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.
Why am I not surprised?
pocket veto n. 1. The President's indirect veto of a bill that has been presented to him within ten days of adjournment, by the retention of the bill unsigned until Congress adjourns.
For some unexplainable lapse in talent on loan (perhaps the devilish implant), Rush espoused that if Bush didn't sign within 10 days the bill would become law.
I think that if Bush rejected this bill and cited his reasons, that it was unconstitutional, that it violated the 1st amemndment, etc. Bush would earn political capitol. He would in my eyes (and how).
What say you?
My prediction:
The President will veto this nonsense and come out with a brilliant speech explaining why. He will mention how this affects all sides. It will be worded in such a way that people will forced to remember how Bush himself has been a victim of negative ads by special interests, yet the opposition had the right to do so. He will make McCain, Sheehan and all those who voted for this crap look like the petty little political punks that they are, wasting the taxpayers' money at this time of economic troubles and war on trivial jurisdiction that any fool knows will be struck down by the Supremes.
Yes, this will be great. President Bush is going to make thess weasels really look bad, just you wait and see.
President Bush must see through this fog of political warfare being waged upon our freedom and cherished Constitution. He must stomp it hard with a free speech veto!
Best FReegards...Mustang sends.
Bush included provisos that mandated that each individual's freedom of speech would be protected (among other requirements). This bill does not respect an individual's freedom of speech, so we can expect Bush to veto it.
Last time I looked, it was still ok to have an opinion on matters of politics. I am guilty of not being a nose to tail GOP elephant. This country would indeed be a dangerous place if no differing opinions were tolerated. I supported Bush, voted for Bush and when he does something that I do not agree with, I surely will have an opinion and will espouse the same.
I want less government, smaller government, not more government and no one can say Bush has not ENLARGED the government on our backs. Anyone that calls for elimination of agencies is called a quack, idiot, etc etc. The government feeds upon people as a cancer upon its victim. Homeland security is the worst possible thing that could have been done by Bush. I fear the American people will one day rue the day this was foisted upon us.
I hope your right. The polls now show his popularity to be waning slightly. He cannot possibly hope to maintain his high approval ratings.
I should have thought he would have siezed the moment on his political capital, used the bully pulpit, and advanced conservative issues and values. If he rope-a-dopes too long, the moment may have passed.
Horse manure!!
You, sir, have a very weak understanding of how our government works.
Bush has a constitutional obligation to veto anything which reaches his desk which he suspects is unconstitutional. (The same goes for Congress -- every Congress critter has a constitutional obligation to vote against any bill which they suspect is unconstitutional).
Protecting and following the Constitution is *not* just the job of the Supreme Court.
Your post is akin to, "well, the police chief should just go ahead and do anything he wants with his department, let the courts address any abuses." Nonsense.
Furthermore, you neglect to consider the damage which could occur between the time the President signs an unconstitutional act, and the time it is finally thrown out by the courts.
I will confess to not listening to Rush regularly. I did catch bits on Thursday and Friday and my impression was that he was characterizing the campaign finance reform bill as one of the largest constitutional wrecks to have ever emanated from the Congress. Bad as the bill is, I do not see that.
In listening to Rush off and on over the years, he has never struck me as hard core on the social issues nor has me impressed me as one who is constantly question congressional authority. I have viewed him more as a republican apologist than as a constitutionalist.
Bush's education position is an example. I recall Rush extolling the President's political manuevering and not really questioning the authority by which the federal government presumes to be involved in education in the first instance.
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.