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 full of fear because I am a loyalist to a fault. If this new awakening has happened to me, what then to others?
CFR may blow over Americans as a fuzzy political reform, but not uncontrolled immigration. The latter is personal. Nor will the Democrats take up the cause of curbing immigration. I predict people as myself will stay away from the polls in 2002 and 2004, filled with disgust with both parties. A resurgence of conservatism will have to await another Ronald Reagan. Sad that it will not be GWB.
Well, you can't argue with hyperbole.
I'm down with that! While we're at it let's put all of this mindless Bush bashing away once and for all!! Face it. This might be a no-win situation. President Bush may be screwed no matter what he does. Personally, I'm sick of this B.S.! The Anti-Bush people are all LONG on criticism and SHORT on answers!
Nice try Laz, but not very original. Your personal ridicule by imitation is noted. Next time, try and be more creative.
"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."
The Media already does have a large influence over Politics, and is effectively running the country and controlling roughly 45% of the Voters. The Republicans are scared shitless of what the Media might say about them, because they know that the Media can (and does) end Politicians careers. Granted Talk Radio exerts a huge influence too, but our majority is slim at best! CFR won't do anything to help that situation.
Honesty and honor in Politics? Get real. The best we can do is to keep hammering the bastards, and try to get an outcome that is favorable to our side.
Glad I could help, in the form of some good healthy ridicule.
Don't know man. I can only hope that President Bush has a plan. He has shown himself to be good at formulating strategies. I don't know if it's "W," or his advisors, but up until now everything the Dimocrats have tried has backfired in their face! Maybe he's playing them now. I guess we'll find out.
A constitution was designed to ensure a government based upon and constrained by these principles.
Foremost of these principles was citizen participation in the governing process.
Free speech was considered essential for citizens to participate.
CFR bans political speech by "citizen groups" during elections.
Therefore, CFR removes an irreplacible component of the government and denies, in large part, the origin of our nation. Is that less hyperbolic? Call it enforced voluntary donation or cutting the poor SOB's heart out, the patient is still dead.
I can't say I had a great awakening. For me when the Republicans wimped out in cosmic proportions during the impeachment, I had the belated realization that the Republican party was mixture of well-intention but ineffectual and others willing abandon principles if their own place at the public trough was threatened.
Hyperbole.
Which was?
No.
But the Bill of Rights will be coughing up blood.
However if the Supreme Court allows such acts and importantly, the People tolerate them, then yes. The Republic is dead and all that is left is what to do with the corpse.
"acts" is it? How many such acts should we wait for? I mean, I need to schedule my suicide. Or as Laz would call it: "wedding".
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.