President Bush Jokes About Signing Unconstitutional CFR Bill

comment found in Washington Post article here ^ | Sunday, March 24, 2002 | Kristinn

[kristinn]

The Washington Post reported today that President joked about signing the unconstitutional Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill passed by the Senate last week.

Bush, in a statement issued Wednesday night, had expressed misgivings about whether parts of the bill were constitutional but said that he would sign the bill anyway.

His decision to sign the bill has kicked up a firestorm of dissent in the conservative community, including a scathing editorial by The Washington Times and a letter from the American Conservative Union signed by 60 conservative leaders.

[kristinn]

It is very sad that President Bush is taking this matter so lightly. While I have generally been a supporter of the President, this promised signature on CFR--following his signing the partly unconstitutional Patriot Act--is seriously eroding what support I had for him.

I still support him as commander-in-chief and his leadership in the war on terror, but he needs to reread the Constitution--especially the Bill of Rights.

[kristinn]

Apparently, the bill has not been signed yet, so there is still time to call the White House tomorrow morning to let President Bush know if you want him to veto Shays-Meehan.

[Polonius]

I'm disgusted ...

[Calculus_of_Consent]

With CFR I predict more corruption not less.

[KDD]

We(conservative)Republicans have been had.

Again!

[Libertarian_4_eva]

More like stabbed in the back.

[ZULU]

Bush has been manouvered into signing the bill by the RINOs in his own party. Local representatives and senators are better able to take the heat on this than he is. However, too many of them caved in to the media on this one.

Bush will sign the bill. The Supreme Court will void it.

Instead of picking on Bush, write those rascally RINOs who represent you and tell them that since they act no better than a Democrat, you're going to help replace them with the real McGilla next time. Its the only language these dirtbags understand.

[TheGrimReaper]

Indeed.... it is people who are corrupt, not "systems". And if they're corrupt now (as if there's any doubt), they'll be corrupt under any "reform" which may be enacted.

My disappointment in GWB will be acute.

[TLBSHOW]

It is time to Freep the ones that did the voting.

[Graewoulf]

Here's a CFR chuckle for you, President George W.:
Your Dad compromised with the liberals too,
And we suffered through 8 loooooooong years
Of flesh-pot democrats.

We're not laughing, so why should you?

[Mulder]

Many conservatives believe President Bush will be ripping through the Constitution when he signs the bill.

Yep. He took an oath to support the Constitution, and he will be violating that oath if he signs this legislation.

Which leads to the question why is he going to sign in?

Some claim he's doing it to "take a political issue away from the dems". But this doesn't make sense since 1) the dems will just find another issue, and 2) CFR has never been a big issue among the voters. If it really mattered to most people, McCain and Bradley would have won the nominations for president in 2000.

Others claim he's doing it to maintain his popularity. This argument, in and of itself, is pretty troubling, since we just had 8 years of it. But to address the point, his approval rating is at 85%. Just how much would he lose if he vetoed it? Rush Limbaugh has even pointed out a way for Bush to gain popularity by vetoing it.

Still others say that he's doing it as part of a "secret plan" to pick up seats for the GOP in the elections this year, by taking the dems issues away. But what better way is there to win, than by showing the dems to be traitors against the 1st amendment?

If none of these are the real reasons, then exactly what is the reason? Occam's Razor basically states that the simplest answer to a question is usually the correct one. In this case, the simplest answer appears to be that Bush really doesn't care about our Rights or the Constitution.

[SierraWasp]

I sure miss those pictorial reports of the D.C. Chapter FREEPS OF THE WHITEHOUSE!!!

Maybe it's time for you beautiful people to hit the bricks with your beautiful signs and chants, once again.

Even Everett Dirksen, venerable Repellican Senator from IL used to say... "The more I feel the heat, the more I see the light!"

[kristinn]

President Bush showed zero leadership on this bill. He basically told Congress he would sign whatever CFR bill they sent him and gave no support to the Republican leadership fighting the bill.

He gave the RINOS free rein and he said he'll sign the bill, so he should get his fair share of criticism.

The RINOS and 'Rats should be voted out and replaced by people who respect the Constitution, but President Bush needs to do his part, too.

[TLBSHOW]

Can we trust this is what he said from a WP story. Sounds like it was put there for us. Smells a little ratty to me.

[Mulder]

Bush has been manouvered into signing the bill by the RINOs in his own party.

LOL! You're telling me a President with an 85% approval rating is bowing before a bunch of gutless RINOs?

If Bush gave a damn about the Constitution, he would veto this bill, and give a primetime speech about his reasons for doing so. He would state that it violates the Bill of Rights, and he would give the names of electorially vulnerable dems and RINOs who supported the infringement on the Bill of Rights.

His base would be ecstatic, the moderates would respect him (as much as a moderate can offer respect), and the liberals would fear him. It's a win-win-win situation.

This leads to me to believe that there are "other reasons" for signing this bill. Basically, politicians of both parties seem hell-bent on taking away our Rights and eroding the Constitution.

[KDD]

I might believe you if they(senate)had enough votes to overturn a veto. But they don't. The Patriot Act was the beginning of questionable actions by this administration. That Act also has blatant unconstitutional provisions in it. Then he goes with steel tarrifs, making a lie of his talk of free trade at the Heritage Foundation before the election. No firm "No" on stem cell research. Attacking the states who have legalized marijuana for medical use with DEA BATF agents...and this after he spoke about the issue being a "states rights" issue before the election.

Immigration? Hah.

When he said that "too often my party balances the budget on the backs of the poor", I should have known.

[arly]

The real joke will come thru for him when he trys to get reelected in three years!..

[kristinn]

It wasn't written by Lloyd Grove (who pushed the Stevie Wonder story.)

We'll see if Ari Fleischer has something to say about this later today.

[Humidston]

I'm sorry, but I could not disagree more...

President Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, period.

If he signs this bill, I'll blame him. Nobody else. RINOs and Dems do what they always do. That's why I voted for Bush!

[Aria]

Tell me if I'm wrong. A. Bush knows this won't pass the test with the Supreme Court and therefore signs it, knows the challenges are coming and that the Court will dismantle it B.It passes the Court and therefore couldn't be stopped in the long term and a Republican might as well be the one to take away the issue from the Dems. Seems to be W is about taking away issues from the Dems. Not saying I like it, just that this is what I see. God bless Ronald Reagan - I don't think he would have done it this way.

[Polonius]

Thoughts?

[Brimack34]

I heard that the 2000 polling showed most conservative's stayed home and did not vote for BUSH. So I do not know if they are counting on them or not.

[TLBSHOW]

It sounds ratty.

[Texasforever]

The real joke will come thru for him when he trys to get reelected in three years!..

Well I assume you are a conservative and are not willing to elect Gore, and he will more than likely be the nominee, who do you have in mind to elect? I am not using the lesser of two evils argument, I am just asking for a viable candidate to challenge Bush in the primaries or as a 3rd party candidate.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Bush will sign the bill. The Supreme Court will void it."

Yeah, as soon as the void the Brady Bill.

[RamsNo1]

No one can persuade a leader of the free world to do anything. If history is any guide, this President is pretty stubborn on what he wants no matter who bucks him. You can't tell me that some wimpy congressmen are to blame for Bush signing this bill. Dick Armey won't be signing it, Dick Gephardt won't be signing it, Daschle won't be signing it, Lott won't be signing it, GEORGE W BUSH WILL BE SIGNING IT AND HE CAN'T RELINQUISH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS ACTION WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OVERTURNED!

[patriciaruth]

Being President means making choices between awful and God awful much of the time.

What if you had a crystal ball, and could see into the future, and could see that if you signed the CFR bill that you would get control of the Senate back and be able to appoint pro-life judges to the appellate and Supreme court, and that the parts of the bill you didn't like would be declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

And then you looked into the crystal ball and saw that if you vetoed the bill, that you would not get control of the Senate, and that all pro-life judges you appointed would not be allowed on the courts as the Democrats continued to use a religious test for office to determine their consent.

What would you do?

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"I still support him as commander-in-chief and his leadership in the war on terror."

My thoughts EXACTLY.

[TheGrimReaper]

You could well be correct about the "strategic thinking" which may be going on at the White House.
Nonetheless, GWB as well as the 535 members of the legislative branch took the oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America".
Therfore, every last SOB who voted "For" this CFR bill has failed to uphold his/her oath of office.
The Constitution is far more important than any political agenda.

[Polonius]

If Bush is making the same calculation as his father — trying to get by on wartime popularity — he's playing a dangerous game. I'm certainly not willing to abandon the Republicans quite yet, considering the alternatives, but Bush is putting a second term at risk by testing just how far he can push his base before they turn against him.

[ZULU]

The part of this bill that restricts when campaigning can occur - public speech- is a clear and obvious violation of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court does not overturn it, we are indeed in trouble. This is one of the least liberal courts we have ever enjoyed.

Was the Brady Bill ever taken before this court?

[RamsNo1]

Bush was quoted in a Reuters article also as making these very same "joking" comments. This is real my friend, and he really did say these things.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"What would you do?"

That's an easy answer.
Uphold the Constitution, nothing more, nothing less.
Nothing is in his oath of office says that this can be altered because of political gain or loss.

[Humidston]

The Constitution is far more important than any political agenda.

That was so good, it bears repeating!!!

[arly]

Yeah Texas I am a conservative and I voted for George W. but next time I will either vote third party or just decline to vote for anyone, I am a very unhappy camper!

[alphadog]

"This leads to me to believe that there are "other reasons" for signing this bill."

Yeah the puppetmasters want a police state...

[samtheman]

Any way you slice it Zulu, he doesn't have to sign this bill. He could stand up, refuse to sign it, give a forthright explanation for his refusal, and be a better man, a better American, and a better President as a result.

Instead, he's taking the coward's way out. Blame it on the RINOs? Not me. For me, the buck stops with Bush (who I support and will vote for in 2004). And for me, I call it the way I see it and that is: shame on you, Mr. President, shame on you.

[notaliberal]

I would do the right thing. Contact President Bush: NOW

[alphadog]

"This leads to me to believe that there are "other reasons" for signing this bill."

Yeah the puppetmasters want a police state...

[The Westerner]

"Occam's Razor basically states that the simplest answer to a question is usually the correct one. In this case, the simplest answer appears to be that Bush really doesn't care about our Rights or the Constitution.

Bush is a pragmatist. A pragmatist and a principle are mutually exclusive.

[ZULU]

None of those characters will be signing the bill, true. But they won't be NOT SIGNING IT either.

The pressure from the mainstream media on this subject has been intense. The Enron scandal has been used as an excuse to get this through. A large number of the voting public are justifiably concerned by what appears to be buying an candidate by corporate interests, unions, and overseas powers - remember Clinton and the Chinese money?

If Bush thinks the Supreme Court will overturn this thing anyway, why should he be the public bad guy?

Remember the average voter in the street - the one who turns elections with his/her ballot is really politically naive. Their actions are impacted by media propaganda and their analysis of political events is extremely superficial.

Perhaps Democracy is not a very good form of governance after all. Or, at least a Democracy which gives as much weight to an uniformed vote as to a informed one.

[Grassontop]

I somehow smell a democrat setup and a downfall for W on signing this bill! On the other hand, when I think of what the democrats really want to do to our land, I think of the movie "The Patriot", and it makes me all the more want my country in the hands of George W Bush and not that of a British democrat!

Bush is a smart leader, but we have to give him time to overcome the democrats, after all, they are the enemies to our beloved United States of America! REMEMBER THE CLINTONS AND YOU WILL KNOW WHAT I MEAN! Grassontop