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

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

[hchutch]

It's an "old bull" strategy. And it makes sense, IMHO. The American people trust him to do the right thing. The risk is energizing the left-wing base, but if Bush plays his cards right, he has a chance.

[MassExodus]

Bush hasn't signed it. Get ahold of yourself man!!! Get a grip!!!

I'm sorry, but the trial balloons have been aloft and Bush's people are making noises like he thinking of signing it.

IF HE SIGNS IT - IT BECOMES LAW !

WHAT TIME EXACTLY SHOULD WE GET OUR HACKLES UP IF NOT NOW ?

Pragmatism is right OUT when folks are even talking about curtailing our God given right to free speech.

Or is it O.K. with you if it's just the bad liberals who are muzzled ? Wake up man.

[MassExodus]

There IS NO betrayal. Bush hasn't even seen the damn thing yet! At this point, he is an innocent man!!

You're wrong, the man has the bully -pulpit.

If he isn't thinking of signing it, he should be explaining it to America NOW that it is un-Constitutional!

He's not stupid, so he's not going to wait untill it's on his desk - if he WASN'T thinking of signing it.

[MassExodus]

I REALLY hope I'm wrong here, but I'm afraid for our Republic and my childrens heritage.

[eaglebeak]

This will have much more impact than you imagine

So why can't people just contribute to the politician or the party instead of the interest groups? Is there some advantage to donating to the interest groups?

[concerned about politics]

WHAT TIME EXACTLY SHOULD WE GET OUR HACKLES UP IF NOT NOW ?

Well, go ahead. But it won't change one hair on your head to a different color. Right now, it's the Senators we should be after.

If he isn't thinking of signing it, he should be explaining it to America NOW that it is un-Constitutional!

Ummmm.....because he's busy with work overseas? We're fighting a war?

[concerned about politics]

Is there some advantage to donating to the interest groups?

Yes. They lobby for us on specific issues. NRA, RTL, ...etc.

[Lazamataz]

So why can't people just contribute to the politician or the party instead of the interest groups? Is there some advantage to donating to the interest groups?

Yes. Coordination and impact.

[eaglebeak]

They can continue lobbying. They can continue to let their members know how a politician feels about their causes. Then people can contribute accordingly.

[MassExodus]

Ummmm.....because he's busy with work overseas? We're fighting a war?

So what ?

So he NOT supposed to watch the home front against the Socialists bent on our destruction?

Thats weak.

[concerned about politics]

ABC this week....

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

GEORGE BUSH: That’s an interesting question. I — I — yes I would.

[concerned about politics]

ONE MORE TIME....Asked point-blank on ABC News’s This Week on January 23, 2000 whether he would veto McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan, Bush said he would.

[Mudboy Slim]

"If Bush signs "C F R" as it is written, he will have declared himself an enemy of the Constitution and therefore, would need to be impeached."

While I'm not prepared to jump on the "IMPEACH DUBYUH" Bandwagon just yet, I fully understand the anger arising from our POTUS signing--and Congress writing--legislation that is so obviously un-Constitutional with the expectation--or hope--that the SCOTUS will fix it. That's why I still expect Dubyuh to veto it...signing it is below him, IMHO.

In the meantime, keep burning up the phone lines!!

FReegards...MUD

[rwfromkansas]

PLEASE call the WH, Freepers. The darn line is busy half the time....hopefully with people opposed to this legislation.

[rwfromkansas]

tell the WH that....I told them I knew of many Repubs who will not vote for him if he signs this. I very well may not either if he signs....this is not a small issue.

[rwfromkansas]

if he does that I could still support him, though I would be disappointed he did not just veto the dang thing.

[fivetoes]

[MassExodus]

GEORGE BUSH: That’s an interesting question. I — I — yes I would.

Please oh please oh please I hope you're right and that I'm an overblown cynic.

I would love to be wrong about this.

But here's the thing -

WHY ISN'T HE TAKING THE LEAD NOW AND EXPLAINING THE UN-CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF THIS WHILE HE HAS THE HIGH APPROVAL RATINGS AND BEFORE HE HAS TO VETO THE BILL ?

You can't tell me it is because he's "so busy" with other things that he's not had time to address this.

Of course he COULD be doing the really great thing, which would be planning to veto the Communist Manifesto # 2 outright

in their face and THEN explain to the Nation what a rotten thing Congress had served up to him - THAT would be better than watching my Patriots win the Superbowl !!!

[rightwing2]

If Bush signs that un-Constitutional piece of garbage I won't just NOT vote for a Republican again, I will do everything in my power to defeat them ( us ) in the feature.

If you did that, it would be a self-defeating exercise. If you did not vote for Bush that would make sense. I haven't decided whether to vote for him in 2004 or not. However, to not vote for Republicans when as a party they are fairly united in opposing this unconstitutional First Amendment violating Democrat Incumbent Protection Bill would be entirely unfair. You can't blame the Republican Party for the unconstitutional actions and bad policy decisions of one man even if that man is the President of the United States. Retaking control of the Republican Party for the conservatives is the only hope for constitutionalists to return this country to being a Godly nation.

[rightwing2]

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

Yes, how very sad that at the very moment when the House Democratic Caucus is advising their members to run as me-too Republicans and the Republicans are leading on all of the top three issues and are leading in the generic Congressional matchups and amazingly leading by 5% in voter identification, their President is going to shoot them in both knees and cripple them so that they will never be able to win a majority in the House or Senate ever again!! True, this Democrat Incumbent Protection Bill will increase the prospects for Bush being re-elected in 2004 by its increase of individual hard money caps, but at what cost??--Speaker Gephardt in 2004 and the permanent loss of the US Senate which the GOP has a good chance of retaking in this year's election? However, I really do not see any downside if Bush were to reverse course and veto this unconstitutional legislation. Campaign finance is just not an issue that resonates with the American people.