"A Betrayal" - Some advice for Bush on campaign-finance reform legislation.

The National Review ^ | February 20, 2002 | National Review Editors

[rightwing2]

I am very impressed to see that National Review got this one so very right given their record of abandoning conservative ideals and principles and putting party over principle. Thankfully, this is one issue in which conservative principles and the supreme interest of Republican Party for self-preservation coincide exactly. If Bush signs this bill, he will betraying not merely conservative and constitutional principles, but more importantly to many on Free Republic he will be betraying the Republican Party into permanent Congressional minority status. The need for Bush to veto this unconstitutional monstrousity is so great that we should send this article to all of our friends to rouse them to urge Bush to do the right thing. I am convinced that Bush will give in to conservative grassroots pressure if we bring enough firepower to bare, but this pressure must be overwhelming to work.

Otherwise, Bush will follow his narrow and short-sighted political instincts and sign the Democrat Incumbent Protection Act when it arrives on his desk and the Republicans will lose both Houses of Congress permanently in 2004. Then in January 2005, a narrowly re-elected and shell-shocked President Bush will come back to work in January 2005 following a Democrat title wave which will be the reverse of the Grand GOP Victory of 1994 and Bush will be left trying to claim that he is still relevant. He won't be able to get any good legislation passed through Congress. This article is a powerful counter to those Freepers who are saying that signing the Democrat majority bill is a brilliant Bush strategy which takes the issue off the table in the deluded hope that the Supreme Court will somehow step forward and save the First Amendment and the Republican Party and declare it unconstitional. Anyone who believes that is just dreaming. If a Republican Party won't step forward to save the GOP, the Supreme Court will not do so either.

[rightwing2]

SAVE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BUMP!

[rightwing2]

Correction to post #1--If a Republican PRESIDENT won't step forward to save the GOP, the Supreme Court will not do so either.

[JohnGalt]

NR continues to miss the point that the most corrupting effect will be that any 'controversial' legislation will wait for the last 60 days, prior to election, for being voted upon. 'Soft-money' is a check on honest political debate with consequences for taking a politcally damaging stance.

[Lazamataz]

President Bush is reportedly about to commit a cynical and opportunistic act unworthy of his young presidency

If he signs this bill, I will not vote for him in 2004.

If he signs this bill, I won't vote for him even if he's running against Hillary Clinton -- because then I will have the choice between someone who will gut the bill of rights and someone who did gut the bill of rights.

And I won't vote for either of those choices.

[deport]

Then in January 2005, a narrowly re-elected and shell-shocked President Bush will come back to work in January 2005 following a Democrat title wave which will be the reverse of the Grand GOP Victory of 1994 and Bush will be left trying to claim that he is still relevant.

Interesting senario you have there... A democratic tidal wave yet President Bush is narrowly elected after signing a bill. Hmmmmmm. Guess the locals take it out on their Congress critters but leave the President alone. Yep makes perfectly good sense to me.

[plain talk]

If he signs this bill, I won't vote for him even if he's running against Hillary Clinton

Now THAT's a principled shoot-yourself-in-the-face-to-spite-your-ass conservative for you. pretty good.

[dittomom]

This was also posted yesterday...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/631793/posts

...but it deserves repeating....

[Lazamataz]

Now THAT's a principled shoot-yourself-in-the-face-to-spite-your-ass conservative for you. pretty good.

It's a statement of fact. It's not meant to be good, bad, or indifferent. Given the choice between two unprincipled Bill-of-Rights eviscerators, I choose neither.

To paraphrase Dubya: "Either you are for the Bill of Rights or you are against it."

[3D-JOY]

I agree...it will be very hard to support him if he does not veto it. What about if he speaks to the nation about his concerns and lets it become law without his signature?

If he presents the case that it is the decision of the congress and not what he wanted, will you be just as angry?

[4CJ]

Nope. I agree with Laz, if W isn't man enough to veto this trash and uphold his oath to defend the Constitution I won't vote for W either.

[Diojneez]

If he signs this bill, I will not vote for him in 2004.

You won't be able to. The slavering Dems will kangaroo court him into an impeachment before then, with the help of NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NOW, Sierra Club, PAW, ACLU, NAACP. etc, etc -- you know, the entire united communist front, anti-American to the death (ours).

[swampfox98]

This is definately a win-win situation for the Democrat party. If Bush vetos this bill the press will destroy his creditability. On the other hand, if it passes the Democrats will destroy the Republican party through crooked elections. The Dems have already found a loop hole in the bill which will allow them to funnel millions to their own supporters, such as the NAACP, to help get them elected.

How sad that the Republican party is so weak. Even in victory they are defeated by the Dems.

[3D-JOY]

I can't quite go that far...think what the opponent would do in SOOOOO many areas!

We already have come so far in reaching our ideals, why throw it all away?

[counterrevolutionary]

I am very impressed to see that National Review got this one so very right given their record of abandoning conservative ideals and principles and putting party over principle.

Care to give some examples to back up your accusation?

[mmmmmmmm....... donuts]

Gimme a break. Presidential races are always a choice between relative good, you can never get anyone that precisely matches your perspective. So you're going to vote for the one who is further away? That doesn't make sense, and there's not going to be many like you.

[4CJ]

But if he's NOT going to defend the Constitution and I still vote for him, then I'm just as guilty as he is.

[rightwing2]

This was also posted yesterday... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/631793/posts ...but it deserves repeating....

Hmmm...I wonder how I missed that. It must not have been posted prominantly. I only check the Front page and breaking news sections. Anyway, there was a more recent article that I was about to post from NR dated this morning, but this one looked better.

[Rodney King]

I won't vote for him either, I will vote Libertarian or Constitution Party or whatever. There is nothing princpled about voting for people who would shred the Constitution and our rights. By doing so, we are ourselves to blame.

[3D-JOY]

YES!

We have each made some compromises in the original support we gave to "W". Why give up on all the rest of our issues of importance?