CFR Never Should Have Gone This Far (President Bush declines to protect and defend the Constitution)

rushlimbaugh ^ | 5/5/2003 | Rush Llimbaugh

[BenR2]

You think we will hear how there is a big plan from the Bush can do no wrong crowd?

///
You mean the knee-jerk "kick-anyone-who-dares-state-the-obvious-about-GWBush-crowd?"

Nahhhhhhhh.

[TLBSHOW]

spin away...........

[aristeides]

(Supreme) Court to Hear Campaign Finance Challenge .

[RAT Patrol]

BTTT!!!!!!

[RAT Patrol]

So far, the worst part of CFR stands and the best part (relatively) was tossed. The RATS can collect all the soft money they want but they speech restrictions live on -- and were actually made worse.

[colorado tanker]

This is a pretty old post. The Supremes don't give a 'Rat's pattooty what a panel of District Judges thinks. What everybody has known all along is the main event is comin' up. From what I've seen of the next election cycle, we're gonna have way more funds to work with than the other side.

[RAT Patrol]

I was searching for something about CFR written by Congressman Billybob when I ran across this thread. The reality is, no one really knows how the Supremes will come down on CFR. It was a (stupid) gamble.

[colorado tanker]

A lot depends on what happens if we get two SCOTUS vacancies this summer. Could make the Senate more fun to watch than NASCAR.

Bush made it very clear to the Congressional pubbies that if they sent him a bill he wouldn't take the political hit to give them cover, but would pass it to the courts. They learned, like others have learned, you ignore this President at your peril.

I'm not worried. The increase in the hard money limit will be a big boost to pubbies, where the PAC restrictions hit the Dims as hard as the pubbies, which actually dawned on some Dims, too late.

It would be nice to look at this as a pure Constitutional issue from the heights of Olympus, but this issue is right down in that messy, slimy political swamp.

[RAT Patrol]

ct, I agree with you on most things, but not on this. Bush made a terrible mistake and hopefully the Court will save us.

Bush is a strong, decent, good Christian man. He's not perfect. He is as susceptible to error as anyone else. He had no way of foreknowing the outcome in the courts. He flipped on this issue and left voters like me with voter's remorse. Maybe I would have voted for him anyway, but it was my right to decide based on truth. He owes it to everyone to be straightforward. Anything less is lying. I am not talking about being unwilling to compromise. I am talking about representing yourself and your principles falsely. He was guilty of that on this issue. That doesn't change his good points, but I'm not going to lie to myself about it either.

When winning means more than truthfulness and principle then you start getting into a gray area. Where do you stop? Should we lie to win? Should we cheat to win when our winning will produce the "greater good?" I do understand about compromise and politics. But I also understand about character, truthfulness and ethics. Our side cannot (at least should not) compartmentalize character any more than the other side.

A representative gov't that is of, by and for the people can only work if candidates are honest. Otherwise, how do I know who to choose as my representative?

[colorado tanker]

It may be a blind side in my personality, but we've lived with goofy campaign limits and regs for so long, I just can't get worked up over this particular bill. I really do believe the Supremes will cut out the blatently unconstitutional parts.

I think we're nearly at the end of this nonsense. The bedrock of the Republican base is small donations under the hard money "cap." The Dims are increasingly dependent on big donations from trial lawyers, Hollyweird and union pacs, so the farther this process goes the more they cut their own throats. Dims are dumb, so it may take a while, but I think they'll stop pushing this nonsense soon.

BTW, we do agree on most issues. Love your screen name.