If he signs this legislation, he's in the wrong.
You know it... I know it....
Stop defending the indefensible.
Sometimes it's OK to simply say... "He's wrong".
Just because you and I believe it's unconstitutional and he shouldn't sign it, doesn't mean it's the correct political thing to do.
Unless you don't ever want to hold the Senate and House and White House again.
Given what Congressman Billybob has said about the bill, and based on what I have heard about the matup between the Common Cause types and McConnell's duo (Starr and Abrams) that occured recently, it seems that this bill is set to be voided for the most part (corporate and union contributions, the disclosure provisions, and the increase in hard-money limits being the only party that have a good chance of making it, IMHO). The provisions struck down are going to be PERMANENTLY killed.
The debate here seems to be one of how best to protect the constitution. The Supreme Court cannot give advisory opinions. Frankly, I think it's time to put a stake in the heart of this crap permanently. That meant this had to become law. After Enron, the only viable way for Bush to avoid a firestorm of lies and still kill this bill would be to sign it, and let SCOTUS handle it. And this is going to be killed permanently, not delayed by a veto.
A veto would only delay the inevitable until a Dem got elected in 2004 or 2008. But if SCOTUS strikes down stuff as unconstitutional, they will NEVER be able to bring it back barring a constitutional amendment.
We've got a President that thinks long-term, and this is a good thing, not a bad thing. That political capital is being saved for Supreme Court nominations and Social Security reform, as well as for if the going gets tough for the war. Let's give this guy the room to screw ALL the Dems, not just SOME of them.