If Bush would have tried to pass a law forcing private citizens protesting the war to hold up an equal number of pro-war signs as anti-war signs, thus negating their impact, on the logic that they are protesting on public property and are one-sided, would this make Bush a speech-trampling tyrant?
Liberals are gearing up to do exactly that to conservative talk radio pundits, and only conservative talk radio pundits, while the actual news media, which is demonstrably overwhelmingly biased for Democrats, is left completely alone. It's called the "Fairness" Doctrine.
This scam, perpetrated by the same people who misapply the 1st Amendment to defend flag-burning, porn, and NAMBLA's Rape and Escape manual, will be an even greater assault on the Constitution than the pork-payoffs and socialist power grabs railroaded through Congress by Obama under the incredibly sleazy guise of "stimulus."
So, as stated above, the question is, would it have been an illegal assault on the Constitution for Bush to have imposed a "Fairness" Doctrine on private citizens protesting the war?