Posted on 03/25/2002 11:16:37 AM PST by Pay now bill Clinton
Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill
Mon Mar 25,10:19 AM ET
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Sunday he would sign landmark campaign finance reform legislation with only a slight hesitation, reflecting his ongoing concerns about the measure.
The legislation to reduce the influence of money in politics won final congressional approval last week, and Bush has pledged to sign it soon.
The bill would ban unlimited contributions known as "soft money" to national political parties, limit such donations to state and local parties and restrict broadcast ads by outside groups shortly before elections.
Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, whose investigation of Bill Clinton's sex life resulted in the president's impeachment in 1998, is to lead a legal challenge that will seek to knock down most of the measure as unconstitutional.
Bush said he felt the campaign bill did not fully address the need to require identification of who is funding so-called independent groups that introduce "scurrilous, untrue" television advertisements in the last days of a campaign, as he said happened to him in his 2000 presidential campaign.
"I've always thought that people who pump money into the political system, we ought to know who they are," he said.
Bush said that nonetheless the "bill is a better bill than the current system," but that some parts of it might not stand up to a court challenge.
I'm willing to let the politicos make the judgments. They're pretty much above my pay level.
Hey, those Magnificent Sooners are fabulous! They're going to be at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta next weekend, about 25 miles north of where I currently live. They've got a real shot at the national championship. And Kelvin deserves a raise.
If the long-term plan is to take a hot steaming dump on what's left of the constitution, then it's working perfectly.
NEWSFLASH: Pickett's Charge was an absolute DISASTER in 1863. It's political equivalent would be an absolute DISASTER today.
Yes, it does..
Actually, I am not even really pissed at them for saying it.
It just makes me sad.
It's like being on the Twighlight Zone or something.
Do you really believe that an issue with so little traction in public opinion polls would cost the Republicans so much, especially when quite a few Republicans supported it (unfortunately)?
The argument that vetoing CFR would result in a political armageddon for the Republicans is farfetched to say the least. I can understand why Bush would take the path of least resistance, but killing the bill wouldn't have the kind of effect you attribute to it. The Dems will still smear Republicans who opposed it, not to mention those who supported it.
If you think the Democrats will go easy because the "moderate" Republicans throw them a bone, you are sadly mistaken. They'll attack as viciously as ever, no matter what our side does. Why not make a case to the American public, then, instead of running scared?
And when that doesn't happen, what will you do for us?
BTW, in that same question and answer session, he discussed the 60 day ads.
First, I will wonder why.
I mean, after all. That is your position, right?
You should be happy to be vindicated.
Then I will probably go back to being dissapointed.
I don't want to fight with you about this Howlin, but it's not right and we both know it.
Sure they are, but I only get to vote for one congressman and
two senators. That is why I voted for Bush, to protect me from
Feinstien, Boxer. Had a good congressman for a while, until
he decided to go sking.
NEWSFLASH: I'd be happy with one simple stand in defense of the constitution... Just one..
But instead we get abuse after abuse after abuse... all to a chorus of political excuse-mongers and spin-meisters telling us how it's all a part of the "big plan" to save us by continuing to screw us over.
Take a step back and look at the state of the union.
It's dying...
Stabbing it in the chest won't save it, despite your continued pretense to the contrary.
And wagging the Hillary boogeyman to scare people into submission isn't going to cut it either. The reason the Hillary's of the world even exist, is because spineless-assed republicans can't muster enough testosterone between them to call a spade a spade.
They spend their time falling all over each other to see who can out socialist the socialists.
A pox on both their houses.
I'm sorry but one's twilight zone is another's smart politics.
JMO, OWK you are never going to find your perfect candidate and your perfect politcal enviroment. It is literally a political jungle out there, and you have to do what you can to survive.
And in the political jungle you don't make yourself an easy target.
I did no such thing. I pointed out that the statement "Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me wrong" was morally relativistic in its language. Words have meaning. If you're an honest person, you have to concede that the statement must be true for both of us. The only way to interpret it then is "Nobody's wrong."
Moral relativism. Either that or meaningless verbage.
Because right now, this thing will be PERMANETLY dead within fifteen months, if Congressman Billybob is right. From what I've gathered about his resume and his experience, his confidence does not seem to be unfounded.
Since the Supreme Court cannot issue advisory opinions (again, ask the good Congressman if you do not wish to take my word for it), the only way to kill it permanently is to let it become law.
There's a difference between a principled stand and the political equivalent of Pickett's Charge.
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.