Posted on 03/20/2002 4:33:41 PM PST by erk
|
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.
###
Dumb move, W. No, that's wrong... its not dumb; its stupid, its wrong and its a violation of his oath of office. I'm not just disappointed, I'm angry and I'm frustrated... ugh. Can't even think straight, I'm so pissed off at this.
I will be in this case either as counsel for one of the parties, or as counsel to a "friend of the Court." I will keep FReepers advised, to the extent I can without revealing any client confidences.
Congressman Billybob
I will not vote for him the next time around, how many times do we have to get taken for granted?
"I believe his name is Karl Rove
He is the one who was behind the tariff fiasco."
# 70 by WOSG
***********************************
Yeah, it's Karl's fault.
Bush is just following orders.
No, folks.
Bush is PRESIDENT!
This isn't anyone's call but his.
Thus, Bush is a BAD President.
Bad, bad Bush.
I think it's too early to say that, but it is time for a strongly-worded letter and a few phone calls.
To: mlo
"I might agree, but this isn't simply about politics. It's about TRUST. We trusted the word of a man we all believed in. This was his word....
"I will sign no campaign Finance Reform Bill that does not contain......."
It doesn't contain the specifics Bush demanded. He signs it, he loses the trust of soooo many, and gives the libs a chance to shoot to kill. This is sad."
# 76 by Nix 2
****************************
Bush also promised that he wouldn't allow embryonic testing.
He broke that promise, too.
He can't be trusted.
"Based on that statement I expect he will sign it.
But just like the stem cell research issue, Bush found a way to approve the research and protect future unborn.
Lets see if he can thread this needle. BB's postings led me to relealize that there are other ways to win this even if the bill is law. Bush is the one to enforce the laws and he can simply state that those parts that are not constitutional will not be enforced.
# 81 by VRWC_minion
****************************
Bush did not "protect" anyone.
By funding research with federal tax dollars on the embryos already killed,
Bush freed up PRIVATE money to pay for the killing of more embryos.
Don't forget that upon Ashcroft's first visit to Meet the Press post-confirmation he made quite clear that the overturning of Roe was not on this administration's agenda. Maybe someday when we're not busy fighting Moral Wars we can clean house here at home where our Culture of Death and abrogation of the Constitution are concerned.
The War on Terrorism's going to end, right?
# 82 by Askel5
****************************
Sure it will.
Senator Trent Lott said that as long as ONE man had violent thoughts,
the War on Terror would be necessary.
Think good thoughts, baby.
You're too mad.
Bush has guaranteed his re-election with this signature, since hard money limits are doubled, and Bush raised more hard money than any candidate in history in 2000.
And, for those who think most Republicans are going to vote against Bush because of CFR, think again.
Amnesty, maybe. CFR, not a chance.
Besides, there's no such thing as CFR. Lawyers are sitting in rooms right now devising ways to get around this bill.
And, that's assuming that the Supreme Court doesn't torpedo major portions of it, which is a faulty assumption.
Besides, I thought everybody on FR was going to vote third party or Democrat because of the "amnesty" (which isn't an amnesty but it doesn't matter).
# 84 by sinkspur
****************************
Allow a major point, sinkspur.
Bush supporters have to make excuses
about WHY the President is violating the Constitution AND his promises.
Excuses weren't allowed when Clinton was President.
Why should we accept excuses now?
I suspect your theory is right-on-the-money.
However, I have lost respect for any integrity I thought GWB had, if this is the case. And I will definitely reconsider voting for him in 2004. Disgusting.
Unless you consider that this is an assault on our freedoms, and that it will highly anger his core voting base, who put him in office. It is this type of arrogance and feeling of invulnerability that got George the First thrown out on his @ss.
True enough, rwfromkansas.
Consider the plight of an 83 year old, though.
He's had a lifetime to collect money,
and a lifetime to form very strong opinions.
That man has the God-given RIGHT to tell others what his opinion is,
and to do everything in his power to persuade others that his opinion is correct.
How can he accomplish that goal if he is limited to spending $1000.00??
"Unless you consider that this is an assault on our freedoms, and that it will highly anger his core voting base, who put him in office. It is this type of arrogance and feeling of invulnerability that got George the First thrown out on his @ss."
# 514 by SerpentDove
****************************
Bush barely won the race.
There are still those who sat that he DIDN'T win.
Bush must be counting on the liberal vote for his re-election.
He sure isn't courting the one who brought him to the party.
Thanks Exodus ... I'd love to track down that quote.
I feel sorta sorry for all these folks ... particularly those who -- having put all their eggs in one basket all this time -- now feel like "opting out" simply because George Bush did what George Bush had to do.
This is precisely the reason I get all exercised when I see "Bushies" thanking God they voted for Bush or believing for a moment in the moral leadership of a man who used his first televised address to nail open the most profitable window of Human Nonpersonhood.
I couldn't care less about Bush ... certainly don't "hate" him for having been born to a dynasty and tapped like Saul on the road to Damascus for a life in politics. I do loathe and detest the way he and his "advisors" keep playing good folks for total chumps, however.
Makes me ill.
For example, a Republican would never have gotten away with a live test fire of the Federal Police Forces military prowess at Waco or a "moral war" in Serbia. Democrats have their purposes. We vest them with the tools and -- as did Danforth under cover of "Election Crisis" on November 8, 2000 -- wipe their bloody weapons clean for them.
"This bill" was the plaything of John McCain.
He used it in his fight for the Presidency,
thinking that Americans wanted it, for some reason.
Surprise, nobody cared for his idea.
Congress passed it because it sounds good.
Bush will sign it because he thinks it sounds good.
Both parties expect that the Supreme Court will stop it.
Neither party cares that it violates the letter, and the spirit, of the Constitution.
You make private enterprise sound like a gov't budget. As long as there is the prospect of a profit the the private dollars will be there. In fact the carrot of making federal dollars available gives the federal gov't a say in how laboratories do the research.
Option A (your option) is no federal involvement and the result is unrestrained research. Option B, (Bush's option) is federal involvement to the extent of already existing stem cells and the result is restrained research.
Even Jesus taught us to be wise in the ways of the world. Bush is.
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.