Wed 28 Feb 2007
Hmm… where have I heard this before?
Posted by Nate under Nate
Courtesy of Don Surber:
The fundamental difference between McCain 2000 and McCain 2008 is that he put his name on a law that forbids people from speaking out against their congressman within 60 days of an election.Wrong on abortion? That has not stopped Rudy or Mitt.
Wrong on gay marriage? Rudy lived with a gay couple after his second wife kicked him out of the house.
Gun control? It has not stopped Rudy or Mitt.
McCain-Feingold.
Of course, I’ve beaten this drum before:
McCain is hated by the base for the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection act which is seen as a direct congressional assault on free speech rights by purist conservatives.
How people are just beginning to catch onto this, I have no idea. I’m glad it’s starting to pick up some traction at the “centrist” sites like Instapundit, who agrees that this is an enormous black eye for McCain among self-identified “conservatives”.
4 Responses to “ Hmm… where have I heard this before? ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:39 am
I don’t like McCain-Feingold either. I think some of the worst parts of it came about through amendments not in the original bill, but even the original would have been a bad thing overall for our democratic process.
To come across as fair, you should point out that it doesn’t exactly forbid people from speaking out against their congressman within 60 days of an election.
It forbids corporations or unions from using soft money to produce broadcast ads referring to any federal candidate directly by name in that period. It doesn’t matter if the candidate is incumbent or not, and it doesn’t place a blanket forbiddance on such speech but rather places restrictions on which kinds of donations can fund that speech during that period.
Please realize that I’m not saying that is a good thing. What I’m saying is that it does your argument good to refer to exactly what the law really does, not an oversimplification that hides some of the important facts.
Yes, I know that those weren’t your own words anyway — but when you post something and agree with it, your point is only made stronger if you also point out where it might have glossed over the truth.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Holy hell, where\’ve you been?!
Anyway, for the purposes of my post, I thought it would have been unnecessary to go into the nuts and bolts of McCain-Feingold to illustrate that it was this bill (regardless of its specifics) which well and truly soured most of the \”conservative base\” against McCain. While so many pundits have attached themselves to other, more nebulous reasons for McCain\’s lack of appeal, this has always been out there, staring them in the face.
I\’m just glad its starting to be recognized by a wider assortment of politicos, which is what the post is about. Seeing talking heads like Dick Morris trying so valiantly to step around and ignore the issue is discouraging.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I’ve been… mostly working at places that keep their interesting work separated from the internet, which keeps me from being as active with random online stuff like IRC or whatnot.
I agree with you that it wasn’t necessary to go into the bill’s details in order to make your point. I’m just always leery when people that I might agree with on a topic (like Don Surber in your case) make my point but with incorrect or exaggerated evidence. It makes it harder afterward to argue with your detractors.
Your point about the bill setting the base against McCain is taken regardless of all that.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Ok. It’s a good point. I’ll bear it in mind.