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.

"This is a pretty bogus and simplistic account of everything. I am VERY pleased with the "war on terror," but I'll be the first to say that we can't MEASURE the effectiveness of this for years, and WHO KNOWS where the Palestinian issue will be when Bush is ready to deal with it?

In WW II, we completely ignored Japanese garrisons on some islands and in China---not because they weren't the enemy, but because our resources were needed elsewhere. That is the case with the Palestinians. So I give Bush an A+ on the war, which is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING US."

Concerned Bush supporters, who are puzzled by his actions, seem to be coming up with the idea that he's caving in now, in order to do the right thing tomorrow. Caving in actually makes it more difficult to do the right thing later. The beauty about eliminating Palestinian Terror, is that WE, the US of A, would only have to give Israel political support. They'd take care of the rest."

"On abortion, in those areas where Bush has had executive authority, his administration has done more to roll abortion back than Reagan and Bush 1 put together. That's an A+."

Granted.

"On taxes, he got what he could get. Do you SERIOUSLY think that a Reagan-type cut was possible? If you do, you are deluded. For reality, that rates a B."

Republicans get what they ask for on taxes. Whether you cut taxes by one cent or one trillion, the libs fight it just as hard. If you have a larger tax cut, you mobilize more support. A smaller tax cut creates less support. Bush's pitiful tax cut (90% takes effect years from today) barely got the public's interest. Grade D- for political reality.

"On ed, as I have argued elsewhere, the bill introduces two conservative concepts: it sends power to the states, and it introduces ACCOUNTABILITY---something the unions have fought against for decades. There is also a small window---that will become a canyon after the USSC ruling in June---for vouchers. I give that bill, in terms of its potential, a B."

Kennedy has already stabbed Bush in the back and taken the vouchers out in spite of his deal with Bush. Political Reality grade for Bush D-. Public Education is socialism. By definition there is no ACCOUNTABILITY and can be no ACCOUNTABILITY, because the principals involved, the parents, have NO AUTHORITY. Public Schools have been continually reformed for 50 years. Only 22 years to go to match the record of reform for communism in the Soviet Union. Bush gets an F for educating the people about socialized education.

"Amnesty? "D." The intent to keep families together has to merit SOME applause, but apparently keeping Hispanic families together is not important to conservatives."

I'm not a conservative and the intention of a bill is only important to liberals. The actual effects are important to the rest of us. I don't know who's telling the truth about that bill.

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.