Notes from CPAC
Michael C. Moynihan | February 8, 2008, 2:33am
I couldn't worm my way inside, but the assembled Romney supporters, I am told, gasped, booed, yelped and wept when he "suspended" his campaign today. It is odd, though, that none of them immediately understood where Mitt was going with his reference to Ronald Reagan's quixotic 1976 presidential campaign. Said the morose Mormon: "You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976." The fight continues! Wait did he say 1976? In other words, I'll see you guys in 2012, though such historical nuance was apparently lost on the room full of seals, conditioned to clap maniacally at any invocation of Reagan. (Credit where credit is due: The very perceptive Byron York predicted that Romney would quit a few hours before he dropped out, noting a precipitous drop in the number of campaign spam emails in the previous day.)
Out in the hotel lobby, it's clear that the news of Mitt's abdication is the source of some distress, especially amongst his young supporters and the party's nativist faction. (As one bemused journalist pointed out to me, the McCain-is-a-Quisling crowd, holding hastily constructed "No Amnesty" signs, were almost completely ignored by conference attendees—with the exception of the assembled television crews who immediately swarmed). One college-age Romnyite, who travelled from Colorado to offer moral support, told me that she found a quiet corner after the speech and wept. Another, barely holding back tears, swallowed hard and told me: "I feel like I was just hit by a bus. This is the worst day of my life." How on earth Romney can inspire this level of devotion, and induce such feelings of betrayal, remains a mystery. But others quickly swapped out their Romney regalia for McCain gear, slipping back into the packed hall to await instructions from their new leader.
Before McCain went on, an anxious crowd of doughy men and overly made-up women fidgeted through a rousing speech by Dick Armey, though the many oblique invocations of Friedman—"we must be free to choose"—were completely lost on the crowd, which responded with lukewarm, slightly impatient applause. After introductions from two rock-ribbed righties, Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator George Allen, the crowd gave McCain a decent reception, though this was likely helped by his legion of supporters, who stacked the deck in his favor by staking out seats in advance. Fair enough, I suppose.
Surprisingly, most of the professional conservatives in my section applauded the speech graciously (and sometimes lustily), including the pint-sized social conservative Gary Bauer. Most would later argue that McCain hit a number of right notes in his speech; a hat tip to social conservatives (just a week after telling the Washington Post that "It's not social issues I care about") and a reference to FISA, bellowing that the "shameful and dangerous" Senate Democrats "are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists." A huge applause line. But immigration is soon broached...and he is met with hearty boos.
In my line of sight, the two righties who were clearly displeased by the day's events were talk radio host Laura Ingraham and former House Majority Leader Tom Delay. Both stood to the side of the stage throughout McCain's speech scowling, never clapping. Delay managed a brief round of applause when McCain muttered something about his love of fetuses but even that seemed grudging. But McCain's best/most awkward moment was when he congratulated Romney, a man he deeply dislikes, on running an "energetic and dedicated campaign"—a compliment on par with Spinal Tap being celebrated as "Britain's loudest band."
T | February 8, 2008, 12:14pm | #
Bryan,
I'm impressed. You can sound like you know what you're talking about, yet completely miss the point. The First Amendment is amazingly specific. Congress passed a law, written by John McCain and Russ Feingold, that abridged the freedom of speech and the press. Don't believe me? Fine. Believe the Supreme Court. Portions of that law, as recently as June, were struck down as being... wait for it...
Unconstitutional.
Continue coming up with convoluted rationales as to why how my friends and I decide to organize our efforts matter from a Constitutional standpoint. Continue assuming that I don't understand how the law works. Go right ahead. It isn't any truer than Sam's assertions.
Since you brought up the money issue, if, as precedent holds, money is speech, why is there a limit on how much money I can donate? Your statement:
You are not necessarily sending a message that you support them to any greater degree when you give more money.
is facially absurd. If I donate a dollar to John MCCain and a million to Ron Paul, I think everybody and their dog, although possibly not Sam, will get the message that I support Ron Paul to a much greater extent than I support John McCain. You, and a whole lot of other people, think that I shouldn't get to express that message. More precisely, that that message is not necessarily being conveyed, so I shouldn't get to try to make it. How is that not an abridgment of free speech? Your message won't necessarily be conveyed, so you don't even get to try? Uh, wait, what? People might misunderstand what I write so I can't write it? That's what you're saying.
While you're at it, explain why it matters if I talk to person A before I decide to run an ad badmouthing person B. My speech is being artificially restricted in that I am no longer free to discuss the issue with some certain group of people, or if I do, I am no longer free to run the ad. How is that not an abridgment of my free speech rights?
Finally, from the brutal perspective of effectiveness, BCRA is bad law because it didn't fix any of the issues it was purported to address and created an entirely new set of avoidance behaviors that are currently unaddressed. That's good policy, right there, oh yeah.
Bryan | February 9, 2008, 9:48am | #
J Sub,
I have a little more time now, but this is still going to have to be quick. Your point about corporate speech rights is correct debate to be having, but I disagree with your conclusion.
1) You are absolutely right that organizations, corporations, union, etc. are made up of real people.
2) Those people still have right to donate unregulated sums of money to an organization that is going to run ads.
The limitation is that an organization that is collecting money for a general purpose (a teacher's union), can't take money out of its general treasury give to another organization to run certain ads. If it does, the other organization has to abide by the regulations. All its members have to do though, is start their own organization to run those ads and not take corporate money. Since, as you say, the union is made up of individuals anyway, it should be no problem for them to create a second unique off-shot for the purpose of running the ads.
To the extent that you think that would be difficult though, its most likely becuase you recognize that a lot of time groups/unions/corporations speak with their own agenda, and not necessarily with a message that every member would independantly approve or want to fund. In that way, the artificial person (the organization) is having a larger influence in the poltical debate than accurately reflects its membership. It is able to hold more influence and sway and spread its message wider, by purporting to speak for people that would not choose to individually fund that message if given an opportunity. I find nothing troubling about limiting that influence, since its really the organization acting as its own person, rather than on behalf of its members.
For-profit corporations are, to me, even more problematic because their sole goal is to make money. Now I agree with everyone that making money is a pretty nobel goal in the marketplace, but when the goal is making money and you are trying to influence the policy arena, it results in corporate welfare and government sponsored monopolies. Corporations aren't interested in what is best for the country -- nor should they be -- they are interested in their own bottomline for their shareholders. While the corporation should certainly have the right to petition congress and lobby and such, I don't think their is a problem to recognize how much influence it has the potential to weild b/c of the size of its budget (and the stakes to the company). I don't have a problem limiting its role in public debate either.
Sorry I had to write this so quick. Back to work for me. Maybe more later.
