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

Skip to comments.

Bush, Aides, In Heated Dispute Over CFR...
Drudge | 2/15/02 | Drudge

Posted on 02/15/2002 4:54:00 PM PST by The Drowning Witch

TO VETO OR NOT TO VETO: BUSH, AIDES IN HEATED DEBATE OVER SOFT MONEY BAN

**Exclusive**

A heated debated has developed inside of President Bush's inner circle over whether to veto a congressional bill which would limit forms of campaign cash to parties by companies, unions and individuals.

Majority Leader Daschle [D-SD] vowed swift action in the Senate on a House measure, which would also outlaw advertising by groups that target candidates just before an election.

"We can't let this stand!" argued one of Bush's senior advisers on Thursday, according to a well-placed source. "We ran against this issue during the campaign."

The president is said to have not made up his mind on a veto as he plans to depart on his Asia trek.

One key Bush strategist argued how the measure, as currently written, would not survive a Supreme Court review.

"Let's not take the hit, I say we sign off.. let it fail on its lack of constitutionality."

The ban on advertisements is causing the dramatic split inside the White House, sources revealed to the DRUDGE REPORT.

"We'll lose Limbaugh over this," warned a top staffer during a meeting. "This will surely come back to haunt us... I'd say we send it back to them and let them take out the advertising rules."

Behind-the-scenes, a senior Republican senator complained that he was getting no guidance from the White House on any potential Bush veto.

"I don't think they've made up their minds yet," the ranking senator told his staff. "We may be on our own with this."

Developing...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
This bill must die.....
1 posted on 02/15/2002 4:54:00 PM PST by The Drowning Witch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Drowning Witch
"We may be on our own with this."

That's the idea.
Do what's right Senator, or find other work you're more suited for.

2 posted on 02/15/2002 4:56:53 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Notice there are NO names in this report.
3 posted on 02/15/2002 4:59:13 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Drowning Witch
"Let's not take the hit, I say we sign off.. let it fail on its lack of constitutionality."

Take the hit. Veto the damned thing. CFR isn't all that popular.

4 posted on 02/15/2002 5:00:01 PM PST by christianswindler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rush
bttt
5 posted on 02/15/2002 5:03:15 PM PST by Nita Nupress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christianswindler
"CFR isn't all that popular."

Except with the media...

6 posted on 02/15/2002 5:04:29 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Drowning Witch
Already posted here.
7 posted on 02/15/2002 5:06:07 PM PST by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Drowning Witch
Interesting. I hope this is factual. From what I heard in all the "popular press" reports, Bush seemed pretty set on signing it.
8 posted on 02/15/2002 5:10:05 PM PST by FourtySeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
Already posted here.

Where? I don't understand your post.

9 posted on 02/15/2002 5:13:39 PM PST by FourtySeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Drowning Witch
To contact the White House ---
Extremely Friendly Operators At WH: (202)456-1414 Call and Advise a VETO of CFR!

White House fax no.: (202) 456-2461

Send a Western Union Telegram ---

Call 1-800-325-6000 to speak with a Customer Service Representative in English, or find an Agent location.

Llame 1-800-325-4045 para hablar con un representante de servicio al cliente en español, o buscar una agencia.


10 posted on 02/15/2002 5:20:58 PM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
Oops, I mean here
11 posted on 02/15/2002 5:22:04 PM PST by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Drowning Witch
Some good commentary from Jim Robinson and others on this subject can be found on this here thread--

Jim Robinson et al Blast Shays-Meehan

12 posted on 02/15/2002 5:23:18 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
Already done, First...

AAAA-:Sorry for the duplicate post. aAnd YESS, I'm familiar with the search button. Guess I didn't look hard enough.

I just sent an email to W. urging him to veto. Probably won't get a reply, but what the hell....At least I spoke my piece...

13 posted on 02/15/2002 5:27:11 PM PST by The Drowning Witch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Drowning Witch
"The ought to be limits to freedom" -G.W. Bush, when asked about the free speech of a parody web site spoofing his own campaign site.
14 posted on 02/16/2002 7:22:10 AM PST by Anti-Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: all
Bump.
15 posted on 02/16/2002 8:52:08 AM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Drowning Witch
A case can be made for allowing it to become law. (The President doesn't have to sign it or veto it. If he does nothing for 10 days, it becomes law.)

What is the case?

Many think that the restriction on "soft money" to parties will fail, constitutionally. The same is said for the restriction on "issue ads" within 60 days of an election.

If this happens - and that's a gamble - what we have left is a doubling of the "hard money" allowed. Since the Republicans are the largest recipient of "hard money", that would be a good thing for us.

As I said, it's a gamble. And I suspect that this is exactly the conversation that is taking place in the White House.

16 posted on 02/16/2002 9:05:48 AM PST by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Drowning Witch
The fact that Bush has surrounded himself with people who are even suggesting that he sign this piece of un-Constitutional legislation doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

They're basically saying to sign it, even though they recognize that it's un-Constitutional, and then let the USSC deal with it. That's just pathetic.

17 posted on 02/16/2002 11:08:48 AM PST by John R. (Bob) Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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