Up Yours, Again, Senator McCain

The deadline has now passed for submitting comments to the FEC on their proposed regulation of the blogosphere. Mike Krempasky at Red State has a summary of some of the more voluminous and interesting comments. The Washington Times provides the context for the Notice of Proposed Rule-Making...

Instead, the focus of the NPRM is to extend the definition of "public communications" to include paid advertisements placed on third parties' Web sites. While appearing minor, this in fact carries some fairly onerous demands. As the Center for Democracy and Technology notes, assuming that NPRM is approved in its entirety, an individual planning to express his views on the Web would have to consult Chapter 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations to determine if his speech would be treated as a "public communication"; if his speech qualifies as "express advocacy"; if he qualifies under the news-media exemption; if his Internet activities count as contributions subject to limits; if his Internet activities count as expenditures for reporting purposes; if his use of an employer's computer to access the Internet is permissible; if his bulk e-mail requires a specific type of disclaimer; and whether his plan to collaborate with someone else on the Internet qualifies as a "political committee" subject to registration and reporting requirements.

Conversely, an individual who wants to post a political advertisement on someone else's Web site would be subject to campaign-finance regulations no matter how small the cost of the advertisement. (In some cases, online advertising space runs for as little as 3 cents per ad display.) That individual would be required to display on the ad personal information like a home street address. Other forms of online political advertising, such as video production, would carry even more burdensome regulations.

The fallout from this regulatory nightmare would have what the CDT rightly calls a "chilling effect" on Internet free speech.

As the Times noted, Congress is considering legislation to exempt the blogosphere from regulation. Maybe they could just repeal the idiot's law (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold) that prompted this charade. Instapundit sums up my feelings regarding Senator McCain nicely:

John McCain should be tarred and feathered, not spoken of as a presidential timber, for the travesty he produced.

Of course, Max Cleland would probably rip bloggers for questioning McCain's patriotism, when we're just questioning his common sense. To be fair, Instapundit's right when he says President Bush was wrong to sign the bill, putting his faith in Sandra Day O'Conner to do what he should have done -- stand up against a blatantly assinine free speech restriction.

On a related topic, the Lord of Truth sent us Brendan Miniter's article about McCain's participation in the Dirty Deal, and its impact on his Presidential chances. Here's a good excerpt...

Talk of being a "compassionate conservative" notwithstanding, it wasn't maverick moderatism that handed President Bush victories in 2000 and 2004. Nor has the McCain Myth been responsible for padding Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Indeed, Republicans have been winning by sticking to their principles and not bucking their party's ideas on tax cuts, national defense or reforming the judiciary.

What's changed since 2000 is that it's become clear that the conservatives have become the Republican establishment by being able to claim credit for almost every ballot-box victory since 1980--including that of Vice President Bush, who in 1988 had the support of the conservative wing, which hoped--futilely, it turned out--that he would continue the Reagan revolution. After Mr. Bush's 1992 defeat, conservatives took over Congress in 1994, and a moderate Republican lost the presidential race in 1996. No one represents the changing of the guard better than George W. Bush himself, who is now pushing revolutionary conservative ideas in every arena from defense to Social Security to tax reform.

Having come this far, what Mr. McCain and the other Republican Senate "moderates" in last week's compromise would have the party do is give up on the very principles that is winning elections. All in the name of appealing to the "middle" of the electorate that is already voting for the party.

Plenty of my good friends are enamored with Senator McCain and believe he'd make a fine President. The Minister of War and Lord of Truth are both good examples, although I sense the latter feels a little less enthused about him. But I have to question why.

Much of McCain's cachet comes from his life story, which is exceedingly admirable. But wasn't that basically the same story that John Kerry tried to sell last year? I have no doubt that McCain's story is far more compelling, especially since he definitely suffered far more than Kerry; McCain also doesn't have the baggage of coming home and accusing his fellow vets of committing atrocities.

But is the basis of McCain's candidacy his life story, or his actions while serving in the Senate? If it's the latter, then ask yourself what he has wrought in the past few years. We have the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act, which I've savaged above. We have an opposition to tax cuts. We have a deal on judges where McCain placed the interests of Senate comity and his own ambition over actually getting all the President's judges an up-or-down vote (and since the Democrats appear willing to already redefine "extraordinary circumstances, the deal still has time to fall apart). We even have his inane attempt to regulate drug testing in professional sports. Small government conservatism hasn't been President Bush's strong suit, but McCain appears more than willing to spend plenty of taxpayer dollars on expanding the regulatory state.

Yes, I know. McCain has tremendous "leadership" qualities. Has he ever proven these capabilities in an executive capacity? He's a Senator, not a Governor. Yet the admiration expressed for "Mr. Straight Talk" makes it seem that he has developed into the consummate leader. I'm not buying.

McCain has certainly charmed the mainstream press, but I don't consider that a good thing. So now I'm wondering -- why should I support McCain in 2008? I know the lifestory is compelling, and that he has character. But is there anything else that provides a rationale for anyone to support him?