Lot’s of predictable and fair complaints from readers regarding my budging toward non-anti-McCainism (can’t you hear the movement building!?). This one raises a point worth addressing:

Amendment I “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” When Mr. McCain puts effort into the repeal of the McCain-Feingold abridgment of free speech act, and apologizes for permitting his name to be part of it, then I will consider him as a possible candidate for the Republican nomination. Until then, I will support others for the nomination. If he is nominated, I will not vote for President.

Me: I have always opposed McCain-Feingold and I’ve got about 30 columns to prove it. But, I think there’s a real tension with signaling out McCain like this. Obviously, he deserves special blame since it’s his law. But he also deserves some credit for taking a position he actually believes in. He doesn’t think McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. You know who does think it’s unconstitutional? George W. Bush. He pretty much said so when he signed the thing. And as I’ve said many times, that’s the only plausible grounds for impeaching the guy I’m aware of. Not all this “lied us into war” nonsense. The President takes an oath to defend the constitution. When he signs a law he believes to be unconstitutional, he violates his oath. No, I’m not saying Bush should be impeached over it – though it would be amusing to watch all the pro-McCain Feingold Senators voting to convict a President for signing their legislation. But this does raise an important point. A President who disagrees on some first principles is inevitable and tolerable (though, obviously you’ll eventually hit a tipping point). A president who agrees with your first principles and then sells them off out of political expediency, well, that’s more annoying.