Posted on 07/28/2002 6:24:02 PM PDT by Lazamataz
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:55:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You're right. And this was the primary motivation, it seems obvious, in Bush's signing it. It was purely a pragmatic move on Bush’s part--because if he hadn't signed it, the dems would cry foul on an issue that was the media's baby.
Unfortunately, pragmatism for a short-term benefit is no match for principle. Yes, it stole the issue from the dems (our Republican leaders and strategists seem to delight in doing that lately), but in the long run, it does nothing to help our nation--and in fact does nothing but further the liberal agenda.
And it's exactly the kind of pragmatism that makes liberals the winners, even when they might lose an election. They get what they want in the end. I don't know about you, but I hate when that happens.
Why do I believe this? Because this bill is heavily weighted towards the Republican Party. It not only maintains the GOP's advantage in hard money contributions it doubles it. The Democrat's advantage in soft money was greatly reduced.
That may be, but it also restricts the free speech of non-politicians. That’s why the NRA and other conservative groups are suing.
Anderson complained that the Reagan economic program was misrepresented to the public by several journalists who promoted themselves as experts on the subject- Wanniski and George Gilder, in particular. Anderson wrote that Wanniski is not a trained economist, but instead a reporter- and that Wanniski wasn't even doing the job of accurately reporting Reagan's economic program.
I doubt that there is any reason to put much stock in Wanniski's pronouncements. He's still the self-promoting reporter he was in the '80s, passing himself off as an economist.
That is exactly right and that is the part of the bill that will be found unconstitutional. Look Bush could a vetoed it on "principle" but that would only postpone the inevitable. Why not sign a favorable bill and let the USSC kill the issue ad ban permantly. Bush's veto only survives his term in office a USSC ruling is much harder to overcome. BTW there is quite a bit of analysis that sees groups like the NRA benefiting from this. The NRA can do all the ads it wants right up to poll closing if they are funded by HARD money. Guess which side has the most hard money.
I guess I'm not that pessimistic. If we have no choice but to accept the "inevitable," and embrace the garbage the liberals throw at us, without even putting up a fight, it looks like we're doomed.
I tend to believe that our nation doesn't have to continue down the liberal road. It's our choice. Are we going to accept what the other side deems as "inevitable," or are we going to take a stand and do what is right?
BTW there is quite a bit of analysis that sees groups like the NRA benefiting from this. The NRA can do all the ads it wants right up to poll closing if they are funded by HARD money. Guess which side has the most hard money.
But they still can't single out candidates in the ads. That's the point. They can run the ads, but they can't state specifically who stands for what.
That stinks, for lack of a better word.
I don't think anyone is insinuating that Bush's signing of the CFR bill makes him a Democrat.
I'd have vetoed it, but that Bush didn't is not proof of his so called liberalism.
But it certainly wasn't a "conservative" thing to do, particularly when he admitted when he signed it that it was unconstitutional.
I like Bush as a person, but I'm increasingly disappointed with this sort of pragmatism. It really gets us no closer to bringing this nation back to its founding principles.
Barry Goldwater, OTOH, was never pragmatic, could NOT get elected, and turned lefty in his later years. Go figure. :-)
Aside from that, I see no excuse for Bush signing a bill that he said was unconstitutional.
I am sure you are wrong on that count. I am not up to researching the bill itself but I will later. Issue ads, including candidate names are fair game if funded by hard money.
Nixon is the best example of pragmatism--that is, doing things for political gain rather than for the good of society.
I think you're confusing Reagan's "pragmatism" for settling for less than he might have wanted. This doesn't mean he compromised principle, as his closest staff have maintained, even as late as now. Michael Deaver has said that Reagan's staff was pragmatic, but not Reagan.
Barry Goldwater, OTOH, was never pragmatic, could NOT get elected, and turned lefty in his later years. Go figure
You are correct, Barry did not win the presidency. But he was elected numerous times as an Arizona senator, and he set the stage for Reagan's elections. Many credit him for sowing the seeds for the conservatism of today.
The influence of both men of principle far outways the contributions of the pragmatic Nixon.
Barry " flipped " ( due to old age , his new wife , who later had his ear ? One two, or all combined ) and so, his " principles flew out of the window. Yes, I know that Goldwater has been enshrined as the one who made a Reagan presidency / the Conservative movement possible. I now have some doubts about this.
You can call what Reagan did , vis-a-vis the amnesty for ILLEGALS, and a number of other things, whatever you want ; it was still pragmatism ! Sematical arguements are more than a triffle silly.
What is one man / woman's " principles ". is often another's sin / vice / corruption, or worse. The Taliban had their set of vaunted " principles ". They certainly aren't the same as an Orthodox Jew's ! Dem's " claim " to have " principles "; they certainly are NOT the same, by and large, as those of Conservatives.
Not even the Founding Fathers stuck by the so called " principles ", that so many here claim they had.
If the Founders posted on FR they would immediately be labeled "Elite statists".
There is but one principle to live by, and it's not as subjective as you think. It is to conform your life to God's will. Being "principled" means not accepting an argument that conflicts with what you know to be right. It's not sinlessness; it's recognizing that truth is not relative, and making it your business to stand up for it.
And yes, of course we all fall short of this in our lifetimes, but to be a principled person you still strive to do the best you can.
Just because Bush did not veto CFR and on reflection decided to involve the 3rd leg of the constitutional government to exercise its constitutional duty does not make him "unprincipled" it just meant that he decided on a different course of action than you may have.
It is unprincipled to take an oath of office to uphold the constitution, and then to sign a bill that you say violates the constitution. If the constitution doesn't matter, let's just say so.
Incidentally, what you're arguing is bordering close to Neitzche's existentialism--that is, that there is no right and wrong, only circumstances to which we adapt in whatever way that pleases us. I hope you don’t really believe that, 'cause if you do, I take you up on it on another thread.
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.