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.
Homeland Security?
Reagan Man, something is seriously wrong with you today. I never once mentioned or linked to anything diotima said, as she will certainly see as she takes your advice to check it out.
I humbly suggest, RM, that maybe you take a breather from posting until maybe you can make at least one true statement.
Thank you.
Reagan Man has had 'too much day' today.
I agree with you, but I am willing to consider the words of Queen Elizabeth of Iowa, who has at least pried my ears open a little about the concept of this being a good strategic move. I am still quite upset and will not be voting for him but I will listen to her as she makes her argument to me.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with me today, Laz. Your link goes directly to diotima's post at #101. Here's the actual link you gave. Check it out.
BTW, I'm not the one who needs a time out. You need to calm down, stop calling people names and stop lying already.
There is an advantage to this. If it's killed in the USSC, the "reformers" won't try this for another 25 years. It's so hard to convince people to be principled. We are. We care deeply about such things, but most people live on the margins. I don't think we serve ourselves well by overestimating the effects of these things.
I think the best hope is that the seat becomes open. Then a congressman would have a chance.
The post linked was YOURS not mine. You could at least say you were sorry that you had misread the order of responses.
There's nothing for me to be sorry about. But, if it makes you feel better, I'll apologize for Laz dragging you into our disagreement.
We should never find ourselves rubberstamping the decisions of any politician - friend or foe. Granted, we elect public officials to make decisions in a representative fashion. President Bush has the authority allowed by the citizens of the United States and the Constitution to make this call. But we must always retain the right - actually, the responsibility to object, if necessary, at the next election. I am not advocating that we demand success on every issue... We'll be disappointed about the amount of a tax cut, the provisions of this bill or that - but matters of the Constitution are an entirely different animal.
Concerning reelection, I will wait to decide at the appropriate time. But I must say, this CFR is clearly unconstitutional and should be readily apparent to any citizen patriot. There is no excuse to turn a blind eye or lead in ignorance over such a serious matter.
In the meantime, I pray that the wisdom of our Founders that birthed the SEPARATION OF POWERS will come to the rescue.
I, too, love President Bush. This hurts.
The 'RATs and the liberal media will trash and have trashed Bush in any case. Doing what your opposition wants, because you fear what they'll say is being p*ss*wh*pp*d. Actually, that's a form of spiritual terrorism that Hitler used and he learned it from the Socialists of his day. See William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".
I don't think that I have ever voted for a politician that I agreed with 100%. I don't even agree with my husband of 43 years 100%. I vote for the person that comes closest to my views.
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.