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

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

[cmsgop]

YES, YES , and YES!!!!!!!!

[Boucheau]

Campaign Finance Reform is a sham and completely unconstitutional.

What is happening to Republicans?

I never would have predicted that the NRA would be suing the Bush Administration over a bill that so obviously restricts free speech.

I know most of you believe you're not rich enough for this to affect but what is next? Do you doubt that one inch down the road of restricting free speech is a terrible thing and likely to lead to further infringements in the future? This bill puts forth that if you, or your group, have money your civil rights mean a little less than those with less money.

My God, Repubs, who do suppose this will benefit? The leftists that's who. They have the media squarely behind them. Your sorry butts won't have anything to say about politicians close to election time!

Sheer lunacy on the part of the American people.

I campaigned hard for Bush but he has lost my vote.

At this point I'd almost rather have a Democrat as President. At least then people on the right are paying attention.

But you all can go ahead and return to your slumber - convince yourself that the administration is "doing the right thing", or playing a great "game of chess."

When he's not giving amnesty to ILLEGALS, growing the government, backing-down from Democrats, he's on to restricting free speech.

[rbmillerjr]

Yep, Hey if we do these things we can be assured of a win in the next election:

1)Ban all oil drilling and nuke plants (ecogeek vote)

2)Come out for race quotas (black vote)

3)Open borders (oops we already have that one, but mexican and Al Quaida vote)

4)All govt contracts must be union, all private contracts must be union (union vote)

I MEAN WINNING IS THE IDEA AND GOAL RIGHT?

[TLBSHOW]

Wrong, Bush did just what was needed. Where do you come up with such spew?

[Boucheau]

Wrong, Bush did just what was needed. Where do you come up with such spew?

Well, why don't you enlighten us on how this is "just what was needed"?

Do you simply hate the wealthy or do you hate groups that would challenge politicians around election time.

Which is it?

[LaGrone]

I agree Sloth. Bush is either for the bill as passed or against it as passed. If he signs the legislation he can never say he was really against the bill.

[BibChr]

Thank you for points worth considering. No time to say more now, but I appreciate. I'm torn between how WRONG this *is*, and how *cagey* it *might* be.

Dan

[rbmillerjr]

I'd have more respect for you Partyline guys if you would express support for Bush and admit he is wrong on this one.

I have news for the people who want to portray this as a great chessmatch.......the fact that the ceremony was as quiet as possible is because Bush knows he garners no votes for it but can lose core support. The ceremony in hiding was for the likes of FR types and other conservatives.

Fear not, the issue is not on the radar screen in relation to political votes.........ITS JUST FREE SPEECH THAT S IN DANGER...that's all, minor thing for a fine Republic.

[PhiKapMom]

I will remain and fight against being dragged to socialist hell by the next liberal democrat who gets elected. I am in this thing to WIN--to me that is doing the "right thing."

I second this! If people would just check the ACU Ratings they would find that even our moderate Republicans are more conservative than the RATS!

[CaptBlack]

All I've got to say is that as a former Democrat by birth (what black in America isn't?) turned radical conservative, I'm stunned to hear the argumentation evidenced in the comments here. Most seem to be at pains to find ANY conceivable "righteous" reason to justify Bush signing this bill. Although the post that began this thread doesn't do so, some justifications even include insults and derogatory comments towards those that disagree.
I'm baffled; I felt so free from "black think" when I found the liberating, animating principles that inform the Conservative moment. HERE were those who acted, not primarily from the playbook of political maneuvering, but from sheer principle, because some things are just so and can't be "politicized". Here were people who put character and Truth before popularity polls, who were above selling their souls to gain the whole world.
Now, many people in the conservative camp are talking about all this supposed brilliance in Bush's administration, especially as it relates to CFR. If it is brilliance, it is so refined, so rarefied that the likes of George Will and Charles Krauthammer are having difficulties following it. Even the "Everyman" Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans' Republican, has been relentlessly vocal about his confusion over Bush's actions.
But when some of us likeminded folks who hail from the unwashed masses ask the same questions, we are only greeted with silence or insults (the most famous of which is, "You don't want GORE, do you? Well? Do ya...PUNK??"). What gives? I haven't heard anything yet that explains Bush's signature on the bottom of this bill. Remember, he didn't just sign the bill, he endorsed it with words like these:

"This legislation is the culmination of more than six years of debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens and groups. ... It does represent progress in this often-contentious area of public policy debate," Bush said in his written statement. "Taken as a whole, this bill improves [emphasis mine] the current system of financing for federal campaigns and therefore I have signed it into law."
AP Story

Now if words mean anything, it seems to me that he is not signing the bill with a gun behind his head, but sees it as a positive contribution to the American regime. Someone please explain his statement here! How can we turn this statement into brilliant strategy? If it does not mean what it says, then he is lying. If it means what it says, then he did not sign the bill as some sort of distasteful but sadly necessary strategic political move, but as a freely chosen act, chosen over other possible moves, e.g. VETO.

For those who get angry when conservatives like myself ask these questions, I would only echo the apostle in Galatians, "Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?"...

[GraniteStateConservative]

I actually read a post at DU that said that they were relishing a Bush veto so they could use it as an issue. They really care about having the issue so they can frame it as they want and then use it this November. A veto wouldn't have caused the bill to be changed. The Democrats get more political use from a veto than a signature on a new bill.

[Sloth]

Here were people who put character and Truth before popularity polls, who were above selling their souls to gain the whole world...Now, many people in the conservative camp...

Sad, isn't it? And disillusioning. We seem to have just as many party-before-principle whores as the other side.

[The Green Goblin]

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.

Yes. Well, at least W wiped his butt with the Constitution before you kissed it. I'm sure it's quite clean...

[alnick]

Thank you for posting that. We need to be realistic.

[terilyn]

By letting the courts kill it forever. This bill has been rearing it's ugly head for seven long years. IMHO President Bush decided to go for the "Kill it once and for all" method. McCain was NEVER going to let this issue die. It's all he has. Note, that the Native Americans are exempt from the contribution limits for soft money. The single largest recipient of Native American political money was none other than John McCain. Pathetic. I'm starting to be glad that Bush signed it so it can finally be declared dead and buried!

[A Navy Vet]

Unlike liberals, I do not believe the end justifies the means. That said, if it turns out this was strategy play (and I believe so), then it was masterful.

[The Green Goblin]

I am in this thing to WIN--to me that is doing the "right thing."

Yes, the ends ALWAYS justify the means...

[gramho12]

I've thought all along that Bush was being pretty shrewd here. Basically, except for talk radio blasting it and the major news media praising it, the average Joe doesn't put this at the top of his priority list. Again, the Demo Rats are putting issues on the table that ignore what people think are important. It looks very much as if Demos are always putting politics before American's interest.

And I think more people are seeing it that way. We'll see how it plays, but in the long haul I think this will be another win for Bush.

[barker]

who I am now angry at is my Congress critters who voted for the dumb thing. All Republicans too.

I think many voted for it so they wouldn't be seen as against it. They were probably counting on a veto from President Bush at first or the Supreme Court to save their sorry butts from this bill. Message from the President is, you vote for something like this again I won't bail you out.

[Recovering_Democrat]

CaptBlack:
Thanks for not including my starting post as one that insults or rips into those who object to Bush's action. Please believe me when I say I am AGAINST the legislation. I, too, am against it on idealogical grounds.

Bill Clinton, in truth, was against welfare reform...but he signed it into law, perhaps for the same reasons G.W. signed CFR. The difference is that CFR isn't something the general public cares about--Bush is counting on the heinous parts of the law to be overturned; and even the legislators that voted for the law believe that, too.

The bill contained at least one good provision: an increase in hard money available to candidates. This element of the law should stay intact--while the chaff should be removed. :)

Thanks for your thoughts, and bless you for being a true thinking American.