Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill

Yahoo! News ^ | Mar 25, 2002 | Reuters

[ImpBill]

"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."

You know, based upon your entire post, I think we feel basically the same way. I became concerned with the above quoted remark, that I had been too harsh or perhaps relayed a feeling of contempt more than my "utter bewilderment". So with the help of the Robinson's great search tools I took the opportunity to go back and re-read my comments on the topic as they specifically pertained to the President. This thread has been about beat to death more than necessary anyway so I will post them below.

I stated: "I am just extremely disappointed in his apparent willingness to abrogate his responsibility and, in my and quite apparently others views, violate The Oath of Office, required by that same Constitution he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend."

Followed by: "But I really don't understand all the hyperbole in your attacks upon people, whose posts I have read that are quite honestly, as I, in a deep quandary concerning GW's principled integrity, based upon HIS actions and statements."

Finally: "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."

I really attempted to choose my words quite carefully with terms like "he seems, "deep quandary concerning GW's principled integrity, based upon HIS actions and statements", and ""I am just extremely disappointed in his apparent willingness to abrogate his responsibility ..."

I sit here typing this with an autographed picture of GW at my left shoulder, in appreciation for financial support I gave the man directly, not through the GOP. I want to "reserve judgement". But does that mean I have to ignore my concerns and disappointment? Or more to the point muzzle my political speech right to question our elected leaders when, by most any translation they are violating both the Consitution and their Oaths of office? I'm sorry, but if walking in muzzled lock step is what you mean by "reserving judgement", I can't do that. I don't think that is what you said or meant to suggest. So, I sincerely would like you or anyone to give me a "principled" reason not to voice my concerns. I really won't buy into the "political" gains argument. It smacks of the Trent Lottian/Stevensian view "that since we can't get enough votes to convict, we will forego a "real trial" with "real live witnesses". There has to be a point where pricipled fidelity to the Constitution and Oath's of Office have to trump political risk or gain. If we continue to be willing to look the other way, there will soon be no other way to look.

[BlackbirdSST]

You'd have to ask the family and friends of the over 3000 murdered on 9/11. And the family and friends of our military killed since then. Sorry, but what? What the hell good is that memory, if the the country is brought to it's knees by our own in the process? Stop being simplistic. Blackbird.

[xm177e2]

"It will probably take about three seconds to get to the W, I may hesitate on the period, and then rip through the Bush."

This just sounds dirty.

[angkor]

You are a closet liberal anyway.

Right. Those who don't supplicate before GWB - despite his trampling on the 1st Amendment and coddling of illegals - is a "liberal." Of course.

[cake_crumb]

"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."

So he's counting on SCOTUS. I can understand, since the section which does NOT define "political activism ads" is the section we don't want, and he does NOT have line-item veto power.

I keep thinking of the Bush nominees who have yet to be confirmed. I think of the time involved in getting "some parts of it" struck down, even if SCOTUS runs at comparitive warp speed. I STILL worry.

[NittanyLion]

I believe that the administration is taking a carefully calculated risk that most conservatives will still vote conservative in this falls Senate races.

I am more interested in an administration that protects my rights than one that takes "carefully calculated risks" with them. It would take incredible shortsightedness to gamble this way; even one surprise loss in 10 would erode our rights so quickly the Republic would soon be unrecognizable.

[eeriegeno]

McCain has GW exactly where he wants him. Approval causes 20-30 points drop in approval rating because of loss of base support. Veto causes 20-30 points drop in approval rating because of media outcry. Result, GW serves one term and McCain is shoe in for 2004 since the media, rats, and half of the pubbies love him.

[michigander]

If Jefferson’s views were really what the Founders meant by the "separation of powers”
Yeah that Jefferson guy didn't know what he's talking about. :-)

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.
When someone has been charged with a crime, the case has been tried and appealed to the SC, then they can make their determination. If they say it's unconstitutional, then the accused will go free and there will be no reason for the executive branch to bring the charges against anyone else as they will know the ultimate outcome.

"The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution."

the President could simply, on taking office, declare all laws he did not like unconstitutional and that would be the end of it.
Not exactly. He can't declare a law unconstitutional. But, he can just not bring charges against anyone accused of violating that law.

"the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution."

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Sorry, but what? What the hell good is that memory, if the the country is brought to it's knees by our own in the process? Stop being simplistic"

If you can't understand that what happened on 9/11
is more of a danger than some law being signed it is you who is simplistic and out of touch with the real world.

[cake_crumb]

"McCain has GW exactly where he wants him. Approval causes 20-30 points drop in approval rating because of loss of base support. Veto causes 20-30 points drop in approval rating because of media outcry."

It's absolutely true that President Bush is d@mned if he signs, and d@mned if he vetos.
Consequences of signing bill= accusations which we see here.
Consequences of vetoing bill= accusations of coverup, with Enron as the rallying cry.

We already know that McTraitor and Dasshole are bosom buddies. We already know how they feel about President Bush: Mctraitor said after the 2000 election that he had "a mandate." Dasshole hates Bush's guts and wants to take his job in 2004. Of course, McInsane wishes to become our first mad dictator in 2004.

I really REALLY wish that, at the very last minute, President Bush will suddenly reveal that, out of concern for his constituents, he has READ the offending passages, and he cannot, in good consience, sign this bill as it is written.

[rightwing2]

Great. I guess we can all thank President Bush for permanently eliminating any chance at the Republicans ever having a majority in either house of Congress again!! Thanks to Bush for destroying the Republican Party's majority and reducing it to permanent minority status. Henceforth the GOP will only be competitive at the presidential level. Say hello to Speaker Gephardt in 2004 when this thing takes effect! Speaker Hastert was right. This thing is nothing less than Armegeddon for the Republican Party, an outcome long sought after by traitor McCain and his Democrap cohorts, Daschle and Gephardt and now endorsed by Bush who has promised to sign the bill, thus repudiating any conservative and yes, Republican, principles he once had. And to think I thought we elected a President slightly to the right of Algore and Senator John McShame. What a rude surprise!!

[Triple]

Thanks for 374 - I think you follow my argument very well.

As for Howlin, like the dems who continue to worship WJC, it is hard to break through the Kool-aide induced partisan stupor.

Regards,

[JoeMomma]

Nope. I didn't leave the question mark off that. It's not even a possibility that most conservatives will abandon Bush even if Bush goes off the conservative path. If Bush signs CFR, many sheeple will forget about it, and vote for Bush in 2004 because he is a "protector of conservative values".

[DJ88]

He never said that, that was what the FORUM OWNERS think he should have said. Why don't you read before posting.

And I'm sure you've gotten this same exact thing about 40 times now, but let me add to it so you will not forget the next time to READ.

[JoeMomma]

McCain has GW exactly where he wants him. Approval causes 20-30 points drop in approval rating because of loss of base support

That's wrong. Many conservatives won't abandon Bush on principle. Bush can do anything he wants and conservatives will whimper about it for a few minutes and forget all about it and rush to Bush's defense NO MATTER WHAT -- much like Clinton's impeachment-time supporters.

[MassExodus]

And I'm sure you've gotten this same exact thing about 40 times now, but let me add to it so you will not forget the next time to READ.

Sure, your right on this point.

( SHOUTING NOW )

Why SHOULD we expect the President of the Freakin United States to defend our right to FREE SPEECH if he hasn't come right out and TECHNICALLY SAY that he would ?

Where is your HEAD ??!!

BTW, " I swear to PROTECT and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States from ALL enemies foreign and domestic"

IS a promise to STOP people in their efforts to take away Americans right to Free Speech.

Oh whats the use ... go back to sleep.

[DJ88]

You need to go calm down. You're getting yourself so worked up about this that you can't think straight. So, instead, you attack anyone that disagrees with you. I've seen this happen over and over and over again in the last 2 weeks, and I'm sick of it. If you would actually read what people have to say (like Michigander's post, for example) you would see WHY signing this bill into law does not mean it will stay law.

Of course, though, people just can't seem to miss a chance to attack other people here like you did. If you don't like it, LEAVE.

[RickyJ]

The job of vetoing bad bills is the president's.

[ImpBill]

Let me try this again.

I really do owe you an apology. Allowing emotion to dictate the tenor of my responses really was wrong headed of me. I, with malice aforethought, did treat you with a condescending attitude. That was indeed wrong for me to do. And for that I am sincerely sorry.

I know you, as most of us, really do want only what is best for our Republic. There is no excuse for my action. I lost control and erred.

Today, the sun did rise and by His will it will set and rise again. While I passionately disagree with the President on this action, it doesn't give me license to lash out at you and others in the fashion I did.

Forgive me, if you can. Either way I do regret having taken off on you in the manner I did.

[RickyJ]

You obviously have no idea what this law will do to our democracy. Voters who are only informed by the major media outlets about a candidate will tend to vote for the candidate that they put in a favorable light. If you like the idea of NBC,CBS,ABC,CNN,MSNBC,FOX being the ONLY voices heard just before an election than you must love communism. This bill should never have made it this far and Bush should veto it instead of "ripping through the Bush."