All hail! The new Republican Party Mascot
Posted on 03/27/2002 7:10:33 AM PST by PeteF
GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) - President Bush signed landmark campaign finance legislation Wednesday and the National Rifle Association swiftly filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the new law.
Bush signed the measure in the Oval Office — without the public signing ceremony often staged for major legislation. In a written statement, he said that while the bill has flaws, it "improves the current system of financing for federal campaigns."
Bush then embarked on a two-day swing to South Carolina and Georgia, where he planned to raise more than $3 million for GOP candidates for Congress.
Critics have long argued the legislation violates the Constitution, and the NRA was the first in line to file its challenge at the federal courthouse a few blocks from the White House. The legislation "eviscerates the core protections of the First Amendment by prohibiting, on pain on criminal punishment, political speech," said a legal complaint filed on behalf of the NRA and its political victory fund.
Smirk all you like, obviously the NRA knows and understands something that you don't.
Prediction: When the SC kills this thing, the old complaints about "W" and the SC being in cahoots will come back up.
All hail! The new Republican Party Mascot
Less scandlous, dishonest and sickening tv commercials?
Ahh, more Republicans in - as if that would make a difference. Look at the vast majority of Republicans running for office, and with a very few notable exceptions, they are alike on the Democrats with 80-90% of the issues. Look at Libby Dole (pro-abortion, anti-gun, big government, big tax) - who has the full support of the GOP - even the supposedly "conservative" Republicans!
The solution is NOT to just vote Republican. This would be a serious mistake. After all, it was a Republican controlled congress that let Clinton off without so much as a slap on the wrist. It was the "Conservative" John Ashcroft who lets treason and corruption from the previous adminstration go completely untouched. And yes, it was a Republican president who pushed hard for amnesty for literally millions of illegals.
Vote for the person who best reflects the principles of a limited government, and a constitutionally-mandated Republic. Here's the facts: the vast majority of Republicans do NOT cut the mustard.
1.) It removes the issue from the campaign. Now that the bill has been signed, the tying of Republican Senate and House members to Enron and non-signing of CFR is a dead issue. This removes a huge arrow from the democrat quiver, allowing us a greater chance to GET THE MAJORITY IN THE SENATE, which will allow the judicial nominations to get to the floor for passage.
A greater chance to get a majority in the Senate does not sound like a surefire plan to me when you talk about stepping on the constitution to get there. How many seats is this going to translate into? Even if the "majority" you suggest materializes, there are so many RINOs left in the Senate that I seriously doubt a conservative agenda can be carried through at that point. Plus, it gives the Rats a campaign issue in 2004 against Bush if Republicans do control both Houses and the presidency.
I think efforts to find a silver lining are missing the point. If the constitution is not sacrosanct when it comes to leveraging ideology for political gain, then what on God's green earth is?
2.) By filing the lawsuit quickly (and I have no doubt that McConnell was coordinating this, probably with the White House as well) the NRA has grabbed the venue. If a LIBERAL organization had filed the suit in California, for example, it would be tied up for years. I imagine that coordination with the NRA is why they had a quiet ceremony with NO photo ops so that people like Daschle wouldn't know exactly WHEN it became law.
This ducks the question of why the president should sign an unconstitutional law and passes the buck to someone else. That is not leadership and it will translate into an erosion of Bush's ability to claim the "man of principle" mantle he ran on the first time.
3.) Portions of the bill which will remain after the SC rules on it do not take effect until AFTER November 6, which allows the parties to go ahead with their planned expenditures at this time. For us, this is good because we have way more money, and for the dems it is not so good, because they were, I think, banking on a veto and an override. Hence Terry McAuliffe using a HUGE chunk of soft money to pay up front for the new DNC headquarters.
The things we can do prior to the fall election should be of little comfort to us when the price is reducing the impact of the U.S. constitution. Why should we celebrate the fact that we get another six months of our constitutional right before the government takes it away? This is an Uncle Tom fantasy.
4.) Demonization of President Bush can't be done on this issue (except here on FR, which most voters don't read...sorry) and his campaigning in the contested Senate seats will be more effective.
C'mon. Do your really believe the demonization of Bush has anything to do with the issues? That is absurd! Look at the NAACP Byrd pickup ads prior to the last election. They had NO BASIS in fact. We are deluding ourselves to think that we are "taking issues away from the Democrats" because they make issues up out of thin air and have a willing media to give them credence. This is really a dangerous fantasy that conservatives are allowing themselves.
Secondly, what better issue could there be then defending the constitution!?! If they tried to tarnish Bush for his defense of free speech, cue the violins, baby. Send your guy out there with a steely stare and have him tell Middle America that he is protecting their rights. This does not remove an issue from the table. Rather, it creates a new one for Bush: going back on campaign promises. Maybe that's not a big deal if you ran a campaign like Clinton did which was largely based on creating villains that he would vanquish. But it makes a HUGE difference for a guy who ran on "character."
You just defined free speech. Who should we appoint to judge whether a message is "scandalous", "dishonest" or "sickening." I'm betting whoever that person would be would rule 99% of the comments on this web site would fit those adjectives.
Defending the right of people to say what we don't want them to say is precisely what free speech is all about!
This is assuming that a veto was the only way to stop this trash. Our guy laid down on this one and didn't fight it prior to it reaching his desk.
Democrats will fall back on their favorite social security scare tactics, etc., and pick up more votes because the population is getting older.
The Midwest and Reagan Democrat Southeast were Bush's power bases, but they will not come out for him in 2004 because he walked away from his principles.
Sure. Perhaps its only as much as 500 or so votes and they probably all live in Florida, so who cares...
Hit from the left flank. Hit from the right flank. Pincer attack, it's over. John Edwards wins.
Most of the public don't care about CFR. The MEDIA only does. Bush signs this bill that slaps gunowners and the right in the face. Most of the right doesn't trust Bush's dad, and comparisons are going to be made again.
If he signs a gun ban too, it's over for good. 1992 all over again.
At this point, setting it up for a decades-long kill is preferable. I'll say again, look at how long Roe v. Wade has been around despite efforts to change it.
This guy has learned from the mistakes, not only from his father, but also of Newt Gingrich. He's got to walk a tightrope, and right now, we don't have the margins to play a hardball game. We're gonna have to get the Dems to overreach once or twice.
Because I can draw three or four plausible scenarios as to how a veto would have gone down. I expect that Common Cause will be largely left on its own for this case, with Olson only defending the disclosure provisions and the increase in hard money contribution limits. The rest is dead legislation walking.
As for the semiauto ban in 2004, the best bet is to kill that puppy in the House. If I were you, I'd make sure Dingell beats Rivers this year in the primary, or we won't have the ability to replicate the successful killing of the gun show ban back in June of `99.
In fact, I think replicating that strategy is the only hope we have of killing the renewal of the semi-auto ban.
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.