Posted on 03/20/2002 7:54:47 PM PST by Texasforever
The noise level in the forum needs to abate so issues can be discussed on their merits and not deliberate misrepresentation of this President’s, motives, decisions and conservative credentials. The decisions Bush has made on the immigration reform act and the CFR are not the same decisions I would have made but they are principled decisions not based on polls or focus groups. For those of you that hold principle as your standard I would think that would be a plus in your assessment but I guess when your ox is being gored, the presence of principle is not as important an attribute as you claim.
I see the same misrepresentation of Bush’s positions on the CFR as I saw on the IRA. The charges are being thrown right and left that he “lied” to us as a candidate when he said he opposed campaign finance reform and is now doing a “read my lips” part two. When the thread that called for a “freep” of the President was posted a few days ago I said I was willing to do so because I don’t like CFR any more than the rest of you but I also asked the author of the thread if anyone had done a comparison to the bill that is now passed with Bush’s positions during the campaign. I was told that was a good idea and that such a comparison would be forthcoming. I waited until last night and nothing was done so I went looking on my own and found Bush’s plan after getting the nomination and 90% of what he wanted and advocated is in the new bill, He has not reneged on a campaign promise he let all of us know his position well in advance, I have attached that plan along with the applicable sections in the CFR that was passed today. It would be nice if Bush had the line-item veto so he could excise the bad parts but he does not and will rely on the courts to do it for him.
I have no illusions that this will sway any of the newly “disaffected” Bush supporters but to those of you that actually wish to criticize in a rational manner, I hope this helps.
Summary of Governor Bush's Campaign Finance Proposal
On February 15, 2000, Texas governor George W. Bush, the eventual winner of the Republican Party's presidential nomination, outlined a campaign finance reform proposal that he claimed would "increase citizen participation, return honor to our system, and restore confidence in our democracy." The proposal consists of a package of reforms that include a partial ban on soft money donations, an increase in individual contribution limits to candidates, restrictions on labor union political activities, a ban on the solicitation of contributions from federally registered lobbyists while Congress is in session, and disclosure of contributions on the Internet. The primary objective of these reforms is to protect the rights of individual citizens and groups to make contributions to political campaigns and otherwise express their views in the political process. The reforms also seek to preserve the integrity of the political process by placing new restrictions on contributions, and requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.
back to top Restricting Soft Money and "Paycheck Protection"
The Bush proposal calls for a partial ban on soft money contributions to political parties. It would prohibit corporate and labor union soft money donations, but would continue to allow individual soft money contributions. In recent election cycles, more than two-thirds of the soft money raised by the national party organizations came from corporate and labor union funds, so the proposed change would have a significant effect in reducing the amount of soft money raised at the national level. The Governor's plan thus calls for more stringent regulation of soft money than the proposals advanced by Republican leaders in recent congresses, but it is less comprehensive than the total ban on soft money donations included in the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan bills. Covered in SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.
The plan also restricts the monies used by labor unions for political activities by incorporating a "paycheck protection" provision that would grant union members a right to decide whether a portion of their dues would be used for political purposes. In this way it seeks to promote the principle that all monies used in federal political campaigns should be voluntarily contributed. Bush's proposal thus reaches beyond the provisions of McCain-Feingold or other similar reform packages, which recognize the right of non-union members to consent to the use of their dues for political purposes, by extending this practice to union members as well. A "paycheck protection" provision of this kind has been advocated by Republican leaders in recent congresses, but is generally considered a "poison pill" guaranteeing the defeat of any reform plan by Democrats. Moreover, unlike the "paycheck protection" proposal drafted by Senate Republicans Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snowe in the 105th Congress, the Bush proposal includes no comparable provision offering corporate shareholders an opportunity to consent to the use of corporate treasury funds for political purposes. Covered in SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR ELECTIONEERING
Bush had already taken care of the paycheck protection problem his first month in office with the following Executive order
Four executive orders were issued by President Bush on February 17, 2001, which the Administration stated "are based on the principles of fair and open competition, neutrality in government contracting, effective and efficient use of tax dollars and the legal right of workers to be notified of how their dues may be used." Reacting to the reports, AFL – CIO President John Swenney issued a statement saying he was "appalled and outraged" by the decision to issue "four mean-spirited, anti-worker executive orders." One order would require government contractors to notify employees of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 holding in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, "affirming the right of workers to be notified and object, if they so chose, to their union dues being used for purposes other than collective bargaining." Government contractors will be required to post notices informing union–represented workers of their rights under the Beck decision. A similar Executive order was signed in 1992 by the President's father, which was rescinded in early 1993 by former President Clinton.
back to top Preserving Individual Participation
In addition to allowing individual soft money contributions, the Bush plan seeks to preserve the First Amendment rights of individuals to participate in the financing of campaigns by other means. The proposal calls for an increase in the amount an individual may contribute to a federal candidate by adjusting the current limit for inflation, which would raise the current limit of $1,000 per election to approximately $3,300 per election. Covered inSEC. 211. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE and SEC. 307. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. All individual and independent limits raised.
Furthermore, Bush would place no restrictions on issue advocacy; rather, his plan affirms the right of individuals and groups to run issue advocacy advertisements without being subject to federal regulation. Covered under SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS. And `(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term `electioneering communication' does not include—
ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act;
back to top Eliminating "Rollover" Transfers
Governor Bush also wants to preserve "donor choice" by eliminating the ability of federal candidates to transfer or "roll over" excess campaign funds from a prior bid for federal office to a subsequent campaign for a different federal office. Current law allows a federal candidate to transfer an unlimited amount raised for one federal campaign to another; for example, a senator running for president can transfer any amount of excess campaign money from a previous senate race to a presidential campaign fund. The Bush plan would end this practice to ensure that monies raised from donors who support a candidate for one office are not used to finance a subsequent campaign that donors may not support.
back to top Limiting the Solicitation of Contributions from Lobbyists
One reform offered by Bush that has not been included in the campaign finance legislation that has reached the floor in recent sessions of Congress is a prohibition on the solicitation of contributions during legislative sessions. Under Bush's proposal, Members of Congress would be prohibited from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions from federally registered lobbyists while Congress is in session. In other words, members will only be allowed to solicit or accept gifts from these individuals when Congress is in recess. The purpose of this provision is to safeguard the legislative process from improper conduct or actions that create an appearance of impropriety. It is modeled on similar provisions that have been adopted in some states, including Texas, which prohibits campaign contributions during the legislative session.
back to top Improving Disclosure
During the presidential prenomination period, the Bush campaign has been posting donor information on the campaign's Internet site on a weekly basis. This practice would become a requirement of federal law under the Bush proposal in an effort to make information on campaign donors available to the electorate in a more timely manner. The Governor's plan would amend current law on disclosure and electronic filing to require candidates to disclose on the Internet all campaign contributions within one week of their receipt. Under current FEC rules, candidates for the presidential nomination file quarterly reports during the off-election year and monthly reports during the election year Covered in TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS
I know what you mean, I am an old fart too and deeply resent presidents younger than I am. LOL
Perhaps it will be enough for us to try to stop folks from adding blood to the water!
I guess that makes 3 of us. Even after 9 years it seems wrong to be older than the President. In any case, maybe that's why the three of us are still up in the middle of the night, with nothing better to do.
I guess the point of my misguided effort was to say that we do have big problems in this country. Those problems are large enough not to require overstatement and misrepresentation. When people say they want their elected representatives to listen to them and then accuse them of lying when in fact they didn't or to ascribe evil intentions to simple difference of opinion then, being human, the elected officials start to wonder what's the use. You don't convince anyone to do something while calling them scum. Bush is 30 % through his first term and maybe his only term in office and no one seems willing to look at what he has accomplished. The Government is not a collection of street gangs that schedule rumbles to decide what philosophy wins 100%. There is no 100% in politics it is usually 50-50 because when you get right down to it, this government really is a reflection of the people that elect it.
This may not be the kind of thing you were asking about, and is definately not what Dornan was talking about, because he was arguing that congress could pass legislation outlawing abortion and make it not subject to Judicial Review. But a quick google search turns up plenty of things that are not subject to Judicial Review. thhis is just the first one I came to. Social Security Stuff.DETERMINATIONS; APPEALS [442] SEC. 1869. [42 U.S.C. 1395ff] (a) The determination of whether an individual is entitled to benefits under part A or part B, and the .....
(A) Such a determination shall not be reviewed by any administrative law judge..........
(4) A regulation or instruction which relates to a method for determining the amount of payment under part B and which was initially issued before January 1, 1981, shall not be subject to judicial review.
(5) In an administrative hearing pursuant to paragraph (1), where the moving party alleges that there are no material issues of fact in dispute, the administrative law judge shall make an expedited determination as to whether any such facts are in dispute and, if not, shall determine the case expeditiously.
Not a lawyer, but have had experience with administrative law judges. Despite the title, they are NOT judges, and are not part of the judicial branch of government. In the Social Security Administration, for example, after you apply for disability benefits, and are rejected, and appeal, and are rejected again (which is what usually happens if there is any doubt), the Social Security administrative law judge hears the next appeal (and usually overturns the decision appealed to them). Administrative law judges are a part of the bureaucracy, and limits on them have no bearing on limitations of judicial review.
I do know and understand the " you aren't black enough " thing, though I am not a black person. You are correct about it being thesame ruse, though. What it boils down to , is you aren't " legitimate ", unless you agree with me / the straight party line. It is used as a bludgeon.
Libertarians, in case you haven't yet noticed, use code words, and phrases ( the vast majority here do ) , just as the Dems do. They stick together, browbeat, and yes, even share quite a number of the same positions with their Liberal counterparts.
Dems, no matter what, stick together . Conservatives tend not to, and that IS our downfall. Dems and Comes have always understood about incrimentalization. It's worked beautifully for them. The political naifs, here, don't get it . They want instant gratification or NOTHING , which means that they wind up with nothing. They ridicule the Dems for sticking together, no matter what, and then wonder WHY Conservative positions get left in the dust or have to be fought an uphill battle for.
This forum was , I think, supposed to give us power and leverage, by working together. It's managed to make bitter enemies , within the Conservative movement. Until those who do NOT and shall NOT have the numbers to overthrow the GOP wake up to that, and start to see that a one topic or a really fringe position on something will NOT gain support, we are destined to be fracationated and Balkanized , at best.
George Bush is our president . He has the slimmest majority in the House and a minority in the the Senate. With such figures, getting anything passed, including Consesrvative Supreme Court nominees , is going to be very difficult. To be pleased, about " knocking off a RINO " , is delusional, in this climate. It is a death wish, which no amount of standing on one's supposed principles is going to help matters.
I don't know why some would rather have an empty glass, than one that is 1/4 or 1/2 or even 3/4 full.
Well there are RINOs and RINOs you know, nearly all of us are pleased to have politically disposed of Riordan in California.
Not too surprising, two old farts in the middle of the night, not too surprising we have heard of the ins and outs of social security, right.
. . . and if I only put a tiny scoop of dog poop in a cake with otherwise gourmet ingredients, will you eat it?
The first ammendment violations should be the deal killer despite the merits of the bill. Depending on the Supreme Court to do their duty after neglecting yours is like notifying the traffic cop your kid will be playing on a busy street today, so please keep an eye out.
I guess you are not talking about conning McVeigh, although that would be an interesting contraction. I think that you mean that there are many who are getting rather hyperbolic about Bush, and I agree.
I was not an original supporter of his, and recognize that he is not a 'movement' conservative. But he is a conservative Republican, one of the two strongest conservatives ever to be President, and he continues to be better than I expected him to be. We should support him on the many occasions when we agree with him. We can and should put pressure on him when we disagree with his policies, without making ourselves look ridiculous and juvenile in our rhetoric.
May the four winds blow them safely home.
Great response!
The dims are claiming victory while the noose is being tightend around their collective necks. The squawkers are desperatly trying to rable rouse and divide the Republicans. It won't work. We'll roll away the dew, and see who is all along the watchtower!
I am afraid that this recent rash of similes has left me feeling a little green around the gills! Nite All!
The Losers and Friends Of The Devil will soon be doing the Mississippi Half-Step Uptown Toodleloo, after they catch a BIG-TIME jolt of Lazy Lightning when their Ship Of Fools sinks come November.
They will suddenly think they are Standing On The Moon, singing their Blues For Allah. Yes, in November Comes A Time when the Eyes Of The World will truly see their Foolish Hearts. When that happens, we can say, "That's It For The Other Ones!"
Their Brokedown Palace was never Built To Last. The Wheel is turning they can't even see the Fire On The Mountain. They will soon get what they deserve. I am only one Wharff Ratt, but If I Had The World To Give, I'd give the DemonRats France, as that is what they deserve.
I can hardly wait until November, Till That Morning Comes. A new day will arrive, and with that Sunrise, an Easy Wind will blow, and a melodious Bird Song will be heard. All will be right again.
Then, after two years of Majority Republican government, I see an Unbroken Chain of victories for us. If we can just keep the faith until November, then there will be Help On The Way.
:-)
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.