Posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
Rather than crash the pro-Bush orgy threads, I thought I would honor the requests of the "we must support the president at all costs" crowd and let them bask in their Republican utopia in ignorant bliss. Consider this a thread that seeks actual debate and discussion concerning the "accomplishments" of our current president. Feel free to voice your support or opposition to the president's policies. After all, dissension, even among conservatives, can be healthy.
This thread is in response to the blatant display of sheer ignorance on the part of some FReepers. There have been several threads initiated lately that have included some rather disturbing posts. Without naming names, I would like to share some of those with you:
"I guess when you want to get MEANINGFUL CFR you avoid the obvious veto bait and keep the issue out of the dem's hands, so that hopefully you can get a Senate elected and some JUDGES appointed.This person supports the president so much that he or she is willing to overlook the clear unconstitutionality of the Incumbent Protection Act. The president ignored his oath of office and deliberately signed an unconstitutional piece of legislation as part of some well-concealed strategy? Please.I guess when you are running a WAR you don't have time for this stuff that is nothing more than petty political junk. Instead, you get the bill where the SC can decide it."
"If you're 'proud he's your President' why don't you try supporting him instead of bashing him.Translation: President Bush is smarter than his critics. We should trust him without so much as a whimper of criticism regarding any unconstitutional legislation he may force down our throats. He hasn't betrayed anyone but the American people, so back off.He's smarter than you are. He knows what he's doing.
And he hasn't betrayed anyone."
"There are many of us who have chosen to STILL support the President even though we may disagree with some of the things he's done. Where is the reality in expecting the President to agree with you on absolutely everything he does? It's nowhere. Because that reality does not exist no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that it does.Perhaps the "one issue" that dismays so many people is the fact that the president we are expected to support has violated the very solemn oath he swore to keep, that being his promise to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Say what you want about Clinton. Play the "What if Gore were elected" game if you want. That was then, this is now. We have a president in office who essentially told America, "This law may be unconstitutional but I'm signing it anyway."But consider this. Think back two years ago... and now think of what the alternative could have been. Cripe, even Rosie O'Donnell admits she didn't like GWB, but even she supports him now. I am simply amazed that it takes one issue, one issue, to dismay so many people."
Has anyone read the statement on FreeRepublic's main page? It reads as follows:
Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.I always thought standing for smaller government meant just that, whether that means criticizing a Democrat or Republican administration. We need to ask ourselves one question: are we for smaller government and more freedom? If the answer is "Yes," then act accordingly. Let's not fall into the trap that says we must support the liberal policies of a president at all costs simply because he's not as liberal as a Democrat.
I don't watch it either,but she has said it on other shows,and it has even been reported.
This is a prime example of the lack of knowledge of your average FR poster over CFR.
This bill allows issue ads as long as they are paid with soft money, and the source is identified.
Any group can buy issue ads right up until election day. What appears to have changed is advocacy, the ads can't say "Vote for...", "Support ...", in other words, no ads asking you to vote for a specific politician.
First of all, have you even read any of my other posts in this forum? Read any of my articles? Talk about ignorance. I seek nothing but intelligent debate and discussion here. My opening salvo was directed at those FReepers (and they know who they are) who are interested in one thing only: to praise George W. Bush. I have tried to engage some of these people on their "positive" threads only to be told to "Get lost. This is not a Bush-bashing thread!"
FR is supposed to be a place for grass-roots conservatism, and that includes pointing out the mistakes made by the chief executive of this country. I did it with Clinton and Gore and I intend to keep doing it during this president's term(s). If that kind of thing isn't welcome here then perhaps I was mistaken as to what kind of forum this was supposed to be.
Do you honestly think that comments like the ones I referenced in my post should be allowed to slip by without so much as a whimper of dissent? Frankly, I am rather disturbed by people who call themselves "conservative" and castigate all who dare to criticize the liberal policies of a Republican administration.
So if we jump through the FEC hoops, get the blessing of government and don't really say what we want to explicity say, then we can still make believe that our right to freedom of speech has not been infringed?
Questions - In the days before an election, while you are trying to get your (diluted and controlled) message out to voters - who or what prevents the local radio or tv or newspaper from NOT running your ad because they say it violates the law? Is this covered in the law? Is there any rememdy if the ad does not get to run? Will the couts be dedicated to answering last minute challenges to ads being denied? Or do they just get lost in the shuffle? Can this decisions be appealed in time?
Do you still not see the infringement?
If that is indeed what you had in mind, then why an opening salvo at all?
It seems to me that plainly stating your point, and asking for opinions would have set a better tone for the thread, and FReepers to follow. As it was, it generated more of the very insults that have offended you, and brought the very posters whom you sought to distance yourself from.
What mader you believe that I didn't see the "infrigement"?
I was responding to a very specific situation possed by another FREeper. One that happened to be wrong.
To heck with reality, eh?
What are you, nuts? If you get hit by a car while you are crossing a street, then to you it hardly matters whether the driver was drunk or talking on a cell phone or getting Monica'd. All that would matter -- to you -- would be that you got hit by a car.
Before you accuse me of taking an acid trip, try and get a grip yourself. (And, for what it's worth, in my first post I never used the phrase NWO. Jim just used it to make a joke about the nature of my comments. But FR has a LOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG history of having fun with tin foil speculation, so I was just taking my place in the batting order. Got it?)
Mark W.
You got it wrong. The ad must be payed for with "hard" money. Hard money is money that has been paid to a candidate and recorded as such. The effect is such that if you don't support a candidate (or the candidate doesn't support your views) you can't place an ad because the ad must be funded by a candidate that has access to "hard" money.
EBUCK
Judicial Review & the Constitutionality of Acts
Some herein have mentioned the 1803 decision by the Marshall Court which established the doctrine of "judicial review" (i.e. the Supreme Court has the final say on whether legislation is "constitutional" or not).
What some may not know, however, is that John Marshall's opinions in general, and that one, in particular, was neither widely accepted in the short term nor was it in the mainstream of political thought at the time.
The principle of nullification widely espoused by John Calhoun was derived from the belief that the Constitution was a compact between the States and that, therefore, the States had the final say on what was and what was not "constitutional".
A Solution to Bush's Naturalization Plan
Okay...here's a thought. How many of you would be willing to endorse the President's plan to grant citizenship to those 3 million illegal aliens from Mexico [i]in exchange for the following concessions?[/i]
English written into law as the national language.
An end to government funded bilingualism.
A real crackdown on further illegal immigration.
What do you think?
On the question of the GOP v. 3rd Parties
A gentleman posted something which I cannot now locate within these nearly 700 responses. However, the gist was that the Republican Party was the only proper home for conservatives and that conservatives who vote their conscience by trying to elect Harry Browne, Howard Phillips, Pat Buchanan, etc. are no different than liberals who vote for Al Gore.
This is patently false.
I think it ill behooves any of us here to alienate others with whom we disagree. The question of whether or not the Republican Party is [i]the best[/i] vehicle for conservative changes is one I contemplate often. That, at present, it is the best option [i]available[/i] is a little more credible statement to make. However...
...we should not be looking for the best candidate offered us, but the best candidate - period. If he (or she) is not on the ballot, it is our responsibility to put him there.
We should not be looking for the best political party offered to us, but should be asking ourselves what the [b]ideal[/b] party looks like.
By subscribing to the "GOP is the only way to win elections" theory, we are eliminating all other options. Perhaps the GOP [i]is[/i] our best option? I'm not saying it is or it isn't, just that it would be unwise to eliminate all our other options before we've arrived at a conclusion. Apparently the gentleman I refer to has arrived at that conclusion. I, as of yet, have not.
The [b]real question[/b] here is "How can we best implement conservative ideas? And what is the best way to go about doing that?"
It's obvious that the "big tent" theory does not work. So where does that leave us?
Either we (meaning conservatives) purge the Republican Party of liberals and moderates and exact from our elected officials a higher standard than we have in the past, or we leave the GOP and band together somewhere else.
The problem with the GOP is that too often it moves to the left and, therefore, makes itself indistinguishable from the Democratic Party. Thusly, voters perceive little difference between the two parties.
Conservatives MUST present an alternative to the status quo.
My question to all of us is this: Is the Republican Party beyond reform? (Keep in mind this is NOT asking "Does the Republican Party welcome conservatives?" They do - at least...our votes, anyhow.)
We must identify what the BEST path to proceed is. And we must COMMIT to that path.
Without steadfastness and vigilence in this endeavor, we will continue to see the wishy-washyness of our elected leaders and the light of hope for significant reform will be extinguished.
So....what is the best way to go about implementing our agenda?
How much coverage have the media given to the 30/60 day rule? Just about none that I've noticed. If Bush had gone on TV and vetoed the bill, publically exposing this 'stealth' legislation, that would have pretty well killed it.
As for declarative unconstitutionality, the Supreme Court declared the "Gun Free School Zones Act" unconstitutional and yet it was passed again as statute by a 98-0 vote in the Senate that people are oddly willing to forget about.
A simple rebuttal to that charge would be an explanation of some parts of the bill about which the media has been amazingly silent. It might be good to point out here that many "issue ads" may not be supported by either candidate, because they may be intended (needed) to shame candidates into solidifying their positions on issues they'd rather avoid. If such ads had to be paid for with "hard money" they could not possibly find any sponsorship.
Congress is not provided with the authority nor duty to judge whether previous acts of Congress are constitutional. Nor does it provide any member of Congress with the authority to prevent any unstoppable majority of his peers from unconstitional actions. Nonetheless, since any member of Congress has the authority to vote against legislation that is unconstitutional, they have the duty to do so.
Likewise with a president's veto. I don't think anyone would argue that the President has the authority to veto legislation he doesn't like but has some obligation to sign legislation that's unconstitutional. As he is given the authority to veto unconstitional legislation that comes before him, he has the duty to use such authority. Although the Court, unlike the other two branches, has broad powers to strike down legislation which, despite being unconstitional, has previously gotten past the other branches, such power is intended to act only as a 'safety check', and is not intended to be the main means by which the Constitution is upheld.
Yes, but what about the right of groups to put out ads that neither candidate particularly wants to see?
While it would be great if candidates had the courage to attack their opponents for pro-choice or anti-gun positions, few candidates can do so. On the other hand, third-party issue ads may attack such issues and compel candidates to take stands they would otherwise have been too timid to take.
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.