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.
That is putting it mildly, my fried. It's the "the other side did it" argument all over again. I find no solace in finding my decision to leave the Grand Old Party, after 32 years of faithful and loyal allegiance and service continues to be validated.
There may be some that can justify this action by the congress and then GW, while apparently there are many who feel absolutely abandoned. It is not a bright day for the Republic. The cruelest cut for many it seems was our absolute exuberance in supporting and voting for GW. While he is a great deal better CINC than the "draft dodger" we endured for the previous eight years, he seems, alas to be a politician first and foremost. And based upon some of the posts here and the GOP talking head defenders of the position staked out by the administration it might just be what "the party" wants.
"It's so incredibly disappointing."
You know I keep telling myself not to "go there" with you and then you say something else that just chaps my flanks.
If our Founding Fathers took the same apparent attitude you reflect in the above remark, we would be bowing to a King of England still and this "free" exchange of ideas would not be taking place. Keeping in mind that Freedom of Speech, along with other basic economical issues was the prime motivations for our Revolution in the first place, I begin to wonder about the quality of the civics classes you were privy to.
You really can't be as naive as you sound by your posts. I am really beginning to wonder if you really crave and enjoy all the attention you are getting here. You really continue to invite criticism, over and over and over again. Me thinks there may be something Freudian going on here, but that is way beyond my pay grade as well.
Have a great evening. /;-)
Thank you. /;-)
I think (being only good for the "think tank") I will follow your lead.
There is no way Zell could win the demo nomination. I guess you have never heard of the primary process.
Lieberman, Kerry, and a whole host of othe demo's would eat him up and spit him out for lunch.
Liberals use people. They manipulate people. ...and when they are done they disgard them (sometimes they murder them and try to get reelected, Ted did but Gary couldn't). Your observation squares quite nicely with the truth.
Eddie01
When you consider how close that race was then you might be bad mouthing the very guy...without whom....GW may have never been elected president.
So your bad mouthing comments(About Mass) are way more than inaccurate to say the least.
As far as Mass' credentials, congrats to him. I would hesitate to speculate on what I will "stand for" in life if I were you, however--you have no idea who you might be talking to.
I haven't seen this proposed yet so if I may...
What if the strategy is to gleefully sign the bill knowing that you have personally albeit quitly hired top attorneys to fast track it's demise through the Supreme Court before it ever had a chance to impact an election.
That what I am hoping is going on.
Ken Starr sure showed up quick and in a timely manner.
Eddie01
It always HAS to be something like that, doesn't it, when somebody disagrees with you all? Invite criticism? You mean you have to criticize me because I don't think this is the end of the world as we know it? I'm against this bill; I think it's unconstitutional; I am NOT going to blow my brains out if he signs it; I'm trying to figure out what he's doing; call me stupid or unpatriotic on UnAmerican, whatever floats your boat.
I'm not naive at all; I just live in the real world. A lot of things I don't like I can't do anything about. And if that's the case, why waste my time whining ad nauseum about them?
Does it make you feel better or superior to keep droning on and on about how it SHOULD be, as opposed to how it is?
Roe v Wade
Brady Bill
Civil Rights legislation
The war powers act
All of which were passed by congress or decided in the courts as Roe v. Wade. If Jefferson’s views were really what the Founders meant by the "separation of powers” then two things would happen. Every piece of legislation the congress passed would be immune from judicial review because by definition, if they passed the law they had declared it constitutional. And the President could simply, on taking office, declare all laws he did not like unconstitutional and that would be the end of it. At that point, there would be NO need for a USSC that the constitution invests the power to decide the constitutional soundness of legislation on the basis of both fact AND law and no need for the Judicial Branch of the governmental triad put into place by the founders.
Oh I have a pretty good idea. You and Howlin...Probably just some big wigs in the RNC. But it could go much higher. Whitehouse Staff?, CIA?, Who really knows anymore with the big sellout to our country. Your doing damage control...That much looks pretty ceartin. In the end your going to be hurt by it just like everyone else. You just have not figured it out yet.
NO!
NO!
NO!
That is your choice.
NO!
I tender my public apology. I was wrong to appear to question your intelligence, or patriotism, or integrity. It was not my intent.
The failure to cogently argue principle over politics, adequately was mine.
I most respectfully admit the error was mine and do sincerely wish you a good evening.
Understatement of the day.
The attitude I am taking is that he is prosecuted and not convicted. The gulf is too vast in my prior perception of him and this act not to reserve some judgement and let this play out. Maybe wishful thinking, but I think his actions in defeating Clinton/Gore and leadership in the wake of 9/11 entitle him to some reserved judgement.
It is not illegal for the Congress and the President to to pass Unconstitutional law.
That being said, CFR s*cks!
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.