right back at you
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.
It is Bush's responsibility to veto any bill that is unconstitutional. Passing it off to the Supreme Court is not upholding his duty as President.
Forgot the "s" at the end.
Bullseye. -- J.R.
Look I am not happy about CFR either, but I can understand the political implications.
This takes an issue away from the demo's and McCain, the most vile part will be thrown out(the ad ban), IMHO, and it will be dead.
But you all go ahead and moan and ignore politics and if you are looking for a non-politcal President, you will be looking for a long time.
There has never been a non-politcal President.
Statement by the President
Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.
The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.
The end result will be the same. The Democrats will gleefully crucify him later, and his supporters will turn their backs on his unprincipled stand. And, worst of all, we'll get eight years of another Clinton.
Short of the President having an epiphany, or turning an immediate about face, the deed is done! This constant whining about it solves nothing and serves no good purpose. As was pointed out in the link I supplied, Texasforever clearly points out and defines the areas of this CFR legislation that met the outline of what President Bush was looking for. I wouldn't sign it, myself and I believe the President is playing politics on this issue, but so what! It does no good for Bush to give the loyal opposition and the liberal media additional political ammunition to fire back at the President, at will.
The right way to handle any campaign finance reform, would be to allow unlimited contributions, with full and immediate disclosure. Not many people would agree with such drastic changes in campaign finance law. Even fewer Congressmen would agree to imposing it. But it's the right decision to make.
Could you or someone else please list the severable portions of this bill?
An issue that has no resonance in the polls. What's the point?
I'm still holding out hope that Bush will figure out a way to do the right thing and veto this puppy. Even if he takes a hit in the press, he earns respect from those who can see past the spin. A veto wouldn't make much of a dent in his 80% popularity.
He doesn't have much choice. If he vetos it, then the Media will crucify him. All of the idiot fence sitters that still believe everything the Media says will vote against President Bush. Then he won't be able to do anything at all, because he'll be out of office. President Bush is definately between the proverbial "rock and the hard place."
I wonder if all of the Bush bashers would really be happier, if the Dimocrats resurrected Al Gore, and he won in 2004? Or better yet- Hillary! I'll bet that would make them real happy!!
But signing it will not hurt Bush in 2004, because MOST PEOPLE do not understand or appreciate the Constitution, and don't see this (any more than they saw some anti-gun laws) as anything "special." For that reason, in 2004, Bush will likely get re-elected overwhelmingly.
BUT WHERE THIS WILL DAMAGE HIM SEVERELY is in the 2002 House/Senate elections, where many Freepers will say of the GOP candidates---no matter WHAT their personal vote on the bill---"to hell with it" and stay home. Given how incredibly close the last election was EVERYWHERE---did you realize that the state legislatures were almost exactly evenly split?---if even 5% of the voters stay home, that gives the Dems back the House and a bigger gain in the Senate.
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.