President Bush Jokes About Signing Unconstitutional CFR Bill

comment found in Washington Post article here ^ | Sunday, March 24, 2002 | Kristinn

[kristinn]

The Washington Post reported today that President joked about signing the unconstitutional Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill passed by the Senate last week.

Bush, in a statement issued Wednesday night, had expressed misgivings about whether parts of the bill were constitutional but said that he would sign the bill anyway.

His decision to sign the bill has kicked up a firestorm of dissent in the conservative community, including a scathing editorial by The Washington Times and a letter from the American Conservative Union signed by 60 conservative leaders.

[kristinn]

It is very sad that President Bush is taking this matter so lightly. While I have generally been a supporter of the President, this promised signature on CFR--following his signing the partly unconstitutional Patriot Act--is seriously eroding what support I had for him.

I still support him as commander-in-chief and his leadership in the war on terror, but he needs to reread the Constitution--especially the Bill of Rights.

[kristinn]

Apparently, the bill has not been signed yet, so there is still time to call the White House tomorrow morning to let President Bush know if you want him to veto Shays-Meehan.

[Polonius]

I'm disgusted ...

[Calculus_of_Consent]

With CFR I predict more corruption not less.

[KDD]

We(conservative)Republicans have been had.

Again!

[Libertarian_4_eva]

More like stabbed in the back.

[ZULU]

Bush has been manouvered into signing the bill by the RINOs in his own party. Local representatives and senators are better able to take the heat on this than he is. However, too many of them caved in to the media on this one.

Bush will sign the bill. The Supreme Court will void it.

Instead of picking on Bush, write those rascally RINOs who represent you and tell them that since they act no better than a Democrat, you're going to help replace them with the real McGilla next time. Its the only language these dirtbags understand.

[TheGrimReaper]

Indeed.... it is people who are corrupt, not "systems". And if they're corrupt now (as if there's any doubt), they'll be corrupt under any "reform" which may be enacted.

My disappointment in GWB will be acute.

[TLBSHOW]

It is time to Freep the ones that did the voting.

[Graewoulf]

Here's a CFR chuckle for you, President George W.:
Your Dad compromised with the liberals too,
And we suffered through 8 loooooooong years
Of flesh-pot democrats.

We're not laughing, so why should you?

[Mulder]

Many conservatives believe President Bush will be ripping through the Constitution when he signs the bill.

Yep. He took an oath to support the Constitution, and he will be violating that oath if he signs this legislation.

Which leads to the question why is he going to sign in?

Some claim he's doing it to "take a political issue away from the dems". But this doesn't make sense since 1) the dems will just find another issue, and 2) CFR has never been a big issue among the voters. If it really mattered to most people, McCain and Bradley would have won the nominations for president in 2000.

Others claim he's doing it to maintain his popularity. This argument, in and of itself, is pretty troubling, since we just had 8 years of it. But to address the point, his approval rating is at 85%. Just how much would he lose if he vetoed it? Rush Limbaugh has even pointed out a way for Bush to gain popularity by vetoing it.

Still others say that he's doing it as part of a "secret plan" to pick up seats for the GOP in the elections this year, by taking the dems issues away. But what better way is there to win, than by showing the dems to be traitors against the 1st amendment?

If none of these are the real reasons, then exactly what is the reason? Occam's Razor basically states that the simplest answer to a question is usually the correct one. In this case, the simplest answer appears to be that Bush really doesn't care about our Rights or the Constitution.

[SierraWasp]

I sure miss those pictorial reports of the D.C. Chapter FREEPS OF THE WHITEHOUSE!!!

Maybe it's time for you beautiful people to hit the bricks with your beautiful signs and chants, once again.

Even Everett Dirksen, venerable Repellican Senator from IL used to say... "The more I feel the heat, the more I see the light!"

[kristinn]

President Bush showed zero leadership on this bill. He basically told Congress he would sign whatever CFR bill they sent him and gave no support to the Republican leadership fighting the bill.

He gave the RINOS free rein and he said he'll sign the bill, so he should get his fair share of criticism.

The RINOS and 'Rats should be voted out and replaced by people who respect the Constitution, but President Bush needs to do his part, too.

[TLBSHOW]

Can we trust this is what he said from a WP story. Sounds like it was put there for us. Smells a little ratty to me.

[Mulder]

Bush has been manouvered into signing the bill by the RINOs in his own party.

LOL! You're telling me a President with an 85% approval rating is bowing before a bunch of gutless RINOs?

If Bush gave a damn about the Constitution, he would veto this bill, and give a primetime speech about his reasons for doing so. He would state that it violates the Bill of Rights, and he would give the names of electorially vulnerable dems and RINOs who supported the infringement on the Bill of Rights.

His base would be ecstatic, the moderates would respect him (as much as a moderate can offer respect), and the liberals would fear him. It's a win-win-win situation.

This leads to me to believe that there are "other reasons" for signing this bill. Basically, politicians of both parties seem hell-bent on taking away our Rights and eroding the Constitution.