Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tarnished Legacy ( If the president does not veto this bill ) Rush Limbaugh ^ | 3/20/2002 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 03/20/2002 5:39:00 PM PST by TLBSHOW

Tarnished Legacy

The time has come for our representatives and senators to decide if they will keep their oaths to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" or vote to shred the First Amendment. The issue is the deceptively named Campaign Finance Reform Bill. Proponents of this bill, notably Senator McCain with those silver balls in his hand like the captain in "the Cain Mutiny," claim this bill sets the stage for a new era in the way money is spent to influence politics. In truth, it will ruin your right to free speech without doing a thing to get rid of "big money."

Under this bill, public participation in the electoral process is considered corrupt. A sad example is an ACLU ad in Chicago. The San Francisco Chronicle tells us that the ad urges voters to call Denny Hastert and ask him to put up an anti-gay discrimination bill for a vote. Under CFR, this ad would be illegal, because it mentions the name of a candidate and it's running too near an election.

That makes it corrupt - and the answer to all this supposed corruption, is to take away the people's freedom and give it to the government! Since the bill doesn't touch the media's power, they support it - in true, Sovietesque fashion. The Chronicle asserts that this bill is going to help Republicans and really help Bush and for that reason it's worth GOP support. But I'm not so sure that this is that automatic a boost for Republicans or Bush, and even if this bill outlawed every Dem, I would still oppose it, because freedom of speech is more important to me than political gain.

The president has yet to say a word against this bill, and I've taken him to task for it. But unlike liberals who just hurl accusations and never offer a solution, I have a solution, a way to "clean up" campaigns. It's this: get rid of soft money. Have hard money with no limits. Anybody can give anybody whatever they want, just give full disclosure of who's giving you the money. That's the only reform that's necessary. It's so simple, and it would be so successful, that it isn't going to pass.

This expert in the Chronicle article points out that incumbents will have an easier time winning reelection, as challengers find that parties don't have as much money and options to support them. That's true. Which is why we call the bill the Incumbent Protection Act. And what are we going to do if Democrats run ads that violate this bill? You know we'll just look the other way, as we did when Bill Clinton and Algore broke existing campaign laws!

Look, we know that all of this is probably going to be moot anyway since all these provisions are going to be called unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. That's why so many cowardly members of Congress are voting "Yes," because they figure there are no consequences. Even the bill's proponents admit it's unconstitutional, which is why they slashed out language that said it wasn't, and why Gephardt years back proposed a constitutional amendment to change the First Amendment the right way.

So hopefully, this is all moot, but we have to discuss this bill as though it's not because you don't know what the court is going to do. That's what's so frustrating about this. Everybody signing this bill or voting for this bill knows that, and that's their out. But I still think this is chilling, the idea that there will be restrictions on our rights to lobby our government. Our job is to lobby the government, to petition it for what we want.

If the president does not veto this bill, and leaves the dirty work to the Supreme Court, he runs the risk of tarnishing his legacy, despite his outstanding leadership as commander-in-chief and war president.

TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; cfr; cfrlist; legacy; silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-153 next last

1 posted on 03/20/2002 5:39:00 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. Dammit Bushie! End it here and now.

I am consoling myself, because there's a slim chance that the case brought to challenge this bill might finally bring enough support to toss the whole system. Buckley v. Valeo...the works.
2 posted on 03/20/2002 5:43:26 PM PST by July 4th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The "networks" are reporting that Bush WILL sign this unconstitutional bill into law.
3 posted on 03/20/2002 5:44:57 PM PST by lawdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Where does it say in there that Rush no longer supports Bush?
4 posted on 03/20/2002 5:46:35 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

As much as I support Dubya, he will be diminished in my eyes if he signs this.

This bill is naked tyranny!!
Sic Semper Tyrannis

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Jamais reculez un pouce á tyrannie!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! Never give an inch to tyranny!)

LoanPalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

5 posted on 03/20/2002 5:47:39 PM PST by LonePalm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *CFR list;*Silence, America!
Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
6 posted on 03/20/2002 5:48:19 PM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lawdog
It feels like election night all over. Damn it.
7 posted on 03/20/2002 5:49:45 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

FOX(y Lady Laurie Dhue) just reported that Bush will sign it next week. AAAAARRRGGHHHHH!!!!
8 posted on 03/20/2002 5:51:16 PM PST by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW; dittomom; Molly Pitcher; DJ88; Wphile
9 posted on 03/20/2002 5:51:18 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

"It feels like election night all over. Damn it."

I thought the same thing.

10 posted on 03/20/2002 5:52:38 PM PST by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

I predict that all the cowardly members of Congress and including the President will be unelected, even recalled pretty soon. We are sick and tired of the BS they keep heaping on us. Now is the time for action. I say get rid of all of them. We can do that, you know. In the 80's, Las Vegas, Nevada got rid of the entire city council in one fell swoop; and we can too.
11 posted on 03/20/2002 5:54:50 PM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I share everyone's desire that Bush should veto this bill. But we have to look at the long term prospects. This is just one more issue that the Rats DO NOT have to run on. One by one, Bush is depleting their issues. Pretty soon they will have to run on school lunches again. Remember, we have to have Republicans in office if there is any hope. Even if we have to give a little.
12 posted on 03/20/2002 5:57:15 PM PST by paul544
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
Also, remember if one side can do it so can the other. Isn't it terrible to know that your own Government is against you and not acting in your best interest? That's sick. These people in government and Hollywood and where ever else think they are flying high. There is always the other side of the coin. And the higher they are; the harder they fall.
13 posted on 03/20/2002 5:57:55 PM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Any congressman that knowingly votes for this
unconstitutional monstrosity needs to be de-elected.
If I may coin the term.
14 posted on 03/20/2002 5:58:25 PM PST by chainsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Unfortunately, we all know what the hand sign with middle finger extended upwards from palm of hand means, but it is especially vulgar when government officials gleefully extend it towards "We the People" and some of these characters have the audacity while giving us this obnoxious hand signal are crossing their fingers behind their yellow striped backsides in hopes that the men in black robes will unanimously use their fists to crumple the paper this cheapshot legislation is printed on and flush it down the good Senator McCain and Senator Feingold's thrones.
15 posted on 03/20/2002 5:59:54 PM PST by harpo11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paul544
Yes, let's create a totalitarian welfare state. The Democrats will have NO issues to run on because they'll already have everything they ever wanted. Great idea, paul. Just super.
16 posted on 03/20/2002 6:00:20 PM PST by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: paul544
I think what Bush is going to do is sign the bill as it and let the Supremes take it down. This way the RATS can't use it against him in 2002 and he can get McPain off his back. Bush is a smart guy. He knows that the bill won't stand up against the Constitution. It's all part of the strategery!
17 posted on 03/20/2002 6:02:55 PM PST by TonyWpi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: July 4th; TLBSHOW; OldGlory
"I am consoling myself, because there's a slim chance that the case brought to challenge this bill might finally bring enough support to toss the whole system. Buckley v. Valeo...the works."

It's maddening, isn't it?

Here's something else that consoles some. The leftists are having fits because they think Bush and Rove are outsmarting the Marxist/DemocRATS:

"Karl Rove's Wedges" by Harold Meyerson

Some doctrinaire conservatives are growing a bit cranky over the ideological impurities of George W. Bush. California Republicans rebelled when he promoted the candidacy of Richard Riordan -- Horrors! An electable moderate! -- for governor. Free-market ideologues blanched when he supported protections for the steel industry. "Steel tariffs are not just anti-market," grumped Sebastian Mallaby in The Washington Post. "They make no sense on their own terms."

Actually, they make sense and then some. Karl Rove -- the man behind the curtain in all matters political at the Bush White House -- understands all too well that busting up the Democratic coalition and building an enduring conservative majority in the United States requires the administration to build any number of alliances with its ideological opposites. While the Democrats remain devoid of any strategic direction, Rove is busy developing a whole new series of wedge issues to pick them apart.

Much was made during the 2000 campaign of Rove's appreciation of Mark Hanna, the late-nineteenth-century industrialist who, as the political genius of the McKinley operation, remade the Republican Party. Hanna not only persuaded the CEOs of his day to invest mightily in the party, he also dashed the designs of the William Jennings Bryan Democrats to restructure American politics along lines of class. Running against McKinley in 1896, Bryan began with a base of support among farmers and sought to bring industrial workers to his column as well. Hanna's strategy was to align voters not by class but by sector. Industrialists and urban workers both benefited from the tariffs that McKinley championed, though Bryan's farmers most certainly did not. Even though those industrialists paid their workers a miserably low wage, Hanna found common ground between these two conflicting classes -- and there built a Republican coalition that lasted for more than 30 years.

Follow the Bush White House over the past few months and it's apparent that Rove grows more Hanna-like by the week. At bottom, the administration remains the pluperfect expression of class politics: crafting a tax cut for the wealthy, bailing out airlines but not their workers, pushing fast track. But Rove knows that an administration devoted solely to the care and feeding of the rich is not politically sustainable. So he's developed a series of discrete policies that appeal to distinct groups in the electorate by sector.

The steel tariff is one of these. It runs counter to the administration's overall free-trade policies, but it also stands to erode Democrats' support among unionized industrial workers in such swing states as Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

Immigration policy is another of Rove's sectoral opportunities. It's also a necessity: Rove has long been convinced -- rightly -- that absent a successful outreach strategy to the fast-growing Latino electorate, Republicans are doomed. Since the opening days of the administration, Rove has concentrated particularly on liberalizing immigration policy with Mexico -- and not even the clamor for greater border security since September 11 has deterred him from his mission. As with the steel tariff, he's been dealing with a business-labor coalition: businesses in search of more immigrant workers, unions bent on organizing them.

As a result not just of September 11 but also the recession, the domestic pressure to increase immigration has waned, but the Republicans are still negotiating with unions and other immigrant advocates for more modest liberalizations. Consequently, Congress is now poised to extend an amnesty covering many thousands of undocumented immigrants, and to make legal immigrant students eligible for Pell Grants.

What Rove is doing is coming up with a new generation of wedge issues. Bill Clinton took all the old GOP favorites -- crime and welfare in particular -- off the table. Rove is responding by finding new ways to pick apart the Democratic base -- and with party strength so evenly divided, it doesn't take much to tip the balance one way or the other.

Rove's strategic initiatives stand in sharp contrast to the Democrats' torpor. While Rove has shown himself willing and able to deviate from core GOP policy to cut into the Democratic base, the Democrats have been unable even to formulate a core policy, let alone deviate from it. Uncertain whether to stand for fiscal discipline or a real prescription-drug benefit, divided over how and whether to question the president on our expanding and amorphous war, paralyzed by the tax cut that all too many of them voted for, they call to mind Lincoln's description of a Union general in the aftermath of a battlefield defeat. The general, Lincoln said, was wandering around "confused and stunned like a duck hit on the head."

That's our Democrats. Alas, that's not Karl Rove. [end]

Volume 13, Issue 7.April 8, 2002 of an EXTREEMLY left-wing publication linked from Rush's web site.

18 posted on 03/20/2002 6:03:21 PM PST by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: paul544
This is just one more issue that the Rats DO NOT have to run on. One by one, Bush is depleting their issues.

Yes, by coopting them! Why would I vote for Bush if he was going to sign liberal legislation? He's supposed to be a conservative - he should act like one.

19 posted on 03/20/2002 6:03:25 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

One important consideration here is that this bill is not merely unconstitutional (like the endowment for the arts or the federal education department) it is anti-constitutional -- that is, it is not just a usurpation of authority not recognized in the document, it is deliberately in direct opposition to the Constitution.
20 posted on 03/20/2002 6:03:44 PM PST by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-153 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
Topics · Post Article

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