W signed the CFR this morning

[Libertarian]

Okay, So the Shrub signed the bill and slipped off to his ranch for a long Easter holiday.

My site, www.firstamendmentfund.org, should be online by tonight. I have a PayPal account set up to take donations to support the suit against this law. (I know, they are not our friend but they take the least out of the transfer). I will have a link to the "First Amendment Fund" PayPal account for donations as soon as I am fully online.

 

[BTR]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25112-2002Mar27.html

Bush Signs Campaign Bill, NRA Sues

By Scott Lindlaw
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, March 27, 2002; 10:57 AM

GREENVILLE, S.C. –– President Bush signed landmark campaign finance legislation Wednesday and the National Rifle Association swiftly filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the new law.

Bush signed the measure in the Oval Office – without the public signing ceremony often staged for major legislation. In a written statement, he said that while the bill has flaws, it "improves the current system of financing for federal campaigns."

Bush then embarked on a two-day swing to South Carolina and Georgia, where he planned to raise more than $3 million for GOP candidates for Congress.

Critics have long argued the legislation violates the Constitution, and the NRA was the first in line to file its challenge at the federal courthouse a few blocks from the White House. The legislation "eviscerates the core protections of the First Amendment by prohibiting, on pain on criminal punishment, political speech," said a legal complaint filed on behalf of the NRA and its political victory fund.

© 2002 The Associated Press

 

[TheBluesMan]

Stealth Signing

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/TheNote_March27.html
Dashing out the door, the King of Hard Money Leaves Behind a John Hancock.
By Mark Halperin, Elizabeth Wilner & Marc Ambinder

So the image some of us had dancing in our heads of a big White House signing ceremony at which the president explained to the world in front of John McCain and a gaggle of clean-money goo-goos exactly why it is that he is making something he finds to be largely both unconstitutional and bad policy into the law of the land seems likely to go unfulfilled.

Sigh.

Many a presidential profile in courage has taken place within the private confines of the Oval Office.

Bill Clinton was Ñ and still is Ñ widely considered to be the best fundraiser in the history of his party Ñ "the Fundraiser in Chief."

But the real all-time champ-een, President George W. Bush, hasn't been given the same moniker, in part because he's had the good sense to leave Motel 1600 and take his anti-terrorism and party cash show on the road.

There's every reason to think the current President would be a big fundraising draw even without the war, given the record sums he pulled in during his campaign, but we bet some number of people showing up with checks in their pockets today in South Carolina and Atlanta, and tomorrow in Texas, will be there to hear from their Commander in Chief.

The president doesn't disappoint, invariably coming from or going to a war-related, quasi-policy event and speaking at the fundraisers about US military efforts abroad and efforts to protect Americans at home.

Two more functions of the president's wartime, magic traveling cloak: 1) it tends to wow the local press, and keep the more cynical traveling press pool from getting too snarky about the political and fundraising aspects of these trips, and 2) it keeps the president's poll numbers high.

Who knows whether George Bush will be a popular wartime president when he himself stands for re-election, but he will have passed several times through every electorally important state AS a politically popular wartime president by the end of this year. And surely there will be some sort of residual, if presently immeasurable effect. And surely it ain't hurting the political standing of those candidates with whom he appears.

All of which is to say that President Bush begins his journey to Texas for the Easter weekend today by stopping in South Carolina and Atlanta, in part ("ostensibly," Democrats and cynics would say) to address emergency workers and keep America focused on the war against terrorism, and in part ("in actuality," Democrats and cynics would say) to raise money for two Republican members of Congress who are running for the Senate.

We don't know at this writing whether any of the money collected today in conjunction with the president's trip would be outlawed in a McCain-Feingold world, although much of it is hard money that would still be legal.

Rep. Lindsey Graham, for whom Bush is expected to raise about $1 million, is running to replace retiring Senator Strom Thurmond, and Rep. Saxby Chambliss, for whom Bush is expected to raise about $1.4 million, is seeking the GOP nomination in a contested primary to take on Senator Max Cleland.

We can't say it often enough: helping Dr./Senator Frist win back control of the Senate is Political Priority Number One for this White House.

Snaps to the Democratic Senate campaign committee for working their spin into some of the local and national coverage today; see if you can spot it É

Mr. Bandy of The State previews the president's visit to South Carolina. "Before the Graham fund-raiser, Bush will promote his proposal to spend $3.5 billion to help firefighters, police and rescue squads respond to domestic terror attacks. He will visit a first-responder unit in Greenville and later deliver remarks to a gathering of emergency personnel." ( http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/2943565.htm )

"The White House added the homeland security stop to Bush's schedule to split the cost of his travel between the taxpayers and Graham's campaign. That drew complaints from Democrats."

"In 1999, Graham voted for a measure to require a candidate's principal campaign committee to reimburse the federal government for all use of government transportation for political purposes."

"Graham said his campaign would pay for part of the Bush visit but didn't say how much."

Check out the classy (if fuzzy) invite to Graham's fundraiser.
( http://www.lindseygraham.com/Events/Events.cfm?ID=164&c=10&date=3-27-2002 )

 

[ojibweindian]

I voted for Bush because:

1. Gore stinks

2. I bought the argument that the Libertarian candidate had no chance for election, hence voting Libertarian was a defacto vote for Gore.

I've realized the error of my ways. Bush, and to a large degree the Republican Party, cannot be trusted. The only difference I see between the Republican and Democratic parties is the swiftness in which our rights under the Constitution are being whittled away.

For those of you who say that I will be throwing my vote away by voting Libertarian, save your breath. I hold G.W. Bush, with his signing of this bill, his granting amnesty to illegal aliens, as a stellar reason to switch party alliance to the Libertarians.

 

[dischord]

2. I bought the argument that the Libertarian candidate had no chance for election, hence voting Libertarian was a defacto vote for Gore.

Which would have been the case only if you lived in a close state, which, IIRC, 'Bama wasn't.

If the Repub or Dem is way out in front (consistently outside the margines of error on multiple polls), you won't affect the two-party race one way or the other by voting LP.

You will, however, raise the votes for the LP, giving it more attention.

 

[madmike]

I don't like Harry Browne. He's an idiot, and likely crooked.
But he was the least idiotic and crooked of the bunch. As to this:

"2. I bought the argument that the Libertarian candidate had no chance for election, hence voting Libertarian was a defacto vote for Gore."

I'm glad you've seen the error of the logic.

By that argument, we should all just have voted for Gore, because he was most popular with the press. It is gutless and pathetic to not vote for a candidate because he "can't win." Why bother voting then?

A vote for a minor candidate ISN'T "a vote for XXXX." It is a vote for that candidate. At worst, it is a vote of "none of the above."

The Communist Party of the US never got a single candidate elected. It forced the DummyCraps to put every single one of its planks in their own platform, by refusing to vote for anyone not left-wing enough. Proof: You can bet that the DummyCraps will suck up to Nader next time.

Remember the Simpson's episode where the slimy space aliens replaced Dole and Clinton? And argued that to vote for any other candidate besides one of them was a wasted vote?

I hope we're brighter than the Simpsons.

A vote for Gore was a vote for socialism and gun control. A vote for Bush was a vote for fascism and gun control. A vote for anyone else was a REAL statement of politics.

Do you want to vote for the candidate who's going to win? Or the candidate who best represents your position?

If the former, do me a favor and stay the hell home.

If even a million gun owners do the latter, the message will be sent.

 

[OF]

I heard that the NRA and McConnel have already filed suit...

Pray for a quick death with prejudice. I hope the court scathingly reprimands the entire legislative and executive branches in their decision.

Spineless traitors, the whole lot of 'em.

- Gabe

 

[ernest2]

It is a never ending battle to protect our first and second ammendment rights from a federal government and politicians, bothe democ Rat and republicans in name only,
who continiously unconstitutionally ursurp more and yet more power to further their political agendas.

The big loosers here are: We the People and the degragation
of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Our Rights.

DemocRats and Republicans in name only seem to be two branches of the same tree lately, both of whom take turns
downgrading our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms; HOWEVER, there is still
some difference between them.

Democrats accomplish the destruction of our rights and freedoms
much more quickly and blantly , while republicans in name only
work more slowly and less extreemely.

Because we have a republican in the white house, some of our rights and freedoms are still intact and had Gore been elected
this would not be the case.

When we vote in national elections , we are reduced to choosing the least effective enemy commander , so that our side can last
a bit longer and the US Constitution can endure and be meaningfull, yet a bit longer.

None of us like the violation/infringement of our first ammendment and second ammendment rights represented by
the campain reform/incumbent protection act that Bush just signed and I fault Bush for signing it.

Bush himself has misgivings about signing it and I am guessing, probably would not have except for political pressures brought to bear upon him, about which we have no idea.

Still, the law itself remains for us to deal with.
Bush takes the expiedent way out and we have to clean up the mess Bush made.... at the Supreeme Court or loose our first and second ammendment rights.

Too Bad George W didnt have the guts to veto the so called campain "reform" bill, but then, George is looking forward to a second term and that has something to do with it, I'll bet.

George knew better but he also knew even more better.

In politics, most goes on behind closed doors and there are many considerations to a decision that we will never become aware of.


IN CLOSEING , THE POINT IS..... better to vote for a republican in name only and loose our rights slowly than to vote for a democRat and loose our rights Immediately or as soon as DemocRattly possible.

Oh Yea.....A vote for a Libritarian , while we vote our conscious and true feelings, feels good and just elects a democrat to steal
our rights and freedoms right out from under our feet.

A waist of your vote that hastens our/your doom.
That is to say, I would vote libritarian ,in a new york second,if it could ever accomplish anything meaningfull other than a protest.

Closing Thought:

When we vote in national elections , we are reduced to choosing the least effective enemy commander , so that our side can last
a bit longer and the US Constitution can endure and be meaningfull, yet a bit longer.

All of this is meerly my opinion as I try to make sense of the proceeding posts. On rare occasions, I have been wrong but I constantly work to try to minimize that.

In other words,my best guess given the incomplete and only part
of the information that I have to base my opinion on.

 

[ojibweindian]

In essence, you're saying that you would prefer to be slow-roasted instead of broiled.

In all seriousness, why should we take the crap Bush and the republicans have been doling out to us? We deserve better than the slower erosion of our freedoms that voting republican ensures.

It really is time for the Republican party to receive a message from those disenchanted with what they have become, that message being "We will take our votes elsewhere if you refuse to represent us."

 

[astound]

"We will take our votes elsewhere if you refuse to represent us."

Amen

 

[sumabich]

I thought he had principles

Boy was I wrong! He has facilitated the socialist agenda since he got in, and appears to lack the courage of his convictions (if he has any) I don't care if "he's trying to take the issues away from the demo's" for the upcomming election. That's BS. Why didn't he take it to the people, veto the bill and tell why. No guts, no vote, lame duck. I voted for my first Libertarian in 2000, from now on there will be more. Amen to all of you, you've illustrated my frustration better than I could have!

 

[gorlitsa]

Any big party will have the same sort of corruption. Their goals are to perpetuate the party, not govern properly. If the Libertarian Party ever gets big enough, the same sort of problems will plauge it.

And that's why I fully intend to replace all the donkeys and elephants on next years election posters with cows and sheep. Anyone who votes because of party (ANY party!) is no better than a herd animal.

 

[Christopher II]

You guys are bringing a tear of happiness to my eye...

- Chris (libertarians uber alles!)

 

[C.R.Sam]

AZ Sen Kyl stated that he felt that parts were unconstitutional. (He voted against it in the senate).

However, he said, the way the bill is written, if the unconstitutional parts are thrown out, the rest will stand.

So many politicians and other criminals to throw out. At all levels.

 

[TheBluesMan]

I have heard the argument that Bush signed this bill to prove that he is a President who will compromise and cooperate.

I have heard the argument that Bush signed this to make himself more "re-electable" in 2004.

I have heard the argument that Bush signed this to fix campaign finance, even though the bill "isn't perfect."

I have heard enough excuses.

Bush has signed a bill that is blatantly unconstitutional. He has compromised the Bill of Rights to cooperate with traitors McCain, Feingold, Shays and Meehan. He has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Today he has broken that oath. He, and Congress for that matter, is just as responsible for the constitutionality of laws as the Supreme Court.

Please see the column by David Limbaugh for more information on this topic: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106330

 

[OF]

True, Bush failed in his oath of office. But don't forget he was put in that position by the cowards in the legislature who voted in relative anonymity compared to Bush. And don't forget that the politicians who voted were put there by we the people.

Not an excuse, just spreading the blame where it is due.

They all need to be tarred for this, every last one of them.

- Gabe

 

[Monkeyleg]

As one who backed Bush with crossed fingers, I feel really let down. He did not have to sign this bill. With approval ratings approaching 80% (higher than Reagan's ever were) he could have explained to the public why this was a bad bill. And I don't think the public really cares that much about the McCain/Feingold bill anyway.

Bush had a chance to look monumental and he blew it. I'm sure that the Republican advisors think that signing this will keep the Democrats from increasing their majority in the Senate, and from re-taking the House. I'm also sure those advisors will be shown to be wrong.

This is a black day in American history.

 

[TheBluesMan]

You're spot on, Dick. Rush said today that Pres. Bush "can do no wrong" regarding his approval rating; so he coined this phrase:

When you can do no wrong, you must do what's right!

BTW, the democrats will continue to attack him, so he's not making any new friends by signing this bill.

I still haven't heard a good reason why he would sign this bill. I think that the absence of a signing ceremony speaks volumes...

 

[mdlowry]

Bush is also the one who promised to pass the standard cap/assult ban after it sunset in Sept 2004. He'll probably justify it as helping to fight the war on terror.

Does anyone know if any other "campaign finance reform" has gone before the courts before? What is the courts (esp supream) decision on this? I'll be surprised if I hear that the courts overturn this.

 

[mdlowry]

Bush had a chance to look monumental and he blew it. I'm sure that the Republican advisors think that signing this will keep the Democrats from increasing their majority in the Senate, and from re-taking the House. I'm also sure those advisors will be shown to be wrong.

Does anyone here care which party has the majority vote to destroy our rights? Is it worse to have a dem majority if the rep are going to support them and give them most of what they ask for when the dem's have a minority?