Bush s Broken Promise

National Review ^ | February 21, 2002 | Rich Lowery

[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.

[Ophiucus]

I was being general. In specifics, I would say we are seeing the Republic skate close to the edge again. I say again in that the failed impeachment and the fiasco of the 2000 election were other times.

It builds. The 2000 election would not have been possible without the weakening of the laws and safeguards that occurred in the preceeding years. Likewise, I don't think that a ban on the First Ammendment could have occured without the erosion of Two through Ten.

True, many changes in the world are gradual and where do you pick a line of demarcation? Make a subjective choice or say it is all relative so no choice can be made?

[Dales]

I was thinking more about getting him in the primary. He always seems to be unopposed.

[Hostage]

Yes, but the impeachment cave-in was laid at the feet of the likes of Trent Lott and Ted Stevens. We can stomach the lack of intestinal fortitude on the part of GOP senators. or at least we can expect it. We have a mind to think that if only they had a republican in the oval office, they would fall in line and that's probably true.

But GW had a chance to swing the country right and he tacked strongly to the left instead. Why? He risked losing no support going right. It doesn't add up other than we were deluded into thinking he was conservative.

What next? He said in his campaign that he would appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. Will he go back on this pledge as well? I am losing confidence, big time.

[Reagan Man]

You deserve being brought up short for being a hypocrite.

I'm no hypocrite Laz, but you're a liar.

Anymore lies you want to spread around FR today? If so, have at it.

[Lazamataz]

I'm no hypocrite Laz, but you're a liar. Anymore lies you want to spread around FR today? If so, have at it.

BS. It's all there for people to read. I was civilly discussing things, and you popped off with an ad hominum and an insult, so I responded in kind.

You are worse than a liar -- you are a liar who lies in the face of hard evidence.

Pretty pathetic, really.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

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.

Well said, Hostage. I agree with you. I believe the President would agree with you, too.

The WP and the NY Times pushed for CFR every 5 1/2 days for 5 years...that's an astounding propaganda campaign. The press and the Senate, in their ongoing effort to destroy the right, continue to weaken and divide our country and in the process to comfort and strengthen our very real enemies. The bully pulpit is owned by the left.

Our country, what our forefathers (and the 1/3rd of the nation) fought for was changed on 9-11. President Bush is attempting to take the high road. He's walking it alone, under an international microscope and under constant attack. He sees his fellow Americans as valuable, even when he disagrees with their views. He is working to unify this country, in a world that sees our country through Hollywood's eyes. He is working to undo years of misrepresentation by the left.

The US our founders envisioned was not a secular nation. When they wrote the Constitution, they understood that our freedom required a moral foundation. The newspapers included scripture - in the news and editorial pages - and the church was consulted, involved and respected for their humanitarian work...with thanks from a public that cared about their neighbor's spiritual welfare. The churches helped build, teach and run the schools, as well as hospitals and Universities. Children were taught to respect their imperfect parents and marriage was a sacred trust. The essential concept of equality -in spite of race, background or status- was also a Christian concept. Those "self-sufficient" early Americans were humble before God.

If President Bush succeeds in motivating numbers of our self-centered generations to grow up, to say out loud and believe that there is a difference between right and wrong, to bring back the notion of humility and respect...the little Hitlers on the left will be scoffed off the stage by an America who will not bow down to any living soul.

[LS]

Not me. There are a zillion differences, including 12 years. Don't forget a little bomb-thrower named Perot, who was a once-in-a-lifetime proposition, namely, he got all the media attention as a guy who could "fix" things and as an "outsider." That gave him 17% of the vote.

Moreover, where G. H. W. Bush was in the middle of a recession, the likelihood is that W will be coming out of one.

Finally, despite the problems posed by Hussein, there was not the direct threat on the U.S. posed by 9/11 and that makes a WORLD of difference. Barring a major collapse in the war or a sudden depression, I would bet that next time Bush has in the neighborhood of 55-58% approval when he runs for Pres., and likely will get 380-400 EVs. Course, I was way off last time, so I certainly can be wrong.

[LS]

I don't know where you get this "80%" figure, but it dang sure isn't in any reliable poll or specifically addressed to this amnesty plan. SURE, 80% of the people are "for" controlled borders, like 80% are "for" social security and "for" tax cuts and "for" whatever else you throw out, as long as the questions are sufficiently vague.

You can string together all you want, and I can string together the many executive orders where Bush has done MORE TO STOP ABORTION than any other president (including Reagan) since Roe v. Wade; he has gotten passed (despite not even having the Senate and having a slim majority in the House) the first tax cut in 15 years (and Reagan had both the Senate and a large majority of GOP/Blue Dogs in the House to work with); he has successfully pushed through missile defense so far; and he has led (the major point) a war on terror that most other presidents simply would not have undertaken.

Although I wouldn't agree with whatever he TRIED to do, how much "domestic" stuff do you think FDR accomplished during WW II? Not much. Why? Because there was something else that was top priority.

And I know this isn't the ONLY issue, and that "amnesty" (with which I also disagree) is a biggie. But polls have repeatedly shown that interest in immigration as an issue is extremely thin. (Hate to burst your balloon). It is important in a few states, and virtually irrelevant to most people where I live, in Ohio, or in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and so on. And Bush already WON Texas, one of the top two "immigration" states out there.

But your comments are interesting, in that Ms. Antifeminazi criticizes me for saying that Freepers will stay home on voting day (she says they won't) and you are confirming that they will.

[LS]

I hate to keep doing this to you, but which part of what public statement do you agree with?

[carenot]

There has never been a non-politcal President.
Which means lets throw all of them out. Rs and Ds.

Start over. They have forgotten who put them there.
It is just politics. OK, let's politic 'em.

[carenot]

. I do care that a President would make a public statement that he is willing to sign something unconstitutional. I care even more that he intends to actually do it.

I did not vote for him. I did not and do not trust him.

I think he is selling us out.

To what I don't know. Wish Michael was still allowed here or Cal.

[carenot]

I wonder if all of the Bush bashers would really be happier, if the Dimocrats resurrected Al Gore,

If I thought Gore would have vetoed this and not started Homeland Security like Bush has I would vote for Gore.

Gore couldn't have gotten away with this.

[carenot]

if even 5% of the voters stay home, that gives the Dems back the House and a bigger gain in the Senate.

What difference does it make?
I see none.

[carenot]

What you said.

[Reagan Man]

I was civilly discussing things, and you popped off with an ad hominum and an insult, so I responded in kind.

My my, another lie.

I didn't pop-off. I was having an exchange with "Ms.AntiFeminazi" and you butted in, bucko. You then proceeded to use ad hominem attacks, calling me a communist and a nazi.

You are worse than a liar -- you are a liar who lies in the face of hard evidence.

You consider the opinion of "diotima", "hard evidence? LMBO! You're lost in the ozone Laz.

Talk about pathetic. If you have something relevent to say to me, I'll be around. If you want to indulge in further ad hominem attacks, take your crap somewhere else.

[carenot]

WHY?

[diotima]

I don't know what the hell you are talking about, but you can leave my name out of this.

[carenot]

I agree.

[carenot]

Even if the Supreme Court does strike it down, by signing a bill that he knows is unconstitutional, he'll prove himself to be unfit for office.

Then WHY would you vote for him? I can't see Hillery doing any worse. Except y'all would be in the streets protesting if it was President Gore.
I see no difference now.