Abdicating His Responsibility

Washington Times ^ | 3/22/02 | Washington Times

[Texasforever]

Did you watch or read the transcript of McConnell's press conference yesterday, introducing his legal team?

Yes I did. And he is right and he will win out I am sure of it. When that happens the issue will be dead once and for all, not just postponed with a veto.

[Uncle Bill]

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF GEORGE W. BUSH

Statement by the President

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
Statement by the President

Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

###

Return to this article at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html

---

The George W. Bush Lie

ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000:

GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?

GOV. BUSH: I do.

WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?

BUSH: That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would.
Source

LIAR - George W. Bush

---

George W. Bush: No Amnesty for Immigrants - "There's going to be no amnesty"

Bush Administration Wants to Extend Immigration "Amnesty"

President Bush yesterday called on the Senate to pass a bill that would grant amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens

Darkness By Design For Amnesty Move

[toenail]

Do you agree with Starr's comments that this legislation profoundly affects federalism?

Also, this bill has no non-severability clause.

[RAT Patrol]

Here are some new people to get mad at.

[toenail]

Pullin' a Jesse:

If you sign,
You must resign.

[Texasforever]

Also, this bill has no non-severability clause.

I pointed that out in my post. I also agree that CFR in any form is bad but that is not the darn issue. Bush has told no lies about this and his conditions were met. Just stick to the facts and then I am right there with you.

[Texasforever]

Pullin' a Jesse:

Yep the resemblance is remarkable.

[Reagan Man]

On the issue of Campaign Finance Reform (HR2356), if I was President, I wouldn't sign it. The issue ad ban is clearly unconstitutional. This legisaltion gives incumbents to much protection, while offering challengers, less campaign equality and less opportunity of getting their message out. I understand the Supreme Court will probably overturn a good portion of this CFR legislation, saving Bush some political capital. However, there are times when you must follow your instincts. If Bush signs this legislation and it looks like he will, he'll be severely damaging relations with some of his conservative base. The trade off is, he'll pick up some additional support from moderates and independents. While the loyal opposition and the liberal media, won't be able to attack the President for signing CFR, that shouldn't give him a green light and compel him to sign off on it.

Many FReepers have argued pro and con on this issue for last several days. Some have said, what passed through the Senate this week, wasn't what the President supported during the 2000 Presidential Campaign. Some others, like "Texasforever", have taken an opposing position on the matter.

For me, it just doesn't smell right. Call me too principled on this issue, if you like, but that's were I stand on it. I'm not going to stop supporting President Bush, because I disagree with him on CFR. Bush is the best thing conservatives have had, since Ronald Reagan was in the Oval Office. Bush and Karl Rove are a good team, work well together and have excellent political skills. I hope in the next seven years, they will be able to craft more significant conservative legislation, as time passes. But first, Republicans need to retake the Senate and increase their majority in the House.

IMHO, there should be no limits placed on political contributions. But there should be a requirement for immediate and full public disclosure. Raising the limits from $1,000 to $2,000, is ridiculous! May be hard money contributions should be limited to those people who actually vote in elections. Who knows, it may even increase citizen participation on election day.

[toenail]

"Just stick to the facts and then I am right there with you."

Fact: this is a direct assault on free speech and association. Is Bush going to be on offense against the First Amendment, or is he going to defend it, as he took an oath to do?

[Texasforever]

Is Bush going to be on offense against the First Amendment, or is he going to defend it, as he took an oath to do?

He has made clear that he has constitutional problems with the bill as passed out of congress and he could veto it for any reason however that does NOT settle the issue on something the democrats have been beating conservatives over the head with for decades. He cannot kill a bill with a veto if he could he could just declare Roe v, wade unconstitutional and that would be that. Let the framework the founders gave us do its job and we can't go too far wrong. You are asking for a dictator not a president. We have had a few of those and the results are not good. There is some confusion around here as to what constitutes real principle as opposed to plain pig headedness.

[Texasforever]

Some others, like "Texasforever", have taken an opposing position on the matter.

NO. I have taken the position that it does no good to debate issues without the facts to do so. I have opposed CFR in the past and I do so now. However I see no benefit in accusing someone of something they did not do or say. That is both dishonest and counter productive,

[Reagan Man]

I agree, there are a lot of dishonest and counter productive FReepers. You have presented one side of the argument, but there are always two sides to every issue. Don't pick a fight with me Texasforever. I was simply pointing out the truth. I think we're basically on the same side when it comes to the current CFR legislation. Lighten up.

[olliemb]

I like your thought process. I forgot about overriding the veto. Imagine if that happened. Yeah, you are right. The President has to sign it but with the worded reservations. I am glad you pointed this out. I was awash with Rush Limbaugh and his bashing of Bush.

[BobRJones]

But you know as well as I that he is no Ronald Reagan

Ain't that the truth!

[olliemb]

If you read 245 (i) there is NO mention of amnesty. The amnesty is something that the media is yanking your chain with. Read the amendment to 245 and you will realize that it is NOT an amnesty. And since when answering George Will's questions, constitute a campaign promise. So far I can't find anyone who can tell me that Presiden Bush said in a campaign promise that he would not sign CFR. I don't think there is such a record.

[Reagan Man]

I forgot about overriding the veto.

If I'm not mistaken, it takes a 2/3rds vote to override a presidential veto. That's 67 Senate votes. The bill passed with only 60 votes. I don't think Daschle could muster enough votes to override a Bush veto.

[Texasforever]

How many democrats voted against the bill? Knowing the senate, even if they voted no they would probably vote to over ride a veto.

[olliemb]

But who wants to find out and how embarrassing if it happened. There goes his political capital. And also the media would sweep the floors with him regarding this. Nope, He said he would sign if his principles were included and it appears they were. Tho with reservations and hopefully the SCOTUS will strike out a few items from this bill. You know there are so many rules and regulations regarding everything in our lives and I just don't quite understand why this 30/60 day ads is such a big problem. Run the ads 31/61 days and be done with it. There are always the radio shows to get your opinion out.

[olliemb]

I am having trouble with eliminating contributions and you wrote done by executive order. What does that mean? Is it in CFR or not?

[Constitutional_Republican]

The word "Amnesty" isn't there. But that is what he wants, for some reason, and this is a step in that direction. The way it was brought up in the House gave the impression that it was being sneaked through.