Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Statement by the President: "... I will sign (CFR) into law."
Office of the Press Secretary ^ | March 20, 2002 | George W. Bush

Posted on 03/20/2002 4:33:41 PM PST by erk

The White House, President George W. Bush

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002

Statement by the President

Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system.  The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions.  I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

###


Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; cfr; cfrlist; silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 551-581 next last
To: FastCoyote
The criticism leveled at Bush seems to be deserved. But doesn't anybody find it troubling that our lawmakers saw fit to pass this bill? I didn't check, but I'm sure all or most of the six Reps (including Shays himself) and both Senators from my state (Connecticut) signed it.

Don't they, too, have an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? After all, you get 2/3 of them to agree, then the veto becomes irrelevant, right? We came close in the Senate. Seven votes.

251 posted on 03/20/2002 6:21:20 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
THERIN lies the problem.. we should NOT be looking for a way around them.. we should STRONGLY OPPOSE it at FACE VALUE.. period

You argue like a populist. America doesn't elect populists.

Try arguing like a politician. Bush is a politician, not a populist.

252 posted on 03/20/2002 6:22:05 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
How about some good ol' parsin' of words (or maybe an egotistical attempt at keeping the thread going):

Notice that the statement refers to "the reforms passed today" and that "I will sign them into law." Does this fit your scenario?

253 posted on 03/20/2002 6:22:36 PM PST by erk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
Watch Bush's approval ratings from this point forward.

how? He'll be a hit with the idiot 'independants' and the media will love him (or not hate him). The courts will strike down the free speech ban and he ends up with a bill that doubles the hard money limits (which is a GOP asset). As someone said, this is smart politics. No different than what Clinton did to the liberals when he signed welfare reform.

254 posted on 03/20/2002 6:22:41 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
He's not a lawyer.
255 posted on 03/20/2002 6:23:30 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Like I said before, when you find a President or politician who hasn't played politcs give me a call.

I believe playing politics with an issue of this importance is inexcusable. Doesn't there come a time when a politician has to use his/her political capital to make a principled stand? When will that be? What issue will be important enough, assuming this one isn't?

256 posted on 03/20/2002 6:23:51 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"What are the words? We must look at the words, because the words are important."

As in "Excess" human embryos "already been killed"?

257 posted on 03/20/2002 6:24:26 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I am now ashamed of the President, fearful for the Constitution, and have my work cut out for me.

Take your pills first.

258 posted on 03/20/2002 6:24:38 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
He'll just piss off the base.

But he won't piss off the base. He'll piss off Free Republic, but that's not very hard to do.

"The base" isn't paying attention to CFR.

259 posted on 03/20/2002 6:24:49 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
Can you clarify?
260 posted on 03/20/2002 6:24:52 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
As someone said, this is smart politics. ..

As someone else (me) said, I prefer strong principled positions over "smart politics"

261 posted on 03/20/2002 6:25:32 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne; Miss Marple; Congressman Billybob; JohnHuang2
Am I angry about this bill? Yes.
Am I angry enough to give the White House to Hillary or Algore in 2004? No.

The fact is that the media and the Dems boxed Bush in with all that Enron talk. It was masterfully done, and Bush got some bad advice, IMHO. This is not to say he shouldn't have fought sooner, but we know what he has to deal with, and we should have known we'd take hits. We have a Senate leadership without any guts, and margins so close in the House that 15 or 20 RINOs will kill us. We also let things get too close in the Senate, where Jim Jeffords' treachery gave Daschle enough power to force this though.

Quite frankly, we've dodged a lot of stuff, and had a heck of a batting average to date. Unfortunately, the other side had the passion to use their big advantage against us. Enron happened, then the media, McCain, and the Dems stampeded everything. We just got hammered, and quite frankly, I am not arrogant enough to say that we could overcome a media barrage that would be little more than the 2002 edition of the 1995 budget battle.

I had hoped for a fight, but there was something behind the scenes that happened that ultimately forced Bush's hand on this. Now, we just got handed a lemon. Do we have the character to make lemonade, or do we run home like crybabies?

I'll try to make lemonade, and be thankful this is the ONLY full-fledged defeat we have had to date. By all rights, we should have had a lot more.

262 posted on 03/20/2002 6:25:55 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I am the base. I won't vote for a rat or a third party puke but my checkbook will stay closed, thats a promise.
263 posted on 03/20/2002 6:26:44 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"The base" isn't paying attention to CFR.

So you think its okay to violate the constitution as long as there are not "too many" people watching....

God HELP us..

264 posted on 03/20/2002 6:26:48 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Try arguing like a politician. Bush is a politician, not a populist."

Teddy Kennedy is a politician, so is Dashle and Gebhard. Using your logic, and the tactics of venerated politicians, I therfore declare that you, sinkspur, are a racist.

265 posted on 03/20/2002 6:26:51 PM PST by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy;twodees
He'll just piss off the base. Brilliant. He has RINO's feeding him political advice just like his dad did.

This is the stupidest statement I've read tonight (and trust me, thats bad since I've only read one reply and that was from Twodees). You must be on crack.

266 posted on 03/20/2002 6:27:05 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
As someone else (me) said, I prefer strong principled positions over "smart politics"

The Loser column is full of a lot of pricipled guys who ran for office.

267 posted on 03/20/2002 6:28:05 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
As in "Excess" human embryos "already been killed"?

No. As in "no embryos will be killed from this day forward."

A reasonable position, as history has borne out.

268 posted on 03/20/2002 6:28:14 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Am I angry about this bill? Yes.
Am I angry enough to give the White House to Hillary or Algore in 2004? No.

Are you suggesting that GWB is the only conservative candidate the Republicans have to offer.. get real...

David

269 posted on 03/20/2002 6:28:28 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
He'll just piss off the base

And then the Democrats will say..."All Your Base are Belong to Us!" Sorry, couldn't resist.

270 posted on 03/20/2002 6:28:32 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

Comment #271 Removed by Moderator

To: AppyPappy
Because if this abomination is completely tossed out, then it's dead forever. Gone, 100% dead, no way to bring it back barring a change in the Constitution.

A veto merely angers the media, fires them up, and possibly triggers a third-party run by McCain which could kill us in 2004 (hello, President Hillary Clinton).

Am I disappointed he signed it? Yes. But I am not angry enough to walk away and give the White House to Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.

272 posted on 03/20/2002 6:28:59 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I dont think he's in a position to say that the bill he's going to sign is unconstitutional. Thats the job of the courts. But I forget you libertarians keeps ignoring that branch of government.
273 posted on 03/20/2002 6:29:29 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
Only because we continue to DEFEND politics as usual.. and do not force our candidates to express their PRINCIPLES more than their "issues"
274 posted on 03/20/2002 6:30:15 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
I am sick to my stomach.

I hope something spurs us to action.

275 posted on 03/20/2002 6:30:32 PM PST by Osinski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Sink, I think Im with you tonight. Anyone who can piss of so many people over one issue is my kinda guy!

I think its time everyone took in a few deep breaths, and found out what exactly the CFR bill is going to do!

Depending who you listen to, it is the greatest or the kiss of death. Ill bet by Friday the whole tone on FR about CFR will change.

276 posted on 03/20/2002 6:31:03 PM PST by Don Carlos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
yep, she sure did and yep, you can come along. been getting ready to go there since owl gore tried to steal the election. shoulda let him, with folks who are gonna dive and just give it to the Evil party anyway.
277 posted on 03/20/2002 6:31:12 PM PST by roachie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Dream on.

It does not matter how much money one raises it is votes that get one elected.

No one on the face of the earth can manufacture votes better than a democrat.

If President Bush signs this bill into law it is the end of the republican party except as a [to be polite]a footstool and whipping boy for the democrats.
Come to think of it, since Gingrich left, that is all the republicans are at this time.

trent lott and the French have one thing in common--their favorite flag color is white.

Just as his father was snookered by the democrats, it appears that the son is going to suffer the same fate.

And to those who think that this law will be a Godsend to the republicans, who do you think is going to be prosecuted for violating it. Hint: It won't be the democrats.

I know, I know, john ashcroft is a.g. and will be in charge of enforcing the law.

Question: Name 10 clinton croneys he has prosecuted since becoming a.g.He himself was an election fraud victim.

278 posted on 03/20/2002 6:31:44 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: erk
This guy Bush is very weak. Throwing money around like a drunken sailor or in my case Marine. Signing CFR is the straw. He's lucky there is a war, or he would be irrelevant. The dems have him right were they want him. He's a one termer just like dad.

I took off my Bush2004 bumper stickers today. I won't forget in 2 1/2 years. My wife and I made 2800 phone calls for him in the 2000 election. I'll be sitting 2004 out. We are really upset.

279 posted on 03/20/2002 6:31:55 PM PST by Pit1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
I would have to say Mondale was principled when he said he would raise our taxes. Wrong, but principled. Look what that got him.
280 posted on 03/20/2002 6:32:20 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
As in "no embryos will be killed from this day forward."

Wake me when the government who intends to profit from ESCR (and funds the likes of ACT to the tune of 1.5 million a year) decides they'll prosecute those who destroy -- by "hopeful research" or otherwise -- the Leftover human life they've manufactured for profit.

Bush pulled a Clinton on you and you bought it. It's thanks to his decision that both the NIH and the Congressional Blue Ribbon panel have revamped their words to respect the window of pre-implantation human non-personhood President Bush nailed open.

281 posted on 03/20/2002 6:32:21 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
So you think its okay to violate the constitution as long as there are not "too many" people watching....

Presidents don't determine constitutionality, in the end. The Supreme Court does.

And, when the SC strikes down the 60-day ad limit, what remains will benefit the GOP.

If I can think of this stuff, don't you think Bush's people are strategizing in the same way or better?

Politics is the art of the possible. Remember that.

282 posted on 03/20/2002 6:32:29 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
"No different than what Clinton did to the liberals when he signed welfare reform."

I thought that was the point, that we had worked for someone who was different than Clinton. But now you're pulling the bait and switch, replacing a Democrat liar with a Republican liar, and expecting us to just take the crap we've just been fed. You should be ashamed of yourself.

283 posted on 03/20/2002 6:32:30 PM PST by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
I dont think he's in a position to say that the bill he's going to sign is unconstitutional. Thats the job of the courts. But I forget you libertarians keeps ignoring that branch of government.

I am NOT a libertarian, I am a Republican, who will never compromise on PRINCIPLE.. its okay to compromise on "issues" so long as it does not VIOLATE the principles of the Constitution.. that is simply inexcuseable...

284 posted on 03/20/2002 6:33:00 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"Do we have the character to make lemonade, or do we run home like crybabies? " -- hchutch

You have mistaken the problem about campaign finance reform just as most folks have. It has nothing to do with our individual character. It has everything to do with government officers maintaining character. You see, this CFR is about the usurption of the first amendment in many ways; not in the correction of Congress rules which doesn't require legislation.

You got it all wrong; you are hood-winked by the Congress and the president that it is their right to bind you behind your back and beg for more government.

285 posted on 03/20/2002 6:33:18 PM PST by Buckeroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Dittos....my words exactly...
286 posted on 03/20/2002 6:33:18 PM PST by mystery-ak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
"He must know it will fail in the courts."

Great. Who is going to be the test case and spend the rest of their ruined lives paying off the scumbag lawyers?

287 posted on 03/20/2002 6:33:19 PM PST by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
I dont think he's in a position to say that the bill he's going to sign is unconstitutional. Thats the job of the courts. But I forget you libertarians keeps ignoring that branch of government.

ROTFLMAO! Me, a libertarian. Buy about 26 vowels and consonants.

I'm a blue collar guy and I know its unconstitutional. How the hell would President Bush not know when he has Solicitor General Olsen, one of the foremost lawyers in America, working for him.

288 posted on 03/20/2002 6:33:58 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The words are important because they give us a way around them.

Is that a quote from Marx or Lenin ?

289 posted on 03/20/2002 6:34:02 PM PST by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
You should be ashamed of yourself.

The goal of electorial politics is to reward your friends and punish your enemies. If you think its anything other than that, you're naive. The courts are the referees.

290 posted on 03/20/2002 6:34:03 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: sport
It does not matter how much money one raises it is votes that get one elected.

Money buys votes. If it didn't, nobody would raise the money.

291 posted on 03/20/2002 6:35:34 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I'm a blue collar guy and I know its unconstitutional. How the hell would President Bush not know when he has Solicitor General Olsen, one of the foremost lawyers in America, working for him.

That very well may be the position they take before the supreme court. There is a process here.

292 posted on 03/20/2002 6:35:36 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
Passing and signing unconstitutional law is not illegal. A politician can not go to jail for it. It's that seperation of powers thing -- ya know the Constitution.

I am not a lawyer, but violating your OATH to SUPPORT and DEFEND the constitution IS a crime worthy of impeachment... REMOVAL from office... not jail...

Passing and signing unconstitutional law does violate one's oath to the constitution. Prosecuting one who has passed or signed unconstitutional law is also unconstitutional.

293 posted on 03/20/2002 6:36:33 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
"The base" isn't paying attention to CFR.

Sinkspur is right. You'd be suprised how many people have no idea what's in the bill, and think CFR is well overdue. I've mentioned it in passing with folks, and they approve- no kidding! They like Bush for it! (They have no idea the others were even involved! McCain who? Who's dashole?)

294 posted on 03/20/2002 6:36:46 PM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
again.. it is not about who will benefit... If congress passed a law REQUIRING all FUTURE candidates to be Conservative/Christians (Which I am) I would STRONGLY OPPOSE it because it violates the Constitution, even though it would be of GREAT benefit to my personal agenda
295 posted on 03/20/2002 6:37:55 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Presidents don't determine constitutionality, in the end. The Supreme Court does. " sinkspur

Then why isn't the oath based upon the Supreme Court as opposed to the Constitution of the United States? Why doesn't he just tell the USSC, "I do?" I will tell you why, sinkspur .....

Article II, section 1: " Before he [THE_PRESIDENT] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

296 posted on 03/20/2002 6:38:06 PM PST by Buckeroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
I might look at other options in 2004, but what the heck am I supposed to do? Run to that wacko Buchanan? Go to someone who won't win, but will put Hillary or Gore in?

We got beaten, pure and simple. Daschle beat us, and somehow, he and the media browbeat Bush into this. As I've said, this is the first real loss we've had. That stem-cell decision was 85% of what we could have hoped for.

You want to stop crap like this, let's get more conservatives elected. That's not going to be easy, so we'd better move on it. No use crying over spilt milk. Let's be frigging adults about this, shall we? Things do not always go our way, and sometimes crap happens.

Sorry, I can't wave a frigging magic wand and make this damn bill go away. I sent e-mails, and did I everything could.

There's nothing else to do but fight the next battle that will come down the line. Sulking is not an option.

297 posted on 03/20/2002 6:38:14 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
"I was only off by one amendment."

Don't worry, gun owners are next.

The Assault Weapons Ban comes up for renewal soon, and Bush has already said that he'll sign it.

298 posted on 03/20/2002 6:38:26 PM PST by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
"The Loser column is full of a lot of pricipled guys who ran for office."

Perhaps you would include Simon of California in that list, oh genius of the ages, who stomped smart bet whimp RINO Riordan and now leads Grey Davis?

299 posted on 03/20/2002 6:38:30 PM PST by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
see post 295
300 posted on 03/20/2002 6:38:49 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 551-581 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson