Recovering Democrat on CFR: How Bush May Have Done the "Right" Thing After All!

Free Republic ^ | 3/27/02 | Recovering Democrat

[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.

[Sloth]

Yeah, stategery, or whatever. You're the first one that's suggested that, I'm sure. But how does political calculation make it into the 'the right thing'?

[Ward Smythe]

I'm still pretty miffed. I said earlier today I might calm down, but I just don't know.

[Mr. Thorne]

I think you read it right. I also think the purists on either side will pitch a fit. Primarily for the reason that no matter how much of a net win in the end, it still requires an abrogation of the first amendment in the short term.

I think he's playing with fire, here, and I just hope he doesn't get burned.

[Humbug]

Well said and i hope you're right. Bush is often underestimated after all, so maybe there is a masterplan here. Either way though, i think by and large Bush is doing a great job in office and let's not forget all the good things he has done/is doing/will do.

[BreitbartSentMe]

Here's my take on it, that I posted in JR's Poll on CFR

I think that it will improve his chances. Part of the danger in his veto of CFR, even with the explanation that he thought part of it was unconstitutional, was that the democrats will accuse him of usurping the power of SCOTUS to be the final decision-maker on what's constitutional or not. For all that the administration is hanging tough on separation of powers' issues (i.e. Energy task force notes, Tom Ridge being grilled by congress, etc.) if he took on the role of being the one to stop "campaign reform" during this senate election cycle, they would use it to hammer all Republicans, that they don't want pass any CFR. In this case, I think it's better to pass it, knowing that the hard money increase will help the Repubs, send it to SCOTUS to sort out what's constitutional or not, and then deal with what's left.

Sometimes it's better to take two steps forward and one step back, than to take no steps at all. In any case, both parties are hard at work finding the inevitable loopholes as we speak. Everyone knows that. However, it is crucial that the Republicans win back the senate in this election cycle, in case he has the chance to nominate any justices to SCOTUS. This is what he had to do at this point in time. We'll see the real reform when we have the senate back.

[Paul In Cape Two]

I was thinking the same thing while listening to Rush today. No way Bush could have gotten Congress to up the individual contribution limits & increase accountability by themselves. This way the hard money doubles, he can press for full, complete and instant disclosure, while he takes a leap of faith that the Supremes do the right thing. I can't imagine Ted Olson defending the broadcast media 60 day ban too vehemently.

Depriving McNut and Daschle from another photo op was just icing on the cake. Plus the issue is off the radar for this election cycle.

Once again, Bush continues to out-fox everyone.

[Rodney King]

I think that your analysis is 100% correct. However, their are some things that are too important for gamesmanship over principle. Putting people in jail for criticising politicians is one of them.

[Recovering_Democrat]

You're the first one that's suggested that, I'm sure. But how does political calculation make it into the 'the right thing'?

I did have a caveat at the top about a veto perhaps being preferable. But doesn't what I said make sense?? The 'rats and RINOs, once the unconstitutionality of the 60-day (and perhaps soft money rule) is ruled upon, they're EUNUCHS. McLame will resign from the Senate, head up a liberal think tank and become a full-time professional whiner...wait, that's what he is now. :)

[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.). They badly miscalculated, and got the soft money limits, which will hit them hard. They will have to scramble to funnel the money through other channels. Meanwhile, Bush is looking at doubled hard money limits (the democrats essentially raise only trivial amounts of hard money), putting him in a position to forego federal funding, and the spending limits it imposes, and setting up the possibility of totally burying the democrats with ads. The democrats are looking at the possibility of candidates spending all their money in the primary fights, then having no money for months on end to buy ads while Bush's ads are running, forcing them to rely entirely on the media wing of their party for publicity.

[Alissa]

This is exactly what I think too. I said in another thread, this is like a chess game: this is a check, but not a check mate. As far as politics is concerned, it is masterful!

[pattycake]

You have a good point in that he doesn't give them anything to complain about, he took the issue off the table, they are starting to wonder if they did the right thing and Newt said he should not waste his political capital on this small issue and use his capital on other important matters. The main point is that the DEMS have nothing to complain about and they are going crazy trying to find something to hang on Bush, but they can't find anything. I am calming down about this more than I thought I would, who I am now angry at is my Congress critters who voted for the dumb thing. All Republicans too.

[pt17]

the President may have outfoxed the foxes on this...any thoughts??

Although I would have preferred he veto the damn thing right then and there, there's some logic in moving a little to the left of middle, occupying some your opponent's ground, garnering some spoils and then having someone else (SCOTUS) clean a part of the mess on a more permanent basis. Anyway, time will tell.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Nothing personal, but W's staff, i.e. the GOP leadership view their 'conservative wing' as their faithful bitches. And they treat them accordingly. Such an view would only reinforce the above.

Again, it's nothing personal. The Demos have their bitches too. Remember, 90% the 'blacks' vote Demo regardless.

No wonder, both the GOPs and the Demos are unconcerned about their 'flanks'.

True conservatives must be no one's bitches. They should think, act and vote independently or no one would pay attention to them. As for what W did... he chose not to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States and I'm not going to waste my time attempting to guess his true motivation for doing so.

[mutchdutch]

I think you are on the right track too. Let the legal system take care of the unconstitutional part. While that is going on nobody is bothering gw and he can do important things instead of having a pissing match.

All depends on how you look at things.......enjoy the war.

[Mercat]

I totally and completely agree. Good analysis. Thank you. Go Bush. Bush in 2004!!!!!

[vannrox]

I agree with you. Politically, this was a home run for Republicans with the main stream. Bush is handling it nicely.

[Ajnin]

I hope you are right. I think that this is the type of route or strategy we are going to have to use in order get back on the right path. All the PC/liberal legislaton we have didn't happen overnight and we sure as hell are not going to be able to overturn anything overnight.

[genefromjersey]

I've been doing a LOT of thinking about Campaign Reform- ( not just Campaign Finance Reform ) - and it strikes me, it's a hell of a note when a candidate has to render obesiance to Pro or Anti Abortion groups, Capital or Labor,Gun or anti-Gun, etc. etc etc. before he or she is allowed to swear to defend the Constitution and laws of the Constituency.

Just once, it would be great for a candidate to say: "I pledge to represent everyone as fairly as possible: meaning, I will not be handing out special favors or consideration to anyone ."

[Recovering_Democrat]

No way Bush could have gotten Congress to up the individual contribution limits & increase accountability by themselves.

Can you imagine Bush taking an active role in this dogfight?? :) The 'rats 'n RINOs would have made an issue out of every single thing he said. Instead, he issued some principles, and since they basically ignored him, he's going to take the hand he's dealt and use it to his advantage as best he can. :)

Of course it is a gamble that the SCOTUS will rule the correct way, but it is a good gamble. Restricting political speech is blatantly unconstitutional, and even the Sin-ators and REPS knew that. And if the Republicans take a working majority into 2003, pending a "no" vote by SCOTUS, you might even see a reversal to that stupid provision introduced. :)