It sure is noisy in here!

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.

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.

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.

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;

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.

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.

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

Hugh, I have NO idea what you said to me, since the comment was removed.

Texasforever, thank you for taking the time to examine this bill. I wish that he would have vetoed it, but I also know that Daschle has been making noises about reviewing the Defense Expenditures (a la George Mitchell in 91) so perhaps this was necessary in order to avoid delays in things necessary to the war.

Would the democrats do such a thing? The House passed a bill on immigration reform WITHOUT the 245(i) extension. Byrd had THAT bill bottled up as well. His use of the immigration rule extension is just a convenient ploy, because he DOESN'T want any tightening of the INS.

I am disappointed in the Senators who voted for this (like my own Senator Lugar) and will make my opinion known to them. In my opinion they are more culpable than President Bush, because as a Senate campaign issue this is a non-starter. They are afraid of the press.

By the way, the same people who won't vote for Bush over this issue already said they wouldn't vote for him again over the education bill, the stem cell decision, and immigration. Unless I am mistaken, they therefore don't count in that high approval rating because they were gone from the support column months ago.

I will be interested to hear what the President says today.

Thank you for this common sense post, last night I thought there was only a handfull of us who could see the forest through the trees. There is no doubt in my mind that this legislation was conceived to divide conservatives (Hillary's MO) for the 2002 elections. Judging by some of the reaction here, it looks like it's going to work.

LET'S NOT FALL FOR THE 'RATS STRATEGY, PEOPLE!

Sorry about that- I asked the moderator to remove it because it posted with my old screen name (my cookie manager on my Mac found an old one) and I did not want to use that any more.

I am extremely disappointed in the President's decision. It won't make me not vote for him (I am not looking to elect the Democrats who are even worse), but this was a bright line issue for me. I may vote for him, but I sure as heck won't be working for him actively or going out of my way to sell him to anyone.

I am further to the right than Bush; I knew this all along. However, based on his track record, I thought I could trust him at his word. This made it easier for me to accept where he was to the left of me- I could evaluate his position and decide if it was too much for me to accept.

But now, I know that his word doesn't have the sanctity that I expected. When he says that he will defend the constitution and doesn't, how can I expect him to know a strict constructionist when it comes time to nominate one? When he says he is pro-life but accepts some pragmatic exceptions, how can I buy that his goals are really the same as mine but just the tactics are a little more incremental? The fact is, this makes me question highly what I thought I knew about the guy.

And you know I am not some knee jerk anti-Bush person. But if the pollsters come calling, he won't be getting a vote of approval from the Daly household. I can't reward him for being just another politician.

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 don't know about the line item veto, but what happened here was that the rep's passed a bill they knew was unconstitutional, the sen's passed a bill they kew was unconstitutional, and the prez is intending to sign that unconstitutional bill into law. We'll pass anything, and have no respect for that oath to the Constitution we took -- oaths like that are for the Supreme Court, we all are just buck passers.

So the Bushes *require* that folks show *respect* by forbidding jeans and requiring jackets to their Oval Office, but Mr. Bush disses the Constitution as easily as any Clintonian slacker grunging in that oval office.

Just like the Senate, really. One must Dress Well, but being true to one's oaths is scorned.

* * * *

And even for such "pratical" politics as was played, there will be a great cost, I think. That is when the Supremes take out this trash legislation -- and it's trash for many reasons, not the least its complexity and length -- when the Justices dump this, why the media and dimwit Senatorial caste are gonna raise quite a ruckus and bitter lament.

They are grudge bearers as fond of grudges as of dressing well, and when Mr. Bush brings a Supreme position before them they will have at him on this point -- they will bark and bite and nip and tear until the only Justice passing muster will be as slackerified as any of them. A slacker as to the Constitution.

A "living" Constitution, alive for all the rot invading it.

I have to admit the more I think about this the angrier I get.

Shortly after being sworn in, the story was floated about how when Bush met with Daschle early in his term, he told Tiny Tom "just don't lie to me". Everyone whooped it up when hearing about it. It felt good to think that the truth mattered again, and that a gentleman's word was considered by him to be a binding contract.

Bush, while campaigning, said to me, as a citizen, that he would veto this legislation. Bush laid out four criteria which he said a CFR bill would have to meet in order to pass his judgemental muster. This bill violates each of those criteria. And now he is going to sign it.

His freaking father's fate obviously did not teach George the lesson I thought was the first one he should have learned: "just don't lie to me", the base of your support.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I understand your disappointment. I was hoping for a veto, myself.

The speech issue was the thing with me. I am unsure what is going on, although I remain hopeful that we will receive an explanation today. I do think the veiled threats about holding up the Defense budget may have entered into it. I don't know what else to think, so I am not going out on a limb one way or another. (I suppose that sounds moderate..LOL!)

I do think Texasforever made some good points, but I am leary of risking this on the decisioin of the court, even though I am pretty sure they would strike it down.

Anyway, I understand and can appreciate your feelings. My counsel would be to wait and see...sometimes there are things going on we just don't know about. But I am disappointed as well.

I believe protecting the Constitution should be put above playing politics.

Re-establishing the primacy of the Constitution is part of what made me support him in the first place. This was his time to step up and say "I put my hand on the Bible and said that I would defend and uphold the Constitution, so help me God. I am charged with this duty. While I am confident that the Supreme Court would strike down this bill, my job is to prevent unconstitutional bills from becoming law in the first place. I am charged with that duty; it is my charge to keep. And America, when I said a promise made is a promise kept, I meant it."

Heck, he had all the language set up. It would have been a powerful reaffirmation of Constitutional principles. And he pissed it away.

I am leary of risking this on the decisioin of the court

That's just it, Miss Marple. The founders set up a system of checks and balances, with our liberties and our entire American philosophy protected by defense in depth. The Congress had a role and a duty to protect the principles in the Constitution and its amendments. The President then also had a role in doing so. And if both of them failed, then the Supreme Court would be the final line of defense.

We have devolved now to where the Congress doesn't even think Constitution any longer. If the President doesn't uphold his end, then we are down to a single line of defense. The system isn't supposed to be like that.

This President had a charge to keep. He was going to be honest with us, and he was going to uphold the Constitution, so help him God.

Miss M, I think he misunderestimated how much this would tick off people like me. Either that, or there aren't enough of people like me to matter.

But damn, I am bitterly disappointed. I feel betrayed.

MM, last night I posted the following to you:

There comes a time when a president needs to use some political capital on an essential issue. This is one such time. I can understand it when people say, let the Dems win the little battles, but we'll get the important ones. Is this not an important battle? When will a time come when an issue is important enough to make a principled stand?

I thought perhaps after a night's sleep my feelings would moderate, but in fact I'm just as angry this morning. As a practical matter I can accept defeats on unsubstantial issues, but when I worked to elect President Bush I expected a commitment to conservative principles. And I cannot think of any issue more important than defending the Constitution. If the President refuses to stand up and fight for conservatives when his approval rating is 85%, what will happen when it's 55%? And that potential fight may be for a Supreme Court justice, PBA bill or gun control bill. I can't help but to feel he's broken faith with all of us.

I know you're hoping for a good explanation today, but I truly don't think it's going to happen. For some inexplicable reason Bush has chosen to alienate his base over an issue that doesn't even resonate with the public as a whole. I can't think of a single legitimate reason for signing this bill.

I do think the veiled threats about holding up the Defense budget may have entered into it.

Miss M: Bush has an 80% approval rating, and if Daschle would have tried this stunt it would have been ridiculously easy to portray him as putting partisan politics ahead of the well being of our fighting men and women.

And given that scenerio, it is Bush who caved with nary a fight and not Daschle? I can't buy that.

I really hope you are wrong about the veiled threats having anything to do with it, because if it did, then it is even worse.

We must take the Senate back, or else we are toast.

Or would you rather have the rug pulled out from under our troops with the job not done? The media will take Daschle's side in this.

If Daschle has made noises about reviewing DOD expenditures, then you have it. Bush will not abandon the troops he sent to fight a war, and thanks to Jim Jeffords, Daschle has the power to make those noises into credible threats. Or would you rather have the rug pulled out from under our troops with the job not done? The media will take Daschle's side in this.

If Daschle had threatened to yank funding for the war, Bush could have used his bully pulpit to destroy Daschle's position. In fact, the White House could have used the issue to deflect attention from their veto of CFR to Daschle's partisan politics.

We must take the Senate back, or else we are toast.

I agree. And I believe we will.

Must be a Pennsylvania thing. (Now if we could do something about Arlen, maybe this bill never gets there in the first place...)

I know. At least Santorum stood up for his principles, including during the cloture vote. I'm not quite as certain as everyone else here that SCOTUS will take the case and strike it down - IMO the court is not so predictable as that. If Bush is looking to pass the buck to them he could see the strategy implode. Even if the law is struck down, I'll still be disappointed he's playing politics with issues this important.

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.