Bush spokesman erases any doubt about stand on campaign contributions


PDA






Malone LaVeigh
August 6, 2004, 12:54 AM
Very interesting comments from pretzeldential spokesperson on the Kerry vs Swiftboaters flap:
In Columbus, Ohio, where the president was traveling Thursday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan cast the commercial as a product of "unregulated soft money activity."

The president, he said, "thought he got rid of all of this when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill [regulating campaign financing] into law," adding, "This should all be stopped. It does nothing to elevate the discourse."
Now let's hear from all of you apologists that claim he thought his buddies in the SC would overturn it...

Oops, forgot to give the source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/kerry.veterans/index.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush spokesman erases any doubt about stand on campaign contributions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Khornet
August 6, 2004, 04:40 PM
as in ?????????

pax
August 6, 2004, 04:54 PM
Malone ~

These are the exact words with which President Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law." -- President Bush.

Translation: I think this is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court will cover my butt.

Incidentally, I'm no Bush apologist. I think he is forsworn, and I will not vote for him again. But to claim he didn't think the SC would erase large portions of that bill is simply disingenuous.

pax

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison

Waitone
August 6, 2004, 05:07 PM
Absolute, classic example of moral cowardice.

He knew the act was unconstitutional.

He knew he also would catch political heat from democrats and spinelessrepublicans if he veto'd unconsitutional legislation.

He knew both parties were in on the scharade. Both parties want to changes the rules. Soros had already determined the replacement channel of money would be 527's. Spinelessrepublicans bought off on the democrat rope a dope when they said democrats had just cut themselves off from their donar base. BS.

He counted on the SC to protect his political butt and it cornholed him. In my view the joker deserves everything he gets.

Rather than do what was morally right he opted to play politics and basically give congress anything it wanted. I think it intolerable the joker has yet to veto a single piece of legislation through out his entire term. That is not the action of a chief executive. That is the action of a toady.

Said before and will say it again. Absent the war on islamofascist terrormongers, we are looking at the weakest president in my lifetime.

Malone LaVeigh
August 6, 2004, 06:28 PM
Said before and will say it again. Absent the war on islamofascist terrormongers, we are looking at the weakest president in my lifetime. And as I said before, it has been a near-continuous downhill slide since Eisenhower.

mrapathy2000
August 6, 2004, 11:05 PM
Said before and will say it again. Absent the war on islamofascist terrormongers, we are looking at the weakest president in my lifetime.

oh how I long for the bright shining days of clinton again :barf: NOT

carpettbaggerr
August 7, 2004, 12:25 AM
He knew the act was unconstitutional. Well, he was wrong then, wasn't he?

Moparmike
August 7, 2004, 09:50 PM
Umm, no. Take a gander at the Bill of Rights sometime. Specifically the 1st Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law..."

carpettbaggerr
August 8, 2004, 11:58 PM
So it's unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional?

boofus
August 9, 2004, 12:01 AM
Supreme court was wrong, they've been wrong before.

Didn't they once rule that escaped slaves had none of the unalienable rights and had to be returned to their owners?

MeekandMild
August 9, 2004, 12:17 AM
Absent the war on islamofascist terrormongers, we are looking at the weakest president in my lifetime. So tell me again, what is wrong with a weak president? Come to think of it, what would be wrong with a hopelessly gridlocked congress and all the federal judges getting old and retiring without being replaced? How about a government which is too ineffective to pay its beaurocrats, so they all quit in disgust?

This has possibilities. We could always go back to the Articles of Confederation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush spokesman erases any doubt about stand on campaign contributions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!