McCain Derangement Syndrome Issue #1: McCain is Against Political Free Speech

One of the hot-button issues for the anti-McCainanites is McCain-Feingold-THOMPSON.

This as much as anything pretty well sums up the criticism.

Although Michael Medved (who endorses McCain) also sees it as a useless piece of legislation, he does not believe it has created the mountain of problems that the hard-line conservatives say it has.

In Medved's Six Big Lies About John McCain, campaign finance reform is addressed in Lie #6:

LIE #6: McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform represents a devastating assault on free speech.

TRUTH: McCain-Feingold was a piece of useless, misguided legislation but it’s done no serious damage to the country, the constitution or the conservative pro-life cause. After nearly seven years on the books, robust and impassioned discussion of political issues and candidates is more vibrant and free-wheeling than ever. The pro-life movement (with McCain’s enthusiastic support) has made substantial progress in the last seven years, changing minds and hearts and driving abortion rates to their lowest point in 29 years—unimpeded by McCain-Feingold. More people are involved in donating to candidates and causes than before the legislation, and there’s been an increase in the broadcast of campaign ads and distribution of political materials, not a reduction. Does any American – particularly those in key primary states – honestly believe we now have a shortage of political ads on TV? Those who say that McCain-Feingold took away free speech make no more sense than leftists who claim that the Patriot Act destroyed civil liberties or crushed dissent: their arguments remain utterly disconnected from the real world experience of every American. Hard-hitting, free wheeling debate is alive and well in the land of the free. McCain favored counterweights to lobbyist influence and the corrupting impact of money in politics because he saw that commercial involvement as a powerful force toward corporate welfare and government expansion—betraying the small government ideals he has always embraced.

Furthermore, for someone who is supposedly responsible for a vast assault on our free speech, six months ago, McCain introduced the "Broadcaster Freedom Act", as a valiant effort to protect talk radio- the medium that has been mercilessly unrelenting in their witch-hunt-styled hysteria to disown him as a true consevative- from Democratic Party attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Medved again defends the Arizona Senator:

Please check out this brief, but hugely important piece by Mike Sunnocks for the Phoenix Business Journal from June 29, 2007:

McCAIN INTRODUCES TALK RADIO LEGISLATION

Arizona Sen. John McCain has introduced federal legislation to protect talk radio shows from the reinstatement of past rules that required dissenting voices be given equal time on their shows.

McCain and fellow GOP Senators John Thune of South Dakot and Norm Coleman of Minnesota have put forward legislation preventing the reinstatement of the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’

The Fairness Doctrine was done away with in 1987 but previously required political radio shows to offer equal time to opposing viewpoints as part of their Federal Communications Commission licenses.

A number of Democrats and liberal advocates want the Fairness Doctrine put back in place. They do not like the fact talk radio is dominated by conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham.

McCain said imposing such rules would stifle free speech and there are plenty of political viewpoints in the marketplace.

Conservative radio talkers have criticized McCain for his stance in favor of immigration reform.

Reasonable people will agree, I think, that this last line is an almost comical understatement. Conservative talkers didn’t just “criticize” McCain on immigration – they ripped him, reamed him, smeared him every hour of every day, particularly in the middle of last summer (with immigration hysteria at its height).

In other words, at the very moment that talk show hosts concentrated their angry fire on McCain himself (more than any Democrat), the Arizona Senator introduced legislation to defend them from big-government/liberal interference. (A similar bill to block the Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the House by Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana—himself a former radio host—and passed easily).

I became aware of McCain’s role in this issue as part of my efforts to defend the Senator from the ridiculous charges that he has no respect for free speech or the Constitution. It occurred to me that he could counter such current attacks by standing up strongly against the Fairness Doctrine. I planned to communicate with the Senator to convey my bright idea, but after researching the issue I discovered he was way ahead of me: he’d already introduced his Free Speech Protection legislation some six months ago.

There are two important points that need to be made about this issue:

1. THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WOULD BE A DEVASTATING ASSAULT ON FREE SPEECH; McCAIN-FEINGOLD, FOR ALL ITS FAULTS, WAS NOT. Everyone in talk radio knows that imposition of the Fairness Doctrine would destroy our industry overnight. You can’t operate a radio station if you have to “balance” a successful show with another show of the opposite point of view that may or may not be successful. The whole idea makes as much sense as requiring country music stations to “balance” Toby Keith with Mozart and Kanye West. It’s no accident that the whole conservative talk industry, led by El Rushbo, only emerged after the Fairness Doctrine disappeared (under Reagan). McCain-Feingold, on the other hand, has hardly destroyed or stifled free-wheeling political expression in the United States. The six years since the bill’s passage have have produced a shortage of political advertising, or imposed formidable difficulties in spending money to debate issues. The impact of the bill has been so insignificant that none of its critics actually advocate its repeal. It matters far more, in other words, that McCain continues to battle the Fairness Doctrine (that would seriously damage political debate in the media) than that he cosponsored a silly and ineffective piece of legislation (that left vigorous debate vigorously intact).

2. THOSE RADIO HOSTS WHO CLAIM THAT McCAIN AND HIS DEMOCRATIC RIVALS ARE “INTERCHANGABLE” SHOULD NOT IGNORE THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE. Leading Democrats (including John Kerry and Senate Whip Dick Durbin) have publicly supported the idea that a new Democratic president should seriously consider “reigning in” talk radio and gagging leading talkers with the Fairness Doctrine. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have said nothing to contradict them – indicating that they are, at the very least, open to the idea. Top talk show hosts have warned repeatedly that Hillary Clinton as president would attempt to wreck our industry. Why no corresponding acknowledgment that McCain has placed himself firmly, courageously on the other side—our side? If our industry counts (and it surely does), then it also matters that Mac means to defend talk radio, while prominent liberals pledge to destroy it. Contrary to all those who insist that McCain, Clinton and Obama are virtually identical in their “liberalism,” this issue (along with at lest two-dozen others) shows a world of difference between Mac’s conservative values and record, and the fatuous “progressive” leanings of the leading Democrats.

It’s important to me as a talk show host and as an American that John McCain has already stood up to defend conservative talk radio even while its most prominent practitioners used their microphones to defame the man every day. A lesser politician might easily succumb to the temptation to deploy government power – or even the threat of government power – to silence the chorus of hysterically strident voices raised against him. McCain’s refusal to do so says something powerful about his character.

And the fact that leading talkers have never acknowledged the Senator’s integrity and leadership on this issue also reveals something significant about the character of his critics.

I heard Medved mention "MDS" today, on his radio program. I've been using "McDS" for some time now- McCain Derangement Syndrome, because that's what I see some of the hyperbolic, hperventilating criticism to be, regarding McCain.

Oh, yes. I've been angry and frustrated with McCain, over the years. McCain is responsible for much of the anger and feelings of betrayal from conservatives, and rightly so. But the level of discourse has reached toxicity levels. And that, in itself, is bad for conservatives and the Republican Party. Frankly, it makes us look like the emotional rage-aholics on the Left.