RUSH TO DUB: IT'S GUT CHECK TIME ( Stand up for free speech. Veto this bill Mr. President)

rushlimbaugh ^ | 2/15/2002 | Rush Limbaugh

[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.

[rwfromkansas]

Here is a limit on freedom: refusing to allow people to sacrifice dogs. I suppose you don't have a problem with allowing that, right?

[rwfromkansas]

Call me nuts, but saying a fetus is a human life is a good thing and very much a conservative action!

[rwfromkansas]

I would support Civil War III if Bush signs this thing.

[rwfromkansas]

I am a social conservative. Call me nuts, but I don't have a problem with getting a pro-gay guy out of this country to be our ambassador in some dinky little country.

[rwfromkansas]

propose your own damn plan that works and we will talk

[rwfromkansas]

he wants to tighten up immigration....of course you didn't hear that since you only look at articles from "Libertarianantibush.com"

[taildragger]

Thanks SBeck, Yes what a shame he wiethered of the scene, For all the s**t the liberal media gave Quayle he kept his smile. However they succeed in there objective and that was to politically destroy the man. They saw in him the leader he could be and it infuriated them.

What a loss for America, and his lovely bride Marilyn, gosh what an asset to America she is as well, have you ever heard her speak? Not to take the Lords name in vane, but what a God Damn Shame. Instead we got Clinton/Gore for eight years, I don't think I'll ever recover from those 2, my blood still boils....

[OldFriend]

Called and signed an online petition. No sense calling my two senators........Toricelli and Corzine!! Oh woe!!!

[spycatcher]

Actually, the only Republican with more power than Limbaugh is the President. But he can still move conservative public opinion against Bush with his radio bully pulpit. While Bush can't bother Limbaugh if he starts feeling heat. Nor does Bush appear to use the bully pulpit effectively to make his case for issues outside of the war effort.

The White House may not respect him, but they have to respect his power, intellect, political instincts, principles, and people like him that he represents in the abstract. Bush wouldn't be president now, just like the Republicans wouldn't have taken over the House in the 90's without Rush Limbaugh's support. That's not even arguable.

[rwfromkansas]

there is a provision in the bill that it becomes law 10 days after passing unless the prez vetoes

[rwfromkansas]

just in case, PLEASE CONTACT THE WH...for best effectiveness....via fax and phone.

[rwfromkansas]

In his budget submitted to Congress he grades all agencies and bases funding partly upon this grade. He has cut in many areas.

[rwfromkansas]

It is not true that Bush ordered people not to come. If it was, it would have been all over the threads about CPAC.

[rwfromkansas]

He said he would not sign a CFR bill if it opposed his principles.

[Faithfull]

You are not alone either. Most of my family members and neighbors would also die of ignorance and apathy if either were a disease. When I tell them what is really going on within government, they don't even know what questions to ask. It is easier for most people to watch nightly sitcoms and mumble the liberal media's repetitive slogans. It is work to be informed, to read details on legislation, etc..I fear our country is collectively dying of ignorance and this is just what the Nazis counted on years ago.

[Sabertooth]

And all Republicans like McCain who want to restrict our freedoms need to be utterly marginalized. They're no better than Jim Jeffords.

[rwfromkansas]

If Rush is the epitome of the conservative base of Bush, perhaps it is a sign that the base does have serious concerns with this bill and many will abandon Bush if he signs it. Maybe not, but it is possible. I know for me I do not think I could vote for him in 2004 if he signed it. Now, if he signed, then announced a constitutional challenge to clear up the concerns of people like us Freepers, I could probably support him. But, reluctantly because I do not believe it is the honorable method to pass it off to the courts....who have done more damage to our freedom than anything the Presidents have done combined. I do not think it is honorable to pass it on and play chess with the Constitution.....but, it would probably be enough that I could stomach a vote for Bush (in the first presidential election I am old enough to vote). On the other hand, if Bush vetoes this thing, tells Americans about how bad the bill is, and then offers his own bill of true reform (this last step, as well as the 2nd, is not necessary for my support, but would be a plus for public opinion), I will once again wave the pom-pom like I currently am and be able to go to the polls in 2004 with my head held high and check "George W. Bush."

[Eala]

Agreed!

He can get political advantage from vetoing it too, if he explains how it is unfair, unconstitutional, and a threat to our liberties.

He can explain that this is where our system of checks and balances works, by preventing one arm of government from empowering itself at the expense of the public.

He can explain that he will now illustrate just how that system works by vetoing this bill that by all rights should never have been passed, much less introduced, in the first place.

He will veto it to protect our constitutional rights against those in Congress who would deprive us of those rights.

Such a speech ought to leave more than a few democRats hopping mad, I would think.

(An e-mail to this effect has been sent to him; if you agree, send more.)

[Libertina]

This is good news. Perhaps even better if he had attended, although I don't know if that is customary.