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.
Don't vote for Bush the next time around.
Just stop the whining.
You aren't inclined to delve into the finer of this legislation. In that regard, you are politically naive. You want the President to veto this legislation strictly on constitutional grounds, even if it causes his opposition to have the upper hand and be able to relentlessly attack him with for the next 3-4 weeks, or even months. May be even hold it over his head this November, during Congressional elections. I'd try thinking for a change and stop being so rigid with your political ideology.
I already said, I wouldn't sign it, but I'm not an absolutist either. You can't just draw a line in the sand, on each and every issue. Pragmatism and compromise will get you most of what you want, but not everything you want.
If he leaves it on his desk without signing or vetoing, it becomes law - right? I predict he allows it to become law (without signing it), and the process starts which results in SCOTUS declaring it unconstitutional.
Don't make the mistake of underestimating W's political skills on this.
If he does that I will give him a pass. That would be a reasonable compromise. But by putting his name on it, he endorses unconstitutional legislation.
It will be interesting should President Bush choose to run in 2004 to see how many of these "he's lost my vote", I'll never vote for him again", etc actually keep their word. If he loses in 04 then so be it. I expect he isn't that worried about it at this time. He'll do what he believes is the correct thing to do and let the chips fall where they may.
Until the rules are published as to how this thing is implemented then no one on this forum knows the details... At that point we'll know how much difference it was from the orginal bill he mentioned in the interview.
However, the reason he has me so up in arms isn't his straying from the conservative line. What has me up in arms is the fact that he is abdicating his Constitutional responsibility for political expediency when he has more than enough political capital to NOT do it.
So if one side wants the abolition of the Bill of Rights, and the other side doesn't, it becomes "pragmatic" politics to concede the overturning of one amendment every few years, in the interest of "compromise"?
I see.
Do not presume that because I am not concerned with this bill that I am not very familiar with it.
I will say this once again:
The President's public statement yesterday that he is willing to sign a bill that he openly acknowledges as unconstitutional changes everything.
I disagree. If he signs it, having expressed through his aides that he knows it is unconstitutional, it is clear he will do what is unconstitutional and politically expediant, and let the chips fall where they may.
Hmmmm...... Perot, I see.
What? By a Congress that voted for the thing? :)
Sometimes I think some of us expect Republicans to be the only adults in a world of adolescents. At some point, the children (Democrats) have to be held to account for their actions. Why not blame the party that voted overwhelmingly for the bill instead of the one in which a minority supported it, and then only reluctantly?
You and I are joined at the hip.
in the primariesYou missed this phrase I think.
Voting third party is a bad idea in general.
Because if two men burglarize my house, I want them BOTH prosecuted.
If Bush signs it, he is complicit in the crime against our constitution.
Sadly, it appears that I also am blaming a guy who I both like and had trusted. And I feel ill about it, I really do.
But damnit, how else do we make "our guys" feel accountable for stupid crap like this?
I agree.
Then you're part of the Problem, not part of the Cure.
Get on the Bandwagon again real soon, it's about to roll.
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.