It's time for editorial analysis. The op-ed piece is a useful way to see how certain issues are being thought about as well to enable one to better collect one's thoughts on the matter. The ideological and personal tendencies of the writer serves a purpose as well, since obviously things are looked at differently depending on the person doing the observing. Thus, op-eds also allow one to get a feel at the current "spin" on events. Such spin is valuable even if it slants the truth. Op-eds are in a sense the original blogs.
Sunday is a good time for op-eds, but today's example comes from Friday. I generally don't read Charles Krauthammer because he is a cynical conservative asshole ... I also don't tend to agree with him too much. Still, now and again, even CCAs make sense, but even then, they cannot quite manage to escape their predelictions. Such was the case with his sarcastic "Thanks for nothing, do-gooders" column on campaign finance reform.
You wanted campaign finance reform. You got campaign finance reform. McCain-Feingold promised to take the money out of politics. If you believed that, you deserve what you got.
I share his cynicism of the value of campaign finance reform, especially given the net result tends to be abridgement of the First Amendment. Thus, we currently have limits on when certain sorts of ads can run. Why? Because the current regime is much better? Debatable. Still, it is questionable if it truly is "reform," many want a lot more of it, and obviously money is still in politics. And, everyone know that. So, exaggeration.
And what you got is an avalanche of money into politics this year, as George Soros, Democratic big shots and, to a lesser extent, Republican moneymen (Republicans are slower on the uptake) get into the business of "independent" political expenditures.
This addresses the last point a bit more clearly -- the legislation in fact only was targeted at what was deemed particularly troubling spending. A first step as it were. Spending by "independent groups" was deemed less troubling than corporate, union, and political party spending. Also, why exactly does Krauthammer list Republicans as a sort of also ran? Are we to believe they are not a major player?
Second, I like the poetic justice. The do-gooders who endorsed campaign finance reform have another great cause: the awfulness of negative campaigning. Well, they have produced a system now that is practically designed to produce negative ads.
He also correctly notes how amusing it is that ads have to be creative to avoid "bad" messages, when it's obvious what they are trying to do. If anything, you have to be more negative, since supporting a candidate as compared to opposing one is often not allowed.
So first you get Soros-funded Bush-the-monster ads. Now you get the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad (and book) accusing Kerry of falsifying his military record.
Only the second one really has gotten much attention.
The Democrats have reacted to the Swift boat vets with anguished and selective indignation. This assault was bankrolled by rich Bush supporters, they charge. No kidding. Where else would Swift boat vets get the money? The Democrats next charge that the very idea of attacking the military service of a heroic American is disgraceful. On this there are two points. The "heroic" part is precisely what is at issue here, and the Swift boat veterans who themselves served honorably have some questions about it.
No, the true complaint is that the ads are patently untrue. The complaint is not that criticism of his war record is off limits. It is that it should be a tad bit more credible than this, which veterans such as Sen. McCain basically feel is disgusting.
No matter. Under the law, Bush cannot tell the Swift boat vets to stop even if he wanted to.
This is truly a load of crap. The law does not, obviously cannot, say that Bush is restrained from criticizing the ad. Nor can it realistically stop him from telling the backers on the down low that the ad is beyond the pale.
That's campaign finance reform - the panacea that took the money out of politics, remember?
No, it was a small (and probably misguided) step that was passed to help to temper the problem. Remember?