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.
Then come back and explain away his statement yesterday publicly acknowledging that he will sign what he defines as an unconstitutional bill.
That is an incredibly irresponsible and destructive vow, but you're welcome to make it and keep it. Just be prepared to accept responsibility for the consequences.
Why is it irresponsible or destructive? In 2004 I will be faced with selecting either A) Someone who will sign unconstitutional laws or B) Someone who DID sign unconstitutional laws. In this lineup of selections, selecting no evil -- no one -- is the only responsible thing to do.
Being realistic does not mean one has abandoned one's principles.
BS. He abandoned his principles. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights but just acted, willfully and with aforeknowledge of the results, against that Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Bush's PUBLIC statement yesterday changes everything.
I'm not that far gone. If the Democrats run Hillary, I'll be forced to vote for Bush. Otherwise, I'm thinking Constitution Party.
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.
Not just the one he holds. Any office.
Get in lock-step Howlin...he's been called a LIAR (captial letter emphasis NOT MINE)..so that's reason enough right there not to vote for him anymore...especially to single-issue voters.
Not just the one he holds. Any office.
bump
Remember that statement when it comes time to vote for the lesser of two evils again.
Remember that it was only KooKs that tried to convince others that the two party system is rigged, and will only result in Global Governance.
They'll NOT become responsive to the peons wishes by voting for either party. Only Voting (if they bother with that charade in the future, Polls are more reflective, ya' know) for ANY third Party will get the message across. Because even if the 3rd party vote isn't truly recorded by vote fraud, the inside elite know that the next event they may have to deal with is a violent situation.
Odds are they're there now, hence a new effort to create a Police State in Fact, just not by open declaration. Disarming the populace is only a Whim Away.
Prime Example.
Who Validates the Polls?
If it can be proved he knew it was unconstitutional and signed it for political expediency, then yes.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that, but if the shoe fits...
If the Republican candidate morphs into a liberal, then what is point of supporting that person? Politics turns into a game of "our team beat your team" with no concern for what is at stake.
If we keep permitting people who say they are conservatives act like they are liberals, then why support them? That is not to say that I think Bush is a left wing nut, I don't think that at all. However, this bill is unconsitutional and people can claim he has to sign it because the media will go after him, what other unconstiutional measure will he sign because "the media will go after him?"
That's above my pay grade.
Bush has the political capital saved and had laid the rhetorical groundwork to say something like the following:
"I put my hand on the Bible and said that I would defend and uphold the Constitution, so help me God. I am charged with this duty. While I am confident that the Supreme Court would strike down this bill, my job is to prevent unconstitutional bills from becoming law in the first place. I am charged with that duty; it is my charge to keep. And America, when I said a promise made is a promise kept, I meant it."He could then have re-iterated the principles for reform that he sent Lott, including that the bill must protect the first amendment, and that the bill be non-severable. He could have said that he is for reform, but not for this particular reform.
But he didn't. He played politics, when he did not have to, over the Constitution itself, after specifically saying that he would veto it.
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.