Monday, August 23, 2004

those nasty shadowy 527s

Bush in March 2002 (about McCain-Feingold):
I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

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.
Bush today:

“ I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it. And I wish -- I hope my opponent joins me in saying, condemning these activities of the 527s. It's the -- I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold. I've been disappointed that for the first six months of this year, 527s were just pouring tons of money, billionaires writing checks. And I spoke out against them early. I tried to get others to speak out against them, as well. And I just don't -- I think they're bad for the system.”
Is Bush lying when he says he spoke out against them early? Maybe he just mispoke--he actually meant that he'd spoken out against restricting them early? Or perhaps he is just misremembering the details of his position--after all, it was over two years ago. Or--could it be--could this be a flip flop? Say it ain't so! Which position are we supposed to assign to him now, the flip or the flop? And which is which?

Yes, people, this is all about changing the rules when the rules ain't breaking in your favor anymore.