Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"A Betrayal" - Some advice for Bush on campaign-finance reform legislation.
The National Review ^ | February 20, 2002 | National Review Editors

Posted on 02/21/2002 6:22:01 AM PST by rightwing2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181 next last
To: GroovyGuru
awwwwww!

You miss Clinton dont you??

101 posted on 02/21/2002 8:26:08 AM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2; TwoStep; Gophack; ElkGroveDan
Thank you for posting this article. We MUST write, call, e-mail, President Bush to VETO this very dangerous bill. It is his responsibility to protect the constitution. He took an oath to do so. Send this article to all of your friends. Ask them to inform President Bush that he must VETO this bill which will take away our right to voice our opinions before an election. Not satisfied with the damage done by redistricting, the Demorats are now trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Senator 'NO', who would not allow an economic stimulus bill to be voted on and made up his own rules so that it could not come to a vote, now wants to pass this blatantly illegal bill that violates our constitutional rights.
102 posted on 02/21/2002 8:29:04 AM PST by broomhilda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I don't think Messr. Bush can afford 'less than 1%' of his voting base.
He won by 500 or so votes.

That was Bush/Gore. Who knows what the next election would bring. That election was yesterday. Bush has 89% now.

103 posted on 02/21/2002 8:32:04 AM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
That was Bush/Gore. Who knows what the next election would bring. That election was yesterday. Bush has 89% now.

Bush the Elder had 70% prior to the 1992 election.

104 posted on 02/21/2002 8:32:57 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Yes that was before he came up with REVENUE ENHANCERS. Then goodbye Bush.
105 posted on 02/21/2002 8:35:18 AM PST by 1 FELLOW FREEPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
If you think Bush can sustain numbers anywhere near this I will wholesale you some rose colored glasses.....aw heck, you can have em fer nuthin.
106 posted on 02/21/2002 8:37:43 AM PST by 1 FELLOW FREEPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Bush the Elder had 70% prior to the 1992 election.

But he raised taxes. The worker bee doesn't like that.
People know what taxes are, but not everyone knows what campaign reform is.
Tax affects the voter no matter how much he follows politics, but campaign reform "only affects those politicians in Washington."
Had the bill been called 'The elimination of the 1st ammendment', the masses would hear that.
You'd be suprised how many people don't really care about this issue.

107 posted on 02/21/2002 8:39:08 AM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: 1 FELLOW FREEPER
If you think Bush can sustain numbers anywhere near this I will wholesale you some rose colored glasses.....aw heck, you can have em fer nuthin.

I'm not worried about it. Bush will send the bill back for repairs. He won't sign it as is.

108 posted on 02/21/2002 8:40:42 AM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
I hope you seasoned your words well, because you may have to eat them.

President Bush is exactly right to send mixed signals to the Senate, so the critical squish Senators will not count on him to save their bacon and will not flip and vote Shays-Meehan out.

More and more I think this is a replay of stem cell research. Bush is keeping his power dry and talking to advisors who know exactly what they are doing. In the last two days I've come to the conclusion that Bush is taking exactly the right steps, including the delliberately leaked ambiguity to contribute to defeat of this bill in the Senate.

If that fails, I expect Bush to veto the bill, and ask for time on TV to tell the American people exactly why this bill is an assault on the Constitution and deserved to be vetoed. He will couple that with a demand that Congress go right back to work and pass an honest campaign reform bill that applies NOW, in this election.

The general reaction of most people will be, like on stem cell research,"Now there's a leader I can respect." And Congress, having been painted into a corner, will have to pass a bill that DOES meet Bush's six criteria.

I think that's the end game. If so, everything done, and NOT done, by he White House to date, leads up to putting the football clean and true through the uprights with no time left on the clock. I believe the "Patriots" will win this one, too.

In short, the adults are back in charge. The nay-sayers are like the critics on Afghanistan. Most of the White House action right now is behind the scenes and invisible. Do not assume with this Administration that if you don't see immediate results, nothing is happening.

Don't mess with Texas has a correlary. Don't underestimate Texas.

Congressman Billybob

Phil & Billybob in the mornings.

Billybob on the Net, new column up now.

109 posted on 02/21/2002 8:41:06 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
You'd be suprised how many people don't really care about this issue.

People do, however, care about the NRA, the RTL committees, and on the other side, NOW and Sierra Club. And when THOSE groups start telling their membership what happened, look out.

This will have much more impact than you imagine.

110 posted on 02/21/2002 8:41:44 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
If he signs this bill, he loses my vote. Only two things could subsequently change my mind:

He repeals the 1934 National Firearms Act and makes machine guns legal and unregulated in civilian hands again.

He repeals the 17th Amendment.

You reinforce my opinion of the fantasy world libertarians live in. Much like John Lennon's "Imagine", noble but not realistic. And I assume you mean the 16th Amendment (the power to tax) not the 17th (election of senators)

111 posted on 02/21/2002 8:46:52 AM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
This will have much more impact than you imagine.

He still won't sign it the way it is.
If the next election comes down to a Democrat or Republican, they'll still vote Republican. It's better than a kazillion tax increases and a kazillion new social programs.It's better than total gun control, or abortion of pre-schoolers.

112 posted on 02/21/2002 8:48:10 AM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
I sincerely hope you are right, but he should not sign this bill in ANY form.
113 posted on 02/21/2002 8:50:29 AM PST by 1 FELLOW FREEPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
You reinforce my opinion of the fantasy world libertarians live in. Much like John Lennon's "Imagine", noble but not realistic. And I assume you mean the 16th Amendment (the power to tax) not the 17th (election of senators)

I am not a Libertarian, and I meant the 17th Amendment.

114 posted on 02/21/2002 8:53:10 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I am with ya, Laz. I don't vote for liars, not ever Republican liars.
115 posted on 02/21/2002 8:59:01 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Ok, I give. What is the problem with the 17th Amendment?
116 posted on 02/21/2002 9:00:14 AM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
The root problem with this country isn't where taxes get collected, or even how much taxes are collected overall, it's the complete abandonment of federalism. Eliminating the popular election of senators would be the first, and most important, step toward devolving true power back to the states where it belongs.

Right now, senators are the worst of all possible "representatives": They are popularly elected, but only infrequently. They are slaves to the will of the people, but they only fear the lash one year out of six. That's what drives their basic legislative pattern: stubborn resistance to any deviation from the status quo, punctuated every six years by a desperate rush to demagogue some hot-button issue. Meanwhile, no one represents the legitimate issues of state governments at the federal level. In order for a governor to work for federal change, he basically has to petition his own voters to vote for federal candidates who will then represent the state's interests—which means, as a practical matter, that there is absolutely no check on theft of power from the state governments to the federal government.

117 posted on 02/21/2002 9:09:22 AM PST by Fabozz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
The 17th amendment calls for popular election of Senators. Originally, they were selected by state governments. The concept was they would be sent to protect states and states rights, and would be a check against the 'Elected by whim of the people' Congress. Congress was intended to be very responsive to the publics needs, and the Senate was intended to be very responsive to their states needs and states rights in general.

When the Senate became popularly elected, they became just like the Congress. Thusly you see the burgeoning and explosive growth in the power and range of the Federal Leviathon.

The 17th did more damage to America than any other amendment, including the 16th.

118 posted on 02/21/2002 9:14:55 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Fabozz
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, though I still do not see how repeal of the 17th Amendment affects that. You would have to go back to article 1 of the constitution, and I could argue many favorable points (not to take away from your criticism) for why the system was established and the reason for resistance to change from the status quo is often a good thing.
119 posted on 02/21/2002 9:21:08 AM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
If you win, I can say you're right.

Absolutely. If Bush vetoes the bill, I will be the first to post here on FR singing his praises about how wonderful it is that all FR conservatives united for a single cause to get Bush to do the right thing. On the other hand if he signs it, be prediction rate will go from 90 to 95% and I can tell you I told you so.
120 posted on 02/21/2002 9:27:20 AM PST by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson