Posted on 02/15/2002 5:56:09 AM PST by Maedhros
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX FRI FEB 15 2002 09:21:37 ET XXXXX
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...
Not -
Penalize the voter/citizen for giving.
Penalize them for accepting by:
1. Removal from office:
2. Required two year pubic service like cleaning out grease traps in pubic school cafeteria,
And/Or
3. Cleaning and maintain bathrooms in public housing projects.
Isn't it time that they live under the same laws that they force us to live?
Very shrewd idea. It is possible that this is the opinion that is choosen.
Don't let the Dems and the liberal editorial boards scare you into thinking people are screaming for ANY kind of campaign reform stemming from the unrelated collapse of Enron.
I'm not forgetting anything. I agree with you. But, alas, I'm not yet sold on the idea that Bush makes his decisions solely on the merits of what's right or wrong. He is the president, true, but he's also the leader of his party who will want to be re-elected in 2004. He's giving token pennies to "the U.S. needs to help stop the spread of AIDS in Africa crowd." He's given token pennies to the stem cell research crowd.
He is NOT X42, but he IS a politician. I think he'll do the right thing and veto whatever comes out of committee. But I also think he's weighing his political options.
Shrewd vs. defending the Constitution - fulfilling one's oath of office - fulfilling one's campaign promise to oppose this measure - and shrewd doesn't cut it!
It is also putting faith in something that could totally fail. What about this. What if one of the Supreme Court justices (the conservative ones) passes away or retires due to health? The effort to replace that Justice with another Constitutionalist fails because the Senate is still in the hands of HItlery and her minions. The court is then filled with a liberal "compromise" nominee. In the mean time the clock is ticking towards 2004. This measure could easily not be struck down or only parts of it.
The LAW IS WRONG, BAD FOR THIS COUNTRY, AND TERRIBLE FOR THE "LITTLE GUYS" THAT SUPPOSEDLY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY GETS MOST OF ITS MONEY FROM. I am one "little guy/gal" who will pack it in and let the elitsts have it if this is not stopped by OUR PRESIDENT WHOM WE ELECTED AND FOUGHT FOR!
OTOH, he has great cover from the Chairman of the FEC, who knows a bit about the laws, and he himself said provisions were unconstitutional. Plus, he called other provisions unworkable and unenforcable.
Bush has at least two grounds that the general public will accept the veto on: The pricniples he outlined in the letter last year AND the comments by the FEC chairman. That will go a long way towards defusing the situation.
President Bush asks every American for responsible behavior and that includes Republican Senators. No way is he going to telegraph his decision until the bill comes to his desk.
1) it goes against his principles and what he campaigned on;
2) it shifts the power from the people to the media and to special interest groups; and
3) it IS unconstitutional
Also, the MOST Americans could care less about this issue, and if he does veto for the above reasons, Americans will have forgotten all about it within a matter of days.
PLEASE, MR. PRESIDENT, VETO THIS BILL!
If he signs it, he's going to get hell from all sides, and many within the party. And I KNOW that many of you are going to pull something stupid and say you won't vote for him in 2004, and potentially put the rest of us through another 4yrs of HELL. Keep in mind, that signing it takes the ISSUE off of the table, and hopefully will shut McCain up for once.
If he decides that a veto is necessary, the democrats will hammer him on this for the rest of the year. They'll attempt to label him a liar and all other sorts of garbage. If this bill must be killed, the Senate should do it.
Now, if history proves true, and nobody get's the balls to filibuster it, it will end up on his desk for signature. Now, before you start going on a tirade, step back and ask yourself this: Why did you vote for Bush? THINK ABOUT IT REAL HARD
Actually I would like to see some financial limits but get the ban on free speech out of there. Neal Boortz hit it right on the head when he called this bill the 'incumbent protection act' because the only information accessible to the voters in the crucial last 60 days will be from the (mostly) liberal press. It would probably benefit the dems more than the pubs. But hey, at least we wouldn't have to see stupid Enron attack smears from the DNC in the last 60 days...we'd just have to read about it in the papers :(
In the final analysis what is smart and what is right have parted company in this instance. I hope that the President doesn't fret about the NYT, WP and other liberal media outlets who have hired McCain as there paid whore.
If the President remembers it is people like me and others that stayed faithful and put McCain's campaign to a quick end in South Carolina.
Do what is right Mr. President!
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.