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

Trying out the beta forum here...

Thanks for the ping.
Great, the bill gives Bush 90% of what he wants. So, does that change the unconstitutional parts? I'm still ticked. I'm ticked that the only people that either party puts out for election are so easy to throw out that little piece of paper.

Also, I had thought that President Bush was more of a man of principle. The principle here being the Constitution. Not what he wants. That is disappointing.

He IS " principled "; you just dont like his principles. Get over it !

Now, newbie, with THAT attitude, we'll have President Gephart or President HITLERY. You like that ? Stop being such a political naif. You may enjoy cutting off your nose to spit your ace, but after 8 long, weary, gut turning years of X42, one would think that you were tired of that and wouldn't want it back. Not voting, or going fringe party , won't " send a message " to anyone; it WILL help to ensure a Dem victory.

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

Bush said his opinion is that certain parts are unconstitutional, BUT the president is NOT the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional the Supreme Court is. I do NOT want a president of ANY party making those decisions. That ain't his job. Don't bring up the oath of office because you have NO idea the context in which that oath is given or sworn to. This is going to court very quickly and Ted Olsen will lead the charge. If you look at the bill language the congress has already made provisions for congressional intervention with the courts in case of challange and it does NOT include the Solicitor General.

I read this 8 times and I still don't get how 245i gives amnesty to illegals who weren't legally here in the first place.

I agree that on a technical basis it does give amnesty but they have a bunch of qualifiers that say you had to be here legally first in order to qualify for 245i.

I think this is dractically different then giving a bunch of farm workers who came her through a tunnel in TX years ago amnesty who never came her legally in the first place.

I just read it again so point out what I'm missing? Confused ?

Thanks for that perspective. I needed it.

Very well put. Believe me, I am sick to death about all this and I probably won't sleep tonight. I just keep thinking about those old 16th century white guys who put their lives on the line, if not in battle, with their revolutionary ideas. If they were politically expedient, we wouldn't be sitting here debating this issue.

"I am sorry that I said it in a crude manner. I have supported Bush since he first ran for governor of Texas. But I am so blazing mad that I can't support anyone next time around. I will always support Bush on the war effort because I love our troops and for the memory of my late parents who were veterans. I just want to stay proud of a country and a government that they fought for."

The game is just starting the second quarter so maybe you need to tally the score in June 04 when it's close to being over. I suspect the score will be 96% what you want but I'm not ready to do any tally just yet ?

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.

It is useful to remind ourselves that Mr. Bush hasn't yet signed the bill; at least, he hadn't when last I heard a report of the bill this afternoon.

But it is also useful to remind ourselves that, while we do indeed have a Supreme Court whose job it is to interpret the law, we also are not out of place to expect that a) the Congress of the United States should not write flagrantly unconstitutional legislation and, b) if they should, that the President of the United States should not sign flagrantly unconstitutional legislation. Someone in the Bush Administration should make it his or her business to sit this President down and pound some sense into him that this legislation is unconstitutional before he does sign it. We should not just comfort ourselves to await a fight to the Supreme Court to be rid of it.

I'm sorry, but do you have any idea what you are talking about? If he is or isn't going to veto a bill, what do you think he should be basing his decision on if not the Constitution. I have a problem believing that anyone could seriously say that. Should he base it on if it meets his agenda? Maybe based on what side of the bed he got out on?

I absolutly expect a President to base ALL decisions on the Constitution including vetos just like Andrew Jackson.

Andrew Jackson's veto

It appears that certain people around here have intentions on getting me started.

Can't a wee little itty-bitty guinea pig just go around knocking on things with his trusty little hammer, not having to worry about getting all riled up? Geez. For crying out loud. Man.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/628543/posts

Oh really ? President Bush is a Republican in name only ? Let's test that one; shall we ?

Republicans re for lower taxes. Bush has already started to do that, with more in the offing. So you lose on that one.

Republicans are for a strong, well funded military. Seems to me that the president is working on that pretty hard. You lose another round.

Republicans don't get us into wars, bt they do well in running them and the mop up . This looks VERY good to me. You've lost round three.

Republicans want to uphold laws, and the immigratio amnesty, is trying to do just that. It is NOT a blanket amnesty for ILLEGALS ; even though Ronald Reagan DID do that. You are losing every point, dear.

Did you call someone a " RINO " ? Why don't you look the word up , beforeyou use it incorrectly , or do you just petulantly enjoy juvenile name calling ?

Am I 100% in accord with everything that President Bush has done ? No, and I probably won't be in the furture, either. What you and others are saying, is political naivete. Get a grip.

Huh? The constitutionality shouldn't be debated in the congress even if they, as lawyers, know it to be wrong? I would have expected the president to put up a bigger fight on this than caving in a few hours after the vote today. If he got on national TV during prime time and explained why he is against it and how it relates to the war on terror there is nobody who could seriously damage him politically. Let's think here about what our troops are fighting for now. Maybe it is to protect our way of life and our freedoms. Maybe they should come home because we need them more in Washington DC.

I have a question but before I ask it let me make a qualifier. I am for 100% free speech with zero restrictions. Not a freekin cap on anybody. If Bill Gates wants to spend 10 Bil for some idiot he should have a right to do it. It's his money and it's his free speech. The only restrictions should be the "truth in advertising" law to keep things honest. Anotherwords the James Baird ad would be illegal and the NAACP wouldn't be allow to run that ad again without some changes.

Now with this said here's the question:

If the the current CFR is so bad and tramples on the 1st Ammendment why wasn't there a big outrage over the current CFR. Nobody said squat about repealling CRF before this and now everyone is up in arms on the new CFR. Isn't CFR CFR in any form so why the fuss now?

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.