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

I am sorry but like I told the Democrat infesting my Congressional House seat; you took an oath to uphold the Constitution and when presented with a choice between upholding the Constitution and political expediency you pretend that you are Bill Clinton and that oaths don’t apply to you. Any elected leader who violates his oath to uphold the Constitution is unfit to hold office and should be removed and forbidden to ever hold any office of honor anywhere in this Country again.

There is no need for "campaign finance reform" as a legal issue passed into law. All there requires are that Congressional rules of conduct be amended so that elected officials abide by already known rules of conduct.

There are clear examples, too, such as the Congressional Budget. It isn't a budget, at all. It is a wasteful method to create archaic pork-spending and other amendments into unconstitutional law. But Congressional rules are not enforced; just like this CFR bill is not enforceable. But all you see is a beatiful man in the White House about to pass laws that are unconstitutional. All you see is debate that you don't like.

From the top of your essay: "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."

Even Clinton didn't go this far as Bush has! Based upon your post, Clinton was more conservative.

I don't care about campaign promises or Bush said this or that crap.

The ONLY IMPORTANT fact is that he is knowingly signing a Bill into law that is unconstitutional. He should be impeached as well as the 60 senators, and however many representatives.

The ONLY proper decision was to veto the bill on its face. If congress then passed it over his veto, then it is on them. Then and ONLY then should the SCOTUS get involved.

The Constitution I read talks about separation of powers, checks and balances. Yes, I am putting my faith in some damn good lawyers ability to show the Supremes the problems with this law. There is no way the Supremes will allow the ad restrictions to stand. Not only do they violate the "Congress shall make no law..." portion of the First Amendment, but it makes no sense. If it is wrong to mention a candidate's name on TV and radio, then why is it still OK to do it in the newspaper or on the internet? It makes no sense and it WILL be struck down.

Many folks don't have any idea about the everyday give and take of politics, no conception of strategy and not a clue about tactics.

Myself? I enjoy watching the W show so far. I think the man is doing far better than people realize.

And my Momma told me when I was a child that you can't have everything, so be thankful for the things you do have.

All you see is debate that you don't like.

But what about all the "lies" you accused me of telling.

Thanks for the informative and logical post.

The hysterics should be saved for truly consequential things.

Why in the world do you argue for a president or a Congress that takes an oath to defend the Constitution by permitting the same to tear the Constitution down?

He should be impeached as well as the 60 senators, and however many representatives.

Then do something about it. Convince enough people to agree with you and you can impeach him.

Be of good cheer, the Paleos aren't Consesrvatives at all. They just imagine that they ARE.

Oh, and BTW, I am also sick of this Balkanization of Conservatives, the missuse of " neocon" ( whch Linertarians are no using as an epithet ! ) , and the " MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN THOU " garbage, used primarily to beat up people with whom there is decided disagreement, and who has probaby been CONSERVATIVES decades longer than those who are doing the screaming.

Keep posting the facts, and maybe, some people will have their eyes opened as well as their minds .

I hope your not really that freaking stupid...

It's people like you and Bush who allow our liberties to be dwindled away because of a lack of moral fiber and inability to take a stand for what is right no matter the cost.

What is it about upholding the constitution that you don't understand. GWB has announced that he will sign into law a bill that flies in the face of the constitution. And you don't think this amounts to a broken promise? I don't think I would like to enter an agreement with you, in your eyes, a mans' word doesn't mean anything.

Bush is not a conservative. He is a Republocrat. I pray that you understand the difference.

Buck, I am not going to spend another entire night holding you hand. You have had your say I have had mine. Now let's just ignore each other. I have never called you a name much less a liar and I don't cotton to it real well, and Buck if you ever say it to my face you won't like the result.

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.