President Bush Jokes About Signing Unconstitutional CFR Bill

comment found in Washington Post article here ^ | Sunday, March 24, 2002 | Kristinn

[kristinn]

The Washington Post reported today that President joked about signing the unconstitutional Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill passed by the Senate last week.

Bush, in a statement issued Wednesday night, had expressed misgivings about whether parts of the bill were constitutional but said that he would sign the bill anyway.

His decision to sign the bill has kicked up a firestorm of dissent in the conservative community, including a scathing editorial by The Washington Times and a letter from the American Conservative Union signed by 60 conservative leaders.

[Humidston]

The Constitution is far more important than any political agenda.

That was so good, it bears repeating!!!

[arly]

Yeah Texas I am a conservative and I voted for George W. but next time I will either vote third party or just decline to vote for anyone, I am a very unhappy camper!

[alphadog]

"This leads to me to believe that there are "other reasons" for signing this bill."

Yeah the puppetmasters want a police state...

[samtheman]

Any way you slice it Zulu, he doesn't have to sign this bill. He could stand up, refuse to sign it, give a forthright explanation for his refusal, and be a better man, a better American, and a better President as a result.

Instead, he's taking the coward's way out. Blame it on the RINOs? Not me. For me, the buck stops with Bush (who I support and will vote for in 2004). And for me, I call it the way I see it and that is: shame on you, Mr. President, shame on you.

[notaliberal]

I would do the right thing. Contact President Bush: NOW

[alphadog]

"This leads to me to believe that there are "other reasons" for signing this bill."

Yeah the puppetmasters want a police state...

[The Westerner]

"Occam's Razor basically states that the simplest answer to a question is usually the correct one. In this case, the simplest answer appears to be that Bush really doesn't care about our Rights or the Constitution.

Bush is a pragmatist. A pragmatist and a principle are mutually exclusive.

[ZULU]

None of those characters will be signing the bill, true. But they won't be NOT SIGNING IT either.

The pressure from the mainstream media on this subject has been intense. The Enron scandal has been used as an excuse to get this through. A large number of the voting public are justifiably concerned by what appears to be buying an candidate by corporate interests, unions, and overseas powers - remember Clinton and the Chinese money?

If Bush thinks the Supreme Court will overturn this thing anyway, why should he be the public bad guy?

Remember the average voter in the street - the one who turns elections with his/her ballot is really politically naive. Their actions are impacted by media propaganda and their analysis of political events is extremely superficial.

Perhaps Democracy is not a very good form of governance after all. Or, at least a Democracy which gives as much weight to an uniformed vote as to a informed one.

[Grassontop]

I somehow smell a democrat setup and a downfall for W on signing this bill! On the other hand, when I think of what the democrats really want to do to our land, I think of the movie "The Patriot", and it makes me all the more want my country in the hands of George W Bush and not that of a British democrat!

Bush is a smart leader, but we have to give him time to overcome the democrats, after all, they are the enemies to our beloved United States of America! REMEMBER THE CLINTONS AND YOU WILL KNOW WHAT I MEAN! Grassontop

[alphadog]

"Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands-- what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world." -Daniel Webster

Man, I wish I said that...

[Texasforever]

For the first time, there was a comprehensive analysis of this bill by Mitch McConnell on another thread. From his analysis the bill is every bit as bad as advertised. However there was a Liberal publication that was screaming about the bill for the exact opposite reasons given by Mitch The liberal analysis . Bush should but will not veto it. He still has my support and as someone else said, "the book is still being written on Bush". I will make my decision about him when the book is in. I also saw McConnell on Cspan today, I think it was a re-run with his legal team and he was pressed to criticize Bush and he said absolutely not. He just said if Bush signs then it will be in court the next day. Let the process work.

[TheGrimReaper]

Ever so often, I do have moments of lucidity.
)8-]

[TLBSHOW]

Reuters would of copied the WP story.

[patriciaruth]

I would do the right thing.

Letting the Senate remain in the hands of the Democrats who are blocking all judges that believe in Jesus Christ is the right thing to do?

It is the Supreme Court that decides what is unconstitutional. By protecting the courts you are protecting the Constitution.

[Texasforever]

Yeah Texas I am a conservative and I voted for George W. but next time I will either vote third party or just decline to vote for anyone, I am a very unhappy camper!

Wouldn't it be better to find a candidate to both defeat Bush AND the democrats?

[over3Owithabrain]

That's real funny, George, you're a laugh riot. Maybe Bush is the stunted adolescent some in the press have accused him of being. It's bad enough he's signing this piece of crap for alleged political reasons, but does he have to be so flippant about it? Bush already lost my trust and respect in the last month or so, now he can add my sense of humor to the list.

[TLBSHOW]

Washingtonpost.com: Clinton Accused
... Live Programs • Q&A: Post Reporter Peter Baker, April 12 • Q&A: Nat'l Editor Karen DeYoung,

Feb. 12 • Q&A: Post Editor Leonard Downie, Jan. 22 • Q&A: Alan ...

Description: Special report details the accusations, investigation, and Senate trial.

title here - to make links

She would know all about ratty stuff, I think.

[SierraWasp]

The poll said "Fundamentalist Christian Conservatives." Not just "conservatives!" A very important distinction, indeed!

[Polonius]

I'm not really mad anymore, just disappointed, that he's chosen to take this route with CFR, especially seeing the George Will interview this morning in which he says point-blank that he'll veto Shays-Meehan. What's got me PO'd right now is that he's making light of the fact he's alienating many of those who helped put him where he is today. It smacks of the kind of juvenile, unthinking attitude his critics have accused him of since the beginning, and it will only make things worse.

As I've said, the last thing I want is another Democrat in the White House. On the other hand, Bush seems to be doing everything in his power to annoy the die-hard conservatives that stood for him. Pushing that strategy far enough will only result in the exact opposite of what he hopes to achieve.