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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-148 next last
To: Recovering_Democrat
I'm still having a hard time with it.

Constitutionality is not a small issue...if the bill is un-Constitutional why did Bush (knowingly) sign it?
By signing he shares the blame with anyone who wrote it or voted for it.
Couldn't he have achieved the same end by allowing it to become law WITHOUT his signature?

21 posted on 03/27/2002 1:02:24 PM PST by ZOOKER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
'Putting people in jail for criticising politicians is one of them.'

$100 to FreeRepublic says that will never happen. There will be injunctive relief from the courts faster than you can say "McComplain is a hypocritical jerk".....

22 posted on 03/27/2002 1:02:39 PM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
"...some might say I'm trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear"

IMHO, that's EXACTLY what you are doing, and what many of us are trying to do. Still, this is not the only issue on which Dubyuh has sold conservatism--and the conservatives--down the river!! We keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt and before we know it, come November '02 and '04, it becomes awful hard to make the case that Bush's presidency has advanced the conservative agenda one iota!! It's high time the GOP took some stands on some issues and fought the RATS tooth and nail, just so we can tell the Demoblicans from the Republocrats...these days, it's gettin' hard to tell the difference.

FReegards...MUD

23 posted on 03/27/2002 1:02:55 PM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Good analysis. I may be naive, but I have a lot more confidence in the political skills of a good man like W who has successfully won two gubernatorial elections and a presidential election than dime-a-dozen commentators whose most difficult decision in life is whether to show up on 'Crossfire' or 'Nightline'.

After 8 years of Clinton, the natural reaction is to NOT trust the President, whomever he may be. I trust George W. Bush.

24 posted on 03/27/2002 1:02:57 PM PST by TexasNative2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
There IS a master plan here, and it IS risky. But Republicans have been hedgehogs for too long. Time to be a fox.
25 posted on 03/27/2002 1:03:57 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
BECAUSE...

political calculation is how good work is accomplished and landmines are avoided. I get a little tired of the "blow yourself to bits" on principle, attitudes WE express here. That includes me.

WE are acting like taliban terrorists when we demand our leaders drink the hemlock of our principles, and end up killing every other good thing on the agenda in the process.

The "lose on principle" thing... it ain't workin' for us.

We need to wisen up. Making a political compromise is NOT the same as personal moral action on our part.

Bush did the right thing.

We need to avoid electing a clintoon in the midst of a world war... over the VERY minor issue of campaign finance reform. We can find other ways to excercise our free speech. Hell, those other ways might even be more effective than the pay for air time scenario. I for one think the killing of the NEA's EXTRACTION of payroll tax, for the support of democrats via "union dues", is actually a good thing.

26 posted on 03/27/2002 1:04:06 PM PST by eccl1212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
Yours is amongst the best analysis I've seen on this subject!
27 posted on 03/27/2002 1:04:08 PM PST by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
But doesn't what I said make sense??

Yes, it makes perfectly good sense. So what? The man took an oath to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution, and he just deliberately and knowingly broke that oath. He has signed his name as an enemy of the Constitution. There is no measure of political gain that can justify that. How is it any different from Clinton's opportunism?

28 posted on 03/27/2002 1:04:10 PM PST by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Thorne
I'm not sure what you mean by "purist" or "pitching a fit". Does someone that believes the Constitution is the law of the land qualify as a "purist"? Does trying to figure what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear consitute "pitching a fit"? What sort of watered-down version of CFR would be acceptable to a "non-purist"?
29 posted on 03/27/2002 1:04:12 PM PST by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
As critical I can be of GWB, I don't see how he could not sign it.
I think the demoRATS were just hoping and praying that he would veto this crap legistration.
The Courts will demolish CFR and do the job for Bush.
Could very well be a very smart move.......time will tell.
30 posted on 03/27/2002 1:04:21 PM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Well if it was done for political reasons IT WAS STUPID

Bush's numbers are so high he could have vetoed this bill ( that the public cares less about ) and used the Bully pulpit to expalin why

Now the democrats have a READ MY LIPS type of tape to show how what he says means NOTHING
31 posted on 03/27/2002 1:04:28 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
" 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 "

What in the world has happened here?

This place is full of "dubya" apologist spouting some "GRAND" plan.

The reality is it' s become a forum of "dubya" worshipers as bad as those old f.o.b.'s of the last decade.

Signing a anti- constitutional bill into law and then relying on LIBERAL courts to change the law is nothing more than rolling over yet again.

In fact the refusal of this administration to FIGHT for its own nominees to lower courts is as much a travesty as this damn bill....now law.

Thank god we have a "r" in the whitehouse.........glad you guys didn't waste your vote!

32 posted on 03/27/2002 1:05:18 PM PST by Kakaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eccl1212
The "lose on principle" thing... it ain't workin' for us.

Can you give one example of this?

33 posted on 03/27/2002 1:06:00 PM PST by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Recovering, do you remember last summer when the Supreme Court ruled something like 7-2 to allow Casey Martin (sp?) to ride his golf cart in PGA events just because he has a mild disability? In other words, the Supreme Court is now making up THE RULES OF GOLF!! Fyi, when Ben Hogan was in a car accident (in the 50s?), the PGA wouldn't let him ride and he didn't complain but just went on and hobbled his crippled legs all over the course like everyone else and played like a man. He did well too.

Then there's Roe-v-Wade, yadda yadda yadda. Get the picture? Neither I, you , or anyone else can trust the Supremes to do the right thing. Anyway, passing the buck by knowingly signing unconstitutional legislation is abbrogation of one's responsibilities! IT AIN'T LEADERSHIP.

34 posted on 03/27/2002 1:06:13 PM PST by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
If the SCOTUS knocking down the freedom-removing portions of the bill was automatic, I'd agree with you. The sad truth is that it is NOT automatic--and W knows it. That's why thinking and rational Americans can't accept his signing it.
35 posted on 03/27/2002 1:06:14 PM PST by HalfIrish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
I agree with your sentiments. Can you imagine the uproar in the press and by the Dems, not to mention empowering McCain to run in 2004, if he had vetoed this? A veto would not have put this crap to bed for good. SCOTUS will.
36 posted on 03/27/2002 1:06:38 PM PST by No More Gore!!!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
I posted this on a previous thread but it bears repeating here. Good analysis!

To jwalsh07

Bush ain't gonna veto. He sees signing the bill as a win win. The courts will knock off the most egregious stuff, he THINKS he negates McCain and he KNOWS the public, who don't know or care, reaction to his signing will be a net positive.

I share your disappointment!

But I would add that I can see an air of pragmatism for signing this. A) The bill, as publicly percieved, cuts both ways. That why they don't care about it. B) Although the constitution manadates the President the authority to veto unconstitutional legislation, few Presidents ever use it. Presidents often will sign "popular" legislation knowing that there are provision that are blatantly unconstitutional. The line item veto, demanded by every president since Lincoln and signed into law by Clinton is one such law. Clinton used only once or twice before the courts struck it down. I don't think you will see such legislation enacted any time soon. The reasons for this is because the public rarely attributes the executive branch the political clout to interpret the consitution. Rememeber to the Dems and Inds, Bush is an idiot with no experience in government. He may be a good war leader but since when does he know about the constitution?? 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. And McCain will have to hang his hat on something else to be noticed by the media.

So far, Bush has been very smart in dealing with the dems. He has probably concluded that frontal assault on "well meaning, all inclusive liberals" is not fitting the "New tone". So instead, he laying seige, stealing their lifeblood issues (sometimes to our dismay), closing in, and picking the sentries off as they stick their heads up (Daschle does it all to often!!). He feels that this may be the only way to defeat them as they have become so entrenched inside the beltway. But as seiges take time we may have to be patient and be ready to tacticle retreats as they throw hot oil down the wall.

37 posted on 03/27/2002 1:07:23 PM PST by Pharmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
I think the democrats' real plan was to have Bush veto the bill, and use this plus Enron to scream about corruption into the Fall elections (plus the usual stirring up of racial paranoia and animosity, etc.).

Exactly! Dash-hole and the 'rats were not joyous the day that bill passed. They instinctively figured out as time went on that they were winning a battle the PUBLIC didn't give a DAMN about...and they weren't going to have an issue in '02 or '04 against the President. :) And the President's inherent strengths in raising $$ gives him an advantage--they were realizing their side was giving Bush a very big gun. (2nd Amendment reservations notwithstanding!)

38 posted on 03/27/2002 1:07:23 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
I have been saying this, ever since last summer when Bush first said he would sign whatever CFR bill that congress presented to him. He just hoped that it would be a good one. The whole strategy was designed to shut up McCain and the other Rinos, following the Jeffords' jump. If you recall, the strategy started to work immediately. McCain had to find another horse to ride. I can't even remember what McCain started working on, but it was another liberal issue. Bush is just hoping that we win in the fall elections and get control of the Senate back again. I do think that Bush has underestimated the effects of this CFR legislation and the power it will give the liberal interest groups, however. It is time to look into removing the tax exempt status of some of those liberal groups, like the NAACP.
39 posted on 03/27/2002 1:07:54 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
You are right. The more outrageous the bill got,{i.e. the 60 day rule], the more certain the bad parts will be killed which will take away the issue and leave the rats with what they deserve--NOTHING. You gotta love how they handled the bill signing. No lights, no cameras, and no McCain...I love it
40 posted on 03/27/2002 1:08:12 PM PST by bybybill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-148 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