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.
Good! Don't. That would be political suicide for any candidate Dimocrat, or Republican!! The mainstream Media would see to it that their career was abruptly ended.
That being said, I'll not desert him just because I disagree with him on a few things; he has to KNOW parts of this bill are unconstitutional; since he knows more than I do about what is "really" going on, I'll have to wait and see what the fall out is. I do have some concern about what Bush vetoing this bill would do to the press and the Dems, who already believe he stole the 2000 election. Imagine what they could do with a veto, not that that is any reason not to.
I don't know about the rest of you all, but there have been times in my life when I have given my word and have had to take it back; until I know all the facts, I'm not going to judge him.
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.
Help me out here, somebody. Isn't this just another way of saying, "You can't trust a politician"?? I'm just totally amazed that the crowd of people who decried Clinton's "lack of character" now resort to this kind of reasoning when "our guy" shows himself weak. (and I'm not saying I know Dane railed on Clinton, but his comment is representative of many that I KNOW spoke out against Clinton's character and who are now saying something just like what Dane has voiced here)
Now it's asking too much to ask your representative to rise above the average, spineless, prevaricating, lawless, politician and simply DO what he said he was going to do?? What's different between this and something Clinton would do?
The thing that is so aggravating is that to even question this is to risk having one's conservative credentials yanked (and your home foreclosed and your dog kicked, etc., etc.) because you dared to question the brilliant "strategery". Doesn't the adage run thusly, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em", and not, "If you want to beat 'em, join 'em"?
AFTER his statement yesterday, to do anything less than a veto tells me that he has no interest in upholding the Constitution. He will have already publicly admitted as much.
Can we PLEASE put this stupid, tired threat away once and for all?? My vote is not going to be forced from me by the "It coulda been Gore" nonsense. The fact is, it ISN'T Gore and we expect a conservative to do what conservatives pride themselves on, ACT ON PRINCIPLE.
And there IS such a thing as people actually changing their minds. Have you NEVER said something in good conscience, thinking you would do something, then later deciding it was a serious mistake?
Uh like selling military secrets to the Chinese, rebuilding the military, not having trysts with bimbos in the oval office, etc. etc.
But Bush is a politician, just like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Lincoln, etc.etc.
Amen!
I will not join you in bashing Freepers.
WRITE/FAX/EMAIL BUSH HERE and tell him not to sign it!
Bush is not as conservative as I'd like, but no one as conservative as I'd like would have a chance in hell of being elected president of this nation. Being realistic does not mean one has abandoned one's principles.
I hear you.
You don't care.
Okay.
Well, whether you like it or not, politics is the name of the game. Now that Congress has given Bush that portion of CFR legislation he can support, the next step would be for the USSC to overrule those portions of it that are unconstitutional. If that happens, Bush wins all around.
I don't believe Bush and his people want him to veto CFR and then be trashed by the Democrats and the liberal media. Handing the loyal opposition CFR, as an issue to exploit, could explode in the administrations face. From my point of view, such action is irrational and illogical and would only damage Bush's overall agenda.
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.
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+.
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.
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.
Amnesty? "D." The intent to keep families together has to merit SOME applause, but apparently keeping Hispanic families together is not important to conservatives.
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.