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.
No, they think this Supreme Court stole it for him.
The problem is that it won't work. What blue states do they think that they'll swing? And at the cost of how many red states? Bush got clobbered in those blue states. He'll have to tour the country in a Mao suit to win them over.
This is political idiocy at its finest. I've been Bush bashing on this thread and others for a reason. This is a preview of what we'll hear out of the Democrats if he signs that bill. They will be the ones saying he broke his promise. They'll do to him what they did to Bush41. "Read my lips" will be their mantra.
Bush promised to veto this bill. He had better follow through with that promise. If he doesn't, the Dems will use it to drive a wedge between him and the base. He'll lose red states faster than he can pick up blue ones. The only hope he has of picking up any blue states is to show the kind of backbone his father couldn't. People will respect that, even if they don't agree with him on the particular issue.
Looks like it.
Regards Dane.
Which is the better gamble ? Take the issue to this SC which has ruled against it already or take the issue to the next supreme court with new appointees that were confirmed by Daschle ? Which is the bigger gamble ?
Up until a few days ago I saw this entire issue in a single dimension just like the majority of Freepers did but I was wrong. There are several congruent issues here which make the question of which action is best for the constitution less like a one dimensional comic strip and more like a multiple plot novel.
I was one of the first here who saw this differently. Many Freepers won't ever see that, more and more are "getting it", and a whole bunch of Bush haters won't ever get it but they will just moan about the issue of the day.
Uh where during his Presidency did he say he would veto this bill. I think I will be waiting a long time for that answer.
The dems are really going to have the moral authority to slam him for signing a bill they(dems) slammed through.
Sheesh you all in the DNC basement must be getting desperate now that Bush hasn't handed you all an issue, IMHO.
It's already begun. FoxNews Sunday's roundtable was discussing Bush's flipflop. Folks, you may as well resign yourselves to the fact that no matter what conservatives do the media will hammer them. With that in mind, their best defense is to do what's right and sell the public on their integrity and policies. NOT run scared from the media.
Source please ?
They won't have to - their friends in the media will do it all for them. Did you see Fox News Sunday this week? It already started there.
I wish that were true, but it just isn't. Supreme courts change,
and decisions are revisited and overturned.
We conservatives pray for Roe to be overturned, don't we?
When are you people in the choir going to realize that the issue for the Dems isn't going to be his veto of the bill, but rather his signing of the bill? One can easily make the case that he promised a veto if a bill like this reached his desk. If he fails to make good on that promise, then the Dems will be on him like white on rice. They'll howl then next two years that "he's just like his daddy."
Read my lips.
| TOPICS |
| Editorial |
| News/Current Events |
| Click to Add Topic |
|
|
Posted on 3/25/02 6:04 AM Eastern by JohnHuang2
-------------Snip------------
Had Al Gore been elected president, the outcome would have likely been different. Gustave Speth, a member of the Clinton-Gore transition team who then was appointed head of the U.N. Development Program, was a strong advocate of U.N. taxing authority, and promoted the scheme during his U.N. tenure.
Since you asked, allowing it to hit our Constitutional backstop is the biggest gamble of all in my opinion.
We are passing bills to look good on TV and expecting the SC to play "goalie"
That bothers me on allot of levels and it's a clear cut violation of their oath. That's all the reason I need to oppose CFR. No political formulas, mental aerobatics or tit for tat rundowns of which party is scoring what media points where are necessary.
I hope you aren't including me in your list, because I am honest about Bush. I can and do say good things about him, he just doesn't give me allot of reason to cheer him on as of late because of CFR (which won't lose my vote) and Amnesty (a total dealbreaker)
Don't blame me, or anyone else here who doesn't have a nice word for him over this because he (and Congress) put these issues on our plate, not the other way around.
Actually, the majority of my scorn is reserved for the House because those traitors voted Dick Armey's Constitutionality clause down flat.
They knew what it meant and made a decision to spit on their oath and pass this bill. The Senate did it too (not as flagrantly though) and now it's dubya's turn.
Do you know how many people watch Fox News Sunday(maybe 4 million out of a population of 280 million)? And probably 90% of those people think that CFR is no big deal.
Anyway if the press goes after it is a tactic to split the base and I can ignore the hypocrisy of the NYT and WP, especially when their message is directed at me, the conservative base.
I can understand that many are upset about amnesty but for me his actions are consistant with biblical teachings so I happen to support even more amnesty.
Agreed. 90% think CFR is no big deal. I'm betting 50% think credibility is a very big deal; they are more interested in politicians who do what they say they'll do than in actual issues.
So let's examine that. You've admitted CFR is not resonating with the public. I think you'd agree that Bush's credibility has (he won an election on it). What is the reasoning behind signing this law? He stands to lose more votes by flipflopping than he does by taking a principled stand against CFR and explaining to the public why he vetoed, doesn't he?
I oppose it, but dissagree with you here.
I have no problem at all helping Mexico and the other nations with their problems. Hey, if you need technology, clean water.. electricity then I am all for helping out.
What I don't want is:
1) To punish people for being honest, following the rules and doing what's right. That pisses me off. We see examples of this everywhere and it's always revolting.
2) To just throw the doors wide open. And I guess this one comes closer to "teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime"
Help them, sure.. just tell me how.
Throw open the doors to everyone and everyone? No way.
I can't support that.
Yeah, except when the dumb bastard was interviewed by George Will. He said something a little different at that time.
Ok Howlin, take back the keyboard now. Someone else has it.
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.