Posted on 03/21/2002 7:07:23 AM PST by Dales
Is George W. Bush a man of his word?
It seems a strange question to ask of the plain-speaking Texan who has just blown the whistle on the "axis of evil." But the answer, at least when it comes to campaign-finance reform, may be a disturbing one.
If Bush signs something close to the current version of Shays-Meehan he will be committing his first bona fide, no-doubt-about-it, can't-be-spun flip-flop and broken campaign promise.
Asked point-blank on ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000 whether he would veto McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan Bush said he would.
Here's part of the exchange from the show:
GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?
GOV. BUSH: I do.
WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?
BUSH: That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would. The reason why is two — for one, I think it does respe — res — restrict free speech for individuals. As I understand how the bill was written, I — I - I think there's been two versions of it, but as I understand the first version restricted individuals and/or groups from being able to express their opinion. . . .
Bush goes on to express his support for a corporate soft-money ban, but Will brings him back to the question of free speech.
WILL: We're going to put up on our screen something Clarence Thomas has said about this. He has said, "There is no constitutionally significant difference between campaign contributions and expenditures. Both forms of speech are central to the First Amendment." Do you agree with that, and would you seek nominees who agree with that?
BUSH: Well, I do agree with the concept of the — of the free speech an — an — and protecting the First Amendment. I — and I also believe, if what he is saying is we should be able — we should increase the amount of a — contributions an individual can give to a campaign.
WILL: He's not just saying . . .
BUSH: . . . so long as . . .
WILL: . . . he's not just saying to increase, but he's saying that there's something inherently hostile to the First Amendment to limit this form of participation in politics.
BUSH: Yeah, I agree with that. But I do think there needs to be protections such as instant disclosure, so that everybody c — knows who can give and who's giving to whom. I'm concerned about laws that prohibit people from participating in the process, and from individuals being intricately involved in the election of candidates.
This is pretty unequivocal stuff. Of course, politicians can make casual statements all the time. But that wasn't the case here.
As it turns out, Will had given Bush a heads-up that he would be asking about campaign-finance reform and free speech before the show, so Bush knew exactly what he was saying and that Will — and conservatives generally — would like it.
The problem with the kind of surrender that Bush appears to be about to make on campaign finance is that it does double damage: It means signing off on lousy legislation, but it also means going back on his word.
This is exactly the double whammy that Bush Sr. experienced when he capitulated on taxes. It wasn't just the effect of the policy that hurt Bush, but the damage it did to his political character in the mind of the public.
People want nothing so much from their politicians as for them simply to say what they mean and stick by their word. Bush has a well-earned reputation for this, and an abrupt flip-flop on campaign-finance reform — an issue real people don't care about — will hardly erase it.
It helps that the media doesn't care. It gave ample coverage to his supposed change on carbon emissions last year, but it seems no one will bother to notice the much starker — and more cynical — reversal on campaign finance.
But at the same time Bush will be lionized in the media as moving closer to John McCain, he will actually be distancing himself from McCain's root appeal.
The key to McCain's popularity was never campaign-finance reform, but his reputation for straight talk. Bush is about to embrace the former, while diminishing his own reputation for the latter.
Bad call.
I am not going to say that "I will never vote for him" because of this, however, I do find it alarming that he would support something so unconstitutional.
You see what you want to see. Your analogy is ridiculous.
I see, you're politically naive too.
Jeers.
I told you I was hot about this.
Maybe I just need to vent.
Upholding the Constitution is part of the conservative line.
A pretty damned important part. Hence, the position I have been taking this entire thread.
Now just where does he say it is unconstitutional? He says it presents some constitutional questions.... a lot different. If it's unconstitutional then let the courts make that determination, not one person sitting in the office. Apparently 2/3rds of our system of Government will have enacted this legislation.. Now let the Judicial do it's part and then our system has functioned as a whole as it should.
It is not at all ridiculous. Compromising is losing us ground, and that is what my allegorical illustration is meant to illustrate.
Your blind fealty to a party or a man is reminiscient of the 'useful idiots' that got communism and fascism established in many countries.
;^)
Perhaps an obscure reference, but: You are advocating death for Dr. Mudd and are willing to let John Wilkes Booth go free.
Thanks for the bump. I'll be back later after an appointment to finish this thread.
His aides and backdoor policy people have let it be known. He is probably not on record as saying it is unconstitutional himself, since if he signs it having acknowledged its unconstitutionality, there is a real -- if small --danger of impeachment proceedings beginning.
Incorrect. I am advocating long and harsh prison sentences for them both.
Nope caught it as written... thanks
Blind fealty! LMAO. Ad hominem attacks, the last refuge of a loser. Laz, you've proved yourself a scoundrel.
Now just where does he say it is unconstitutional? He says it presents some constitutional questions.... a lot different.
Good catch, but if he is uncertain about the constitutionality, how is he upholding the constitution by signing it?
Or perhaps a man who stays married to his wife even though she may have had an indiscretion.
But here is how I think it is supposed to work, as compared to how it has worked here.
I think Congress should not pass bills if there are questions as to the Constitutionality. If the Constitutionality is questionable, they should not pass it.
Here, there are Constitutional questions, and they passed it saying that the Courts will vet it. They even put in provisions to get it to the Supreme Court as fast as possible.
I think that the President should not sign bills if there are questions as to the Constitutionality. If the Constitutionality is questionable, he should veto it and tell Congress to fix the bill.
Here, he is signing it while openly admitting that there are Constitutional questions with the bill.
Then the Supreme Court should strike down any unconstitutional bills enacted. We will see what they will do.
With both the Congress and with the President, the people have a responsibility of holding them accountable when they are not upholding the Constitution. If I am unwilling to hold the President accountable when he does not uphold the Constitution as he was sworn to do, then I am doing the very thing that I am upset with him for doing- namely not doing my part and hoping that the Supreme Court does the right thing.
The Constitution and its principles should be defended in depth, by the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary, and the people.
I feel I have a duty to let Bush know, just as I am letting Specter know, and just as I would be letting any Democrat know, that I won't accept them playing politics over things such as the first amendment.
I am hoping and praying for some sort of miracle here.
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.