Rules are for thee, not for me

John McCain is now aggressively exploiting loopholes in . . . wait for it . . . McCain-Feingold. Presumably this is all right because as we know, McCain is not like those other nasty politicians who take money as part of a corrupt quid-pro-quo. McCain is taking money in order to fight the good fight, which makes it okay to raise the funds By Any Means Necessary.

I was against McCain-Feingold, so I normally don't get particularly interested in violations thereof. But as far as I'm concerned, politicians who voted for McCain-Feingold are the only people who should be bound by its silly and counterproductive rules. And Messrs. McCain and Feingold should be straightjacketed with them.

Comments

But, but, McCain is a....STRAIGHT TALKER!!

Posted by Will Allen | April 22, 2008 12:49 PM

I am no McCain supporter, but I couldn't help noticing that you moved from your first paragraph with him exploiting loopholes to your second paragraph with him violating the law, without actually connecting the dots.

Posted by Richard Hershberger | April 22, 2008 12:58 PM

Richard, Megan's an Obama supporter, and is willing to excuse Obama's hypocrisies while smashing McCain for his. And she has a strange obsession with the McCain-Feingold law. Now, I too think it was a bad law, but it was one both McCain and Obama supported.

Moreover, I think the ever expanding welfare state is a much greater threat to our liberty than McCain-Feingold (which will hopefully one day be repealed or ruled unconstitutional).

So the question for those of us who care chiefly about the preservation of our liberty is this: which of two imperfect candidates is the better? And the answer is clear. John McCain is more likely to restrain government spending and regulation than Barak Obama.

Those who place a high value on reducing wealth inequality will naturally gravitate toward Obama. And given their preferences, that is perfectly understandable. What's much less understandable is why someone who purports to want a smaller government would support Obama.

Posted by rwe | April 22, 2008 1:25 PM

What Richard said; loopholes are, well, loopholes, precisely because exploiting them is not a violation of the statute.

McCain-Feingold is still stupid, and McCain's still a jerk for not dogfooding the issue and obeying the spirit he proposed as law.

But he ain't less bound by its actual written rules than anyone else; anyone can exploit this "loophole". (I'm not sure it should even be considered one, but the definition is naturally fuzzy.)

Posted by Sigivald | April 22, 2008 1:28 PM

(To clarify, I don't read you as saying McCain is violating the law, but your second paragraph is somewhat unclear and is perhaps too easy to read as an accusation of lawbreaking rather than of failure to abide by a non-legally-binding "spirit of the regulation".

McCain is just as straightjacketed as everyone else on this, and in this regard - that is, none of them are.)

Posted by Sigivald | April 22, 2008 1:31 PM

Megan -

I agree with rwe's characterization of your opinions ("Megan's an Obama supporter, and is willing to excuse Obama's hypocrisies while smashing McCain for his. And she has a strange obsession with the McCain-Feingold law...(which) both McCain and Obama supported.")

Please set us both straight if you feel that this is unfair or inaccurate. How exactly is Obama better, except perhaps that he hasn't actually done much of anything and therefore hasn't made the kind of well-meaning although perhaps suboptimal compromises that you so strongly object to in McCain?

In short, other than his lack of accomplishments (and good looks and charm and pleasant although misleading rhetoric), in what way is Obama preferable? The closest you have come to explaining this is to express your hope that he's not really serious in many of his stands, for example against free trade. Is that all you've got?

In this particular case, I agree with earlier postings that a loophole isn't a violation. Surely the law was drafted based on the assumption that candidates would do all that they were legally allowed to do, so it's not hypocritical for McCain to do precisely that.

Posted by Ann | April 22, 2008 1:56 PM

Unless this is some sort of pun on "straight talk," the word should be spelled "straitjacketed."

Posted by Larry | April 22, 2008 2:19 PM

I agree with Ann, Megan could you please enlighten us as to why it is that you’ve decided to support Obama because all of your previous reasons (e.g. you liked an economic advisor who was then thrown under the bus and McCain’s perceived pandering on autism) all seem to have evaporated. From what I can understand of your position on the issues, with the exception of McCain-Feingold (which as RWE pointed out – Obama supports), McCain ought to be pretty close to your ideal guy and certainly more so than Obama or Clinton.

He’s a consistent supporter of free trade, whereas with Obama you’re left hoping that he doesn’t mean what he says
.
He’s against farm subsidies in general and ethanol in particular whereas Obama is the most consistent supporter of farm subsidies and ethanol.

He’s the only candidate who has been willing to address the issues of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

He supports free market reforms to health care rather than new mandates.

He’s one of the most ardent deficit-hawks in Congress and voted against Medicare Part D, SCHIPS expansion (which you said you opposed), the last two Farm Bills, the pork-infested transportation and energy bills, and supports earmark reform.

Like you he supported the Iraqi campaign of the War but has not only been critical of how it was handled post-liberation but has been one of the leaders in making constructive improvements to the situation rather than proposing a date for withdrawal or saying “stay the course.”

And on the issues where he’s disagreed with his conservative base, it’s usually been where he’s closer to your position on the issues:

He opposes a Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution.

He supports and has sponsored comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

He supports and has sponsored legislation to deal with AGCC.

The way I see it, from what you’ve shared with us of your opinions on the issues, McCain ought to be someone you would not only support but support enthusiastically.

Posted by Thorley Winston | April 22, 2008 2:41 PM

Ann & Thorley,

I don't think Megan has an answer. She cannot provide any rationale for her support for Obama that is consistent with the principles she espouses.

Her past attempts have been pretty weak, focusing on tax credits and an economic adviser who is now on the outs. The truth is that there just isn't a libertarian or conservative case for Obama. For all the cheap talk about "new kind of poltics" of "hope and change," Obama is really a pretty orthodox liberal.

So again, I can understand why other orthodox liberals find him appealing. John Kennneth Galbraith--if he were still alive--would love Obama. And Teddy Kennedy just gushes with praise for the Junior Senator from Illinois. What I cannot understand is why someone who purports to understand and accept the case for smaller government would prefer Obama to McCain. It just isn't rational.

The choice really could not be much more clear--it is very much the same choice that voters faced in 1980 and 1984 when Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale respectively. Do we want higher taxes, more spending and more regulation? Do we want bigger government? If so then we should vote for the Democrat.

Posted by rwe | April 22, 2008 3:34 PM

did the 'embargo' on this story, McCain's FEC fraud, expire tody??

Posted by MEH | April 22, 2008 3:40 PM

Posted by rwe | April 22, 2008 3:34 PM

rwe,

you're like a brother that hasn't yet connectedthedots..

Government spending has being going one way, up, no matter the consonant, D or R, in the parentheses behind the name of the occupant of the White House..

why don't you remember that the basis of the FedRes' FOMC operations is the U.S. Treasury debt security, and see if that might the causal link--to ever increasing Gov't debt, higher taxes, and ever more Gov't spending..

Posted by MEH | April 22, 2008 3:55 PM

As I understand it, there is a complaint sworn out against McCain for campaign finance violations, but the FEC is stymied because of the Spakovsky nomination thing. Specifically, McCain has gone past public campaign spending limits. Not such a big deal if you forgo the public financing. But McCain apparently secured a loan on the strength of that financing, so he's in a bit of a bind.

I'm voting for whoever gets the Democratic nomination by the way. The reason is simple: They're not McCain, who gives every evidence of being a dishonest opportunist of low character and who has already promised to give us a Bush administration: more tax cuts, more wars.

The last two things we need are probably more tax cuts and more wars.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | April 22, 2008 8:28 PM

ScentofViolets, are you trying to make us believe that you might have voted Republican if they had had a better nominee? Because that's not a very credible claim.

Posted by y81 | April 22, 2008 10:02 PM

Sigh. I voted for Bush the elder. And then against him, and then for Clinton. Against Bush the Lesser twice. The fact of the matter is the GOP is not my father's party, it's been co-opted since at least 1994.

The funny thing is, you and yours are the one with the credibility problem, not me. I'm a moderate, not a liberal. Your clearly . . . neither of those two things.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | April 22, 2008 11:40 PM

"Megan's an Obama supporter, and is willing to excuse Obama's hypocrisies while smashing McCain for his."

If it was not for the concept of hypocrisy, liberals would be virtually silent.

Posted by Sisyphus | April 24, 2008 4:37 AM