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

Skip to comments.

Recovering Democrat on CFR: How Bush May Have Done the "Right" Thing After All!
Free Republic ^ | 3/27/02 | Recovering Democrat

Posted on 03/27/2002 12:46:17 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat

I FOUGHT HARD AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!

Any check of the threads on FR will reveal that....but today I had a long nap, just woke up, and have a few thoughts. I'd appreciate FREEPers responses to this....KNOWING of course that a Bush veto could have been sustained and perhaps would have been preferable! But hear me out on this:

I'm not as angry about this as I thought I'd be. I, as a Recovering Democrat, have come to appreciate the Constitution and was an outspoken critic of this horrid law. I wrote both my Sin-ators, snail mailed President Bush twice, faxed him once and even sent a telegram...hoping to get his attention about the travesty that was McLame-Find-gold.

I lost the battle, but may have won the war.

President Bush's attitude in signing the bill into law was about as low-key as I've ever seen in a "major" piece of legislation. What does this say? I interpret it as the President planning to use the good aspects of this law (increased hard money) as much as possible, and not planning to put up much of a challenge to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL aspects of the law. Bush is rolling the McLames, Dash-holes, and Mini-Meehans of the world...and he barely said a word about the legislation! :) THINK ABOUT IT, FREEP FRIENDS:Why else would these jackasses have looked, essentially, GLUM on the day of passage?

Bush called their bluff--knowing he'd get hard money increases, the Unconstitutional CRAP would be tossed, a 'rat/RINO issue would be OFF THE TABLE, and where would they be in '04? On the losing side of the issue!

Bush is covered from not enforcing the 60-day nonsense by saying, "This is an issue before the courts...", all the while he's garnering TWICE as much hard money as before!!!!

Add to the fact he didn't allow McLame to mug for the cameras in a big South Lawn ceremony, and you've got good political moves here.

Now some might say I'm trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, or that I'm just kissing G.W.'s butt because he's the best choice I've got. But I don't think that is entirely true: the President may have outfoxed the foxes on this...any thoughts??

Recovering Democrat.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bush; cfr; mccain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-148 next last
To: Recovering_Democrat
Thanks for the post RD. Good thoughts and great expression. It had started to be too depressing to logon to FR with so many negative posts flying around. Call me a Kool-ade drinker, I don't care. I'll still support the President when the only ELECTABLE options are Clinton/Gore/Edwards/Daschle/Kerry/Gephardt/Lieberman etc.

I'd sure hate to see GWB get "Perot'd in 2004". Now how can we encourage Nader to run again? ;^)

101 posted on 03/27/2002 3:45:26 PM PST by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alley cat
Somehow I'm just not getting the impression that GWB was trying to be ""Too cute by half?" by signing this. No ceremony, and the sponsors and Daschle are mad. Heck he's already won half the battle by getting Daschle & McCain mad about how it was signed.
102 posted on 03/27/2002 3:48:05 PM PST by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: mickie
"I think the demoRATS were just hoping and praying that he would veto this crap legistration."

And this is probably why he made the remark about how fast he would sign it when he was in South America last week. A little psychological warfare, perhaps...

103 posted on 03/27/2002 3:52:39 PM PST by redhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: redhead
I sure hope we're right.
No fanfair today......he just signed the bill, only Rice & Cheney were there.
I'm sure McCain, Feinstein and the rest of the bunch of liberal demoRATS were hoping for a big blowout.......hahaha.
104 posted on 03/27/2002 3:59:56 PM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Yeah but it's not a good idea to start playing games. COuldn't he SAY that he is signing it, and that there is some unconstitutional stuff there that he is confident the Court will throw out?
105 posted on 03/27/2002 4:01:59 PM PST by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmer; pattycake
And if he does veto it, McCain will just bring it up again and again until someone signs it. Bush may just be doing us (and himself) a favor by getting this signed into law and letting the courts have at it. If the courts strike this down as a blattant violation of the 1st ammendment, as I hope they do, this is a dead issue.

As a libertarian I certainly have no sympathy for Bush's decision to sign CFR, nor do I have any desire to defend him for doing so. But I will say that the above rationalization is the best I've seen presented so far: A Bush veto would have allowed the issue to fester indefinitely, perhaps into a subsequent Democratic Administration that could have appointed more "flexible" Supreme Court justices who might have managed to uphold it.

At least this way the worst aspects of CFR will certainly be struck down. I'm very confident that the Supreme Court will do so, based on my readings of a number of prior Court decisions over the past few years. Despite its many other faults, the Supreme Court has been surprisingly strong in its defense of the First Amendment. Both the liberal and conservative factions have been active and cooperative in ruling against most First Amendment infringements. This case is a slam dunk against CFR, and everyone knows it.

McCain and the Democrats nevertheless pushed hard for CFR because they never really expected it to pass or get signed into law. They were pandering to the liberal media establishment, which wants to outlaw competition (especially from non-liberal groups). And the Democrats wanted an issue to attack Bush and the Republicans with. (I think McCain wanted an issue to justify a break with the Republican Party and Bush, and to serve as an excuse to run for President as an Independent in 2004 to try to tip the election against Bush.)

So from a purely political viewpoint, Bush did the only logical thing he could do when he signed CFR. From a purely practical viewpoint, it may indeed be the most effective long-term method of driving a stake through the heart of CFR. From a purely principled viewpoint, it was definitely the wrong thing for Bush to do. But since I don't expect Bush to be driven by principles or consistency in most things, I'm neither surprised nor disappointed. Instead I just feel lucky on those occasions when Bush's actions do (coincidentally) happen to be correct, and I feel happy that we no longer have a Clinton (or Gore) in the White House whose actions would be consistently and deliberately evil.

106 posted on 03/27/2002 4:04:34 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mickie
No fanfair today......he just signed the bill, only Rice & Cheney were there. I'm sure McCain, Feinstein and the rest of the bunch of liberal demoRATS were hoping for a big blowout.......hahaha.

The only problem is...the primary reason there was no fanfare is that Bush knows that the conservatives are pissed.

107 posted on 03/27/2002 4:34:22 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Sloth;Recovering Democrat
"right thing"

I tend to agree with you generally - although I was suspicious up until the very last that the President just might veto it and surprise everybody.

I have been wondering if Bush had already conferred with McConnell regarding his plan to file a law suit. If Bush was sure of the law suit, he would have had more confidence in signing it. Yes, it is flawed - and I do believe the Supreme Court will rip those parts out. Sooooo, I guess I agree that this has been a big win-win for the President, and since he didn't give the dems any face time over it - that makes it even sweeter to me. Especially since the President made such a big issue out of the education bill with Kennedy. It definitely takes the issue off the table and McCain out of the spotlight! I don't necessarily agree with the President's method, but I can see why he may have done it.

Will I vote Republican in 2002, 2004 and even 2008 - yes indeedy.

108 posted on 03/27/2002 4:59:55 PM PST by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
I think we should all calm down, take a deep breath, and be patient. This is the largest assault on the People's liberty that has ever been undertaken by our public "servants". Anyone with political savy can tell that this crap cannot stand SCOTUS examination. There is the telling part, and a test for those honored justices. I'm anxious to see the vote from SCOTUS on this, that will be very telling, and a good reason to blow the Senate Plurality Leader out of his "elevator" saddle.

I'm more conservative than most people that post here, and I was furious that GW signed that piece of $h*t, but after a few martinis and much FR time I do believe he just "got 'em by the short and curlies". The part of this legislation that is going to be stuck down by SCOTUS is a RAT making (need to point this out during Senate campaigns). The vote of SCOTUS, if not 9-0, need to be pointed out to the electorate as well (highlighting the need for more conservative appointments to the Court).

If the SCOTUS vote is 5-4 to strike down GW can point to the Libs as examples of that kind of Justice being dangerous to the Constitution. If the vote is 7-2 the same scenerio plays. If the vote comes out 9-0 (as it should) the President & the Pubbies attack (and I mean ATTACK) the socialist bastards that pressed to violate the Constitution, and their sacred oath with the insertion of the parts of the bill that were unconsitutional (well documented in the Congression Record).

We have a winner here people, and I think the RATS have just figured that part out. They just gave us the ballbat to beat their brains in, now we have to use it.

It just goes to show you what a couple of martinis, a good cigar, and good debate from good friends here at FR can do. I'll bet that if we put our minds (collectively) to it, we could cure cancer. So, let's be calm, and patient, and watch this thing play it's self out. This is like the Klamauth (sp, remember--tee martunies, er, uh) thing, it take time, faith, and perserverience to win, but win we will!

In short, the socialists gave us lemons. Now let's just get a little spring water and some sugar, and a little touch of mint, and we'll be serving some good old west Texas lemonade before you know it.

109 posted on 03/27/2002 5:07:03 PM PST by timydnuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
I wish I could've seen the look on John McCain's face when he found out there wouldn't be any signing ceremony...priceless!
110 posted on 03/27/2002 5:23:46 PM PST by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
This campaign finance stuff IS unConstitutional. Looks like the dumbocRATS are going to have to face the Supreme Court again. What are they going to do, cry them Floridian crocidile tears when them Justices hand them back the decision they don't want to hear?
111 posted on 03/27/2002 5:27:57 PM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timydnuc
We have a winner here people, and I think the RATS have just figured that part out. They just gave us the ballbat to beat their brains in, now we have to use it.

Add this factoid to the list of plusses. The RATS need to explain to their own liberal groups why they shut their speech down. Even the ACLU is angry. They would have been fine if the bill was veto bait but Bush didn't bite.

112 posted on 03/27/2002 5:40:30 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
What you wrote above is beyond wishful thinking. In point of fact, it smacks of self-delusion. Wake up from your dreaming--this thing is BAD, REALLY BAD!! Speaker Hastert was right! Bush's signature of the Democrat Incumbent Re-Election Act is Armageddon for the Republican Party and will mean a certain GOP loss of the House in 2004 and their permanent loss of the Senate to the Democraps.
113 posted on 03/27/2002 5:40:39 PM PST by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
I think my favorite delusion on the Top 3 list is:

3)It's a piece of master strategy

2)Free speech be screwed, we will (may) win in 04

1)I just know SUPreme Ct will rule this unconstitutional

The facts are that Bush wanted this bill and loves it and signed it YYYYYYYeeeeeeeeeeehawwww

114 posted on 03/27/2002 5:48:15 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
this thing is BAD, REALLY BAD!!

Stop with the hysterics and tell us what is "BAD, REALLY BAD". The hard money limits are too low ? What ?

115 posted on 03/27/2002 6:12:33 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
You're correct it's not that bad......we dont need people thinking they can campaign or have political speech in the last 2 months of a General Election

besides I'm sure the Editorial boards of the Post and Times will voluntarily stop their attacks on all things conservative.

116 posted on 03/27/2002 6:16:02 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
You're correct it's not that bad......we dont need people thinking they can campaign or have political speech in the last 2 months of a General Election

So after this part is thrown out by SC whats your beef ?

117 posted on 03/27/2002 6:32:07 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
What makes you so sure they will rule it UC...nobody knows, freedom of speech is seen in degrees by lawyered men and women, politicized for years on the bench.......frankly I think it passes.
118 posted on 03/27/2002 6:36:35 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Asked whether he signed the bill with no fanfare because he was displeased with its contents, the Associated Press reported Bush as saying, "I wouldn't have signed it if I was really unhappy. I think this bill improves the system."

What do you think of the above statement? The man is not unhappy with the CFR bill.

119 posted on 03/27/2002 6:40:40 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
What makes you so sure they will rule it UC...nobody knows, freedom of speech is seen in degrees by lawyered men and women, politicized for years on the bench.......frankly I think it passes.

IT has its best chance with the current cast of members of getting shot down now rather than after Dashcle picks the replacements. However, if they don't shoot it down then your argument he signed an UC bill falls apart.

120 posted on 03/27/2002 6:43:03 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-148 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