Posted on 03/22/2002 6:10:26 PM PST by RamsNo1
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:52:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
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.
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
George W. Bush: No Amnesty for Immigrants - "There's going to be no amnesty"
Bush Administration Wants to Extend Immigration "Amnesty"
Darkness By Design For Amnesty Move
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.
Yep the resemblance is remarkable.
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.
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?
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.
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,
But you know as well as I that he is no Ronald Reagan
Ain't that the truth!
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.
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.