Posted on 03/28/2002 2:52:13 AM PST by The Wizard
It was so clean it was un-noticed by his enemies, and decried by his supporters, but GWB has just demonstrated a political ability that no-one on the left, and very few on the right ever saw.....
I always refer to the old Zorro scene with Basil Rathbone as the villian slicing a candle to show Tyrone Power how deft he is with a sword, because when "Zorro" does it the candle doesn't move....(The point is then shown that Tyrone's cut was SOOOOO smooth he sliced the candle so well he cut it without moving it....a truly great scene)
The First Lady did the same thing to Algore with her "...My husband sleeps with a teacher EVERY night..." comment that was so smooth a cut most of the media hasn't picked up the wound even today....
Well good Freeper Friends, that's what Old George did to the left with Johnny McCain's unconstitutional CFR Bill....
He fooled them into passing a billl that allowed more hard money, (something they would never ever allowed because it has NEVER, EVER been raised by anyone like our Commander and Chief) allowing them to include provisions that they thought would give them the edge, while knowing that others would attack and have thrown out all the offending provisions before they ever took effect, but the severably would allow the things not challanged to stand: Outcome
hard money limits have been raised and will stay raised, and the bad parts will be strck down, and we can now see that McCain was always working with GWB and the poor dems never knew it.....
What a political play.......cut to the bone and not even seeing it til after surgery is complete......
I hate to hurt your feelings Cake, but Dubya signed the CFR Bill in private, hardly Public. He didn't even have the sprouts to do it in Public.
You know, I've read through this thread, and I thought I had traveled back in time, and had somehow gotten on a Clintonista board. What a pathetic friggin display of lick-spittle, knee-pad wearing, spin miesters wringing their sweaty little fingers, drooling over the "genius" of their "man".
CAKE, DUBYA SWORE TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, *NOT* AN OATH TO BE A POLITICAL GAMESMAN, OR DELEGATE HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE SCOTUS. SIGNING THIS BILL, HE BROKE HIS OATH, AND TOOK A FULL BLOWN STEAMING DUMP ON THAT CONSTITUTION!!
What's really amusing, if any part of this can be called amusing, it's people around here, who if Clintoon had tried this, would have been screaming the loudest. There wouldn't have been any of this "assumption of greater intent" allowed, would there? Instead, after things like the EOs to protect George the First's papers, the un-Patriot Act, and Amnesty for ILLEGAL aliens, the folks here have declared him a Great American..
Excuse me, but considering all that, somehow I think the term is being somewhat cheapened.
I agree with you. I merely point out that those arguing that CFR is unconstitutional (which I also agree with), would not be able to point out specific language in the consitution equating campaign donations with free speech. That argument comes from the 1976 Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo. There, what was an activist court stated that "virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money." Therefore, the court concluded, the provisions of the 1974 law that tried to limit political expenditures were unconstitutional "since those provisions place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the 1st Amendment cannot tolerate." The court also declared that issue advocacy itself is free speech, so individuals and organizations, including political parties, are free to give and spend as much as they want advancing any issue whatsoever so long as they do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.
In 1988’s Meyer v. Grant, the Supreme Court, in striking down a Colorado law, declared, "The 1st Amendment protects the appellee’s right not only to advocate their cause but also to select what they believe to be the most effective means for doing so." This should include television, especially in the closing days before an election, as the "most effective means" to educating voters.
In the 1996 case of Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, the liberal Justice Stephen Breyer stated: "We do not see how a Constitution that grants to individuals, candidates, and ordinary political committees the right to make unlimited independent expenditures could deny the same right to political parties."
My point being that I would like to see an end, once and for all, to the annual McCain CFR debate. Most of the argument of its unconstitutionality comes from the Supreme Court. Yet, so many here have no faith in the Supreme Court while mouthing its previous rulings. You and I, and even President Bush, may state that this law is unconstitutional and argue that to others until we are blue in the face, but since 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrer of the constitutionality of an act of Congress. I have faith in the court based on the precedents that the CFR will be given its ultimate death blow.
Is the oath just another diversion to keep your enemies off guard and if so, how will your supporters know when you are telling the truth?
Do you see a broad popular demand for principled, constitutional government?
No, and I do not believe I will see that demand in the next 50 years. Pretty pessimistic, huh?
At the very least, when the bill contains provisions that are clearly unconstitutional and signing it would violate the President's oath of office.
I can certainly agree and identify with that
When he knows it won't be a big fight, and that the senate won't overturn his veto with a vote. This way he gets what he wants out of the bill and what is garbage will be dumped. Then the liberals can't yell and scream and make something out of nothing.
I dunno Jewels...this one leaves me cold.
You have got to be kidding.
I'm a grown man. No need feeling sorry for me at all.
If the people don't want constitutional government, why should we expect their elected representatives to make principled stands on behalf of constitutional principles?
I'm tempted to answer, "because they should be smarter/more honorable than that", but I know that certainly is not the case. I have no answer for you.
You can make the political expedience argument. It does have merit. But it does go deeper than this.
The goal here is to defeat this nonsense once and for all. If the Prez vetoes the bill, it comes back again. And again. And again. And again. The only way to kill it is to cut its head off. A simple veto doesn't do this.
The public isn't clamoring for CFR. It has never rated highly among the public. However, the gambit of the alleged CFR "supporters" was to have Bush veto the bill, then hammer him over the head because of his veto. JH2 was dead on when he said that the RATS didn't think Bush would call their bluff. He did. And to their detriment as well. McCain wanted his pet issue used against Bush. The blatant conspiracy here was the severability clause in the legislastion. Even still, the goal of the conspiracy was to give Bush legislation that he said he would veto, then use it against him. It's far more to it than just a simple, "I'll sign it so everyone will like me." That's immature, myopic, and even silly to think in such a way.
At any rate, when the Supreme Court strikes out the unconstitutional things in this bill, it plays to the GOP's advantage. So, in the end, the First Amendment will remain intact. The Leftist political gambit will have backfired, and the GOP's hard money raising will be bolstered. Soft money, the RATS main fund raising angle, will be severely harmed.
Who wins? Republicans and their constituencies. It's funny when a political angle backfires in the RATS' faces, and McInsane as well. He's nothing more than a RAT in GOP clothing.
As I've read the charge against me that I'm a "party-liner," I have to laugh. I'm not even a Republican. Isn't that ironic?
By your spinning ability, though, I think I have it figured out. You're James Carville.
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.