I know John McCain is being billed as one of the possible Presidential hopefuls in 2008... and a lot of Republicans like him as a moderate who could unite much of the country. However, every time he opens his mouth lately, he pisses me off. Case in point:

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona criticized the lack of local broadcast coverage of election campaigns Tuesday and submitted legislation that would tighten the Federal Communications Commission's process of licensing broadcasters.

McCain's remarks coincided with the release of research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison showing that local evening and late-night news broadcasts spent far less little time covering 2004 political elections than they did reporting on sports, weather and accidental injuries.

Over the summer, McCain and then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell asked broadcasters to increase their election coverage, a challenge McCain said had gone unmet.
...
Only one-third of election-related programming related to issues; most pertained to campaign strategy and the horserace between candidates.

The results prompted McCain to question how well many local broadcasting stations were fulfilling their obligation to provide a public service.

"Citizens deserve more than they're getting from their local newscaster," McCain said.

McCain's bill would require stations to reapply for licenses from the FCC every three years, a drop from the current eight, and impose greater scrutiny over 5% of applicants.

So let me get this straight John. First he try to limit where people are allowed to contribute their money, and how much they are allowed to contribute. Then you try to limit how much independent groups say about candidates. Now you complain because people aren't saying enough? What do you want next... editorial approval over all stories regarding politicians?

McCain is already trying to limit 527 activities... seen as a loophole in the current campaign finance laws:

But McCain said Wednesday that most lawmakers share a fear of 527s because it means a billionaire donor can "dive-bomb" into their re-election races and spend huge amounts to unseat them.

Heaven forbid that someone attempt to unseat an incumbent. What we have here really is a two pronged approach. First, make it as hard as possible for any independent group to say anything about a candidate. Then force news services to dedicate time and space to candidates during re-election. Why force them to do that? Because then they'll basically be forced to show campaign speeches and campaign press releases. This is purely an effort for candidates to control what is said, and have no independent outside group contradicting them.

John... you serve at the will of the people... and when they choose to unseat you... then you're gone. I don't think you get that. Senators have to be re-elected for a reason. That's not a lifetime appointment you got there. You should be ashamed of yourself.