Ok--rebuttal time. First off--Matt. "You don't turn down offers of freedom in favor of daily beatings of the course of years without principles of some sort." I'm not sure how this one got out, because (at least to me) it reads like a straw-man argument (at least to some extent). McCain does not show consistent political principles. I don't know how else to say it. And reviewing his senate history is the best evidence of it. People believe what they believe--and that's fine. I don't care. But their beliefs are consistent and linear, thereby driving consistent rhetoric and behavior. McCain has none of these qualities; ipso facto, he is politically unprincipled.* (*qualification: his principles are not driven by ideology, but rather some other inconsistent or self-serving force.) And for that matter, McCain is going the way of John Kerry--who, by the way, served in Vietnam. Any question of McCain's behavior or stance seems to be interpreted as a massive personal attack which somehow invariably includes his wartime service. So what? Who cares? Reagan served during wartime, Bush I served during wartime, Dole served during wartime. For these elder statesmen, it was a non-issue. McCain seems to be using it as a crutch or deflection from the issues at hand.
Now let's move on to Scott. "I'd actually be interested to hear what you think about McCain-Feingold." The problem in which MF was supposedly addressing was the corruption on politics. And that's precisely the problem. Corruption can't be regulated; corruption is a reflection of one's spirit. Secondly--money is like water. If the corrupt want to find it, it (money) will find them. And MF is a perfect example; the creation of all the 521s, along with the goofy rules relative to getting out one's one message has essentially turned the MF act into the incumbent job security act (in that it gives incumbents, who have better access to the media, an unfair advantage.) Let's go on... donating to a political candidacy is an act of free speech--or at least it is in my book. And the extent in which I donate is likewise, free speech. It's my choice and my business to whom I donate and how much I donate. Or at least, it used to be--before the government told me how much I could contribute.
So let's recap. The problem was corruption. And the cause of the corruption (per McCain) was the money. (As opposed to one's moral character.) So in order to fix this corruption, they limited the extent in which I can support my candidate who in term can support my interests. Does anyone else see how this is so painfully wrong?
In reality, MF only increased the money in politics--as there are more loopholes now than there were before. (521s being only one such example) Candidates, especially up-start candidates, are limited in how and when they publicize their message before election time. The government now tells me how much I can give. And the problem (i.e., political corruption) remains. If the candidates really wanted to clean up the system, they would remove all rules and regulations relative to political donations--except for 1. And the one remaining rule would be---every single donation is public record. From whom, to whom, and for how much. The money trail from it's origination to termination is 100% public knowledge. (And even this will not solve all problems--but I see it as the best possible alternative.)
But what annoys me the most out of this debacle is the entire premise. The premise is that government legislation can change behavior and values. That, somehow, the government can save us from ourselves. And it's hard to think of a larger myth, sans the tried and tested myths that satan continues to use on humanity.
My second biggest annoyance is the liberal recognition that MF only made matters worse--but they overlook the gross policy failure by suggesting that "we tried". "We had good intentions." Sorry. Don't care. Change for the sake of change (as stated in a previous post) is dumb. One's worth as a politician should not be measured by intentions, but rather measurable results in the reduction of governmental involvement of personal freedom and liberty.
Now let's move on to Scott. "I'd actually be interested to hear what you think about McCain-Feingold." The problem in which MF was supposedly addressing was the corruption on politics. And that's precisely the problem. Corruption can't be regulated; corruption is a reflection of one's spirit. Secondly--money is like water. If the corrupt want to find it, it (money) will find them. And MF is a perfect example; the creation of all the 521s, along with the goofy rules relative to getting out one's one message has essentially turned the MF act into the incumbent job security act (in that it gives incumbents, who have better access to the media, an unfair advantage.) Let's go on... donating to a political candidacy is an act of free speech--or at least it is in my book. And the extent in which I donate is likewise, free speech. It's my choice and my business to whom I donate and how much I donate. Or at least, it used to be--before the government told me how much I could contribute.
So let's recap. The problem was corruption. And the cause of the corruption (per McCain) was the money. (As opposed to one's moral character.) So in order to fix this corruption, they limited the extent in which I can support my candidate who in term can support my interests. Does anyone else see how this is so painfully wrong?
In reality, MF only increased the money in politics--as there are more loopholes now than there were before. (521s being only one such example) Candidates, especially up-start candidates, are limited in how and when they publicize their message before election time. The government now tells me how much I can give. And the problem (i.e., political corruption) remains. If the candidates really wanted to clean up the system, they would remove all rules and regulations relative to political donations--except for 1. And the one remaining rule would be---every single donation is public record. From whom, to whom, and for how much. The money trail from it's origination to termination is 100% public knowledge. (And even this will not solve all problems--but I see it as the best possible alternative.)
But what annoys me the most out of this debacle is the entire premise. The premise is that government legislation can change behavior and values. That, somehow, the government can save us from ourselves. And it's hard to think of a larger myth, sans the tried and tested myths that satan continues to use on humanity.
My second biggest annoyance is the liberal recognition that MF only made matters worse--but they overlook the gross policy failure by suggesting that "we tried". "We had good intentions." Sorry. Don't care. Change for the sake of change (as stated in a previous post) is dumb. One's worth as a politician should not be measured by intentions, but rather measurable results in the reduction of governmental involvement of personal freedom and liberty.
posted by Greg | 1:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home