Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
But we care about “facts” like “the rest of the site clapping along like seals” and Trump makes us not look up things. Sure thing.
Right. So the elected Republican President, who was renominated again in 2004 and won, and the subsequent nominee McCain were champions of the bill, but that’s somehow not representative of the Republican Party.
They were the insiders, not “outliers”.
But doesn’t this argue against the notion that McCain and Kerner were targeting conservative groups? If the reason more conservative groups were impacted is simply because they happened to be more active around the time Citizens United came out, then that disparate impact is incidental, not intentional. (I’m speaking only about what Kerner apparently was talking about here, not what Lerner apparently went and did.) If there was a spike in left leaning group applications, and there was still more focus on conservative groups, there would be a stronger argument that conservatives were targeted.
It’s possible of course that McCain, or Kerner, or both, wanted to target conservatives, but again, this is weak evidence of that.
Let’s say for the sake of argument, that McCain isn’t the treacherous conservative hating monster he’s made out to be, but was, rather, actually concerned about the corrupting influence of money in politics. I don’t agree with his conclusions on any of that, but it’s not an outrageous position to take. McCain having a strong opinion on that issue just as adequately explains his aide’s comments in the Memo, rather than an animus against conservative groups. If he was really concerned about the influence of money, and concerned about the abuse of the 501(c)(4) exemption, does he have to wait until the applications are more politically even to do something about it? If this occurred at a moment when left wing grassroots organizations were experiencing a boom, how do you know McCain would have let them slide?
“Rule of law!” they cry out. “Except for the laws we don’t like!” they whispered.
Mc Cain has a history of believing the Tea Party had a negative effect on the GOP, as well as being duplicitous, so I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt.
You know why. Because tribal affiliation with the high priests of the God Head is all that matters in 2018.
And I’m told its not a cult of personality.
Yeah right.
**Deleting an unfair accusation**
Well, let’s hope this add to factors “on the Con/negative side” of the Pro/Con list of factors that the governor of AZ is evaluating in naming Mrs. McCain to the seat when this ‘Conservative’ meets his maker.
Seems pretty factual based on the evidence presented in this thread.
Afternoon D. A.,
At the time McCain-Feingold was being discussed, not only did many think it was not constitutional, but many noted that the bill added to the advantages of incumbents and hobbled new comers. Do you think that the design was innocent and that the authors only wanted to limit the effect of money on politics? As a “wacko bird”, I think the authors were trying to make life easier for incumbents, and that the interests of the average voter was not their concern. Also, the Republicans who voted for this bill were not standing up for a foundational principle, they were voting for a corrupt bill, doubting that it would stand, that would insure that the party could gate-keep who entered the political arena. The senators including my senator Lugar were using this law to insulate themselves from popular new comers.
Many, many times. Especially noting that the GOP had the votes when there was no chance of it being signed. Between the November 9th of 2016 and January 20th of 2017, not so much. Such is the courage of their convictions.
Fair enough, apologies.
Hello Jim,
You may well be right about the motives for McCain-Feingold. I’m not here to defend it; I was never a fan of it, I agree it was unconstitutional and I’m glad the court ruled the way it did in Citizens United. My only point here is that the evidence cited to show McCain deliberately targeted conservative groups is weak.
Who was he calling wacko birds. It must have been the moderate Rs.
To be fair, if one of them had not, someone else would have stepped up. That is how these things work.
@michaelramirez
When I mentioned targeting here, I’m not referring to McCain’s “wacko bird” comment, but to the IRS/501(c)(4) issue discussed in the OP.
Well, then he’s just stupid. He was concerned about the corrupting influence of money in Republican politics. Democrats always find a way around the system. He tied one hand behind our backs, and by some miracle (and self-funding) Trump managed to win despite McCain’s efforts.
I’m not really following. Above you also stated that any “disparate impact is incidental, not intentional.” There is certainly no smoking gun, as there rarely is. But if one is aware that a subset of groups is more likely to be affected by a facially neutral policy, and supports the policy, there is a case to be made that the result of that policy is intended. I disagree that the case is weak. If in fact “conservative groups” were a protected classification (which they obviously are not), the disparate impact resulting from the policy would be considered discriminatory.
Evidence for this assertion please.
This is the exact form of argument behind all kinds of disparate impact social justice movements.
Heh, what does this have to do with President Trump and the supposed cult of personality tribe? This is about McCain and the Republican Party 2000-2012.
And I’m told NT ceased to exist on election night.
Yeah right.
Sure thing.
Correct, and that’s the nature of many disparate impact analyses. The problem with much of that type of analysis is that it reduces complex cause-effect relationships to a formulaic conclusion. Here, the cause-effect is fairly direct, not complex. And, again, I’m arguing against the fact that the case here is weak. It’s not proven by direct evidence, but there is quite a bit to support it.
Evidence for what assertion? That Democratic candidates have had boatloads more money for their campaigns than Republican candidates? Didn’t Obama set some kind of record? And they do it through political advocacy groups that the IRS is never going to target, whatever their legal status?
Or, are you asking for evidence of McCain’s stupidity? I would say anyone who believes “getting money out of politics” is going to solve the corruption problem is naive, at best. If we want to get corruption out of our politics, we have to squeeze the power out of government positions, both elected and unelected. McCain was never one of those Republicans to voluntarily reduce his power and, interestingly, that’s what Trump is doing by pushing Congress to legislate. Crazy times, I know.
Western Chauv: “He was concerned about the corrupting influence of money in Republican politics. Democrats always find a way around the system. ”
Bingo.
One of the primary sources of Democrat funding is public employee union money which is in reality taxpayer money which has been absconded by the Left. McStain never had any problem with the corrupting influence of that money. Only money coming from conservative sources.
There have been several comments to the effect that there was no evidence that McCain’s efforts was biased against conservatives. Utter hogwash. Almost all bureaucratic decisions in our federal government slant to favor the left, because 90% plus of all bureaucrats are Democrats and they have worked tirelessly to gain powers denied the bureaucracy by the Constitution to implement that bias. That bias favoring the left has been a near constant for the last 30 years at least. Mc Cain knew that by targeting groups for financial ruin he was overwhelmingly and unfairly targeting conservatives. McCain hates the Republican base with a vengeance and would use any underhanded, unlawful and devious means possible to undermine that wing of the Republican party . McCain is just a horrible, corrupt, despicable, evil man. Period. He should have been jailed for his involvement in the Keating 5 decades ago.
This revelation is shameful and profoundly disappointing. It reminds me of the old Nixon days. It colors any true good the man did, black, to use the power of the IRS of all the agencies, to punish and bankrupt political opposition with out any other legitimate purpose. We knew that Obama was that vindictive. Now we know McCain was on that same bus, a man who wore his self righteous “integrity” on his chest like a medal of honor when he opposed the conservative line.
He’s not a maverick. He’s a punk.
Afternoon D.A.
By encouraging the IRS to audit out of existence potential political challengers McCain is acting like many establishment politicians who have a symbiotic relationship with the bureaucracy where both work to maintain their place in the centers of power. The bill helped incumbents and hurt challengers, that was part of the design if not the real intent of the bill. It is understandable that those in power want to stay in power and would like to limit those who would challenge their right to that power or their position or their decisions. The efforts that politicians use to stay in power often are in conflict with the folks they represent and they often resent the folks they have to represent. And voters begin to resent being resented and develop a dislike for the politicians and bureaucrats who think that the average Joe has a certain unpleasant stink. It is hard to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, he has had a consistent behavior that cause me to doubt him.
Seems to me this is lost somehow, on defenders of McCain.
Or business as usual. Mountie was talking last night about how getting good seats on comittees is based on how much $$ you bring in from lobbiests.