WHAT REFORM? [Democrats have dug themselves into a hole]

New York Post ^ | Monday, March 25, 2002 | By ROBERT A. GEORGE

[JohnHuang2]

LONGTIME Republican political strategist Rich Galen likens money in politics to water in the ocean: "You can put up dams all you want. Nothing will change the amount; you can only move it around."

That's Galen's reaction to the passage - and expected enactment - of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

[Texasforever]

I posted this last night and it seems to agree with the NY post analysis. This is not rocket science and anyone with the least amount of common sense could have figured this out

To: GregoryFul

Yea, that's why the lawmakers swear an oath to "uphold the Constitution", right? If they cannot tell what is Constitutional or not, they have no business being in congress. The judiciary is a citizens last (legal) defense against a tyranical government, the representitives should be the first.

I don't disagree at all. However, when most legislation is passed out of congress with the majority required, by definition, they have said it is constitutional. This one is strange in that even those that sponsor it and those that voted on it democrat and republican concede that parts of the bill are likely unconstitutional. The CFR that has been in place has heavily favored the democrats and their cash cows the unions. Now why did they pass a bill that all of a sudden dries up their advantage in soft money and expands the GOP advantage in hard money. Then you have to ask why did they place so many poison pills in it. I believe that the politico's in the Whitehouse smell veto bait. Bush veto’s, the old CFR stays in place and in 2002 the issue is Bush's veto of CFR. In other words "don't throw me in the briar patch". Now is that me claiming that this is a grand strategy on the part of Bush? No it is me and if I could think of it, then anyone could think of it why not the Bush team?

145 posted on 3/25/02 1:33 AM Central by Texasforever
[

[Ron in Acreage]

The reason the dems support the bill even though it will supposedly hurt them is, they have no intentions of following ANY campaign laws. They never have and never will. Once a dem is in office, no matter what laws were broken to get them there, the damage is already done and will never be removed from office. Bush should veto the bill and insist that if he signs a future one it will have mandatory jail time and removal from office for any violators. Plus, all monies illegally raised or spent must be be paid to the opposing party as part of the punishment.

[ImpBill]

Well you got me there. LOL. Still laughing as I am typing.

Of course I haven't asked, as I have come to recognize those that never have and never will support GW Bush or any Republican for that matter. The point is that I along with plenty other "conservatives" who did support, vote for, and want to continue supporting GW (not necessarily a blank check for the GOP these days) are truly struggling with his actions and televised glee today at the signing of this bill.

Trust me all of us questioning his actions are not Bush bashers at heart, but are questioning loyalty to him. Loyalty is a two way street. And while I in no way wish to compare him to Xlinton, it is tough when from my view way out here in the "bench seats" GW today most emphatically violated his "Oath of Office".

To this ex-Army Officer, a violation of ones Oath is a violation, regardless of who or over what. If I excuse GW simply because he is our guy, I'm sorry that is a self portrait that resembles all the Xlinton defenders.

I am trying hard not to bash GW, but I can't for the life of me get beyond my extreme consternation and abject disappointment in the President.

The reason I asked about is there anything he could do that would cause you to seriously question your support of the man is because I like you flatly refused to be a "single issue" voter/supporter. My line came with GW's refusal to follow his Oath concerning what I feel is our most sacred right ... Free Speech.

I would imagine come 004/November I will find myself voting for him again, but I would be less than honest if I didn't say my support will absolutely be tepid at best compared to the enthusiasm I felt and displayed during his last election. Hell, I even went in 3 weeks early and voted absentee at the court house I was so pumped.

I wish I could only be saying, "The President disappointed me today!" when in actuality "the man, G. W. Bush" deeply disappointed me today.

Thanks for the good natured reply. See, it wasn't a trick question and remember, just because we are disappointed and some of us may use rhetoric claiming to "never support him again", most is due to a passion about our Constitution and his Oath of Office. And some of us may just have a different threshold than others, for questioning the validity of our continued support of the man.

By the way I got to hear his enthusiastic support of the bill, did you? Un-freaking-believable.

[Libloather]

In short, Democrats have dug themselves into a hole.

Nice job...

[Howlin]

I didn't see him today; I saw him over the weekend when he was listing all the things he doesn't like about it.

[nopardons]

You are 100 % correct !

As you and others here have done, I too have been trying to teach those here, who know / understand nothing about this Bill, and less about politics, what it's all about. They refuse to learn. These are the UNAPPEASEABLES, political naifs, CINOs, who don't need an excuse to trash President Bush, and any old thing will do.

The Dems have been crying in their beer, ever since this Bill was passed ! IT HURTS THEM ! They never believed that Bush would sign it; they just wanted it to use as a club against him. McNutso is pleased as punch, and envisions even more silly Bills, of his, to pass. He needs to be locked away in the funny farm ; right along with te FREEPERS who love to complain about things they don't understand anything about.

[Snow Bunny]

Thanks and I sure do love to see dems digging themselves into a whole. I wish they would go under a rock too and never come out from under it.

[nopardons]

Now, if ONLY the FREEPER political naifs would read an understand this ! GOD knows, that many of us have been trying to explain reality to them for weeks now.

[nopardons]

I agree with you completely ! It is waaaaaaay past time, for the armchiar pundits here, who don't have enough political savvy to lick envelopes, to stop trying to out think President Bush, whilst bashing him to pieces.

[nopardons]

Reread the artice and John's 2 cents ! In the long run, the LAST thing any ofus should want President Bush to do, is to veto this Bill.

[CedarDave]

As you and others here have done, I too have been trying to teach those here, who know / understand nothing about this Bill, and less about politics, what it's all about. They refuse to learn. These are the UNAPPEASEABLES, political naifs, CINOs, who don't need an excuse to trash President Bush, and any old thing will do.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The CINO's, as you call us, believe that prinicples, especially Constitutional principles, mean something other than words of dead white men penned over 200 years ago. We believe that the ends don't justify the means, and up to now have strongly believed in President Bush as a man of honor and principle. As stated on this thread, more than one person worked hard for his election, and the last thing we want to do is to "trash him". But there comes a point where abandonment of principles for a political end puts him in the same category as other Presidents who chose expediency over principle.

The Dems have been crying in their beer, ever since this Bill was passed ! IT HURTS THEM ! They never believed that Bush would sign it; they just wanted it to use as a club against him.

And the Rats will do it either way, whether he signs it or not. Now that it is clear he WILL sign it, they are taking up the call of him abandoning his prinicples, and will hammer him just as they would if he vetos it. It is a no win situation for him with the press, but if he vetos it, at least he would have done the right and constitutional thing.

McNutso is pleased as punch, and envisions even more silly Bills, of his, to pass. He needs to be locked away in the funny farm; ...

No question about that.

...right along with the FREEPERS who love to complain about things they don't understand anything about.

We understand plenty, but don't understand why those who also would call themselves Freepers would encourage our President, who was elected on a conservative platform, to abandon those very values he so championed during the campaign, including keeping your word.

[PhiKapMom]

Thank YOU!!! It is nice to know that there are Freepers that get it! Like you, I have been trying to teach Gov 101 but it is falling on deaf ears. For a website devoted to Conservative causes, I would thought more Freepers would have a good background in how the Government works within the framework of the Constitution! They call this bill Unconstitutional but these same people don't under the Supreme Court is the ultimate judge of the constitutionality of a bill that is passed by the Congress and signed by the President!

Can you see these same Freepers if clinton had vetoed a bill because it was unconstitutional -- they would have been yelling that only the SCOTUS can determine that!

At times during this I have wanted to take my computer screen and shake it in hopes that the truth about this CFR will get through to some folks on here. Then I realized it was useless -- they don't want to know and understand because then their trashing would be harder to do.

[MamaLucci]

...the politico's in the Whitehouse smell veto bait.

This makes sense. Good analysis.
Look, I do NOT like that the President plans to sign this abomination, but I've come to grips with it.
Those of us who have had a REAL problem over this issue, in truth have a problem with the state of American politics.
It is an ugly, nasty business, where polling data trumps principles.
If we are going to be IN the game, however, we have to learn to play to win.

[nopardons]

The shoe fitting , dear ? Actually, unless you are a Libertarian, the CINO label isn't yours.

Now, let me ask you a few questions.

If the Dems will condemn President Bush willy nilly ( which they shall ), and their main objective in doing so, by using the tactic that he is going against his " base ", then aren't you doing their bidding ? If the CFR Bill is a free speech issue , have you personally had your speech curtailed ? Considering that the SC will cut out the unConstitutional parts, what harm has been done to the Constitution ir the BoR ? If , and it SHALL , a ruling by the SC shuts McLunatic up, finally, for good and all, on this matter, as a veto absolutely would NOT , then what have you and the rest of us lost ?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... this Bill, and President Bush's signing it, is trivial , in the scheme of things. It doesn't shred the Constitution, and doesn't break his oath of office. Only the most strident ideologue would say so. Not one president has been as rigid, as some here claim to want ; not a one !

Please allow me to put this in other terms. THE " peaceniks " and " ban the bomb " gang, want / ed ONLY the USA to pay by those rules. We all know what that would lead to; don't we ? When the rules are what they are, and the Constitution is stll left whole, then it is incombent on our side, to play dirty. How many times have all of us thought / has it been posted on FR, that our side needs a spine, more testostereone, gonads, guts, to fight back / be on the offense, instead of always being on the defense or just caving in ? Well ... ? This is a win - win; not a lose - lose. This is OFFENSE , in a very clever way. It is so subtle, that it's amazingly bellicose ! It's so " in your face ", that you and others have missed it.

The " common man " out there, isn't paying attention to this, it's a nonstarter. Not only that, in 2 years, they won't even remember this nor the Enron junk. Will there be more things that I or you, or Howlin, or any of the rest of us will find fault with ? No doubt about it. If ; however, we allow that to keep us home, not voting for this president, than WE have shreded the Constitution, and proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, thet the FFs were 100 % correct in saying that the common man was far too stupid, to be allowed to have the final say on who gets to be president. I'm NOT that stupid ; how about you ?

[nopardons]

For the UNAPPEASEABLES, it's " any port in a storm " rational. For the naifs and the gullible, they only pretend to know about politics. For a supposed Conservative web site forum, there are an ubelievably high percentage of folks who are one issue voters / uneducated / blind to reality / cut off your nose, to spite your face posters.

If you and Howlin, and Texasforever, and I and a whole raft of people can see what's what, is it some kind of miricale, that the Bush team, the brightest of the bright, came up with a win - win scenario ? I think not ! Is it appalling that there are FREEPERS who think that NOT voting for GOPers in 2002 and deffinitly NOT Bush in 2004 will enshrine the Constiution, and somehow make life better ? You bet it is; it's even worse than that !

[Jhoffa_]

McCain-Feingold, needless to say, from the gitgo had more to do with petty vengeance than "reform" -- McCain's personal vendetta against Bush for trouncing him in the early primaries..

Ain't that the truth!

This began as a "vision" from John Mc@__ wipe and his sour grapes.

Now, it's grown legs and gone way beyone one little man's vanity.

Thanks McCain.

(Speaking of the Primaries, one of the hardest laugh's I ever had was over that McCain "Hand me the Constitution, I need to wipe" graphic that was all the rage at the time. Pretty ironic now, actually.)

[rdb3]

I agree that this is a bad play, but let's get past the entire ordeal first.

[PhiKapMom]

Is it appalling that there are FREEPERS who think that NOT voting for GOPers in 2002 and deffinitly NOT Bush in 2004 will enshrine the Constiution, and somehow make life better ? You bet it is; it's even worse than that !

Just wanted to second those comments. Must admit that I am totally shocked at the lack of knowledge of the Separation of Powers in the Government of this Country by some Freepers! Next they will be blaming the public school system for what they chose not to learn or retain because all Civics books I have seen explain Separation of Powers very well and in every last one, the SCOTUS was the final judge of a law's constitutionality!

Can you tell that I am irritated at the lack of comprehension on here on this subject?

[AmishDude]

Well, here we go again.

Notice that you are pretty much the only one talking about McCain? Nobody's talking about Feingold. Nobody's talking about the overwhelming numbers of Democrats who voted for this. Nope, it's all about Bush.

Apparently, Democrats can do anything they want, but let a Republican not do somthing right and it's "off with his head".

You know what I think? I think most of these people (many of whom are Bush/Republican-bashers from waaaaaaaaaay back) aren't upset at CFR at all. I think they were looking for an opportunity to look self-righteous as they "withdraw their support."

Bottom line: Congress said it was OK and who is Bush to argue with them? He's just one man. Betcha if Bush vetoed a bill because he stated he thought it was unconstitutional, he would get harangued by the same crowd for being a dictator and a statist.

[Texasforever]

If we are going to be IN the game, however, we have to learn to play to win.

Though you will be described as "un-principled" that is exactly right. Bush did not set the game rules and he is not going to change them by being the political Rambo many seem to want him to be. Bush is NOT a hard hitting political boxer he uses political Jujitsu to use other's strengths against them, He did this brilliantly in Texas and he is doing it against a much more liberal monster in Washington.