Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RUSH TO DUB: IT'S GUT CHECK TIME ( Stand up for free speech. Veto this bill Mr. President)
rushlimbaugh ^ | 2/15/2002 | Rush Limbaugh

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 301-319 next last
To: DugwayDuke
Bush gave full notice to Congress and the People that he would sign it.

You heard wrong. That is not what he said. All of his announcements have been qualified.

121 posted on 02/16/2002 9:19:21 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: baxter999
What is wrong with President Bush? It's not just that he's being a weenie on this issue.

Is he? so far I don't belive He's sid anything on this piece of excrement. I believe he's too good of a politician to let this thing get signed into law.

122 posted on 02/16/2002 9:19:29 AM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
When is the last time a President actually had the political and personal spine to veto a popular but contraversial bill? They always threaten, but they always sign. It seems to me that the Presidential veto could be one of the most effective tools in the battle against liberalism and big government. It's just a shame that not even 'Conservative' presidents have the guts to use it.
123 posted on 02/16/2002 9:21:36 AM PST by ForOurFuture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForOurFuture
"When is the last time a President actually had the political and personal spine to veto a popular but contraversial bill?"

I could be wrong, but didn't Clinton veto a ban on partial birth abortion?

If my memory serves me correctly and this is true...I'd attribute Clinton's actions more to a pact with the devil than to anything close to a "political and personal spine"

124 posted on 02/16/2002 9:26:50 AM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Are there ANY Constitutional safeguards worth fighting for and protecting???

Constitutionalists are apparently a fairly small fraction of the American electorate; neither Republicans nor Democrats think they're worth courting.

I predict no veto, just another mudrasslin' festival of mutual recriminations, accusations, and obfuscation.

Final score: Politicians..437...Constitution..0...:*(

125 posted on 02/16/2002 9:33:11 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I listened to the article and the proper quote would be "I . . . think there ought to be . . . some limits on . . . on freedom." The questioner wouldn't let him finish. (BTW, it seemed to be a friendly but agitated questioner.) It sounds an awful lot like GW wanted to say something more precise but wasn't allowed to finish the thought.

And if A-R doesn't believe there are limits on freedom (libel, copyright infringement, etc.) then I invite him to visit the local movie house and yell "Fire!".

126 posted on 02/16/2002 9:35:09 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Succinctly put, Rush, as usual. I know some here like to bash Rush because he isn't tough enough on Republicans, but, after listening to his show the last couple of days, I believe that he is genuinely concerned about the effect this bill will have on free speech in this country. As he has said on his show, this CFR legislation was passed based on a congressionally-created hysteria that has absolutely no basis in reality (i.e. the majority of Americans could care less). If congress can amend the Constitution based on false hysteria, at least with regards to political speech, what is to stop them in the future from going after other freedoms? Knowing how evil some of these people are, I believe they are licking their chops right now planning other outrages.

Unfortunately, I think W has painted himself into a corner on this one. I think it was a major mistake for him to indicate early on that he would sign the bill. He should simply have said what he is saying now- he'll decide when it reaches his desk. I'm sure he expected a majority of Republicans in congress to show some backbone, but I think he has found out what the moderates are made of (he should have known this after Jacka$$ Jim Jeffords jumped).

127 posted on 02/16/2002 9:36:03 AM PST by Major Matt Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
To me, this is gut-check time, Mr. President.

Veto this bill Mister President!

128 posted on 02/16/2002 9:38:36 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68
BUMP
129 posted on 02/16/2002 9:40:47 AM PST by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
BUMP
130 posted on 02/16/2002 9:44:16 AM PST by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
The problem with that is that the Supremes may only declare part of it unconstitutional, which would still leave some of the provisions there. As I see it, there are three reasons that the President can give for vetoing it:
  1. Once again, individuals and corporations are targetted, but not unions or professional organizations.
  2. The provision for not buying ads is blatantly and chillingly unconstitutional.
  3. There is no explicit provision for banning foreign contributions. [This was strangely left out of the bill and, given our experience with the civil rights commission, if something is left out, it was "intended to be left out" or so some Federal judge can rule.] This has the added advantage of bringing up some of the Clinton sins without having to do so explicitly. I think this one needs to be trumpeted.

Politically, I think it would be best if it were filibustered in the Senate. It will bring up Daschle's "60 votes on bills I don't like" nonsense and it will look like a principled stand. That's why Bush isn't telegraphing what he will do. I think he will veto it, but he doesn't want it to get that far.

131 posted on 02/16/2002 9:44:23 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I called the White House last night but the office taking messages was closed. They will reopen on Tuesday, after Presidents (and one rapist) Day. I will call on Tuesday to let the President know the RIGHT thing to do is to VETO this bill!

Next will be a bill curtailing people of certain religions from voting! .... then another preventing conservatives from assembling!

IT MUST END HERE!

132 posted on 02/16/2002 9:47:55 AM PST by libsrscum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
BUMP and I agree with you.
133 posted on 02/16/2002 9:48:26 AM PST by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rep-always
I think that Bush can earn political capital by vetoing and clearly stateing his objections to this anti-American bill.

I wrote my miscreant congrescritter Curt Weldon, 7th District, PA , who voted for this anti-constitutional bill, that he could not depend on my support for any office he sought in the future. Shame on him. I urge other 7th district voters to do likewise.

Let them know how you feel, before forced to resort to the bullet box!

134 posted on 02/16/2002 9:52:12 AM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I gave W $100 last election. I was overcome. Come on W, flush the bastard "RINO"s who voted for this non-American bill. I'll support you with whatever it takes next cycle! Blow these anti-American bastards to hell!
135 posted on 02/16/2002 9:56:57 AM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I emailed McConnell to add my support for a filibuster (senator@mcconnell.senate.gov), and both emailed and faxed the following to the White House. I'll call them Monday too.

White House email: president@whitehouse.gov
White House fax: 202-456-2461
Whie House switchboard: 202-456-1414

My email to the President:

Dear Mr. President,

I believe that your veto of HR 2356, the so-called "campaign finance reform" bill currently in Congress, is imperative should this false and dangerous legislation make it to your desk. Its proponents have labeled it with a feel-good title, giving cover to its details, which blatantly violate our First Amendment right to free speech. Those same proponents went so far as to acknowledge the unconstitutional elements of the bill during the House debate, yet passed it in spite of this. They added elements which merely serve their own grandstanding and political self-interest, while robbing the common citizen of their most basic Constitutional rights. It is a dangerous lie, and one which must go no further.

Undoubtedly there are many arguments to be made for and against a veto. Some may caution you against the political fallout resulting from such action. They may advise you to sign it into law, letting the US Supreme Court reject it on its blatant unconstitutionality. However, it is not the place of a strong leader to take the moral low road, and let the responsibility of upholding the US Constitution to someone else. You have shone as a leader since the day you took office, and it is your duty as that leader to act decisively on this issue. Contrary to what some may say, you will gain much in the eyes of the nation with your veto. You will be doing so in order to uphold the oath you swore to protect the US Constitution. You will be doing so to protect the rights and voting voice of the everyday citizen. And you will be upholding your promise to support true campaign finance reform, which this most assuredly is not.

Before exercising your veto, it is vital that you use this opportunity to address the nation, explaining in simple terms the details of this bill. Show them how it does nothing to improve campaign financing, and in fact makes it worse. Show them how it denies them the right to free speech, while empowering large organizations. Let everyone see it for what it is, a package of lies and restrictions cleverly disguised as "campaign finance reform." Then, let everyone once again see you for the leader that you are, taking decisive action with a veto which is in our nation's best interest.

Polls have shown that campaign finance reform is a low-priority item in the public's mind. Proponents of the bill have used this fact to sneak it through Congress. However, it is this same fact which will insure that the slight bit of negativity which may result from your veto will be small and short-lived, if it happens at all. On the contrary, I believe that the strength you show by stopping this abomination will gain, not lose, public opinion. You will again demonstrate the leadership you have shown consistently since taking office.

The issue is really quite simple. This bill does nothing for true campaign finance reform, and violates the most basic constitutional principles upon which our nation was founded. It not only is your duty to veto this abomination, it is the legal and moral right thing to do. When and if the time comes, please do so decisively for all our sakes.

136 posted on 02/16/2002 10:03:01 AM PST by gbunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
I do not fault Bush on foreign affairs, however, his domestic agenda to me is a sham. It looks like the democrats wrote it, especialy the Home Security thing, in the long haul that scares me. Somewhere in the past I recall Bush talking about "less government", hardly been the case.

Ditto.

137 posted on 02/16/2002 10:03:19 AM PST by serinde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
The media spun his connection to the Keating Five scandal as simply naive and not criminal. I disagree! He really hasn't learned anything and continues to take money from sources that are the antithesis of what he is championing.
138 posted on 02/16/2002 10:05:38 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Folks this could be GWB's Waterloo. He has the choice to veto this. Anything else would ruin him politically. let me explain

Question, if X41 would have listened to one man he would have had a second term and we wouldn't have had to endure stained blue dresses etc., for a free cup of coffee who was that person?

Vice President Dan Quayle. What was the advice? Do not go back on your promise of no new taxes and don't except the Sununu/Darmin deal with Sen Majority Leader George Mitchell. He didn't listen and the rest is history.

GWB please do not go back on your guidelines that were what you wanted in a CFR package to be when this was floated over a year ago. Ari Flischer spelled them out, maybe he should do so again. Stick to your guns, do the right thing, not for your career but because it is the right thing to do.

139 posted on 02/16/2002 10:07:00 AM PST by taildragger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
you know something cynicom you can bash bush seven ways to sunday but you don't have to run for office and essentially have to deal with soccer moms and moniorities who essentially decide elections anymore.
140 posted on 02/16/2002 10:09:21 AM PST by Leclair10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 301-319 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson