Posted on 02/16/2002 7:27:55 AM PST by TLBSHOW
Today, ladies and gentlemen, you cannot shout "Freedom!" in a crowded election. That's what this phony campaign finance reform bill will mean if it becomes law, which is why there is a huge debate going on inside the Bush White House over whether the president should veto or sign the bill. It appears right now the president is going to sign the thing - and this is what's troubling.
Mr. President, remember the brilliant address you made to the nation explaining our course of action in fighting world terrorism? I say the same kind of approach is called for with this deceptively named campaign finance reform bill. You enjoy an amazing level of trust with the American people. They trust you. They believe in your honesty and integrity. You could explain to them just why this bill is unconstitutional, and why it ought not ever see the light of day. The First Amendment has just been amended here in wanton violation of the Constitution.
Folks, when John McCain was running for president in the Republican primary, I said, "If Russia passed a new law that restricted free speech and competitive elections in the way that the McCain-Feingold bill does, and then claimed it was reform, our state department and human rights groups would denounce it as repression of the Russian people. The New York Times and Washington Post editorial pages would rail against these efforts as anti-Democratic - which they are." This bill is un-American, wrong and against freedom, and I say this knowing that it would make me even more powerful than I am now. Think about that.
President Bush has demonstrated that he has the resolve and the courage and the principle to face down the evil of terrorism. He's shown that he is committed to doing what's right regardless of what the European Union, congressional Democrats or even the media has to say about it. He's doing the right thing. He's following his instincts. Well, let me suggest that this assault on the Bill of Rights requires no less resolve and courage by the president to prevent a severe blow to our liberty.
To me, this is gut-check time, Mr. President. One of the major reasons you were supported over McCain back in the primary season in the year 2000 was your stand against this very bill. Stand up for free speech. Veto this bill.
Be more inventive, jeez. I would have at least said, if I were of a conspiratorialist mindset, that Rush KNOWS Bush will sign this, and therefore is taking the "conservative" position where he knows it won't matter. But thank God I'm not a conspiratorialist.
Go Rush. You have been out front on this from the get-go.
I believe GW took the same "I'll sign it" stance with the stimulus package; 'lo and behold', the bad package never made it to his desk. I'm really getting tired of our congressional "leaders" hiding behind the 'skirts' of the president, and one way to stop them is to hold them responsible for their actions.
When GW goes before Congress and asks then to declare formal war against Iraq (he has no other choice), we will find out what our representatives are made of.
Definitely unAmerican!
I do have one question for everyone here claiming Bush should veto this bill since it is unconstitutional. So what? If it is as unconstitutional as everyone here claims, then there is no danger in signing it. When you call for a veto you only show how weak your belief in it's unconstitutionality really is.
Sign the bill, the minute it hits the desk. Then announce that you've instructed Ashcroft to immediately challenge it on constitutional grounds. That way Bush keeps his word, demonstrates how unconstitutional the bill is, and teaches those in Congress a lesson in not passing the buck.
So quit with the "social conservative" crap. I'm as socially conservative as anyone and I would NOT want to listen to three hours of homosexual bashing every day.
IMHO, Bush has been rope-a doping. It's a smart strategy.
First, you go on the record as supporting "cleaning up the system." Then you outline a list of your desires. You also express a couple reservations, like "If it's so important, why not make it effective immediately?"
Now that it is passed, everyone assumes you will sign as you have said.
The stage is set perfectly to veto the bill. You come out and announce the veto and SLAM the cowardly Congress for wanting to clean up the system, JUST NOT YET. Then you slam them for dissing the First Amendment. Checkmate.
IMHO, W has only been saying he would sign it so the blame for the veto would go to those who wrote such a "bad bill."
I find him stunningly like Reagan on many big-picture issues. He has done more for pro-life, more for national defense and security, and more for bringing blacks and minorities to true conservatism than anyone. But I also find him annoyingly like Teddy Roosevelt at times---willing to use government for purposes that are (in my view) completely unconstitutional. But the key phrase is "in my view." He certainly doesn't see it that way, nor does the Congress, nor do the courts. The one thing that TR, Reagan, and Bush all have in common was their honesty and love of America, and that, in the long run, is worth almost any transitory policy you can come up with, because policies change.
Very true, OldFriend, very true. When he was running for president, I was initially impressed with him. After he lost, I lost all respect for him in a short period of time, most especially over his threats and whining about McCain/Feingold . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.