[RamsNo1]

Please click on link to read good article chastising Bush for his weak stance on CFR. Sorry I can't copy this article here for you. My computer doesn't allow me to copy and paste.

[Risky Schemer]

What is it about praise and approval from the left that apparently makes it so much more desirable than praise and approval from the right?

Is it because leftists are seen as more exciting, worldly, sophisticated, "in," intelligent, pretty, "connected," or something? And conservatives are "conventional," or "hicks" or some such?

Whatever it is, it must be an overwhelmingly hypnotic and influential brew.

[Reagan Man]

Abdicating his responsibility

     It is bad enough that the self-appointed political reformers finally succeeded in passing their First Amendment-eviscerating Shays-Meehan campaign-finance "reform" legislation. But it is downright inexcusable that President Bush, residing in a White House that is overflowing with political capital, cannot muster the courage to veto a bill he genuinely believes is unconstitutional. The president will be violating what he has personally conveyed are his convictions about the First Amendment when he signs into law, as he has said he will, the blatant attack on free speech that Shays-Meehan represents.
     It isn't even a close call. Until recently, Mr. Bush had compiled a solid track record of defending First Amendment freedoms against those who want to silence Americans seeking to exercise them. Appearing on ABC News' "This Week" on Jan. 23, 2000, Mr. Bush was asked by columnist George Will if a president "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." Mr. Bush briefly, but emphatically, replied, "I do." Mr. Will then asked Mr. Bush if, on those grounds, he would veto the Shays-Meehan bill, which, contrary to Mr. Bush's views on constitutionally protected freedoms, would have banned soft-money contributions by individuals. Mr. Bush replied, "[Y]es, I would."
     Mr. Will, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had previously struck down the congressionally mandated limits on political expenditures but not those on contributions, then quoted Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has stated, "There is no constitutionally significant difference between campaign contributions and expenditures. Both forms of speech are central to the First Amendment." Asked if he agreed with Justice Thomas' position and if he would appoint like-minded justices to the Supreme Court, Mr. Bush replied, "Yeah, I agree with that."
     On March 15, 2001 — less than two months after Mr. Bush's inauguration and just before the Senate was to consider campaign-finance "reform" legislation sponsored by Sen. John McCain — the president sent a letter to the Senate majority leader outlining the type of reform the White House would support. One important requirement was "paycheck protection." As Mr. Bush had earlier explained to Mr. Will, that would require that a union member be "able to make his or her expression known as to whether or not they want their money spent on a political campaign or an idea." But this was anathema to Democrats, who demanded that their party continue to have unfettered access to union treasuries as the price of their support for "reform." Thus, all 50 Senate Democrats voted against the proposal, which, by the way, also would have required corporations to get permission from shareholders before using certain funds for political expenditures. Another of Mr. Bush's reform principles required "protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy." In fact, Shays-Meehan drastically curbs this fundamental right during the very period it matters most:60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.
     By signing Shays-Meehan, Mr. Bush will violate an important campaign commitment and stomp all over his own stated constitutional principles. And he will be complicit in shredding the First Amendment. For shame, Mr. President, for shame. . . .

[RAT Patrol]

Bump! This is good.

[hcmama]

Appearing on ABC News' "This Week" on Jan. 23, 2000, Mr. Bush was asked by columnist George Will if a president "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." Mr. Bush briefly, but emphatically, replied, "I do."

Hey wait a minute..I know I have read several freepers vehemently deny that Bush had a duty to make such determinations or to veto such legislation. I guess the President would emphatically disagree with them. (Or he used to anyway.)

[rwfromkansas]

I have mailed the article to Karl Rove and the President's addy. I hope they also saw it today in the print edition....surely they did. Maybe they will pay some attention.

[olliemb]

where were the republicans during the vote? Where were the interest groups protesting the vote? Nowhere may I say. Now we are all worried about CFR. Did Bush make a campaign speech where he promised not to vote for Shays Meehan? Or did he answer George Will's question. There has been a lot happened during that year, and I think President Bush should line veto those things that he doesn't think it flies. You know there are a lot of people who do not think that it is unconstitutional.

[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

[RAT Patrol]

Here are some new people to get mad at.

[zip]

Good post. I just received a telephone call from one of the national Republican fundraising groups wanting me to renew my donations for 2002. Timing is everything. I have been ranting about the Bush "bend over and grab your ankles" routine when I got this golden opportunity to "splain"it to them.

I told the caller that as soon as President Bush reversed his course and decided to uphold his oath of office (you know, where he said he would uphold the Constituton of the United States of America) I would again donate. In the meantime, I will continue to support Mr Talent in his race against Ms "I'll do anything to get reelected" Carnahan" in his battle to take the Senate seat back for decent Missourians.

I honestly cannot understand the lack of guts/nerve or whatever in our national Republican party.

[Kevin Curry]

I smell the sharp, fetid odor of Karl "legend in his own mind" Rove behind this mess. What is Rove's "brilliant" plan?