"What has he done in the past to stop them?"

Again, as President, it isn't really his job. I think you should look to Kerry and the legislative branch of government. After all, Kerry was there for 20 years, is he just now annoyed by it?

"I also recall Kerry and the writers of McCain-Feingold wanted to restrict what special interests were legally allowed to spend, but that was killed too."

I'd be interested to see what Kerry's part in the McCain-Feingold, where he expressed his "wants", and exactly how those were "killed".

Just an FYI the ACLU CONDEMNED the bill.

"He says he says he respects Kerry's war time experience but by remaining neutral on that, he is condoning the ad."

You admit that Bush said Kerry served honorably, that he should be proud of his service, and he didn't think Kerry lied about it. Yet, somehow, you think he is nuetral about the content of the SBV ads? How odd...

One might get the idea that the Kerry camp just wants Bush to piss off the people who believe them, and make people like the ACLU complain about how he is squelching people's rights. My list on ShadowWar's blog:"

1. They want Bush to say the name of the group, so they can cut out that part of the sentence and use it in ads against him, or make funny cartoons for MoveOn...
2. They want him to harshly condemn them, so if they stop they can claim that Bush really WAS in control, because once he told them to they stopped...
3. They want him to use his Presidential authority to limit the free speech of a number of veterans trying to make a statement about Kerry. Then Bush will still be hated by the Left and have offended free speech proponents and people who believe the Vets...

4. They want him to condemn them so that they can use Bush's words to defeat the claims, even if all or part of it ends up being true.
5. All of the above, and probably a half dozen I haven't thought of... (Pick this one...)

I suggest again that you go read ShadowWar's "OK what part of "all" don't they understand?", blog. Apparently he is talking about folks like you, I think.

Not to mention the fact that the president doesn't write bills, he suggests legislation for congress to write and pass (What he is currently doing with McCain regarding 527s and disclosure). His best recourse, other than that, is to request for the FEC to change rules regarding 527s (already tried that).

I shouldn't degnify condescending posts, but I'll make an exception. Presidents have reps in congress called "point men". What "point men" do is put into cycle the president's proposals, though the president does not technically have the power to introduce legislation, he really does. All I'm saying is that he can use a "point man" to kill 527's once and for all. His proposal to the FEC probably won't really change much.

The discussion here has been pretty good and I've enjoyed the debate, but I'm not going to answer smart-ass remarks like this one.

I also recall Kerry and the writers of McCain-Feingold wanted to restrict what special interests were legally allowed to spend, but that was killed too.

What your talking about is the origanal version of the Bill and Kerry's name is nowhere on the Documents or any of the ammendents. (Maybe he was busy at a Senate Intellagence meeting, Oooops not there either)

Ref:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/

The only ammendment to the Bill submitted after it was passed was added by McCain (no where Kerry's name). It required the 527s to report all contributers names to the IRS, this was so that proof for taxes and that non-Americans did not contribute to campaigns (Like China did for Clinton/Gore). The ammendment was passed along party lines, Reps for and Dems against to include Kerry.

Just the facts please.

What your talking about is the origanal version of the Bill and Kerry's name is nowhere on the Documents or any of the ammendents.

I remember Kerry on the senate floor calling for congress to stop ALL soft money contributions and the republicans were saying it violates free speech, which is why most of them voted against it. Kerry also came out on the media outlets calling for the bill to be stricter and the republicans were crying "free speech". At million dollars an ad, it's hardly free.

The ammendment was passed along party lines, Reps for and Dems against to include Kerry.

Really? Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, and Rep. Bill Thomas, R-California were fighting the final version of the bill. First Amendment expert James Bopp and Jan Baran, the former general counsel for the Republican National Committee were heavily against it and fought the bill in the supreme court. I don't understand how republicans claim to be against soft money and act another way. I guess they like their money soft after all.

Here's the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/20/campaign.finance/index.html

All I'm saying is that he can use a "point man" to kill 527's once and for all.

You don't think this is what he is doing with McCain?


BTW - I really don't care if you think my posts are condescending, smart ass, or not. You made a statement which appeared to be based on ignorance of how government works and berated Bush for not doing something which he had already done ... your stance being that it didn't count as 'doing something'.

I posed legitimate questions to your claims.

It depends on what issue your working on. In my state, elected officials have often done their best to keep us out of poliics. The best example of this is when we tried to get the Gov. Davis and the Regents to lower tuition in the UC's. The regents held their meetings in seclusion and kicked us out of the meetings and called the cops. We petitioned, begged and pleaded, by tuition was raised %40. Schwarzenneger did the same thing with the budget excuse. It does work to be activce like this, but we obviously don't have the same power as million dollar lobbiest. Even with local issues, it's not so easy to get involved when you don't agree with the norm.

Experience has taught me otherwise. I have had fairly strong political connections in every community in which I live. I have also never made over $42,000/year, and that was ONCE in my life; most of my adult life I have made substantially less (often under $20k).

It does take diligence, but that's the nature of politics. One hand washes the other.

"Really? Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, and Rep. Bill Thomas, R-California were fighting the final version of the bill."

So were the ACLU and many liberals who believed it stifles political speech. Surely you aren't psoing the ACLU as a Republican organization, are you???

I remember Kerry on the senate floor calling for congress to stop ALL soft money contributions

Strange the libral Media has said nothing about this happening (or Kerry), and even repeatedly says he has never asked to stop soft money.

But if he did, it may just be another change in directions for Kerry becuase its a political adventage.

First Amendment expert James Bopp and Jan Baran, the former general counsel for the Republican National Committee were heavily against it and fought the bill in the supreme court. I don't understand how republicans claim to be against soft money and act another way.

Also remember only 12 Republican in the House voted for the Bill in its first version and after the change, hardly a massive support for the bills change to add soft money by the Republicans. Only when the Bill was changed to allow unlimited soft money did enoungh Democrats jump on board. (Something McCain never wanted and still fighting)

The artical you gave only talked about soft and hard money given to campaigns and Unions. Remeber its the 527s (which was not part of the debate) that later has shown as a loophole in the Bill. Also, not once did it have Kerry's name.

I really don't care if you think my posts are condescending, smart ass, or not.

You questioned me on the fact if I knew if the president does not propose legislation, which he really does. Most people here have been respectful of a different opinion, but I'm not gona respond to smartass posts like yours.

So were the ACLU and many liberals who believed it stifles political speech. Surely you aren't psoing the ACLU as a Republican organization, are you???

I'm not a fan of the ACLU, but they weren't the ones fighting soft money bans on the senate floor and in the house.

The "true" liberals supported Wellstone's bill which called for the elimination of all outside contributions and all funds to be federalized.

But if he did, it may just be another change in directions for Kerry becuase its a political adventage.

I agree, he could be saying more about the issue, but he was one of the main advocates pushing for an all out ban on soft money when it became an issue in 2002. He never accepted soft money contributions when he was senator.

but he was one of the main advocates pushing for an all out ban on soft money when it became an issue in 2002.

Again, please provide me with some evidence, because I've been searching the Senate records and can't find anything. I have even started to look in to the roll call of the Senators that debated it on the floor. (I've learned the ways around the site by checking facts like these.)

He never accepted soft money contributions when he was senator.

I believe you mean Hard money right? If he never recieved soft money then he never took private donates? Then if your saying Hard money, then what about all the Union money pumped into his campaigns?

"He never accepted soft money contributions when he was senator."

In that light, neither candidate has accepted "soft money" in this election. Again, RAM, you are confusing legal and illegal "soft money". Kerry hasn't accepted any "soft money" in this election, nor has Bush, or they have broken the law. The soft money being refered to here never touches the campaigns.

You have no idea if PACs used soft money to smear Kerry's candidates when he ran for Senator. Saying "he didn't accept any" is meaningless in this context, since the kind of soft money you are talking about is illegal now.

How could Kerry prevent PACs from advertising against his opponents without coordinating his campaign with them, which is illegal? Kerry can't tell a PAC not to advertise against his opponent.

You questioned me on the fact if I knew if the president does not propose legislation, which he really does. Most people here have been respectful of a different opinion, but I'm not gona respond to smartass posts like yours.

What you are saying is that he really doesn't, technically, but he really does. With that logic, I introduce bills through my representative.

Again, do you mean as he is doing with McCain? But wait, that would mean Bush is introducing a bill ... contrary to your assertion that he has done nothing.


Your logic is hard to follow. It seems that, for you, 'doing nothing' can mean anything short of achieving the results you desire. I would guess, to most people, 'doing nothing' means not taking any action whatsoever.

As for not responding to 'smartass posts' that's your choice. I don't think my posts were smartass. I think I called you on what basically amounted to bullshit, at which point you contradicted your earlier statements ..no, technically he doesn't have the power to introduce legislation, but he really does .. and, Bush has done nothing, ...ok, he did do something but it was just a ploy.

That's so Kerry-esque, it's ironic.

Again, please provide me with some evidence, because I've been searching the Senate records and can't find anything.

I don't know how to find the records, but if there is a transcript of what was said on the senate floor, he was begging the senate to pass McCain-Feingold. I remember his words were, "It may not be perfect, but it's better than what we have." I did a paper on this pack then, and I distinctly remember him saying that, as it was covered on MSNBC. I have tried finding it on msnbc.com, but it was on TV were I heard him say that.

what about all the Union money pumped into his campaigns?

Ya, I'm not disputing that one, and I agree with you there.

has accepted "soft money" in this election.

My point was that he has always been against the use of soft money, not just now. Although it was easy for him since he never really had a chance of losing in Mass. But 2000 was a different story for Gore and Bush, they helped raised a lot of money and accepted it all.

What you are saying is that he really doesn't, technically, but he really does. With that logic, I introduce bills through my representative.

Really? You write bills and your representitive introduces them as your bills? Wow, how many bills has your administration written?

So the the Bush tax cut really wasn't Bush's tax cut since his point man was the one who introduced it, so it was really someone else's tax-cut plan.

The Bush administration wrote the Bill, but it's not Bush's bill since it was a congressman who introduced the bill in the House. You're showing a lot of ignorance because even the news report it as the BUSH Tax Cut. It's not the same with McCain because Bush is not dictating him the legislation, their going to compromise on the legislation.

Not to mention the fact that the president doesn't write bills

I found a little study guide to help you understand.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010899.htm
"Anybody -- you, me, the President, can write a bill", they just need a sponsor, which is often called a point man.

he did do something but it was just a ploy.

Yes, I do think what he is doing know with McCain he is doing so that McCain helps him in Novemember.

For the most part this has been a pretty good debate, thank you all for putting in some good points.

For the most part this has been a pretty good debate, thank you all for putting in some good points.

No problem.

I'll post the debate schedules for ya.

RATM4EVA

Check this site out. I have spent some time here and could only find evidence that Bob Kerry from Nebraska had co sponcored the Bill and made many speechs.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r106query.html

Many people confuse Bob and John (even the Kerry Campaign).

In fact, I was in Beatrice Nebraska visiting my brother during Bob Kerry's re-election campaign run in 1994. I thought it strange that he kept saying how he supported the Gulf War in 1991. My bother enlightened me by saying that he had to keep saying that or people would mix him up with John Kerry and he would never get re-elected. His campaign signs had BOB in extra large letters.

Ya, I heard Bob got in trouble over some kind of scandal with his Vietnam record. I don't know were to find the transcript (that site was kinda hard to use), but I remember Kerry speaking out for McCain-Feingold, but he didnt sponsor it. I do agree with him that it is better than what was allowed back then. I heard Feingold say it took away a significant amount of special interests from some parts of government.