Mitt's Blue Meanie
Matt Welch | January 6, 2008, 1:43pm
Embattled former early-state front-runner (but Wyoming caucus winner!) Mitt Romney yesterday unleashed a Top 10 John McCain anti-GOP temper tantrums, a list that -- at least if your sensibility is anything like mine -- might make you more inclined to support the short-fused Arizona senator. After all, anyone who calls Pete Domenici an "asshole" and Chuck Grassley a "fucking jerk" can't be all bad, right?
Romney's trying to win a Republican primary, so maybe rounding up McCain's disparagements against the likes of Dick Cheney might have marginal value, but for my money the far more interesting and troubling aspects of Senator Hothead's hotheadedness are that: 1) He lies about it, and 2) it often comes in the form of drawn-out retaliation against those who target him with at least semi-legitimate criticism.
First the lies -- in March 2006, McCain said the following about his legendary temper to the Baltimore Sun:
Just because someone says it's there, you would have to provide some corroboration that it was. Because I do not lose my temper. I do not. ... Now do I speak strongly? Do I feel frustrated from time to time? Of course. If I didn't I don't think I would be doing my job.
But for someone to say that McCain became just angry and yelled or raised my voice or -- it's just not true. It's simply not true. ... And so, those rumors continue to circulate about - quote - temper. They're going to have to find some concrete examples of it, and they aren't there.
Why is this a lie? Well, as his hometown paper pointed out about this particular quote, "Just two days earlier, however, McCain had openly acknowledged at a forum in Scottsdale that, 'I have had a bad temper in my life.'" For a long list of McCain's own admissions about his temper (as well as a high-larious quote from his wife Cindy about how reports thereof are "fabricated"), click here. Yes, yes, all politicians lie like rugs. But running -- successfully! -- on the notion that you are preternaturally honest is an invitation/requirement that the rest of us point out when that ain't so.
The second point is far more grave and to the point in judging the man's fitness to be president. To see examples of grudges held and legitimate critics punished, look not to the fawning national press corps (which hasn't much discussed the temper issue this election cycle), but to the Arizonans who know him: Former Republic editor and publisher Pat Murphy, columnist E.J. Montini, and Phoenix New Times muckraker Amy Silverman (whose father, while he was the general manager of an Arizona hydroelectric utility, was once cornered by an enraged McCain and asked "Can't you shut your daughter up?"). As Montini once pointed out, "It's not McCain's tantrums that matter; it's what sets him off."
Such as: Criticizing his ballyhooed anti-defense-pork rhetoric as all talk, blowing the whistle on Cindy McCain's illegal drug habit, expressing irritation at the (true) fact that McCain's campaign-related absence was dooming comprehensive immigration reform, voicing dissent within the Arizona GOP, and having the temerity to suggest publicly (and accurately) that the federal government has been less than transparent regarding the Vietnam disappearance of your husband.
For more on the topic, I recommend this book.
Ken Shultz | January 6, 2008, 3:46pm | #
Out of curiosity, Matt, has McCain ever called you or sent you a note, or something, and said, I don't know, that he's really sorry for whatever it was he said or did, and could you just...um...stop already?
I mean, if I was McCain, I'd have sent you a really nice basket for Christmas, with like some really nice vino, some truffles, some crackers with some of that classy cheese spread--you know, something for the whole office!
I once heard a story about Willie Mays and an umpire, who, whenever Willie was up, called everything that wasn't straight down the middle a strike. It happened year after year and finally, one game when Willie was the last guy up, he turned to the umpire and said, "What's your problem?"
The umpire looked him straight in the eye and said, "Take me out for a steak dinner and it ends." So Willie took him out for a steak dinner right then and there, and, sure enough, that umpire called Willie's games straight from that moment on...
Now I'm not saying Matt's not callin' 'em like he see 'em, but--sheesh--the guy can't even deny having a temper?! ...without being called a lying liar?!
If I were John McCain, I'd have called up Welch a long time ago and offered, I don't know, Angels season tickets? ...free round trips to the game on Air Force One? Anything! Just make it stop! Uncle! Uncle!
prolefeed | January 6, 2008, 6:58pm | #
The U.S. Constitution's definition of the powers of the Supreme Court:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
From the wiki for Marbury v. Madison:
"Some legal scholars argue that the legal basis and concept of judicial review predate the case, and that Marbury merely formalized it. For example, Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[11]
However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system."
So, SCOTUS has the sole, unquestionable power to decide what the Constitution means, and we know this is true because SCOTUS issued an opinion saying that they interpret the Constitution to mean they have this power, and no one can question this opinion because SCOTUS says so?
A little bootstrapping there, Bryan?
Clearly, anyone who questions this alleged power of SCOTUS is incapable of an intelligent conversation.
Bryan | January 6, 2008, 11:07pm | #
Crimethink,
From the Court's summary in the Wis. Right to Life case: "The pertinent case law begins with Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, in which the Court held, inter alia, that a federal limitation on campaign expenditures not made in coordination with a candidate's campaign (contained in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA)) was unconstitutional, id., at 39-51."
In other words, even since Buckley it’s unconstitutional to limit spending not coordinated with a campaign. So the only thing limited is coordinated expenditures (spending).
From there, Buckley held that only those "express advocacy" ads that were coordinated with the campaign were subject to donation limits. Buckley defined "express advocacy" ads as ads that used magic words like 'vote for,' 'elect,' ... 'vote against,' 'defeat,' 'reject.' Funding related to "issue ads" (or ads about public issues more generally) remained completely unregulated. Needless to say, all that happened was groups coordinated with a campaign, talked about the candidates, but got creative and avoided the magic words so that they could pretend they were "issue ads."
All McCain/Feingold did was say, "you know what, if you are mentioning a candidate by name with 60 days of an election, it’s probably an 'express advocacy' ad. Even if you aren't using the 'magic words.'" So Mc/F redefined what an "express advocacy" was. KEEP IN MIND though, since Buckley, the only regulation is over ads coordinated with the campaign.
From there, the Court's McConnell decision held that Congress could define 'express advocacy' as it had. The Wis. Right to Life case, however, held that in this case the ad really was more 'issue ad' than 'express advocacy' because the "ads may reasonably be interpreted as something other than an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
If you want to get technical, that seems to me to be an activist decision (Congress created a bright-line rule and the Court substituted its own opinion in place of Congress'), but I doubt you'll want to call it that since Scalia was in the concurrence and it goes your way. Still, the point is, Mc/F is not the sea-change that libertarians and the GOP want to make it out to be. It’s simply a definition of what is an advocacy ad, and only applies to expenditures coordinated with the campaign.
Bryan | January 7, 2008, 10:05am | #
Crimethink,
Yes, the Wis RTL group was coordinating the message with a candidate's campaign. Buckley (which is still good law) says that their donations wouldn't be regulated if they weren't. That trumps anything in McConnel that you are reading to the contrary.
To go to the points that you are citing, I admit that I don't know the specifics. My strong suspicion, however, is that "electioneering communications" is term-of-art that is defined to only included those expenditures that are coordinated with a campaign. In fact, that assumption is supported by the very next sentence that says
Because those entities may still organize and administer segregated funds, or PACs, for such communications, the provision is a regulation of, not a ban on, expression. The "segregated funds" that the group may still administer probably refers to uncoordinated expenditures.
As for your second bolded sentence, the Court has already limited the universe to coordinated ads. (See e.g. Buckley and definitions of the law). They don't need to keep mentioning it again. That's simply not the way that judges write opinions.
Listen, I can tell you are not a lawyer and this stuff is confusing to you but contrary to what RC Dean says, that doesn't mean that its "chilling" free speech. Unless you are running an interest group that is coordinating with a candidate, you don't really need to understand all the intricacies of the law. And if you are running such an interest group, it behooves you to consult with an attorney well-versed in the subject for a number of reasons in addition to CFR.
Moreover, RC Dean, just because a bunch of so-called-libertarians can't figure out what the law actually says because they have already made up their mind that its "unconstitutional" (without having ever actually read the law or the opinions, mind you), doesn't mean that its any more confusing than most laws that Congress writes. I admit that most are confusing, but that doesn't make them unconstitutional.
