The McCain Free-Fall
It really is hard to avoid the impression that McCain is just about done:
The once-promising presidential prospects of Republican Sen. John McCain suffered another blow on Tuesday, as two top advisers departed a campaign that has struggled with lagging poll numbers, lackluster fundraising, close identification with an unpopular war and a clash with his party’s rank-and-file conservatives over the volatile issue of immigration.
Campaign manager Terry Nelson, a veteran of President Bush’s successful 2004 re-election, and chief strategist John Weaver, a long-time McCain adviser and close friend who was an architect of the senator’s 2000 presidential campaign, resigned less than a week after the campaign announced a shake-up that laid off dozens of campaign staff members. In addition, two other senior campaign officials quit on Tuesday.
The Washington Post reports that Weaver wasn’t just another campaign aide:
In the mid-1990s, years before Sen. John McCain officially launched his first bid to become president, John Weaver whispered the magic words in the senator’s ear: That he had all the ingredients to win the nomination and the Oval Office.
Weaver — a lanky, fidgety Republican strategist with a deceptively low-key Southern drawl — would go on to become one of McCain’s closest advisers during the 2000 race, an architect of the “Straight Talk Express.”
Like so many of McCain’s aides, Weaver also grew into became a personal friend.
Yet, even by the standards of the legendary McCain inner circle, Weaver occupied a special place. He traveled with McCain everywhere. Weaver was, quite literally, the senator’s right-hand man: on the road, Weaver would join McCain, whose range of arm motions was limited by his wounds in Vietnam, in his hotel room to help him comb his hair.
“They’ve had a very close personal relationship,” said Howard Opinsky, another longtime McCain insider. “It was born out of all the time they spent together, and the respect they had for one another. John’s loyalty to McCain has been unsurpassed.”
On Tuesday, the bond broke, at least in public. In a stunning turn of events, Weaver quit the McCain campaign, citing differences in direction.
Other McCain associates said that disputes over money — in particular, tens of millions spent so far this year on a campaign that has only spiraled downward — caused the fracture between the candidate and one of his closest aides.
The split — much more than a run-of-the-mill campaign shakeup — ended a decade-long alliance between two figures who shared a passionate, sometimes emotional, approach to politics. Republican advisers said Weaver’s departure was as unthinkable as Karl Rove leaving George W. Bush, or James Carville being shooed out of the Bill Clinton campaign.
It’s even money at this point whether the McCain campaign makes it to September…
McCain’s strategy was to be conservative enough to hold his conservative base but moderate enough to hold moderates. But he turned out to be too moderate for his conservatives and too conservative for his moderates.
I would ascribe McCain’s imminent demise to his unblinking support of the war, combined with his Macaca moment of declaring that Baghdad was safe for a stroll, provided you were supported by 100 soldiers and air cover.
Both of your observations are probably correct to some extent (but Peter, I would think a ‘macaca’ moment would be one in which you said something morally repugnant, not just something wrong factually), but don’t underestimate how badly McCain was hurt by the immigration issue. He was already in trouble, but that moved the whole thing into overdrive…
Romney’s support of the war is much more “unblinking”. Rudy and Thompson are not anti-war at all either.
In a Republican primary, I fail to see how support for the war, “unblinking” or not, is a serious drag. You have to look somewhere else for the reasons.
Peter,
No, I have to disagree. Support for the war is not likely to alienate the Republican base. What killed him was 1) The Gang of Fourteen (which, as Mark predicted turned out to be mostly a good thing, but it left a sour taste in the mouth of most in the base), 2) McCain-Feingold, 3) rumors that he tried to get Kerry to enlist him as VP on the Democrat ticket, 4) Immigration, but mostly 4) he never appeared to have the enthusiasm and energy that he had in 2000.
With enthusiasm, he should’ve been able to at least overcome the first three issues, if not all four. Also, don’t forget that he’s late to the “supply side” table and voted against the Bush tax cuts.
If none of these items bother you, then that should tell you why he couldn’t win a conservative primary. I’m not saying that he’s wrong on these items (that’s a discussion for another day), but he’s definitely swimming uphill in a Republican primary with this kind of baggage.
Plus, in general, I think that all Senators start out with about a five point handicap. And that, combined with the other things was too much to overcome. The handicap isn’t really affecting the Democrats for 2008–yet–because all the leading players are Senators.
But here’s my shocking comment for the day.
If it came down to Hillary vs. McCain, I might actually vote for Hillary.
I think that in the end, she’d be tougher on the war on terror than McCain would be, and on most other issues, I’m not sure she’d be that much worse.
I’d probably end up voting for McCain, but by no means would that be a certainty.
Which shows how difficult it would be for McCain to win the Republican primary.
“Support for the war is not likely to alienate the Republican base.” There is certainly a lot of truth to that, but it seems to me that there is less and less support within the base as more people pull away, and his strongly pro-escalation views turned into more of a hindrance than a help. I don’t disagree that the other candidates have similar views, but McCain seemed to stress it much more, where the others tried to avoid getting pinned down on specifics. Could be a case of a politician being punished for sharing too much of his thinking, instead of talking in vague generalities.
Here’s another theory: maybe the press liked him more than the voters did. McCain is an interesting guy and a genuine hero, and he makes a great story. Probably a fun guy too. Maybe his favorable press just didn’t translate into financial and popular support.
Peter, I think your evidence that McCain’s support for the war was hurting him with Republican voters is pretty weak, but I agree that his status as a press favorite probably is one of the things that has always made him suspect in the eyes of many conservative voters. The fact that he was often taken out and shown off as a Republican that even a liberal could love, and given that imprimatur by a press corps that is mostly liberal in its leanings, has given him terrible baggage. It’s pretty much the same thing that has happened to Joe Lieberman.
For the record, I don’t have much of a problem with McCain. He’s not my first choice, but I could vote for him. If anything, I might be more inclined to vote for him because I can’t stand that “Ooh, the other side gave him cooties” attitude that he and lieberman have been subjected to.
Voting is not a right, it’s a responsibility. So be responsible and vote for the correct person. Whether it be Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, or any of the other 2008 Presidential Candidates, do a Candidate Comparison and vote for a person you feel is right for the job. Remember, you have to live with your decision for four years. So vote smart.
Ugh. BTW, blog spam is not a good way to convince me of your cause. It is a good way to turn me off, however.
Chris, you’ve expressed the reasons many conservatives do not support McCain far better than I could.
Peter, Byron York had a piece in the WaPo (last week, I think) discussing Bush Fatigue Syndrome. Perhaps you’ve read it. I believe BFS is the reason many conservatives are pulling away from him. It’s not his formerly aggressive war-talk that’s off-putting, but rather the inability to just do it.
Haven’t read the piece but I will try to track it down — thanks!
Peter, I have no linking skills, but try this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070602003.html/
Your linking skills are fine — thanks! — no argument with anything in the article, and I remember when the country was equally fatigued with Carter after only two or three years.
What struck me, though, was this assertion: “the CIA leak investigation had spun out of control, that it had grown from a set of crazy political circumstances and that the whole mad imbroglio should never have gotten as far as it did.”
Would you say the same thing about the Whitewater investigation?
Whitewater? What innocent times. We were living outside the country during most of the 90′s. I remember reading Blood Sport, by James B. Stewart, and thinking it should be mandatory reading. As I remember, it was a detailed, objective accounting of the Clintons in Arkansas, complete with McDougal wheelings and dealings. We actually lived in Arkansas for a few months in the mid-70′s and always considered that our first ‘foreign country’. I saw Whitewater as business as usual in Arkansas (and a heck of a lot of other places). Apologies to any offended parties.
Are you comparing Whitewater to the Libby Lunacy? Or a conservative’s reaction to two misadventures? Byron York’s suggestion that conservatives wanted a full pardon as a powerful statement from the White House that this thing had “spun out of control” is his analysis and may be shared by many.
I think there are two chief distinctions to be made between Libby and Clinton:
1) Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, and Clinton was not.
2) Libby’s testimony concerned a legitimate investigation into possibly illegal government actions. Ken Starr’s investigation (at least the Monica part) concerned an embarrassing personal question which has nothing to do with the workings of government, and which should never have been asked in the first place. This does not excuse dissembling testimony, but it is within an entirely different context than Fitzgerald’s investigation.
Peter,
I’d say the same about the Whitewater investigation. No, actually, I wouldn’t. I’d make a lot of similar comparisons between Ken Starr and Patrick Fitzgerald, but that’s as close as I can get.
At least (from all that we know now), Ken Starr thought he was investigating a crime. Was he overzealous? Yes. Did he expand his purview so far beyond what he started that it was ridiculous? Yes, absolutely, and Fitzgerald actually comes out better in the comparison on this front.
But Fitzgerald spent three years investigating a crime that, depending upon whom you believe, either a) he knew who the perpetrator was, or b) knew in fact that no crime had taken place, or worse yet c) all of the above. In any case, Fitzgerald’s behavior was despicable.
Both Starr or Fitzgerald are great examples of what’s wrong with independent prosecutors, and both make me think that we need to seriously rethink that role. Of course, we’ve tried to do that several times. It doesn’t seem to have helped.
Good Riddance to bad baggage. My wife and I are very firm Republicans but both of us had decided that if he had taken the Republican nomination for President we wouldn’t vote in that election.
My big problem comes down to those words in the first amendment: Congress shall make no law … or abridging the freedom of speech,
This guy has done more to restrict free speech and make incumbent politicians of any party impregnable. If you are a US Senator and still you can’t understand simple words like that (or a US President or a Supreme Court Justice) then you certainly don’t deserve to be the President of the United States. Just what other parts of the explicitly outlined freedoms we have don’t you want to respect?
Now that I’ve stopped laughing, let me explain what is by now obvious: I thought you meant the Whitewater deal per se and didn’t even consider the Monica Mess.
Once again, let me echo Chris’s sentiments. Both Starr and Fitzgerald wasted a great deal of the nation’s time and money in a non-productive exercise.
Guess my button has been pushed.
Chris, I think that your argument against Fitzgerald is “despicable.” There is no evidence to suggest that he was prosecuting a crime that he didn’t believe existed. You seem to have replaced your opinion for his professional judgement. That’s not justified. I’m guessing that you are going to say that he knew Armatige leaked the name to Novak, so that means that nobody else did. Right? Well that would be a pretty flawed and short-sighted argument. It’s easy to imagine that the chatterbox did so without malice, while at the same time, someone else was systematically intentionally leaking information for political reasons. (How did Amatige find out about Plame anyway?) At the very least, Fitzgerald opened the public’s eyes to some pretty shady actions in the office of the VP. I know that transparency in government isn’t a family value, but the founding fathers kinda liked it.
And Colorado, are you kidding me? McCain is AGAINST free speech? No doubt that you don’t like McCain-Feingold, but the spirit of the law was pretty obvious. Misguided – ok. Poorly conceived – fine. Not well thought out – sure. (I don’t agree with any of that, but I can understand you taking that position). But, to suggest that he is fighting for the anti-constitution….. wow. We really do live on very different planets.
If I might reply. ColoradoRight was not saying McCain was intentionally anti-constitutional, just that for a Senator to push for restrictions on political speech implied a lack of understanding of the Constitution (a position I agree with). And that any politician with such a lack is not qualified to be President (again, a position I agree with). The First Amendment is perfectly clear about the government’s powerlessness to regulate speech. I don’t think good intentions were mentioned as an exception, but I’ll read it again.
Scott,
I just love that kind of reasoning. Let’s apply it to something else, shall we?
I’m enlisted to investigate the robbing of a bank. Before I even officially start my investigation, I learn the identity of the culprit, and further learn that he didn’t in fact rob anything, he just closed his account. By your logic, I should continue my investigation to find out if anyone else robbed the bank, or closed their accounts.
Chris, nice metaphor. Let’s extend it. What if the bank didn’t know how much money was stolen? Then, yes, you should continue your investigation to see if there are more culprits since you are not sure if the amount of money in the account he closed matches what the bank is “missing”.
A bad extension to a bad metaphor.
mikedbot,
That only works if the bank has any reason to assume that more money has been stolen and continues to press for an investigation. The bank, in fact, did not do that. Fitzgerald did that on his own initiative.
I’ll stick with my metaphor and with my description of Fitzgerald’s behavior as despicable. In fact, this exercise has only strengthened my belief in that statement.
McCain is against free speech. McCain-Feingold is not an isolated incident:
http://www.metafilter.com/57002/John-McCain-Wants-To-Regulate-Blogs
Chris,
The CIA requested this investigation. I think that we can both agree to that. Now for our disagreement: Please share the evidence that you have that the CIA told Fitzgerald that they only want an investigation of one person who leaked to Novak. I’d like you to demonstrate some shred of evidence that they were not interested in the context of the leak (Limited to Plame’s name), so that they could determine why they had lost the services of their agent.
You are acting as if Fitzgerald closed the case and then reopened it because he had nothing else to do. He did not. He was following the flow of the information, which orginally came from the VP’s office which made a request for information. This was how Armatige originally knew her identity. The investigators discovered that Libby was sharing this information (before the Novak article was printed) and when Libby’s statement’s were compared, they were obvious efforts to obstruct the investigation.
Please respond with facts rather than making an metaphor which is easily deconstructed.
The assertion that “the First Amendment is perfectly clear about the government’s powerlessness to regulate speech” is incorrect. There are many instances where the government can regulate speech, including passing laws against libel, false advertising (commercial speech), or yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that students can’t display a BongHits4Jesus banner.
However, in my view, the regulation of paid political advertising has little, if anything, to do with freedom of speech. Nobody contests a candidate’s right to say what ever he wants, nor does anyone contest an interest group’s right to do the same thing. The issue is whether there should be limits on the amount of broadcast advertising time a candidate or group can purchase. Hence, the issue is one of access to public airwaves and not the regulation of speech itself.
I think there is a reasonable case to be made that in the interests of a robust democracy, the voice with the most money to spend ought not to be able to monopolize access to the public. On the Internet, there are no limits: anybody can publish whatever they want to as large an audience as they want. However, there is a finite amount of advertising time available on television and radio stations, and I believe that there is a legitimate interest in preventing one party from exclusive (or excessively dominant) access to the public airwaves.
I believe that the First Amendment ought to allow the entire spectrum of free speech, even obnoxious speech such as the Nazi march through Skokie or the “F*** the Draft” case (or even the BongHits4Jesus guys). However, I don’t see campaign finance laws as infringing on free speech rights – they only infringe on the ability of well-financed candidates and interest groups to crowd out other voices.
No, the First Amendment is perfectly clear about the government’s powerlessness to regulate speech. We have just made numerous exceptions based on good intentions over the years. The fact that others have seen fit to stretch the absolute prohibition mentioned is no excuse to continue down that road. And McCain-Feingold goes much more than a little ways in that direction. Some people can’t criticize politicians prior to an election because it’s unfair? And that’s reasonable? To who? As for McCain-Feingold preventing the people with the most money from monopolizing the discussion, well that’s one theory, but I didn’t see it slowing down George Soros any. Does McCain-Feingold even take into consideration the amount of money an organization has before it prohibits it from speaking? Tell you what; let’s allow all Liberal organizations to abide by McCain-Feingold and all Conservative organizations not to. Then let’s see who thinks it’s a reasonable restriction on political speech and who doesn’t.
“Some people can’t criticize politicians prior to an election because it’s unfair?”
Nobody is preventing anyone from criticizing politicians. The restriction is on the amount of advertising which can be placed on the public airwaves. Candidates and advocacy groups can criticize all they want, but they cannot buy so much broadcast time that they preclude others from gaining access. It’s not a prohibition — it’s a limit — and it is in effect for only the sixty days preceding an election.
As for George Soros: I think his ability to buy advertising prior to an election should be subject to the same limits as anyone else’s. Don’t complain to me: complain to the Supreme Court, which last week refused to set limits on advocacy group advertising.
Scott,
If my metaphor is so easily deconstructed, why are you having such a hard time deconstructing it?
You think wrong. The DOJ requested this investigation. In fact, the letter to Fitzgerald from the DOJ in Decmber, 2003 clearly states that he is to investigate a “the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information in the July 14, 2003 edition of the Chicago Sun-Times and the July 22, 2003, edition of Newsday.” Now, since Armitage had already come forth as the source for this in October of 2003, it seems crazy to spend three years investigating that, on the off chance that someone else might have also leaked something. Also, there was ample reason to question by the beginning of the investigation as to whether a crime had even been committed.
The only possible reason to continue the investigation past early 2004 is, if, in fact Valerie Plame was covert, AND you have reason to believe that her identity was leaked by someone other than Armitage. When the indictments for Libby were announced, Fitzgerald claimed that he still didn’t even know whether Plame was covert or not. Huh? Wouldn’t that seem to be a requirement for spending three years investigating? If he can’t state that unequivocally, then what was he investigating???
That’s what I mean by despicable.
Now, I never said that Fitzgerald closed his investigation and then re-opened it. However, for the record, I will clearly state my belief that Fitzgerald improperly continued his investigation when there was nothing left to investigate. Like Ken Starr, he became obsessed with his investigation and his role in it to the point of forgetting it.
I’ve said before that I don’t like special prosecutors. I said it long before anyone ever heard of Patrick Fitzgerald. The problem with the role is that the investigation tends to be expanded indefinitely until there are no more rocks to turn over or until the general public starts wondering why you’re talking to Monica Lewinsky when you’re supposed to be investigating Whitewater.
So, back to my metaphor.
You’ve been hired by the bank to investigate a possible robbery. You quickly discover that in fact no robbery took place, and the person who allegedly robbed the bank comes forth immediately to tell you that he’s the one that caused all this fuss. Why would you spend the next three years looking for other robbers?
Because you enjoy the spotlight? Because you’re obsessed? Because you think that if you keep turning over rocks, you might find something of interest? Because once the investigation has started, you think you’ll look like a fool if you don’t indict someone about something?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you’re qualified for a career as a special/independent prosecutor.
Chris,
How do you think that DOJ got the case? It was based on a complaint from the CIA who requested an investigation. Arguing about this only serves to distract from the issues in question.
You say: “The only possible reason to continue the investigation past early 2004 is, if, in fact Valerie Plame was covert, AND you have reason to believe that her identity was leaked by someone other than Armitage. ”
We are in total agreement and I say that both conditions were met. Fitzgerald never said that he couldn’t determine if Plame was covert. At first he didn’t comment on it. (I wanted him to, but he said that he wouldn’t given that he wasn’t bring those charges.) Show me where he said that he couldn’t figure it out. He, however, did make it very clear this year that she covered under the law. He also never said that a crime did or did not occur. As you know the crime in question requires that one determine the leaker’s intent. He found multiple leaks and investigated them in an effort to find out how her name was leaked. He didn’t do so “on the off chance that someone else leaked.” It was right there in front of him and he continued in his role to pursue his very clearly defined investigation. Ultimately, his investigation was obstructed, which did not allow him come to a conclusion.
Your metaphor is easy to deconstruct because there was never a finding that there was no robbery.
If you would like to make that argument that Fitzgerald was only (or should have only) been empowered to investigate who specifically leaked to Novak for that article (and all other evidence should be disregarded) then I can understand your argument. I don’t however think that it’s a good one. He was clearly following the spirit of his role, very much unlike Starr.
And by the way, Fitzgerald’s refusal to tell us about his findings on Rove or Cheney makes him very different than Starr.
Steve,
No, I know that the CIA contacted the DOJ. I was just pointing out that your first statement, like most of your argument, is inaccurate.
Once again, if my metaphor is so easy to deconstruct, how is it that you continue to completely fail in deconstructing it?
In some ways Starr was worse than Fitgerald, and in some ways Fitzgerald was worse than Starr. I wouldn’t hire either one of them as a dogcatcher though.
From what you say even though you’ve discovered the identity of the robber, it’s reasonable to continue to look into this case to determine if at any other point in time someone else may have robbed this bank. This is exactly the type of overzealotry that I find frustrating in special/independent prosecutors. You definitely qualify to be a special prosecutor if you believe this. It’s reasonable to look into this one case of robbery, not others that may or may not have happened. If you start expanding the case, then you keep expanding it indefinitely. Now, I’m not saying he should ignore any other potential illegalities he discovers along the way. He should bring those forward, but remember that they’re outside his purview. If the CIA and DOJ considered any of these worth investigating, it’s my opinion that those should go to a second investigation team, and possibly a second prosecutor. I think that’s the only way to possibly avoid overzealotry. Of course, then you have overlapping investigations, multiple investigations. It gets ugly. I don’t know the answer to that. I do know that the current answer is the wrong one.
Fitzgerald clearly stated that he would not comment on whether or not she was a covert agent. That is also despicable. The only reasons not to comment are a) he doesn’t know, or b) he does know and she isn’t, or c) he doesn’t care. None of the above are acceptable.
The bank robber was never indicted. Why? The easiest answer is because there was no bank robbery. Which makes Fitzgerald’s actions despicable. A slightly more complicated answer, and the one seemingly favored by the left, is that Armitage did rob the bank, but didn’t mean to, so that’s ok. Fitzgerald had to look for the people that meant to rob the bank.
I hope you realize how ludicrous that sounds. And if true, is equally despicable.
I stand by my statement.
Chris,
My name is Scott. Let’s start there.
Your tendency to misconstrue situations, use your own perspective to attribute intent, and then make judgements about other’s actions based on that intent is ….. well, “despicable.”
Distortion: “determine if at any other point in time someone else may have [leaked]” I really never said that, in fact I pointed out the opposite, and you ignored it.
Attributing intent: “The only reasons not to comment are a) he doesn’t know, or b) he does know and she isn’t, or c) he doesn’t care.” Really? The only three reasons? You just made that up.
Judging: “Fitzgerald’s behavior was despicable.” I guess we disagree.
I have no doubt that you stand by your statement, but I suggest that you take note of how many opportunities you have given youself to come to a faulty conclusion. I’ve made every effort to communicate to you what I see as non-existent facts that you base your case on. Critical thinking and reading don’t have to be limited to elementary school classes. Please do not take my lack of response to your next comment to mean that I now agree with you.
Chris,
I’ve tried to link to a relevant article on NRO to no avail. Check The Corner, Proper of the President, for testimony given the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday on the Libby matter.
Somewhere around paragraphs 8, 9 and/or 10 I found the clearest explanations for the origin of this prosecution and some definitive info as to whether Ms. Wilson was actually covert.
I’ve really enjoyed the bank robbery analogy, thank you very much, and hope my bank ATM will not spit out a Special Prosecutor.
Peter -
McCain/Feingold is a prohibition – interest groups can not run any ad within sixty days of an election that mentions a candidates name and is designed to affect that election. Any ad. At all.
Also, it seems pretty obvious that “crowding out” is not what McCain is afraid of, and is not a sensible fear anyway. I challenge you to find one political ad that found space on the airwaves as a result of McCain/Feingold – one add that was run after passage that would not have been able to find space without the limits imposed.
Interest groups cannot mention a candidate in their advertising, but interest groups can contribute to political campaigns, which obviously can mention the candidate’s name. Interest groups have sought to influence elections since the first lobbyists sat in the lobby of the Willard Hotel, and they will continue to do so.
However, to get around the restriction on explicitly supporting a candidate, they game the system by running ads which implicitly support or oppose a candidate. Hence the NRA will run pro-gun ads in races where one candidate is identified with gun control and one isn’t: they don’t have to mention the candidates’ names to have influence. Ditto for both sides of the abortion issue, moveon.org, etc. That is essentially what the recent Supreme Court case was about, which ruled in favor of the interest groups.
As for crowding out other voices: I can tell you from personal experience that this absolutely happens, as many years ago I made my living selling advertising for local television stations. The amount of ad inventory is finite, and TV stations hate to take political ads because they crowd out the 52-week advertisers which are a station’s bread and butter. (The law also requires stations to sell ads to politicals at their lowest unit rate, which causes a different kind of problem). You can only jam so many ads into your local newscast: when one player has limitless funds and snaps up all of your ad inventory, you have to decline business from the other bidders.
Peter,
Fine, then it should be easy – name an ad that found space and otherwise would not have.
I know how the restrictions work; this was my entire point. The restriction is complete, and is content based. You can’t run an ad with a candidates name. If you don’t use a candidates name, and you can reasonably argue that your ad is aimed at an issue and not a candidate, then you can run whatever you want, however much of it that you want. Ditto for the candidates themselves: they face no limits. So . . . I really don’t understand where the “crowding out” concern is addressed. Any crowding that might in theory occur is going to occur anyway, as a result of the whole “no limits” thing that the candidates themselves face – and it’s irrelevant anyway, because even if space is created for other voices, nobody is allowed to buy it.
I’m honestly pretty confused about what you’re trying to argue. From where I sit, the point is not to create space for voices, but to substantially limit voices. In fact, this is the first time I’ve heard anyone suggest that the purpose was to allow more people the opportunity to contribute to public debate; I’m pretty sure that McCain’s goal was to shut all voices out of the debate except those of candidates’ campaigns.
TWL: you raise very good points – let me rethink my position.
My understanding is that the restrictions on advertising by 527 groups was to plug a loophole, not to restrict speech. The idea is to create a venue for candidates to gain access to advertising time in the period before an election on a level playing field, which would be distorted by advocacy groups gaming the system by throwing a lot of money into advertisements which effectively promote a specific candidate, albeit without mentioning him/her by name. This seems reasonable to me: the advocacy groups can do whatever they want for the rest of the year, but would be restricted during the 30/60 day periods preceding elections. However, you raise interesting points and I would like to rethink this.
[...] this completes one of the most remarkable turnarounds in American political history. Last July, I had completely written John McCain off, and I was hardly alone: he was raising no money to speak of, losing key staffers, barely [...]