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

Newsmax.com ^ | March 28, 2002

[Libertina]

Very disappointed BUMP. Veto available but not put to use. Pols hoping the SCOTUS will "have the courage" to do what is "right." Even if SCOTUS strikes the unconstitutional bill down, the rats will accuse the bench of being Bush's "right-wing" stooges JUST AS IN THE FLORIDA VOTE. A weak move.

[Dominic Harr]

I would like to see the results of a poll now asking, Does 'Republican' equal 'Conservative'?.

I think that if we live long enough, we will see all organizations violate every single one of it's basic, 'Core' beliefs.

I think it's time to start boycotting all 'political parties', and begin voting for qualified individuals. These 'parties' exist for the sole purpose of taking our money and controlling politicians in ways to benefit themselves.

[TLBSHOW]

and please take your time. I have the whole night.

[TLBSHOW]

Not after I get done with the rats.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

If the Supreme Court does not strike down anything on First Amendment grounds, our problems are far worse than Bush vetoing or not vetoing. If we can't trust the Supreme Court to know the Constitution, we have our work cut out for us.

[evad]

Sorry Doc...can't swallow this one.

I'm a Bush supporter but this is a matter of integrity, principle and keeping his sacred oath.

The biggest problem I have with Bush signing CFR is that it places him on the same level as Clinton. There's no difference in my mind between Clinton saying he couldn't do the right thing (fight terrorism) because the public wouldn't support him and Bush saying he can't veto CFR because whatever.

A leader does the right thing because he's a man of principle and a statesman. Bush is displaying NONE of these qualities in this act of submission.

[baxter999]

"the Supreme Ct. will knock it down anyway"

Nonsense. Right in the bill is a provision that says all law suits for the first 60 days have to go through a panel of 3 D.C. judges (read liberal here). The bill, which is really just a series of amendments to an existing finance bill, also includes provisions to keep the other parts in force if one is found unconstitutional.

You can't just go to court and say "I don't like this bill". You have to have grounds to bring suit and each and every little part will require a lawsuit (perhaps some can be grouped).

Those of you who for whatever reason insist that this bill is good and that Bush really is conservative should stop wasting our time with this pathetic delusion.

There is no reason to expect more people to vote Republican because of Bush's breaking of his campaign promise. If anything, the opposite may well occur, as Daddy Bush should know all too well.

Even if a few RINO's went to the Senate, since there are already at least 10 RINO's there, no future "Republican" senate will be any more conservative than the present one. To get a conservative senate would require replacing 10 RINO's plus electing 10 new conservatives to replace democrats to get cloture. Not going to happen - even in the wildest Bushie exageration.

[rightwing2]

There is only one other recourse, however unlikely in the extreme--that being--if the Senate turnsover to 50-50 Republican control in 2002 as I envisioned and the House stays Republican and if Cheney were to support to support legislation overturning it and Bush says he's willing to sign it. Of course, given that Bush supports it and the Congress passed it overwhelmingly, this is so much wishful thinking. It would have been so much easier if Bush had vetoed the damn thing for violating his alleged "principles" which it is now painfully obvious that he does not have.

[terilyn]

I don't know, I wouldn't call a quiet signing in the oval office acting "cavalier" about this. McCain and Daschle are seething over it. A senior White House aid told them he would send over the pen. LOL! Seriously, I honestly think the GWB knew that this issue would never ever die. McCain's been trying for seven years. Sign it, reluctantly as he stated, and let the courts kill it once and for all. Bad bill, bad law, begone - forever!

[thatsnotnice]

Opponents of the bill, such as McConnell, say the new law represents an unconstitutional limit to political speech.

Since when does a Senator get to decide that a bill is unconstitutional?

Constitutionality now is decided by some power-sharing agreement between the congress and the courts?

[nocommies]

i hate his tactics, but im as sure as i could be that bush would never sign this if he wasnt confident the supreme court will kill it. nothing will come of this, just a bunch of grandstanding and politics.

[terilyn]

He never said that about CFR. Jim even said, "That's what he should say". He said it about raising your taxes.

[El Gato]

Grounds for impeachment?

Unless violation of the oath of office can be construed as a high crime or misdomeaner, no. Such violation is not defined in law as a crime at all, so I don't think there is a leg to stand on there. Certainly it's not treason, by Constitutional definition thereof, or bribery, in and of itself that is, so there are no grounds for impeachment.

Time to change boxes, and in fact that is being done, although a jury will probably never see the case, the courts are now being brought into the picture. The soap box has failed, the ballot box has failed, if the "jury box" similarly fails, to preserve and protect the Constitution, there remains only one box left.

Paging Claire Wolfe, is it time yet?

[nocommies]

its mcconnels opinion, he didnt decide it was. were you being sarcastic?

[goldstategop]

I agree the President acted craven on the matter of upholding the Constitution. Still its water under the bridge. And whom are we going to turn to exactly? The Gephardts, Daschunds, Feingovelts, Shays, and McLames who sought to eviscerate a fundamental freedom we all hold dear and for which step they proudly voted? No, I'm not happy with what President Bush did today. I think he ought to have vetoed CFR. Keep in mind though, that we have stick with the President even as we loudly criticize his failure to do the right thing, since let's face it, the true enemy of American freedom is still right there in the halls of Congress and we must do all we can to keep him from gaining more ground. Not for the sake of the President who spurned us but for the sake of the Constitution we revere and the country we love.

[TLBSHOW]

Do you have the list? What are you waiting for?

PS:And this November we are talking both houses. It will be called Rat Control.

[TLBSHOW]

Wait and see, the President is no fool like Clinton was. In fact he just out smarted the rats and it is the rats that will pay dearly.

[terilyn]

Maybe you're right. But even Rino senators would give the GOP a majority and kick the dems out of the power seat on judicial nominees. Keep complaining and you'll have your dem Senate back and a dem House too. The dems in charge of the judiciary committee will never let a true conservative judge to the floor for a vote. And, as you've clearly outlined here, that is the bottom line isn't it? Everything else can be challenged in the courts, but if President Bush cannot even get his nominees to the floor for a vote, (there was a good article here outlining how Chuckie had a plan to block all conservative nominees), we're all in a lot of deep doo-doo.

[rightwing2]

I hope Keyes runs again. A wasted vote? No,a vote I will be proud of.

With this latest unconcionable betrayal of the Republican Party and the US Constitution in his signing of the Democrap majority electing campaign finance bill, Bush has completely and finally lost my vote. Keyes has my vote for President in 2004 for now unless and until a more popular conservative declares his candidacy.