Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush: A Democrat in Republican clothing?
Source: Washington Times ^ | 07/28/2002 | By Nicholas M. Horrock

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]

WASHINGTON, July 28 (UPI) -- When President Franklin Roosevelt, a member of one of the most wealthy and prominent families in America, was constructing the New Deal, which brought forth the Securities and Exchange Commission, strong banking regulation and labor protections, he was excoriated as a traitor to his class. Even one his own family members wrote him to complain.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-195 next last
To: zeugma
See post 133.
141 posted on 07/28/2002 11:54:09 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
The CFR as passed out of the Senate was "veto bait" from the first. The Senate leader was sure that Bush would veto it and give them an issue to beat up on in 2002 and beyond.

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.

142 posted on 07/28/2002 11:57:07 PM PDT by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Jude Wanniski is mentioned by name in Martin Anderson's memoir of the Reagan Administration, Revolution. Martin Anderson is an economist, and was an important architect of Reagan's economic program.

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.

143 posted on 07/28/2002 11:59:14 PM PDT by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
That may be, but it also restricts the free speech of non-politicians. That’s why the NRA and other conservative groups are suing.

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.

144 posted on 07/29/2002 12:04:46 AM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
Let's all face it. CFR was a terrible idea, but I don't think Bush showed himself a "democrat in republican clothing" by not signing the bill. I just think that he made the decision that this (CFR) was not going to be the mountain that he was going to die on. Bush needs to pick his battles carefully. Vetoing CFR may have turned campaign finance reform into an issue that truly resonates with the voters. I'd have vetoed it, but that Bush didn't is not proof of his so called liberalism.
145 posted on 07/29/2002 12:05:50 AM PDT by GmbyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
Try again...as you've missed the boat with this one. As soon as that Bill was signed, just who began to have hissy fits ( besides some on FR, who didn't understand what was actually in the Bill ), like petulant pubescents ? The Dems; that's who ! Hitlery and pals, are still cavailing and attempting to find loopholes / ways around it. Is the CFR flawed ? ALL BILLS ARE; ALL BILLS HAVE BEEN, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS REPUBLIC. Will it eventually work to the GOP's favor ? You bet it shall. :-)
146 posted on 07/29/2002 12:06:20 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
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.

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.

147 posted on 07/29/2002 12:23:34 AM PDT by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: GmbyMan
Let's all face it. CFR was a terrible idea, but I don't think Bush showed himself a "democrat in republican clothing" by not signing the bill.

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.

148 posted on 07/29/2002 12:32:24 AM PDT by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
Ronald Reagan was not only " pragmatic ", he wrote an interesting speech about it; which you can easily find in the FR archieves. Was President Reagan a Conservative or not ?

Barry Goldwater, OTOH, was never pragmatic, could NOT get elected, and turned lefty in his later years. Go figure. :-)

149 posted on 07/29/2002 12:39:37 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
It doesn't matter if there are little "advantages" here and there in the bill that benefit one party or another. It was a bad bill for the people, for the little guy, and for lobbying groups like the NRA. We had enough laws already that restrict the grassroots' activism in politics.

Aside from that, I see no excuse for Bush signing a bill that he said was unconstitutional.

150 posted on 07/29/2002 12:40:31 AM PDT by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
But they still can't single out candidates in the ads.

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.

151 posted on 07/29/2002 12:43:03 AM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
You don't see the value, because you are a political naif.
152 posted on 07/29/2002 12:43:40 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Yes, you are correct; as usual.
153 posted on 07/29/2002 12:44:57 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Ronald Reagan was not only " pragmatic ", he wrote an interesting speech about it; which you can easily find in the FR archieves. Was President Reagan a Conservative or not ?

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.

154 posted on 07/29/2002 12:51:57 AM PDT by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
President Bush is far closer to Reagan, than Reagan was to Barry.

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.

155 posted on 07/29/2002 12:57:42 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
This is not an attempt to slam but do you live your real life based on pure principle? Principle is a very subjective term. Others that do not share it may view what you may call “principle” as just plain bull-headedness. Do you always tell the truth? Do you never compromise to achieve a larger goal? Would you place your personal "principles" over the welfare of your family or those that you command or supervise? The term "principle" is used so loosely that it has lost all meaning and impact. 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.
156 posted on 07/29/2002 1:00:42 AM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
The use of the word " principles " , on FR, is as common, and as misused, as the word " racist ", from the lips of Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan.

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.

157 posted on 07/29/2002 1:07:32 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
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".

158 posted on 07/29/2002 1:11:27 AM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Or worse ... much worse, by certain well known parties, who shall remain nameless. LOL
159 posted on 07/29/2002 1:14:16 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
This is not an attempt to slam but do you live your real life based on pure principle? Principle is a very subjective term. Others that do not share it may view what you may call “principle” as just plain bull-headedness.

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.

160 posted on 07/29/2002 1:18:01 AM PDT by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-195 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson