Bush signs campaign finance bill

MSNBC ^ | March 27, 2002 | Reuters

[grebu]

You can't push laws that are deemed by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. We want this to go to court and end there, not go back to congress over and over. Somebody else did bring up a good point, which was to neither sign it nor veto it, let it default to law, and that way he could have shown his displeasure but it still goes to court.

As for drinking "Kool Aid", I'm not the one acting like this is the end of the world. It's not.

Go take a walk outside and calm down dude. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that they're all big government politicans, that's how they stay in power. The trick is to choose the one who is the smallest of the big-Gs and who will facilitate the least amount of meddling in your day to day life.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Ronald Reagan started out as a Democrat.

Maybe a little research and moving beyond a 1st grade analysis would be a good thing before posting.

[conserve-it]

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

The proof and dates have been posted here by others MANY times in the past 2 weeks. And most everyone has seen them. No need to post them again....Bush LIED!!

[SteamshipTime]

Ever hear of a Democrat named Grover Cleveland? He once vetoed a bill providing $50,000 for drought relief in Texas. President Cleveland held that Congress had no constitutional authority for such a disbursement since the general welfare clause only modified the enumerated powers--it was not itself an enumerated power.

Grover Cleveland (D) served four terms as president. George Bush (R) wouldn't be fit to carry Cleveland's water.

[SUSSA]

You can't push laws that are deemed by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

The Congress did just that with this law. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 1976 and several times since but it keeps coming back.

[Protagoras]

The United States government will be destroyed eventually because it is so corrupt.

Perhaps, but not soon IMO.

Then it will be war, war, and more war. If you live through the war I wonder what you will see? I think that you won't be happy to our government destroyed unless you love shedding blood.

That is only your opinion. And not one which is very likely. The Soviet Union was destroyed without a single shot being fired. I guess you can't think of any scenerios without war in them. And I am the one who loves shedding blood? I am the one who is trying to prevent it by opposing this stuff and the people who perpetrate it before it comes to violence.

I noticed you never answered my inquiry about when "enough is enough" occurs for you. The second amendment? It sure isn't the first!

"Party before county" should be your screen name.

[Protagoras]

O.J.Simpson " If I had killed her, I killed her cause I loved her"

LOL,, how true.

[hchutch]

Then, I suppose that you wouldn't have a deliberate safety for field position at the END of the game.

You'd be happier with Hillary in the White House and losing everything you stand for, than to have Bush in, and get 70% of what you stand for. That's the impression I get. Sorry, but your way was tried - it was a loser in the 1995 budget battle. We cannot attack these guys with the frontal attack. It STINKS as strategy.

The Supreme Court cannot give advisory opinions or say how it will rule on pending legislation. You have to have a law to do this. You'll note there was no signing ceremony. I've pinged him on this reply, as well. There ain't no glory for McCain, and I'll bet that there is only going to be a pro forma defense of this thing by DOJ. It's gonna be killed anyhow.

My problem with your attitude on this is the fact that I do not think you are are thinking it through. Go ahead, go third party, elect Hillary as a result, lose everything you stand for, and I hope those chains are light. Because you didn't THINK, we could lose it all.

[grebu]

Well nothing to worry about then, is there?

[tal hajus]

I read that my Senators, Inhofe and Nickles voted against it!

[Protagoras]

Well I will grant he was a founding father but why a Democrat?

He was a member of the "Democratic Republican" Party. Look it up. The Republican party of today would do well to mirror the ideals of Jefferson. And most Republicans of a few years ago would be the first to advocate that. Today, many of them are Democrats in disguise who aren't in the least bit interested in the founder's ideals.

You need to study up before you talk.

[Dave S]

Grover Cleveland (D) served four terms as president.

As President of what country? FDR was the only American President elected to four terms, although he only served a small portion of his fourth. What years did Cleveland serve as President? I think you mispoke.

[VRWC_minion]

but he outspokenly and forcefully stated he would veto McCain-Feingold.

That isn't the same bill. This bill, among other things, provides that it is on a fast track to being unconstitutional. That bill had provisions keeping corporate money from being donated without shareholder approval. Same name, different bill.

[Victor]

Yikes, people: Calm down

I think Bush is smart enough( or informed enought) to know that the Supremes will kill the unconstitutional aspects.

Even more interesting is that once again he takes the Dems/McCain's issues off the table in time for fall elections; they can't touch him because "he signed it...."

[VRWC_minion]

journalists are reporting that Bush lied on the campaign trail about campaign finance reform

Different bill, same name. BTW, you trust journalists ?

[SUSSA]

I think Bush is smart enough( or informed enought) to know that the Supremes will kill the unconstitutional aspects.

That doesn't change the fact that he shirked his duty. I expected better from him.

[shield]

Bush has got most folks here at FR dupped!!!! Bush is a wolf in sheeps clothing. After 911, The Terrorism Bill and Home Land Security Office, how could ANYONE believe he would not sign this bill. What a joke. He is made from the same cloth as clintoon and his dear old dad.....

[conserve-it]

"The Soviet Union was destroyed without a single shot being fired"

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't a soviet leader say the same thing about their methods for taking over America?
Something to the effect of indoctrinating our children through the public schools and universities? I suppose they didn't think of Congress.

[Victor]

"....That doesn't change the fact that he shirked his duty. I expected better from him...."

I understand your sentiment, but let me ask you something: Does having a strategy constitute dereliction of duty, or shirking his duty?

I would hate to play Bush in a chessgame.

[Redcloak]

I think Bush is smart enough( or informed enought) to know that the Supremes will kill the unconstitutional aspects.

And how does he "know" this? Is he holding an envelope to his forehead a la Carnac the Magnificent?