Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush signs campaign finance bill
MSNBC ^ | March 27, 2002 | Reuters

Posted on 03/27/2002 6:12:51 AM PST by Redcloak

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 361-380 next last
To: hchutch
I don't know what you mean by "tip his hand". Every politician and his mother knows that this is going to be challenged. Those that are in support of this law are going to be making preparations to counter this challenge, regardless of what Bush says. But by saying that he supports a court challenge, he could provide a helluva lot of encouragement to those who are opposed to this.
201 posted on 03/27/2002 9:12:38 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: conserve-it
And I count myself among that number. My point was that we're in a precarious situation indeed with the courts.
202 posted on 03/27/2002 9:15:43 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
The people crucify the righteous.

The various media, government and special interest groups crucify the righteous. The centers of power. But, I'm reminded of the red/blue map.

I'll even wager that the ones who crucify still want to see righteousness. It is the essence of battle to them. It smells of death to them. And death is what they seek.

203 posted on 03/27/2002 9:18:11 AM PST by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Before you spout off calling people traitors for thinking of ways to kill crap like this long-term, you need to see how long Roe v. Wade had been in effect.

Roe V Wade was judicial activism which created a "new right"? The "abortion" you should be speaking about, repealed a REAL right. Huge difference, too bad you didn't understand it.

It's 29 years and counting. The ruling on this one should last at last this long. Bush has set it up to kill this crap for the equivalent of a geological era.

Nonsense, he is a coward and no attempts by apologists to explain his signing of it will wipe that away. The idea that he signed this as a way to kill it long term is idiotic beyond belief.

I'm sorry you didn't get the political equivalent of a suicidal banzai charge. That was what you were asking for.

It may well be that he just committed political suicide. I sure hope so. In any case, if you think it would be suicidal to defend the constitution you are delusional. Almost no citizens cared about this BS before,,,,,, but they will now.

204 posted on 03/27/2002 9:18:45 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: RichardW
Richard, when buying and selling are legislated, the first items to be bought and sold are legislatures. Government cannot be reformed, only limited.

The only "reform" which does not abridge freedom of speech and to petition is to restore government to its constitutional limits. We'll still have problems with paving and defense contractors, but it will be better than the entire electorate trying to vote its share of public largesse.

205 posted on 03/27/2002 9:18:49 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
journalists are reporting that Bush lied on the campaign trail about campaign finance reform. I also seem to remember him saying that he'd veto this type of legislation. So, I think he's a liar. You may be a bush cheerleader who seeks to change standards of truth for the sake of what?
206 posted on 03/27/2002 9:18:49 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun; VRWC_minion
Well, looks like lots of folks around here will be off to find a new candidate with whom they can agree with all the time

Seems like these people should have learned in Kindergarten that it's impossible to find anyone that they can agree with all the time.

207 posted on 03/27/2002 9:19:03 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"My point was that we're in a precarious situation indeed with the courts."

Absolutely!
208 posted on 03/27/2002 9:20:20 AM PST by conserve-it
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Look, killing it off for three or four decades is better than three or four years.

You're not satisfied unless it's a political equivalent of a suicide charge. Sorry, but I learned from 1995. Maybe you need to learn that lesson, or your will do your principles more harm than good.

209 posted on 03/27/2002 9:24:26 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
"Seems like these people should have learned in Kindergarten that it's impossible to find anyone that they can agree with all the time.

I would settle for 50% of the time.....but not 20%...... goo goo ga ga
210 posted on 03/27/2002 9:24:40 AM PST by conserve-it
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Didnt notice any one preventing you from speaking. Guess the law hasnt gone into effect yet. LOL

It hasn't. But they have established that they (the government) have the power to prevent people from exercizing thier right. They have currently set the time as 60 days and the frame as before an election. They can change that anytime they please if this stands. When it reaches 365 days, you will have lost it totally.

You bring a lot of credibility to this debate when you show up with the screen name of a Democrat.

This is my nomination for the dumbest thing anyone has said on this forum today, maybe ever.

211 posted on 03/27/2002 9:24:54 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Roe v. Wade has been a judicial travesty for 29 years. It has no constitutional basis.

Do you really want to trust nine black-robed bureaucrats with your freedom of speech?

212 posted on 03/27/2002 9:25:38 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Look, killing it off for three or four decades is better than three or four years.

It was dead before, your party and your President have joined with the other incumbents to bring it to life. It was dead, now it lives. Think

You're not satisfied unless it's a political equivalent of a suicide charge. Sorry, but I learned from 1995. Maybe you need to learn that lesson, or your will do your principles more harm than good.

I guess this means that you are repeating your idea that he signed it in order to kill it. One of the goofier ideas ever brought up. Ask him if that's why he did it. Totally inane.

213 posted on 03/27/2002 9:30:01 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
You bring a lot of credibility to this debate when you show up with the screen name of a Democrat.

This is my nomination for the dumbest thing anyone has said on this forum today, maybe ever.

Well I will grant he was a founding father but why a Democrat? Obviously your screen name would have been even dumber if it had been George McGovern or FDR but Thomas Jefferson was an early member of the Democratic party, the party of Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Johnson, and Kennedy. But since you are not a Republican you could care less. What .0005% party do you belong to?

214 posted on 03/27/2002 9:32:05 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
I would have liked to see W. one up the Dems,a nd McCain, by vetoing the bill because IT WASN'T EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY...... that would have fixed them...
215 posted on 03/27/2002 9:33:55 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
"Totally inane."

O.J.Simpson " If I had killed her, I killed her cause I loved her"
216 posted on 03/27/2002 9:34:37 AM PST by conserve-it
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
He made no such promise.

This is flatly incorrect. I don't have the facts or quotes handly, but he outspokenly and forcefully stated he would veto McCain-Feingold.

217 posted on 03/27/2002 9:34:57 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Didnt notice any one preventing you from speaking. Guess the law hasnt gone into effect yet. LOL

It is not 60 days before an election.

218 posted on 03/27/2002 9:35:45 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: conserve-it
Meanwhile, Rush is ripping Dubya a new orifice !!

That is because Rush -- unlike Bush -- is a conservative.

219 posted on 03/27/2002 9:37:09 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime; Congressman Billybob
Travesty or not, it's still there, and it has still set the ground rules for the debate. That's REALITY.

And is this a gamble? Look at Congressman Billybob's posts on this issue. This thing is very likely to be tossed out, according to him.

220 posted on 03/27/2002 9:37:34 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 361-380 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson