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

Skip to comments.

11 Republican Senators, 41 Republican House Members and One Republican President Signed BCRA-2002
Congress | 12/10/03 | John Walsh

Posted on 12/10/2003 8:57:44 PM PST by jwalsh07

11 Republican Senators who voted for the BCFA of 2002:

McCain, Fitzgerald, Lugar, Collins, Snowe, Cochran, Domenicic, Spector, Chafee, Thompson Warner

41 Republican House Members voted for the BCFA of 2002:

Bohlert, Bono, Capito, Castle, Ferguson, Foley, Frelinghausen, Ganske, Gilchrest, Gilman, Graham, Greenwood, Grucci, Houghton, Horn, Johnson(CT), Johnson(IL), Kirk, LaTourette, Leach, LoBiondo, McHugh, Morella, Osborne, Ose, Petri, Platts, Quinn, Ramstad, Ros-Lehtinen, Sanders, Shays, Simmons, Smith(Mi), Thune, Upton, Walsh(not my clan), Wamp, Weldon(Pa), Wolf

One President Signed BCRA of 2002:

President Bush


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: bcfa; bcra; bushscotuscfr; cfr; firstamendment; mccainfeingold; rinos; rollcall
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 next last
Since I live in Ct, I would like to make special mention of the Ct delegation who managed to whiz on the First Amendment as a group.
1 posted on 12/10/2003 8:57:45 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Please explain Bcra 2002 in a few words...(grin)
2 posted on 12/10/2003 9:04:05 PM PST by MeekMom ((HUGE Ann Coulter Fan!!!) (Life-long Python Addict))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Chris Shays was the chief sponsor of the Campaign Finance Reform bill in the House. The issue was dead in the House until news of Enron hit the airwaves. The Campaign Finance Reform supporters dishonestly promoted the bill as an Anti-Enron bill.
3 posted on 12/10/2003 9:05:37 PM PST by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
grumble, grumble...

these people ought to have their tes%$#@!#@$#les removed and put into a lock box!


Apologies to Rush Limbaugh
4 posted on 12/10/2003 9:05:55 PM PST by GeronL (Is your Tagline weak, limp and ineffective? Has it hurt your relationship? Try TiAGra today!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeekMom
Yes Maam.

Now get this:

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

Not very bipartisan though Meek, only 11 pubbie senators and 41 pubbie House members voted for it, neither with enough votes to override a veto which brings us to the truly sad part.

Only one Pubbie Presidential signature was required and in making the single biggest mistake of his presidency, President Bush signed it.

5 posted on 12/10/2003 9:07:38 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
Chris Shays was the chief sponsor of the Campaign Finance Reform bill in the House

Yup, his part in this is akin to John McCains, particularly onerous.

6 posted on 12/10/2003 9:13:11 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I find it ironic that the RATS were so eager to push Campaign Finance Reform. The bill effectively prevents liberal special interest groups like labor unions, NAACP, NARAL, and GreenPeace from broadcasting ads that slam Republicans.
7 posted on 12/10/2003 9:32:40 PM PST by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Oh my!
...now what happens?
8 posted on 12/10/2003 9:33:26 PM PST by MeekMom ((HUGE Coulter fan!!!) (Life-long Python Addict))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
I find it ironic that the RATS were so eager to push Campaign Finance Reform

I don't, they have surrogates to carry their water, the mainstream media for one. And no matter what we say about the internet, the vast majority of people still get their info from the three mousketeers on the evening news and the major newspapers which have far and away liberal editiorial sections.

9 posted on 12/10/2003 9:37:23 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
I find it ironic that the RATS were so eager to push Campaign Finance Reform. The bill effectively prevents liberal special interest groups like labor unions, NAACP, NARAL, and GreenPeace from broadcasting ads that slam Republicans.

They have no intention of obeying this law. Once this gets in their way, they will simply shop around for a judge to let them bypass it, or they'll just ignore it altogether. At the same time, they'll hold Republicans to it.

10 posted on 12/10/2003 10:56:08 PM PST by lowbridge (As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. -Mr. Carlson, WKRP in Cincinnati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
...these people ought to have their tes%$#@!#@$#les removed...

But they're Republicans. They've already been gelded.

11 posted on 12/10/2003 10:59:39 PM PST by Redcloak ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Well I am working on the Alren Specter angle in Pa, by voting for Toomey. I hope we get rid the RINO soon. We need more Conservative Representatives. Lets start pushing for that and see what George Bush does.

I wonder if he would have signed it if the Supreme court had found it unconstitutional? I think we need to make our voices herad about this, but I am not so sure that President Bush had much of a choice on this one.

12 posted on 12/11/2003 6:05:41 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: No More Gore Anymore
----I think we need to make our voices herad about this, but I am not so sure that President Bush had much of a choice on this one.----

Bull. The partial-birth abortion ban was at least one bill that was more politically risky than this.... but Bush signed it.

Campaign-finance reform wasn't an issue with anybody outside of the New York Times newsroom. Bush would have lost nothing, politically, by vetoing the damned thing immediately. But Karl Rove convinced him otherwise -- don't worry, Karl assured him, the Supremes will surely save America's ass on this -- and the insane strategy has just blown up in his face, and ours.

Of all the names listed above, I consider Bush the most responsible for foisting this atrocity upon us. I expect congressmen and senators to be idiots, but I didn't expect George W. Bush to play political football with the First Amendment, especially over such a non-issue. The buck has got to stop with him on this, and unless some miracle takes place, CFR will be Bush's most damaging domestic legacy.

-Dan
14 posted on 12/11/2003 8:13:35 AM PST by Flux Capacitor ('Cause WE.... GOT.... THE BOMBS. Ooooooo-KAY?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MeekMom
----Oh my! ...now what happens?----

Now, we pray. That's about the only option left to us, on this issue.

All three branches of government (and the unofficial fourth) are now unanimous on this. CFR is here to stay.

-Dan
15 posted on 12/11/2003 8:20:10 AM PST by Flux Capacitor ('Cause WE.... GOT.... THE BOMBS. Ooooooo-KAY?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Flux Capacitor
I know you make good points. I agree it is a mess,I just don't know how much of it could have been avoided.

I still think it is the politics of the Senate and Congress that are to blame for most of the mess we are in...

16 posted on 12/11/2003 8:20:34 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge; et al
I believe the Dems are willing to cripple the ACLU, Sierra CLub, etc. in order to deprive the Republicans of the support of THEIR political action groups, AND sacrfice the political campaigning before the election, secure in the knowledge that the mainstream leftist newspapers and television stations - CBS, MSNBC, ABC, Turner stations, etc, will continue to provide newscoverage deliberately slanted towards the Dems - as we saw so recently with the Los Angeles Times and the Groping Article on the Thursday before the California recall election. I believe they are accurate in this assessment. This bill will kill the Republicans.

One more example of the moral bankruptcy of the Supreme Court, and the stupidity of Bush II, and some of his Republican collegeaues in Congress.
17 posted on 12/11/2003 8:30:07 AM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Flux Capacitor
I agree with you.

Carl Rove is an evil, duplicitous conniver, devoid of any philosophical principles. Rove is also behind an impending move to unseat Republican Representative Tom Tancredo in a Colorado primary because Tancredo has been an outspoken opponent of the failure of the National Government to control our borders against illegal aliens. That rat Rove actually Tancredo he was no longer "welcome" in the White House. Tancredo has called for tightening border security, putting all new immigration on hold until we can straighten out INS, and other measures Rove feels are politically incorrect.
18 posted on 12/11/2003 8:51:08 AM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
"They have no intention of obeying this law."

Yep...Ashcroft's blatant whitewashing of the ClintonCrimeSpree has demonstrated to the RATS that they are unaccountable to the laws that shackle the rest of us!!

Shame on US...MUD

19 posted on 12/11/2003 9:00:26 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
Yeah, but the Dems knew when they signed it that they'd cheat.
20 posted on 12/11/2003 9:03:07 AM PST by Guillermo (George W. Bush is a Big Government liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Flux Capacitor
I expect congressmen and senators to be idiots

Of course.... but that IS the Legislative Branch according to the Constitution.

Given the opposition that Bush has been trying to navigate regarding appointing judges, fighting terrorism, repairing the economy, etc, and given the fact that our so-called "majority" in the House and Senate are not solid ones, Bush cannot stomp all over Congress at will. As you pointed out, he has already gone out on risky limbs (ex. partial-birth abortion ban)... unfortunately for us, he is not a King that can constantly cater to only the small conservative percentage of the total electorate.

The way to prevent legislation such as this is to elect a right-leaning super-majority in Congress and educate the public about why a law such as this is harmful.

21 posted on 12/11/2003 9:54:31 AM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
I find it ironic that the RATS were so eager to push Campaign Finance Reform. The bill effectively prevents liberal special interest groups like labor unions, NAACP, NARAL, and GreenPeace from broadcasting ads that slam Republicans.

Yes, but does it prevent them from spending untold amounts of free labor and busing services to "get out" the vote.

22 posted on 12/11/2003 9:57:55 AM PST by wattsmag2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
How in the world would exercising his constitutional veto power make Bush a "king"? Vetoing CFR would not have been catering to anything or anyone other than the black-and-white dictate of the First Amendment that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Indeed, it was signing the bill that was in fact a nod to a small percentage of the electorate -- that tiny, tiny liberal percentage for which CFR was actually an issue.

-Dan
23 posted on 12/11/2003 10:13:45 AM PST by Flux Capacitor ('Cause WE.... GOT.... THE BOMBS. Ooooooo-KAY?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Finally got through to the White House (202-456-1111) and gave them an earful.

The big spending Education bill, the SCOTUS ruling on sodomy, Ridge's 'endorsement' of amnesty for millions of illegals and now the SCOTUS ruling on CFR, a ruling that should never have happended in the first place!

Told them I am really upset at W for signing the damn bill in the first place! And, I will not forget the Senators that voted for this bill.

Also told them forget asking me for contributions any time soon. I am deeply concerned with what is happening. On the one hand W is doing a good job fighting the terrorists while on the other hand ignoring the enemies within. That is a recipe for losing the overall WOT.

Lastly, I told them to not automatically count on my vote next November simply because I am a conservative. I would need a conservative to vote for first!

24 posted on 12/11/2003 10:21:56 AM PST by technomage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Rove is a RAT in sheep's clothing.
25 posted on 12/11/2003 10:31:23 AM PST by B Knotts (Go 'Nucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Grucci
I don't feel like voting R this time, all of a sudden!

26 posted on 12/11/2003 10:48:57 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Belief in your own objectivity is the essence of subjectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flux Capacitor
Indeed, it was signing the bill that was in fact a nod to a small percentage of the electorate

So Bush ignored a huge public outcry against this measure? I don't recall any such outrage by the "masses". Did you spend as much time writing letters to editors and informing liberals about this legislation as you did spending time complaining about it to fellow conservatives?

Every piece of legislation that passes against our wishes is OUR fault for not educating our fellow voters and our fault for allowing Democrats to still hold so many seats in Congress.

If you truly want legislation held to conservative interpretation by the Supreme Court (which just ruled this legislation as permissable), then we would do well to support Bush as fully as possible so that he'll be appointing the next Supreme Court Justices and NOT Howard Dean.

My comment about Bush not being a "King" is aimed at fellow right-wingers who seem eager to sneer and rain poison down on Bush every time he doesn't follow the pure conservative line. The venom directed toward Bush at FR is overwhelming lately and he is our best opportunity at continuing the right-ward movement of the American voters.

27 posted on 12/11/2003 11:46:07 AM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: technomage
The recipe for losing is abandoning long-term goals because of current losses. How much worse will our problems be if we withhold funding and votes from the GOP and allow "President Dean" to appoint the next couple of Supreme Court Justices?
28 posted on 12/11/2003 11:56:21 AM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: technomage
Agreed, and well said.
29 posted on 12/11/2003 12:12:32 PM PST by SoDak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
You are correct in theory. But that assumes the Republicans in power are willing to stand up and fight for conservative ideals and people. They are not. They are cowards. They give us a couple tax cuts, and then W signs the CFR act which basically wipes out our freedom of speech.

Now, I have not yet completely determined what I will or will not do for the upcoming election. I doubt I will be putting as much effort into this election cycle as others in the past.

But, I am confused about your post:

Exactly what are the long term goals of the Republican party? Can you tell me? I certainly do not know and I am considered a political junkie. So far we have had a couple tax cuts, which is a good thing, and the WOT, which is a good thing.

We have also had the Education spending bill, designed to appease Kennedy.

We have had the SCOTUS tell us sodomy is a constitutionally protected right and W said nothing.

We have had the Prescription Drug bill, designed only to garner the senior vote.

We have had Tom Ridge now advocate the amnesty of millions of illegals, just to get the Hispanic vote.

And now we have had the first step in our eventual loss of freedom of speech.

So, are Republicans now the big spending party? Are they now the party that condones breaking the law (illegals)? Are they the party that is just going to sit back and watch the Constitution be completely destroyed? Sure looks that way.

So I ask again: What are their long term goals?

You talk about Supreme Court Justices. This is vitally important as the SCOTUS is destroying our country. Yet, the Republicans in the Senate, and the President, have yet to show me they are willing to fight for their appointees. The Senate Republicans in particular have no backbone. What is going to change that? A few more seats?

I just do not see any backbone transplants coming.

I have not seen ANYTHING coming from W or the Congressional Republicans that things will change. The occassional sound bite, but that't it. No backbone.

30 posted on 12/11/2003 12:18:14 PM PST by technomage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Chris Shays exposed his spots when he voted against impeachment, even after going to the Ford Building and examined all the evidence, including the Broaddrick rape which he admitted was totally believable. He held his sham televised town hall meetings knowing full well how he was going to vote.
31 posted on 12/11/2003 1:43:54 PM PST by StarFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: technomage
The Senate Republicans in particular have no backbone. What is going to change that? A few more seats?

Uhhh yeah, that would pretty much do it... or are Bush's proposed appointees not conservative enough for you?

You asked me a litany of questions failing to answer my single one to you... how much worse will it be if President Dean appoints the next few Supremes? We might as well just throw America away then and there. Saving our country from a full-blown takeover by socialist leaders is MY long-term goal. We are at a pretty critical point in our history and at risk of becoming a despised subsidiary to the U.N. You are more than welcome, of course, to withhold your assistance in this endeavor because you prefer to bicker about items we have had to compromise on to satisfy the other HALF of our electorate.

I fully accept you may be a political junkie, but I propose your strategy for getting what you claim to want will only prove counter-productive to your own aims.

32 posted on 12/11/2003 1:57:23 PM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
They have no intention of obeying this law. Once this gets in their way, they will simply shop around for a judge to let them bypass it, or they'll just ignore it altogether. At the same time, they'll hold Republicans to it.

Believing that one party will get away with skirting campaign finance reform while the other one won't is ridiculous. They're ALL going to get around this law.

33 posted on 12/11/2003 2:03:44 PM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
how much worse will it be if President Dean appoints the next few Supremes?

Not much worse. The Dems have a new requirement of 60 votes for significant nominations. If they go below 40 seats, they'll just lower the threshold and the ratmedia will back them up.

34 posted on 12/11/2003 2:05:02 PM PST by palmer (Solutions, not slogans -JFKerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
jwalsh07 wrote:
11 Republican Senators, 41 Republican House Members and One Republican President Signed BCRA-2002
And not one of them deserves a single vote in their next election unless they also vote to repeal this abomination.

Actually, they deserve impeachment and/or explusion, along with the 5 Supreme Court Justices who allowed this law to stand.

35 posted on 12/11/2003 2:09:34 PM PST by cc2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer
Not much worse.

Give up then... I refuse to.

36 posted on 12/11/2003 2:40:15 PM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ZULU; Common Tator
mainstream leftist newspapers and television stations - CBS, MSNBC, ABC, Turner stations, etc, will continue to provide newscoverage deliberately slanted towards the Dems

If the opposing point of view can't pay to put it on TV when it matters...what will they do with the loss of half their revenue? Is it worth it?

The image that springs to mind is the genie in Disney's "Aladdin: " Phenomenal cosmic powers...itty bitty living space."

37 posted on 12/11/2003 4:29:34 PM PST by Dutchgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Bohlert,Houghton(Mr. lets have the taxpayers fund a French sympathy committee),McHugh

All upstate NY liberal Republicans. Is it any wonder that Hillary won the state when her political adversaries are these clowns? And is Walsh the James Walsh representing Syracuse?

38 posted on 12/11/2003 4:48:49 PM PST by Kudsman (LIE= ""We have to exert all of our efforts militarily" Hillary Nov. 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
I think we need to make our voices herad about this, but I am not so sure that President Bush had much of a choice on this one.

BOVINE EXCREMENT!!! Candidate Bush repeatedly promised that he would NEVER sign McCain Feingold. He PROMISED a veto. Flat out promised. Then he went right ahead and signed the damned thing. He needs to hear, in an overwhelming volume, just how p.o.'d we are. P.O.'d at him, Congress and all the so-called conservative pundits and Freepers who told those of us alarmed by the passage of CFR, and then outraged at W's signing of it, to sit down and shut up...the Supreme Court would fix everything. Well they sure fixed everything alright!

39 posted on 12/11/2003 5:33:21 PM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
Every piece of legislation that passes against our wishes is OUR fault for not educating our fellow voters and our fault for allowing Democrats to still hold so many seats in Congress.

What a load of crap! I've spent my whole adult life working for a GOP government so we could rein in big government, cut taxes, end entitlements and reduce the size of government.

We've finally succeeded and now we get the First Amendment shredded, the largest Education Spending Bill EVER passed (remember when Conservatives wanted to end the Dept of Ed?), the greatest increase in Federal Domestic spending in history and a brand spankin' new Federal entitlement program.

The Republican Party as governing party is a despicable failure. I would laugh if it wasn't so damned sad.

40 posted on 12/11/2003 5:41:08 PM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
The idea of signing BCFRA was a terrible gamble on Bush's part. He lost big time.

Let's hope he learns the lesson: Never, ever trust the Supreme Court to base its decisions on the law. Never trust it to make the right decision.
41 posted on 12/11/2003 6:06:16 PM PST by GulliverSwift (Howard Dean is the Joker's insane twin brother.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
What a load of crap!

Elegant command of the language you have there ;-)

The country is still approximately HALF liberal/Democrat... the right has nowhere near a good majority yet, our work is simply not yet done. In addition, the conservatives only make up a PORTION of the GOP, there is a large portion that is yet centrist and they also have a vote according to the Constitution. This leaves us in a rather SMALL segment of the entire population and our Constitution is written in such a way as to PREVENT us from pulling a coup and running the entire country as we wish. Perhaps you missed it but America went radically to the left in the last couple of decades?

I for one appreciate any and all efforts you have made dragging this country back to the right. However, now is a pretty poor moment in our history for conservatives to have a temper tantrum because the job isn't finished.

42 posted on 12/11/2003 7:27:49 PM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: shanscom
Most of the usual suspects, the moderates or the appeasers.

These people however should know better:

Sen. Thad Cochran (R - MS)
Rep. Tom Osborne (R - NE)
Rep. Todd Platts (R - PA)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R - FL)
Rep. John Thune (R - SD)
Rep. Zach Wamp (R - TN)

I understand Thune. He was running against Tim Johnson at the time and I suppose he didn't want Johnson clubbing him with a "he voted against corporate reform" charge or something of the kind.

Cochran I really don't understand.
43 posted on 12/11/2003 7:49:16 PM PST by Galactic Overlord-In-Chief (What does it say on the bottom of Coke bottles at DU? It says "Open Other End.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sakic
Believing that one party will get away with skirting campaign finance reform while the other one won't is ridiculous. They're ALL going to get around this law.

They all will, but my point is the difference is that the democrats and their friends in the media will hold Republicans accountable if they so much as even try to get around the law, while skirting the law themselves.

44 posted on 12/11/2003 8:42:14 PM PST by lowbridge (As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. -Mr. Carlson, WKRP in Cincinnati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
So Bush ignored a huge public outcry against this measure? I don't recall any such outrage by the "masses".

He took an Oath. He swore to uphold the Constitution. He doesn't need the "masses" to be outraged to do his [expletive deleted] job. He should do the proper thing anyway! Sheesh!

45 posted on 12/11/2003 10:55:30 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Oh, but those of us that complained when it was signed were told to shut up, support Bush right or wrong, and not to worry...there was NO WAY the Supreme Court was going to uphold this ridiculous law.

Now they tell me I'm a fool not to fully support Bush in 2004 since I'm such a "purist" and will just "elect Dean". Funny, not ONE vote has been cast in any Democratic primary and I'm already electing Dean president.

So who are the true "purists"?
46 posted on 12/11/2003 11:04:38 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeekMom
BCRA = Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
47 posted on 12/11/2003 11:05:09 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
these people ought to have their tes%$#@!#@$#les removed and put into a lock box!





Apologies to Rush Limbaugh

ROFL...you listen to him also! I loved it yesterday!
48 posted on 12/11/2003 11:05:57 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
You assume they follow the law! Boy, I have bridges to sell you!
49 posted on 12/11/2003 11:06:51 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: shanscom
Zach Wamp is getting senile in his old age.
50 posted on 12/11/2003 11:07:35 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 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