[Jim Robinson]

"Not over my dead body will they curtail your free speech!"
-- President George "Dubya" Bush (I pray)

[Neets]

Pingeroonie gals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

BIG BUMP for W!!

[Cobra64]

"Not one of President Bush's six reform principles," the RSC memo claims, "is incorporated into Shays-Meehan."

If GWB does not veto this bill, he will be perceived as a weak Executive; and he will have let the liberals know that he is a wimp, having succombed to the liberal, left democrats.

When I was a younger man, many said that "Gerald Ford never did anything." However, he was a loyal American who had the guts to exercize his veto powers. GWB needs to take off his gloves battling Daschle, Gephardt, and Kennedy.

W should leverage and exercize his leadership skills here at home, in America.

God, I hope there are others who agree with me and send a kind word of support to W to the White House and ask him to use his Texas style delivery message to domestic evil-doers.

[MeekOneGOP]

GOP Greases Skids to Sink Campaign Finance Bill

Excerpt:

In an e-mail message circulated to House members and reporters Tuesday, the RSC referred to a letter President Bush wrote to then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) last year detailing the six principles Bush believed should govern any campaign finance bill sent to the White House for Bush's signature.

According to the RSC, the version of the Shays-Meehan bill passed by the House violates all six principles.

"Not one of President Bush's six reform principles," the RSC memo claims, "is incorporated into Shays-Meehan."

No members were available to comment on whether the RSC memo is an attempt to set up a Bush veto of the bill. But White House has not ruled out a veto.

Those principles laid out by Bush, according to the letter, included:

* Protect the Rights of Individuals to Participate in Democracy
* Maintain Strong Political Parties
* Ban Corporate and Union Soft Money
* Eliminate Involuntary Contributions
* Require Full and Prompt Disclosure
* Promote a Fair, Balanced, and Constitutional Approach

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), an RSC member, says the bill doesn't even past the first of the president's six "tests."

"Shays-Meehan is blatantly unconstitutional, and is hostile to free speech. It will muzzle citizen groups by preventing them from placing ads on radio and TV 60 days prior to an election," Akin said in a statement. "The right to free speech is one of our most cherished and guarded rights and should not be infringed."

---

"Not over my dead body will they curtail your free speech!"
-- President George "Dubya" Bush (I pray)
Jim Robinson
(((PING))))))
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[medved]

The "six principles" leaves out a major issue item:

Hang any sorry SOB caught taking money from a foreign corporation or government.

[awestk]

PING (re: "strategery")

It is looking even better than I thought (feared)! All the good stuff, and House Pubbies get a possible lesson in political backbone and standing on their own all at once. Me likey! Westy want veto! Westy want death in committee or conference!

[sakic]

When did money metamorphosize into speech?

[xvb]

I don't think the public gives a hoot about CFR, and they would hardly notice if Bush vetoed it. He must use his popularity to take a principled stand for free speech and that includes the freedom of people to contribute to political parties unfettered. CFR amounts to government control of elections.

[LS]

Perhaps all those amendments Dick Armey introduced, that were voted down, had a specific purpose after all---above and beyond trying to call the American public's attention to the fact that this is an unconstitutional piece of poop.

[firewalk]

Veto H.R. 2356 President Bush!

[OldFriend]

After listening to Shays on with Hannity yesterday afternoon it is clear that this bill is nothing but a scam and once again Shays can be counted on to betray his country and his party.

[anniegetyourgun]

Isn't it fascinating how they legislators are taking their cues from what the President has said. It took some training to get them to understand that he means what he says and says what he means. Now if the media would learn that lesson.

[rwfromkansas]

Let's make sure Bush knows this fails his principles and we are watching. Call the WH! Call and support senators who will fight against this thing passing there!

[N. Theknow]

Something that puzzles me about this bill is the magic "60 days" period.

If the 60 days doesn't work does the law get changed to 120 days? And if that doesn't work does it go to 180 and so on and so on....

[Valin]

Thanks for posting this...it's made my day.

[serinde]

"The sponsors of this bill were lying to America about what it does and doesn't do. Their bill only pretends to fix things, while making things worse with attacks on free speech, a brand-new set of huge loopholes, and more confusion than ever,"

Just a typical day at the office for our elected officials.

[rightwing2]

Whether Bush would veto the bill is uncertain, and supporters of the measure have expressed optimism because the White House has not significantly weighed in on the legislation. However, a veto has not been ruled out either. On the day the Shays-Meehan bill passed the House, presidential Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush "has been very clear that he wants to sign a bill that improves the current system. Parts of that legislation surely do. Other parts are not as fully consistent with the president's principles."

And the day before,

the White House issued a few short words that deflated the House Republican leadership's painstaking effort to defeat the legislation. President Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, told reporters at an off-camera briefing that the proposal Republican leaders were struggling to thwart would, "in the president's opinion, improve the system." Fleischer was delivering a message agreed to by top White House officials. Bush's Press Secretary announced that "the President wants to sign a bill that improves the current system...and it is the President's view that the current bill improves the system."

So if anyone is depending on Bush to veto this unconstitutional bill, they are likely to be sorely dissapointed because his own Press Secretary announced that the President intended to sign McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan only last week even in its current highly objectionable GOP Congressional majority destroying form.

According to the RSC, the version of the Shays-Meehan bill passed by the House violates all six principles. "Not one of President Bush's six reform principles," the RSC memo claims, "is incorporated into Shays-Meehan."

The question is why did Bush have his Press Secretary declare the President's inclination to sign the Democrat Incumbent Protection Act even though it violates all six of Bush's declared "principles"? Why is that Bush, like Manchurian candidate Sen. John McShame, now in bed with the Democraps on this and other issues? There is only one way the President will even possibly veto this bill and that is if the entire Republican Party leadership and grassroots pressures him relentlessly to do so. Bush, like Clinton, is known to cave to the popular will under political pressure since, like his far more disgraceful predecessor, he lacks a set of clearly-defined political core principles as demonstrated with his "flip-flop" on this issue. We certainly hope he will cave to public pressure to enforce the Constitution on this occaision.

[Fishtalk]

The minute, indeed the millisecond, that President Bush signs this bill, I will walk away from him forever.

I do not care how beloved he is, his political party, his promptness and the wearing of proper attire in the oval office.

Any loyalty I have goes right out the door should he affix his signature to any horrendous piece of legislation that is a blatent violation of the constitution. As it is, the entire House of Representatives should be impeached.

"Congress shall make NO law ... abridging freedom of speech" it states very plainly in the constitution's first amendment.

And yet they did just this; stepped all over OUR toes because NEXT, count on it, they'll be shutting down THIS site 60 days before an election.

I'd rather have a President playing the saxaphone and getting Lewinskys in the oval office than one so hypocritical he would send our sons and daughters off to war to possibly die for the constitution they are protecting, while he willy-nilly signs legislation that is an outright violation to his oath of office to uphold this country's constitution.

Every congress critter who voted for that bill should be sanctioned.

And if the President signs it...he's just as bad.

[concerned about politics]

Whether Bush would veto the bill is uncertain, and supporters of the measure have expressed optimism because the White House has not significantly weighed in on the legislation.

Yes, he has, gentlemen:

* Protect the Rights of Individuals to Participate in Democracy
* Maintain Strong Political Parties
* Ban Corporate and Union Soft Money
* Eliminate Involuntary Contributions
* Require Full and Prompt Disclosure
* Promote a Fair, Balanced, and Constitutional Approach

I think the American people would favor Bushs' CFR 100%