FREEDOM SOARS
FREEDOM MUZZLED
Call Now--VETO CFR!
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.
How childish!
He has every right to post his opinion on this forum just like you and everybody else does.
Why do you want to his voice to be silenced?
Why does our president want our voices silenced 60 days before an election?
I let my frustrations with my inability to understand President Bush's actions get the best of me and went overboard a bit in the tenor of my rants.
It has been my experience here on FR as well in the real world that at times I spend too much time dwelling on what makes us different rather than what we have in common.
Howlin, Dane and others who are doing their best really do have much more in common with us all who care about the Republic than they have differences.
Passion is a great thing, but passion without reason gets the best of us in a jam at times. At least I have found that so in my experiences.
I am going to try and remember that the President has much more to consider than I do. I still don't understand the decision, but realize I don't understand much at all in the big picture. I am disappointed and yet have a faith that tells me in the long haul, life will go on according to His plans. Accepting that fact is the challenge.
Have a great day.
And by the way, Ricky, if you haven't heard, or haven't asked, a majority of the people out there that voted for President Bush are SATISFIED with the signing of the CFR Bill. Most people do want some sort of restrictions place on the soft money contributions.
I have noticed however, when I ask, that because the media does not focus on the RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH issue (because it promotes their agenda, of course) most people don't have a clue about it. Therefore, if you think about it logically, when they hear that this part of the bill will be given to SCOTUS to review, it will be a big surprise to THEM that the RATS even wanted this from the very beginning.
Now think about this: how many of the media outlets have given much time to the CFR Bill since it has been passed? Not many. I've not heard/read anything about it on the cable outlets. What does that tell you? It tells me that the media can't use this as a Bush-bashing item, because there's simply nothing there for them to bash. We may not agree with what the President is doing, however, in the end, it will work out the way it's suppossed to, Ricky.
This is not funny. The only thing that should "rip" is this piece of trash called CFR.
With Clinton they wore presidential knee-pads.
With President Bush we wear presidential muzzles.
We Must Protect First Amendment Rights. There is a clear and present danger emanating from congressional politicians and liberal mainstream media who gleefully strive to subvert our rights and forever silence We The People.
They full well know CFR is unconstitutional but still are deliberately testing the response of our reaction. Do we sit by idly twiddling our fingers? Or do we stand tall as freedom loving men and women and gallantly man the phones, the fax machines, flood the President's e-mail box? I ask you what is next on their goody list of unconstitutional legislation?
If George, Ben, Tom, John, Paul and the Boys of '76 were alive today they would be having one big old fashioned CFR Party and dump the whole nasty offensive offal legislation into the sewer where it belongs.
You call now for VETO or you call to order your muzzle. It is only up to you to put up a boisterous roaring ruckus for your Free Speech Rights.
Here's the confusion, I think: when I said "I have no love for wolves in Republican's clothes" I wasn't talking about Mass, I was talking about BUSH. I was responding to Mass' #19, and I was admittedly a bit sharp, but I intended in no way to insult him.
Is that the same calculation he is making when his administration doesn't even INVESTIGATE the crimes the Clintons, Clinton administration, DNC and democRATS committed the last 9 years ... little matters like the Riady non-refund (election tampering and CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS), Filegate (violation of privacy and blackmail of Republicans), Emailgate (obstruction of justice at its worst, intimidation of witnesses), Chinagate (treason), the death of Foster (obstruction of justice AT BEST and possibly murder) and the death of Brown (murder ... nay, MASS MURDER)? Because if it is, then it is DISGUSTING. That action would suggest a ONE PARTY system in a nation where the LAWS don't apply to PARTY MEMBERS.
NO EXCUSES.
Call Now--VETO CFR!
Also, you will search the Constitution in vain for the provision which gives the judicial branch the sole and exclusive authority to pass on a law's constitutionality; it ain't there. Until the U.S. morphed into a social democracy, legislators and presidents would debate bitterly over a law's constitutionality before they even reached the question of the law's policy merits.
BTW, Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, once vetoed a bill for drought relief in Texas because he believed, as did James Madison, that the general welfare clause modifies only the specifically enumerated powers granted to Congress--it is not an enumerated power in itself.
George Bush, alas, is no Grover Cleveland. Just another vote-chasing social democrat.
The problem I have is twofold.
1. I'm not betting my childrens heritage on a handful of SEMI Constitutionally minded people
to strike DOWN a law that 2 other branches have signed into law.
They don't OFTEN do that you know, do you think CNNNBCCBSABCMSNBC are going to HELP them explain their actions ?
Isn't the measure of a President who he puts on the Supreme Court ?
How easy will it be for "W" to land a Conservative Constitutionalist judge on a Supreme Court which just struck DOWN the media's baby ?
Think of THAT yet ?
2. On what has been a marvelous and effective forum for which I've devoted time, money and energy over the last 3 years,
I'm noticing a very disturbing trend of what were formerly solid, principled patriots becoming the WORST sort of pragmatic political fascists.
All out of FEAR that voicing an opposition might be detrimental to what are 85 + approval ratings.
Sadly and typically, the RINOs aren't even being politically SMART in their treacherous gambling.
Unless of course, their stated goal is NOT in fact what we're being told.
Soooooooooooo, I think I will leave the "serious" debating to you younger folks, better equipped to deal with it.
Thanks for being gracious to an "old fart". After re-reading my last couple jabs at you, you really had a right to be put off, a bit. /;-)
We know that is far from the truth, but to the folks that live in the beltway mentality ... well I really do believe they view us as an albatross around their necks. And you know, they may be right about the albatross business. Especially if one adopts the view, unfortunately as I have, that the only concern "they" have is the acquisition and maintenance of POWER not as a means, but as an end, in and of itself.
Think about it a bit. Passionate conservatives on the right or passionate "real liberals" on the left who opperate on principle would definitely be a liability for those whose only quest is the maintenance of raw political power. I also, based only upon observation and a life time as a political junkie believe that the numbers of educated/passionate believers of both conservative and libleral ideology is decreasing in geometric proportions. The DemocRATs no longer really support a true Liberal agenda and the Republicans ... Well I think you get my drift. I hope so anyway. Not that you have to agree mind you.
I wish I didn't feel this way, but man the signs are and have been out there for a long, long time now.
You're responding to the wrong post. I wrote"The attitude I am taking is that he is prosecuted and not convicted." Hardly a directive to muzzle free speech. W has not defended himself. His actions before this bill and in promising to sign it are utterly incongruent. I'm still open to an explanation
I know that in all "movements" there is the "lunatic fringe" or leading edge or whatever we might be labeled.
I didn't think of myself as being out on a limb, especially on this Forum.
Tell you what, I'm really pretty disgusted as of this week.
I can see how so many Christians have removed themselves from this cynical circus.
If I want to see maggots feed on themselves, I'll turn on the Discovery Channel.
At least in the back of THE BOOK, we win.
If you're suggesting that I am a Pat Buchanan follower, you are dead wrong. What I am is a concerned conservative (and American) who has watched Bush turn into a RINO this year. CFR isn't the only bad call he has made, just the latest one. This is a guy who is in the Oval Office only because conservatives were willing to express their outrage over the Gore Gang's efforts to steal the Presidency, but maybe that outrage was wasted on the wrong bunch.
Bush has a great opportunity to advance a few (not all) conservative principles, but he is simply dropping the ball. I guess the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree, after all.
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.