Libertarian Party: Campaign Finance Reform Ruling is Assault on Free Speech

Libertarian Party press release ^ | December 11, 2003 | George Getz

[Southack]

Well, I never saw this one coming. This was too over the top, I thought. They'd have to overrule it, so it makes sense to sign it.

Ouch. Live and learn. Lets not try that stunt again.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

They'd have to overrule it, so it makes sense to sign it.

So it's okay to sign an un-Constitutional piece of legislation into law if you're sure the SCOTUS will strike it down? That's a little unnerving to me.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Like Bush, I would have lost good money betting that the SCOTUS would have easily overturned the most egregious parts of CFR"

So, Bush merely 'lost a bet' on this one!!

Bush KNEW that the SC was going to rule this way.

[Jim Robinson]

Wish I had the answers to grooming up and coming presidents, but I don't. All I can say is we've got to bring new blood into the system and I'm afraid that has to start locally and build up. Odds are you won't be successful trying to bring in new blood straight to the presidency. I'm sure there are people out there building the short lists of governors, senators, etc, that have the best potential, but I don't have access to them. Those with ideas need to start bringing them forth. We desperately need a conservative winner.

As to the AWB, well, we'll just have to wait and see. I know the gun-grabbing Democrats want to extend it, but I believe the majority of the Republicans don't.

Vote out the RATS!

[At _War_With_Liberals]

And the Bush admin is using the War on Terror, in part, to get away with their shenanigans.

If there was no war, the neo con agenda would be DOA.

[The_Eaglet]

So it's okay to sign an un-Constitutional piece of legislation into law if you're sure the SCOTUS will strike it down? That's a little unnerving to me.

It's also a waste of our tax dollars on the time spent on what is at best a bureaucratic exercise, and the net effect (at best) would be a draining of the pocketbooks of patriotic citizens in litigation expenses.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

The RNC has not indicated any interest in a move to the right. So it will not happen. Gillespie has to go.

[Jim Robinson]

Whatever. The Democrats voted the thing in. The vast majority of the Republicans voted no. The president should not have signed it but he did. Now we need to figure out how to get rid of it, but I'll be damned if it's going to make me want to toss Bush or allow the Democrats to retake control. Had my fill of Democrats for this lifetime.

[The_Eaglet]

Haven't you had your fill of treacherous Republicans?

[Jim Robinson]

Sheesh. Those where Southack's words not Bush's.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

I just keep thinking back to the lessons learned in '92 and '94, and I believe that those lessons are totally lost on the current GOP leadership.

I think that Bush is going to win in '04, but I think the ultimate price for that win won't be realized until '08 when Hillary becomes the first woman elected to the Presidency. And if the GOP continues its embrace of the Democrat agenda, it's gonna happen.

The Dem's can't field someone in '04 that can beat Bush, and they know it. But it's much easier to win the White House when there is no incumbent running for re-election. I think they're more than happy to slowly drag GWB to their end of the spectrum and then pounce in '08 after four more years of conservatives being hung out to dry by a clueless GOP.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Had my fill of Democrats for this lifetime.

What have they done to you that the GOP hasn't also done?

That's a serious question.

[SUSSA]

As to the AWB, well, we'll just have to wait and see. I know the gun-grabbing Democrats want to extend it, but I believe the majority of the Republicans don't.

The majority of Republicans didn’t want to pass CFR or Mediscam either. Bush twisted arms, bribed, and bullied to get them passed. What makes you think he won’t do the same with the ugly gun ban?

[At _War_With_Liberals]

There are two parties in 2003. The socialist international Democrats and the liberal Republicans.

Like it or not, that is the reality.

The socialist Dems in the US have allied themselves with the international socialists. I think that the combination is dangerous, especially for our sovereignty.

The Republicans are running left. There is no answer that will help us, at least in the short run.

All possible ends are disastrous. I realize the lib Republicans are the only ones standing between us and international socialism, but I believe it is inevitable anyway on our current path with Republican leadership.

The more elections that go by, the less the odds we can recover.

There is no answer.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Those where Southack's words not Bush's."

You are right. I am a little heated up about the insanity this week. All of the illegal alien amnesty and SS talk put me over the edge.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

How do we know he won't raise taxes and declare amnesty after his reelection?

And what about the debt? There is not going to be another tech boom to pay it off.

[The_Eaglet]

There are two parties in 2003. The socialist international Democrats and the liberal Republicans.

There is time to change that for 2004, which is another reason why I support the Constitution Party. I probably will vote to re-elect Marsha Blackburn to the House if she follows through on her stands for the right to life and tax relief, but Mike Peroutka has positions worth supporting and promoting, and I would like to see him or someone like him be elected President.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Excellent post Jim. It rebuffs what I've said all from the outset of the USSC decision. This bill was passed at a time when Tom Daschle was in control of the Senate. Tom Daschle screams their message didn't get out to the people, he's out of a job, Bush compromises with a majority Democratic Senate, and the bill gets the nod from the liberals on the USSC with the deeply rooted Conservative, Scalia, issuing a scathing dissent opinion. One last point about the Senate, the heavily weighted Democratic CFR legislation was one of the few pieces of legislation in the Senate that didn't endure that Democratic logjam. Finally, I don't recall the Senate's Constitutional scholar Robert Byrd condemning the bill's squashing of the 1st Amendment. He has a tendency of pulling out his pocketbook sized Constitution from his inside pocket, but he didn't in this instance.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

I'll check it out.

[Jim Robinson]

LOL. Yeah, I've had my fill of all politicians. Unfortunately, they're the only kind of people who run for office and get elected. Also, unfortunately, 99% of the elected ones are going to be either Democrat or Republican. And again, unfortunately, the party that has a higher count of its members seated in each chamber, House and or Senate, gets the best shot at enacting its legislative agenda. The minority party is basically relegated to the cloakroom. And, furthermore, in the very rare case that a third party or independent candidate does happen to get elected, he's going to caucus with either the Democrat side or the Republican side so it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Thus the vast majority of the Americans who vote are naturally going to side with either the Democrat Party or the Republican Party and even the majority of those who don't side with one or the other are probably going to pick one or the other on election day anyway.

And in case you've never read any of my posts I'll sum it up for you. I just don't happen to care much for the party that includes abortion, homosexualism, atheism, environmentalism, socialism, subjugation to the United Nations, disarmament of the American people, etc, etc, in its party platform. And that would be the Democrat Party.

No thank you sir. I will stand with the Republicans. At least the majority of them are opposed to most of the same evils I'm opposed to.