate in the White House. (The truth is that the Democrats had successfully suborned the Florida Supreme Court to flout the law and the U.S. Supreme Court merely stopped them from hijacking the election.) But look carefully at McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission, and what do you find? The conservatives on the court were vehemently opposed to this assault on speech despite the fact that these restrictions will undoubtedly favor incumbents. And who happen to be the majority of incumbents? Republicans.

Justice Scalia spelled it out with his usual verve: "... the present legislation targets for prohibition certain categories of campaign speech that are particularly harmful to incumbents. Is it accidental, do you think, that incumbents raise about three times as much ‘hard money' -- the sort of funding generally not restricted by this legislation -- as do their challengers? Or that lobbyists (who seek the favor of incumbents) give 92 percent of their money in ‘hard' contributions? Is it an oversight, do you suppose, that the so-called ‘millionaire provisions' raise the contribution limit for a candidate running against an individual who devotes to the campaign (as challengers often do) great personal wealth, but do not raise the limit for a candidate running against an individual who devotes to the campaign (as incumbents often do) a massive election ‘war chest'"?

Oh yes, this law will be a boon to incumbents and, at least in the short run, to Republicans. But at no less a price than undermining our liberties. In the land of the free, groups like the Sierra Club and Citizens Against Government Waste will no longer be able to buy advertising within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election that mentions any candidate by name. This is an outrage and a disgrace. What is the First Amendment for if not to permit me, and any group I associate with, to express political views?

[churchillbuff]

If there are freepers who have said that Bush is perfect, I haven't seen them. For the record I freely concede that Bush is not perfect, has made mistakes, is human, etc.

Signing this assault on freedom wasn't a simple "Mistake," it was a betrayal of liberty -- and of his oath to uphold the constitution. The dimwit ADMITTED he thought it was unconstitutional - but still signed it. Violation of oath by Clinton would have had you shouting loud, I'll bet. But Bush gets less than a verbal wrist-slap from you. (Oh, "he's not perfect" -- -you're right there, bub, he's not perfect, by a mile)

[churchillbuff]

I guess that means W is neither the Second Coming nor the Antichrist, but only a man.

Buddy, Bush was RIGHT when he said this law was unconstitutional. But he went ahead and signed it - - violating his oath to uphold the constitution. That makes him a pretty cynical jerk in my book. Wait till the Dems get back in and this law prevents conservatives from running ads to point out their faults. You'll be able to thank Bush for taking away our freedom.

[churchillbuff]

Now that Saddam has been captured, he'll be able to congratulate Bush personally on signing that campaign finance law. Outlawing independent groups from running ads against government officials was a stroke of brilliance, I'm sure Saddam thinks. He could have authored that anti-freedom measure himself!!!!

[Servant of the 9]

Wait till the Dems get back in and this law prevents conservatives from running ads to point out their faults. You'll be able to thank Bush for taking away our freedom.

I don't like it.
It was an error.

You must think conservatives are really stupid if you don't understand that they will find ways to evade this law completely and legitimately

Therefore they are meaningless in actuality.

So9

[sinkspur]

LOL! Even Saddam's capture is chappin' your ass, ain't it?

Go join the DUers, churchill. Bush is gonna be back for another four years, no matter how much you cry like a baby with a full diaper.

[aristeides]

Therefore they are meaningless in actuality.

Have you read Scalia's dissent? He doesn't think this CFR monstrosity is meaningless.

[churchillbuff]

LOL! Even Saddam's capture is chappin' your ass, ain't it?

No, Bush signing a freedom-destroying law is "chappin my a--." By the way, if you don't like dictatorships - such as Saddam's - why do you care so little about the American government trashing freedom of speech?

[sinkspur]

By the way, if you don't like dictatorships - such as Saddam's - why do you care so little about the American government trashing freedom of speech?

You get it changed, you don't throw out the man who's winning the war on terror.

[Servant of the 9]

Have you read Scalia's dissent? He doesn't think this CFR monstrosity is meaningless.

Did you read what I wrote?
I didn't say it was meaningless. It is not, it is an attack on our rights.
It is, however meaningless in actuality, in that it will have zero effect on elections and influencing public opinion, because there are ways to evade it.

So9

[deport]

The dimwit ADMITTED he thought it was unconstitutional -

---

buffie....... what you gonna do about it now... bitch the rest of your life? A few things.....

• Congress passed the legislation
• President Bush signed it
• The Scotus let it stand

That's our governmental process, like it or not...

Now what are you gonna do about it? other than bitch and moan? Seems that's all you can do. Who you gonna replace the President with? How about the Congress, who is going there? How about the SCOTUS, who you gonna replace them with and how? Seems that's your options otherwise you can't do a damn thing. Do you have a plan:? If so how about sharing with us....

Now I've asked you before to provide proof that the President admitted the law was unconstitutional as you've alluded in several post. He said he had questions about the legality but that the courts would resolve them as appropriate under the law....

Do you have something else or are you just a malcontent that has one thing to do and that's bitch when momma lets you on the puter each day for an hour or so.,