Bush s Broken Promise

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.

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?

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 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.

Ad hominem attacks

Let the record show that it was you who swung first, calling me politically naive and telling me 'Jeers'. This added nothing to your argument. The first was intended as an ad hominum, and the second as an insult -- so I thought it would be best to communicate to you in a language you understood.

So, we just let the media run the country? Just say that GOP political fortunes are more important than the Republic?

You know, if someone tried some good solid honesty and honor for a change, they might be surprised by the results. The people might just take the country back. If the alternative is to let the media run the country I don't see what the hell we have to lose.

Depends upon the indiscretion - but if she commits wanton murder, no. I wouldn't stand by her.

This bill is attempted murder of the keystone of our society and our governement. If Mr. Bush becomes an accomplice in that murder and as the Republican party has already shown its complete lack of willingness to prevent attacks on the Constitution, I will not stand beside Bush nor will I stand beside the abject cowards that comprise the Republican Party.

"I will defend, support, and promote the Constitution and a Constitutional government - unless it is difficult to do so. Then screw it." - the modern GOP creed

But damnit, how else do we make "our guys" feel accountable for stupid crap like this?

Well, taking your ball and going home will guarantee that you won't get to play.

I don't feel so impotent as to shout "All right, that's it, I AM LEAVING!" everytime something frustrates me.

Can you find evidence where I have done that every time?

Can you find one other time I have done that?

He deserves to have his feet held to the fire on this. That is my point. Am I going to go Democrat? Hell no. Am I going to go third party? Hell no.

But am I going to voice my anger? Yes. And am I going to look elsewhere in the primaries? Yes.

And am I going to defend him as I used to? No.

You seem to think that we who are leaving the Bush camp are doing so over this one issue. There is a pattern that has emerged and it's not pretty. CFR is a straw and for many the last straw.

For me the last straw was watching my President on TV this morning telling the press that he wanted to get all those workers south of the border who wanted work, he wanted to get them together with employers here. I've had it. Illegal immigration is something that affects me in my everyday life. It's now personal. More than 80% of Americans feel similarly.

I was willing to bury my resentment over the federalization of airport security, and I was willing to bury my resentment over the education bill. I bought all the explanations based on smart politicking, compromising and outfoxing. I knew that CFR was important to understand the implications of and for our President to make a case for. But our President barely said a thing about it. This is a nightmare.

But I was left feeling I had woke up to a bad dream this morning. I looked at the screen with my beloved President speaking out against what %80 of his people want, secure borders and an end to this influx of unassimilatable culture which threatens to supplant our own. I looked at my beloved President and saw a man who is controlled and acts against the will of the people. I was in denial and now I am crestfallen. I wish I would wake up and it would all be a bad dream, but it's real.

Our President has not made the case to the American people as is his duty to do.

Can you find evidence where I have done that every time?

Whoa, there, cowboy!

I'm sorry if you think I was directing that at you, I was taking the opportunity of your post to make a specific point. You are clearly not one of the "Did you hear me, I SAID I AM LEAVING!" posters.

I would have to agree with you. I have less enthusiasm about Bush than I otherwise would. I also recognize two realities:

This sort of thing has happened before and has been beaten to a pulp by the courts.
Bush is the last on my excrement list with regards to this stuff. At the top are Daschle, Feingold and McCain.

I know the best way to get my agenda enacted and it's not by my leaving the process.

JC also said that if you put your faith in man, you will always be disappointed because none of us are perfect...and that in his 44 years on this earth he has never once been disappointed in his relationship with Jesus. You can count on someone to do all they can to be trustworthy when they place their faith in God. They won't always be able to do what they'd like, or what's right. I don't believe that there's a person today, including Rush that could stand up to the day to day wearing away, the villification and lying from the left/press in DC. Bush is human. The left is now inhuman. Easy choice.

There were two Republicans (who happen to be from my state) who voiced their opposition to the unconstitutionality of this bill very loudly yesterday - Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchison. Should we turn our backs on those who are doing exactly what we voted them into office to do? This is not about the GOP, DNC, or any third party. This is about elected officials upholding the constitution.

I wish I could see past post 127 on this thread, but I can't. I can't get my self-search to load either, so I will be leaving this thread until I can do a reboot and hopefully get this fixed.

As one who had immense pride and a huge feeling of relief when Mr. Bush was inaugurated, I appreciate your view on 'those of us drifting from the Bush camp' not over CFR alone but as the final straw. For me, it crosses the line. I'm used to DemoRats destroying the Constitution in little pieces but to have a Republican President and this one, in particular, help them destroy free political speech is simply far too much. It is sad and it is despicable.

I understand your sentiments but look back at America's birth and the spirit of the people that founded the ideas we hold dear. I believe as Ronald Reagan stated, that America is humankind's last great hope. We can fight for America or we can allow it to consumed by its enemies both within and without. We should expect disappointment yes but we need not relinquish our principles.

Oh, I see.

Commenting on an analogy, by saying it's "ridiculous", "your polically naive" and then closing with the term "jeers", gives you the right to attack my person, with rhetoric like, I follow a course of "blind fealty", "reminiscient of the 'useful idiots' that got communism and fascism established in many countries".

I questioned your political awareness and you basically called me a communist. LOL. To this conservative, that's an outright insult. I think you over reacted Laz. You're caustic rhetoric was pure and unadulterated, ad hominem attacks. Period.

You basically called me politically ignorant and I questioned your blind political fealty to a man while abandoning a principle. LOL. To this conservative, being called politically ignorant is an outright insult. I think you reacted badly, RM. Your caustic rhetoric was pure and unadulterated, ad hominum attacks. Period.

Here's an example: Consider a business of approximately 30 employees. Four of the employees, two management, two of core services/production, discover that the company is breaking laws (to save money and gain a little under the table profit). The Pres of the company and VP are actively involved as well as 10 or 11 other employees. The rest either know what has been going on or pretend they don't want to know. Either way, they won't do anything about it. Furthermore, not only are State and Federal laws being violated but one day, a client was almost killed because of the violations.

Question: As an employee, what do you do? Stay and try to reform the company? Call the US Attorney's office? Get a new job?

BTW - not an allusion to a party but a real life example from my locale

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.