Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bush spokesman erases any doubt about stand on campaign contributions

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Malone LaVeigh, Aug 5, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Malone LaVeigh

    Malone LaVeigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Location:
    Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
    Very interesting comments from pretzeldential spokesperson on the Kerry vs Swiftboaters flap:
    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
     
  2. Khornet

    Khornet Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,861
    Location:
    NH
    ???????????

    as in ?????????
     
  3. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    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
     
  4. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    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.
     
  5. Malone LaVeigh

    Malone LaVeigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Location:
    Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
    And as I said before, it has been a near-continuous downhill slide since Eisenhower.
     
  6. mrapathy2000

    mrapathy2000 member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,089
    Location:
    FrozenOver,Iowa
    oh how I long for the bright shining days of clinton again :barf: NOT
     
  7. carpettbaggerr

    carpettbaggerr Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,676
    Well, he was wrong then, wasn't he?
     
  8. Moparmike

    Moparmike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Oddly enough, a downwardly-plunging firey handbask
    Umm, no. Take a gander at the Bill of Rights sometime. Specifically the 1st Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law..."
     
  9. carpettbaggerr

    carpettbaggerr Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,676
    So it's unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional?
     
  10. boofus

    boofus Guest

    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?
     
  11. MeekandMild

    MeekandMild Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,877
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page