Bush Signs McCain-Democrat Campaign Finance Bill; Republicans File Suit

Newsmax.com ^ | March 28, 2002

[toenail]

"As for me, I will fight with everything I have to see that those of you who want to hang Bush over this thing don't take the rest of us down with you."

This in itself is enough to shatter any notion that Bush has any respect for Constitutional freedoms. But if you've been paying attention for the last year, you'll see that he's done more to harm our country than trailer-trash Clinton ever could, because Clinton was watched. For instance, Bush has moved us into the enforcement stage of School-To-Work, and people don't even care, since he pats Laura on the *ss.

Bush is not my leader; he's my employee. He has a very well-defined job description, and that's the only thing he is to be graded on.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

But if you've been paying attention for the last year, you'll see that he's done more to harm our country than trailer-trash Clinton ever could, because Clinton was watched.

This is a breathtakingly ridiculous statement.

I'll answer you anyway:

So, you want to give the Clintons another crack at it? You're comfortable with that, because they're "watched"? You're rather "employ" Mrs. Clinton than George W. Bush? That is what your 'tude will get you - but not if I can help it.

[toenail]

To clarify, Bush is making centralized control and manipulation of Americans respectable. Look at the "USA Freedom Korps." The rat-on-your-neighbor "Citizen Korps." School-To-Work. His "Faith-based Initiatives" are just centralized manipulation and redistribution of religious charitable endeavors [and look behind who's idea the whole "Faith-Based Initiatives"]. Look at the "USA PATRIOT ACT," which authorizes federal agents to snoop through your private effects without even notifying you, among other invasions of privacy. Bush is getting a free pass from most "conservatives," because he's not a low-class tramp like Clinton or Gore. It's not enough to say that he's not Clinton. LOTS of people are not Clinton. If we're not to grade him by his adherence to his Constitutional duties, then what else should he be graded on?

[Reagan Man]

>>>Your words are meaningless. "The Republican Party is the home of conservatism" nonsensical with just a shallow observation.<<<

LOL. Seems like I struck a nerve!

Believe what you want, but its your rhetorical attacks that are weak and superficial. The reason my words sound meaningless to you, is because you support the Libertarian Party agenda, which is rooted in chaos and anarchy. Most conservatives call the Republican Party their political home, because it promotes traditional American values. The Republican Party stands for the rule of law, an orderly and civilized society, a strong military and is opposed to abortion, prostitution and illicit drugs. The Libertarian Party Platform would dismantle America's criminal justice/court system, reduce America's miliary to third world status, continue killing unborn children through abortion on demand, spread disease through prostitution and have everyone stoned on drugs like heroin, cocaine and marijuana. What a wonderful world it would be, if we all just followed the libertarian agenda.

I suggest you stop living in the past and forget about Bill Clinton. He's history. It's time to move on.

As for these vitriolic attempts to link people who disagree with you're poltical agenda to Lenin and Stalin, that's just plain silly. Such wild assertions only make you look foolish in public.

>>>After y'all have been betrayed hard enough, often enough, come Vote Libertarian.<<<

In the last general election, the Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne, received 375,024. That was 0.367% of the total votes cast and a lower figure (485,000/0.5%) then Browne garnered in the 1996 Prez election. Even Pat Buchanan received more votes (438,487/0.430%) then Browne. As a political party, the Libertarian Party offers nothing to the American people, except chaos and anarchy.

[evad]

What I have a problem with is the "I campaigned for him, but he's lost my vote!" crowd.

I agree with you there...I may be disappointed, even disillusioned, but I'm not nuts. I'll be the first one to state my hope that he's an 8 year prez. I'll also concede that there may be a bigger picture here, about which I certainly do not have W's knowledge.

[toenail]

"The Republican Party stands for the rule of law, an orderly and civilized society, a strong military and is opposed to abortion, prostitution and illicit drugs."

The country-club Republicans who run the GOP just want to "move on," have a centrally-managed "workforce," our military in every country in the world (are we still at 170?), doesn't want abortion to ever end (though pro-life noises are made near election time), don't care about prostitution, and get to trample on the 4th Amendment in their War on Unpatented Drugs.

The typical Republican voter is a decent, family-oriented person who thinks they want smaller government.

The GOP owners and the GOP voter aren't necessarily the same.

[Fury]

As I stated previously, I am making a donation to FR of $250, as President Bush signed the CFR bill.

That is $250 that will not go to the Bush 2004 re-election campaign. Will President miss such a small amount? No. But I cannot reward GW signing what I consider a seriously flawed bill that has several sections directly at odds with the 1st Amendment.

FR earned my trust in this matter. Sadly, President Bush has not.

[rightwing2]

3. I believe that there are actual principled conservatives who are more electable out there who could potentially be elected President.

Name one.

I can do a lot better than that. Senator John Kyl (R-AZ), Assistant Senate Republican Leader Don Nickles (R-OK), Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Gov. Mike Foster (R-LA), Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), Attorney General John Ashcroft and a whole host of conservative Republican members of the House of Reps just to name a few.

[rightwing2]

I managed to get a secret picture of McCain this morning when he found out he had been b*t*h slapped by Bush?!

What the hell are you talking about! McCain has been pushing for a Democrat Incumbent Electing Campaign Finance Reform Bill ever since he felt the GOP leadership slighted him in their final conclusions in regard to his involvement in the Keating Five scandal. Now, he has got his final revenge--a bill which will make the election of Republicans to Congress more difficult than ever and which will no doubt result in a string of retirements by Republican members of Congress who are not interested in serving as members of a permanent Congressional minority. After taking a beating from Bush over the unconstitutionality of the Democrat campaign finance reform bill, Sen. McCain could not be happier to have coopted Bush into signing it. Manchurian candidate McCain has single-handedly managed to coopt a Republican President, Bush, into signing what amounts to the demise of his own party!! Basically, we have elected a John McCain clone to the White House and we didn't even know it. Who would have thought? No matter, conservatives will have their vengeance by taking out RINO-in-chief Bush in the primaries.

[Howlin]

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Kaslin]

I am sure if the President would have thought that there is no chance that the SCOTUS would not rule on the bill he would have vetoed it

[Maelstrom]

Let me put it in stark relief:

You're supporting Bill Clinton because he's a Republican.

The policies are the same, the words are the same, the only thing different is the stuffed shirt from which it arises. You opposed one, justly, with every fibre of your being because it was wrong in principle, not just wrong in party, but support it now?

Give me a break.
As for me being a Libertarian, I'm very conservative, and it was Bush Sr.'s broken promise that caused me to realize just how shallow "Republican principles" really are...rather than opt out of voting, I voted Libertarian.

Ron Paul would get my vote if he were in my district.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

If we're not to grade him by his adherence to his Constitutional duties, then what else should he be graded on?

Try these.

If you were capable of seeing the big picture, you would see that by signing this bill - while expressing the same concerns regarding constitutionality most conservatives have - he will be setting it up to die NOW, and not rear its ugly head down the road.

[rightwing2]

Again, although I disagree with Bush signing this, it is really a great move politically to eliminate McCain as a challenger to him and it takes away a Dem bogus issue. I say politically it is checkmate. What about all those people of FR who say why don't the Republicans fight back and use some of the demo tactics? Bush just did!!!

My post #147 is for you. You guys really crack me up when you say that Bush's signature of this Democrat bill amounting to the permanent end of the Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress by its empowerment of the liberal media and Big Labor and its evisceration of the ability of core conservative groups to participate in the political process is somehow part of Bush's grand strategy. How can you say that Bush's signature of the bill which will result in the complete and final extinction of the GOP Congressional majority is fighting back? I have never seen traitor RINO John McCain, Tommy Boy Daschle and future Speaker Gephardt happier than I did than the day that their Democrat majority campaign finance bill passed through Congress with the assurance that it would be signed by a Republican President who puts political expediency first and his alleged principles last to the everlasting benefit of Democratic incumbents everywhere.

Yeah, Bush used some of the "demo tactics" alright. He coopted their playback right down to the last script and he just scored the winning touchdown for the opposing team!! As you say "it is checkmate" but it is the GOP, not the Democrat "King" that has been checkmated. With Bush's latest betrayal of the Republican Party, his conservative base and last but not least our God-given Constitution, Republicans and conservatives have not only lost the battle, we have lost the war! The GOP is finished and beginning in 2004 will be a minority party thanks to our RINO-in-chief, George W. Bush. I predict that the destruction of the Republican Party's ability to win elections will be Bush's must endearing presidential legacy which will eventually transcend his role in fighting the seemingly eternal "war against terrorism."

[rightwing2]

May be Bush has betrayed you, but he hasn't betrayed the Republican Party, or the Constitution. You may find some Freepers who will agree with you, but most conservative-republicans don't see it your way. Home for the modern conservative movement, remains the Republican Party and not the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, or the Reform Party candidate. And besides, Alan Keyes will never win a general election. Keyes would do far worse then Barry Goldwater did in 1964! If you've already given up on Bush, after a mere 14 months in office, I doubt you actually supported his candidacy at all. Fair and reasonable minded conservatives, like myself, are asking for a united front in support of President Bush and his agenda, we do not ask for unanimity on every issue. It serves no good purpose to draw a line in the sand on every issue. Such rigid thinking is counter productive and is nothing more then reactionary absolutism.

Actually, I was one of Bush's most outspoken cheerleaders during the election fiasco with Algore's attempts to usurp the Presidency. I protested in front of the Supreme Court on decision day when the militant Commie-lib union thugs numbered over three times larger than the Bush crowd. I wanted so badly to like Bush and support him, but I have become fed up with his betrayal of conservatives to which he hinted to during the campaign in which he continually took his conservative supporters for granted. I am lifelong diehard Republican activist and have no plans to leave the party now or ever for that matter. I believe retaking control of the GOP from its current Liberal Republican Establishment leadership which Bush, with this latest betrayal, has come to represent is the best hope for conservatives to effect policy in this country and return America to being a Godly nation.

Its high time you and other so-called "conservatives" realize that Bush's agenda is anything but a conservative one, but rather is not appreciably better than Clinton's big government agenda with which it is 80% identical. It is due to your refusal and the refusal of other willfully blind Bush backers to oppose Bush and draw a line in the sand on any issue that we have lost so big on this one issue which will effect the course of the country so massively and permanently to the left. I really believe that you and people who think like you would sooner follow Bush over a cliff than take a stand for preserving the Republican Party as a viable party and our God-given Constitution which alone makes us free.

[rightwing2]

Oh, and you want more RATs in those offices? That's what would happen. Are you a RAT yourself? The Supremes will destroy the CFL quickly.

What the hell are you talking about? The only RATs are those that supported this bill including our esteemed RINO-in-Chief George W. Bush and probably yourself for that matter. Mark my words, the Supreme Court will leave most of this bill's unconstitutional elements intact wreaking heavy destruction upon the Republican Party's ability to win elections. Our current leftist Supreme Court has succeeded in solidifying the solid liberal gains and unconstitutional pronouncements which were made during the Warren and Burger Courts. What makes you think that the liberal majority Supreme Court will behave any differently now and change course to repeal unconstitutional legislation?

[toenail]

"If you were capable of seeing the big picture, you would see that by signing this bill - while expressing the same concerns regarding constitutionality most conservatives have - he will be setting it up to die NOW, and not rear its ugly head down the road."

We should heap praises on McCain and Shays and Feingold and Meehan and Boxer and Hillary!, and every other person who violated their oath of office? We should each send 'em a box of chocolates for advancing this, so that once and for all the SCOTUS can settle it. The people who actually chose to defend the Constitution (I was particularly pleased with Jo Ann Emerson) are actually obstructors who wanted to prevent the SCOTUS from hearing it? Was there a wrong vote here? If everything can be passed of with "Let the SCOTUS decide," then there can be no wrong votes about anything. Bawney Fwank can stand up, say that he knows parts of it are unConstitutional, and votes for it anyway. And Bush sided with him.

What lesson did Bush teach Americans? A sacred oath MEANS NOTHING. What a disgusting, shameful day for our country.

[rightwing2]

Let me put it in stark relief: You're supporting Bill Clinton because he's a Republican. The policies are the same, the words are the same, the only thing different is the stuffed shirt from which it arises. You opposed one, justly, with every fibre of your being because it was wrong in principle, not just wrong in party, but support it now? Give me a break. As for me being a Libertarian, I'm very conservative, and it was Bush Sr.'s broken promise that caused me to realize just how shallow "Republican principles" really are...rather than opt out of voting, I voted Libertarian. Ron Paul would get my vote if he were in my district.

You got it half right. I agree with your characterization of our RINO President, but why punish an entire party for the misdeeds of one man in coopting 80% of the Clinton agenda?? You will never further the conservative agenda by voting third party except in selective instances as a protest vote as you should do with Bush, not with your Republican Senators and Representatives many of whom are good conservatives.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

We should heap praises on McCain and Shays and Feingold and Meehan and Boxer and Hillary!, and every other person who violated their oath of office? We should each send 'em a box of chocolates for advancing this, so that once and for all the SCOTUS can settle it.

I didn't say that. You're comparing apples and oranges. Did any one of the people in your list stand up and say they felt the SCOTUS might have issues with the constitutionality of the bill? Bush is cutting them off at the knees - but you, being generally anti-Bush (father or son) - refuse to see that.