"or abridging the freedom of speech"
Abridging the financing of speech abridges speech
It seems to me a good way to take the issue off the table would have been to make an articulate argument that limits on speech are wrong even if the speech in question isn't popular. Instead he has ignored the constitution to make himself popular.
In terms of brilliance its right up there with the prom queen wanabe doing the football team to garner votes.
Articulate arguments are not often useful against media-backed Democratic hyperbole and outright lies. This is not an issue where a majority of the public at large is going to actually educate themselves on the facts, and reach a proper conclusion.
Also, do not underestimate popularity. Without it, nothing else is possible. A politicians first duty is to get elected. Combine that with the fact that the Media will do everything in their power to play up the potential class-warfare argument against Republicans, and you have a situation where it is better to have the issue go away.
Sun Tzu says that a wise general should not fight a war without knowing it's outcome. What we now know, is that once the courts decide the matter, it is OVER, regardless of how it turns out. A Bush veto would have resulted in Democrats and Media beating Republicans over the head with this issue for decades.