[Jim Robinson]

Received the above via email from Brian Buckley along with this note:

Jim: Here is what Bush said a year ago about what he would require for CFR, including:

"Eliminate Involuntary Contributions: President Bush believes no one should be forced to support a candidate or cause against his or her will. He therefore supports two parallel reforms: 1) legislation to prohibit corporations from using treasury funds for political activity without the permission of shareholders; and 2) legislation to require unions to obtain authorization from each dues-paying worker before spending those dues on activities unrelated to collective bargaining."

He lied. No new liars!

-BLB

Thank you, Brian.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. This one doesn't come as a surprise. W. needs to remember that he can't keep blowing off his core supporters like this.

[Fish out of Water]

index bump

[LarryLied]

Not the type of switch one can blame on a changing situation.

[rface]

bump for later

[SusanUSA]

The closed door and the sealed lips are prerequisites to tyranny.
~Frank L. Stanton

[Ff--150]

???

[Uncle Bill]

Statement by the President

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
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.

###

Return to this article at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html

---

The George W. Bush Lie

ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000:

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.
Source

LIAR - George W. Bush

[chainsaw]

President Bush's Reform Principles

Read my Lips principles.

[n.y.muggs]

I'm no fan of CFR, and parts of it will be ruled unconstitutional. The politicians of both parties have a hard time obeying the existing laws.

Let me remind the freeper formerly known as Clarity, that changing your mind over an issue a year later is not a lying. For him to call the President a liar is a bold statement. We should not abandon our President over this issue.

[Dane]

He lied. No new liars!

Well gee Jim, that was a year ago and that was before that petition Shays slammed through. If you and Clarity can see the future so clearly can you all give me a stock tip to put my money in Monday where I can make a million dollars?

This is your forum Jim, but calling him a liar is a bit harsh, IMHO.

But like I said it's your forum and you can beleive and partake in the hyperbole. It is a free country.

[RAT Patrol]

AMEN!

AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN.....you get the point!

An aside, I was thinking now that we've eliminated those negative ads, now we can campaign to eliminate the negative news? Might be fun to watch them scream.

[lavaroise]

The main problem is that we have a right-left opposition in government that is shaping up like the *sigh* French elections. Bush tries hard to look good to the lefties by doing social stuff for them, but it does not work because lefties and Dem voters are not so dum to believe that Bush is anything other than a corporate sponsor. Still, if he was an earnest corporate sponsor, it is not so bad as the Dems supporting openly drug addicts in the White House. I'd rather have a King there than a queer.

America should have two parties that pull each other on jurisdictional ground and not on social class ground, though social classes have their own jurisdiction in their own rights. After all money has its own jurisdiction, and so do the bums in the streets who have nothing to lose and possess a force of their own for this very "quality". But money or nothing to lose attitudes are very cynical jurisdictions that in the end work only for themselves and not for the respect of jurisdiction in general as the Founding Fathers had intended.

Still America should refocus on jurisdictional grounds vs the communist prone ground of social class struggle existing in the righ against left system. What is needed is a Federal jurisdiction party vs. Individual/State jurisdiction party created, so that we come back to discuss at the political level sane constitutional matters, and not the gibberish of brands of political correctnesses and zealotry we have today between leftist definitions and rightist definitions. The Libertarian party pretends to take that project but it is a party misleading many toward politicaly correct goals that the left supports, and, in fact, the libertarians never really speak in terms of jurisdiction but in terms of definitions. Individual jurisdiction amongst libertarian is highly limited around what one should feel in his own immediate environment and body, and not beyond, while we know that vital civic duties in the US do require larger jurisdictional powers of individuals, such as the options of addressing issues of nuisances of drug addictions, prostitutions, single mums etc., jurisdictions Libertarians want to deny individuals and states for purely definitional reasons that are taken outside the scope of due processes of law.

We need to redefine America, to refocus America on the main issue: Jurisdiction. We cannot go on like this being imposed this social class struggle that the stupid rich and bourgeois fall easily trap into to their own destruction and the benefit of those who have nothing to lose and who have so many ways to drag the nation down to levels that make "nothing to lose" attitudes the winning party.

Bush is completely disoriented and erratic, he has difficulties separating business from other issues, and he seems very uneasy in his spirituality. Democrats feel they are well orientated by leftist doctrines, but that is an illusion because they orient themselves according to a precise book of definitions that paint a completely distorted picture of reality. The social engineering promoted by democrats is not even at all like a pro-federal government view, it is a view that seeks to define and control masses of people and individuals as one would name animals, plants and rocks. It denies completely man's capacity to make decision, whereas true pro-Federal people acknowledge this capacity but intend to make it work in coordination with the Federal government.

These are very dangerous times for America, and we are playing with fire, and Bush should be frightened by his own disorientation and the way he disorients his party base. The complete lack of situational awareness that this country is suffering from is mystifying in the light that Americans are such able people who can handle things and entrepreneurial manner. Americans are skilled, and that is good that they have confidence in manipulating animals and matter, but that is not enough, the American people need to re-learn how to deal with people, how deal with themselves as a people, which is a totaly different skill area than doing an everyday good job, yet a very crucial one without which America will be thrown into a political situational confusion maelstrom of divisions and confusions of revolutionary proportions and much more dramatic than Adam and Eve's confusion after biting the fruit of "knowledge" and definitions of good and evil man.

[baseballmom]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. It was my understanding that the Congress makes the laws. The President enacts the laws. And the Judicial Branch, the Supreme Court reviews these laws when they are challenged.

President Bush has said that he thinks there are some problems with this bill, constitutionally. But he cannot just sit on this bill. He must either sign or veto. I believe that this bill is veto proof. Since he is damned if he does sign it, or damned if he doesn't sign it, he may as well sign it and get it kicked over to the Supremes. THEY will decide the constitutionality of this bill. ONCE AND FOR ALL. He will have taken away the "issue" of CFR and he will have McCain off his back and the other left wingers and Rinos off his back.

Am I missing something here? I don't see what else he can do. Anyone???

[Texasforever]

Brian, you left out this

Four executive orders were issued by President Bush on February 17, 2001, which the Administration stated "are based on the principles of fair and open competition, neutrality in government contracting, effective and efficient use of tax dollars and the legal right of workers to be notified of how their dues may be used." Reacting to the reports, AFL – CIO President John Swenney issued a statement saying he was "appalled and outraged" by the decision to issue "four mean-spirited, anti-worker executive orders."

One order would require government contractors to notify employees of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 holding in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, "affirming the right of workers to be notified and object, if they so chose, to their union dues being used for purposes other than collective bargaining." Government contractors will be required to post notices informing union–represented workers of their rights under the Beck decision. A similar Executive order was signed in 1992 by the President's father, which was rescinded in early 1993 by former President Clinton.

[ArneFufkin]

I expect rational people to reverse their positions if new events or circumstances warrant. Do you have any doubt that if Congress provided Bush a bill satisfying all the priorities he outlined in the letter that he'd sign it happily? If he received a bill authorizing school vouchers for private religious schools, he'd probably have some Constitutional concerns about that as well, and I'd expect him to sign that one too. There has never been unlimited speech rights within campaign activities .... the times, places, means and financing of stumping is strictly regulated. The NRA is worthy of support, and they have a vital role in working in the state and local levels to preserve our 2nd Amendement Rights ... but if they are blocked from an 11th hour voter infotainmentfest and junk mail annoyathon, so be it. It's just another rule like the capricious limits on individual hard money donations to candidates, or the restrictions on campaigning on election day or on publicly owned property.