But really, I find the Monday news to be the most valuable, generally. I guess they have to be picky about what they run, so they run better stuff. Today is no exception.

The Washington Post’s Edsall and Goldfarb (that sounds like a small town law firm) have an interesting take on the decline of Democrat success over the last several election cycles. The basic argument is the Democrats are clustered together while Republicans are spread out. Combined with an increased tendency for party line voting, that dilutes the effectiveness of the Democrat vote nationally. It’s an interesting argument.

In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, about 40 percent of all House Democrats represented districts that voted for GOP presidential candidates. Many were in the South, where local Democratic politicians often disowned the “national” Democratic Party and many endorsed the GOP presidential nominee.

In the 1990s, the number of districts voting Republican for president but for a Democratic House candidate fell to a little more than 20 percent, and in this decade, down to 13 percent.

The fact that the Republican base is so widely cast actually makes GOTV a challenge. It’s much easier to go door-to-door and touch many voters when they’re a few steps away. That’s much more challenging when they’re miles apart. That contributes to GOP mastery of technologies like telemarketing, direct mail, and broadcast messaging. It’s also why our online operation was tied so effective to our offline efforts last year. Anything we can do to move an extra voter needs to be done. It’s one reason I have any confidence at all about our chances of keeping Congress come November.

Hoping to continue playing the race and gender card for political gain, the House Democrats released a study showing the Clinton had more diversity in his political appointees. Wow! The Democrats really do have an agenda to make America safer. I’m sure we’ll sleep like angels knowing that this is the crap House Democrats are spending our taxpayer dollars on. Keep up the good work, guys, and you’ll keep winning… Oh… wait…

Rep. Steny Hoyer takes a good long look at the public financing issue.

Prior to the 2004 election, the system all but guaranteed that the November outcome would rest largely on the appeal of the candidates and their platforms, not the size of their campaign treasuries. Because major party conventions were held within two or three weeks of one another, the nominees started with the exact same bankroll more or less at the same time.

That changed in 2004. To attract the widest possible audience, the Democratic Party scheduled its convention in late July, before the Summer Olympic Games began. In contrast, the Republican Party held its convention in the last week of August. The result was a six-week gap that forced Kerry to finance his campaign with public money while Bush continued to raise and spend money from private contributors.

Let me stress that I no more fault the Republican Party for scheduling its convention as late as it did than I do the Democratic Party for holding its convention in July. Each sought to avoid competing against the Olympics and with one another. But in my judgment, the timing of the conventions should not have had the effect of putting the candidate who was nominated first at a disadvantage.

Actually, the Democrats, figuring they had an advantage, picked the July date hoping the GOP would either a) go earlier or b) be forced to compete with the Olympics. The GOP, however, outsmarted the Democrats and chose to wait until nearly September to hold their convention. It had the unfortunate effect of forcing us to pay for a lot of convention overhead with general election funds, but it still left us ahead.

That also assumes that Kerry was at a disadvantage solely because of the timing. The fact is, Kerry’s was the first convention to get no bump (and in many cases actually scored a negative bump) for the candidate. They should have come out of the convention with momentum, and been able to ride it for a month. Instead, they came out of the convo with no momentum, and paired with the Summer of Swift Boats they were forced to endure because they tried to exploit John Kerry’s non-heroism, they squandered an opportunity.

The Wall Street Journal takes a look at Gore’s political ambitions for 2008.

In 2008, that could mean a once-unimaginable battle for Democrats’ nomination between Bill Clinton’s former vice president and his wife, Hillary Clinton. To some pro-Gore Democrats, worried about Mrs. Clinton’s electability, that is part of the appeal.

Hilary’s unelectability is part of the appeal for a Gore candidacy? How does that work? Hilary is too hated to win, so we’ll pick that guy that only our most rabid partisans could possibly believe will win? It’s that kind of thinking that makes you wonder about the Dems.

8,000 retired generals? Can that be right? The media makes it sound like 6 is a huge number, but 6 out of 8,000 is pretty minimal, right? Yes, it is. Everywhere but in the media, that is. You have to love their ability to blow things out of proportion, huh?

Time Magazine keeps it in perspective, though. Joe Klein takes a look at the current efforts of Newt Gingrich.

It’s almost always a joy listening to Gingrich when he’s on a tear. And he’s almost always on a tear of some sort. I caught up with Newt as he wandered around New Hampshire last week, which is what people who think they’re running for President do. Please, God, no, you say. Not that angry guy again. “He’s probably carrying too much baggage to be President,” said Peter Bergin, a Republican state representative from Amherst, N.H. “But he sure is a terrific idea man. He needs to be part of the debate.”

A place in the debate is about all he’s likely to have. He’s probably one of the sharpest minds we have in the party. Unfortunately, he’s also almost entirely unelectable outside a GOP primary. GOP voters tend to be pragmatic when electing our nominee for President. We vote for the guy that’s closest to our beliefs, but still has a reasonable chance of winning. Newt’s there on the ideas, but has fav/unfav ratings slightly higher than Bush, but slightly lower than Satan.

On the subject of losers, Dick Morris has penned a column calling President Bush the Republican Jimmy Carter. I’ll take his word for it. If anyone would know something about the worst of both the GOP and the Dems, it would be Morris. The toe-sucking foot-fetishist was a low-demand Republican operative before becoming a senior advisor to Bill Clinton and getting caught in a scandal with a skanky prostitute.

Morris was able to get a paid gig writing occasional columns for the New York Post – the conservative media equivalent of the Weekly World News. If a douchebag like Morris tells you you’re fuqing up, you’re fuqing up.

A couple of days ago, I ran across a story about John McCain’s acquisition of Terry Nelson as a campaign advisor. Unlike most of the articles I had read about the deal, this one came from a blog. Unlike just about all of the other articles I had read, this one wasn’t very complimentary. In fact, it was downright hostile.

Two things struck me about this article. First, it greatly exaggerates the “crime” of which DeLay is accused and Terry’s role in it. Second, it fails to accurately capture the real world of campaign politics.

Terry’s situation with regard to the DeLay case falls into the jumbled morass of campaign finance laws. To erase the half-truths and outright lies of the left, let me explain the world of “legal money laundering” that existed in campaigns until the passage of BCRA.

Under the previous legal regime, parties were allowed to raise two types of money: federal and non-federal. They’re also referred to as hard dollars and soft dollars, or clean dollars and dirty dollars. It was a goofy system created in response to the abuses of the pre-Watergate era and rife for manipulation.

Federal dollars were contributions raised in accordance with the Federal Election Act of 1973. They had to come from individuals – who were limited to a set amount per year that varied depending on the recipient (PACs and parties could take more than candidates). They could not be made with corporate funds, and could not come from non-US citizens. (You’ll recall the prohibition on non-US citizens caused the Clintons some grief in the mid 1990s).

Non-federal dollars also prohibited non-US citizens. They relied on state law to define their amounts and sources, so the rules varied widely. In many states, there were no limits at all on the amount of non-federal money a party could raise. Some states had stricter limits than the fed, and some had no limits at all. Some states, like Texas, treated corporate and individual dollars differently at the state level.

It was not uncommon, pre-BCRA, for state parties to raise staggering sums of non-federal cash. Federal dollars, however, were much harder to raise. It was not uncommon for state parties to “sell” their federal dollars to the national committees at a premium. By that, I mean they would give up some or all of their federal money, and receive a large amount of non-federal cash in exchange. For example:

Assume a state party had raised $200,000 in non-federal dollars, and $150,000 in federal cash. It’s total buying power is $350,000. The party would arrange a transfer of $150,000 to the national committees. The national committee, which had raised $50,000,000 in non-federal funds, would transfer $300,000 back to the state. The state’s buying power is now $500,000.

All of the non-federal dollars had to be spent on non-federal races or issue ads (not advocating the election or defeat of a specific candidate). All of the federal funds would be used to benefit federal candidates. The money was spent in accordance with the laws under which it was raised.

This type of transaction was taking place all over America on an almost daily basis. It was done by both parties, and was completely legal. It was a massive loophole in the law, and one that BCRA closed, but it was the law of the land.

The money TRMPAC transferred to Texas was used to support federal races in accordance with the law. The non-federal dollars transferred back were raised in accordance with the state laws, and were used to support the candidates in accordance with those laws.

What has confused the situation, however, is the overzealous prosecution carried out by a political partisan – Ronnie Earle. The sections of the Texas Election Code that DeLay is accused of violating are as murky as the federal laws.

The law specifically prohibits corporations from making a contribution to a campaign. They didn’t. The dollars contributed to TRMPAC were delivered to the RNC and used for something else. The dollars contributed to the RNC by individuals – which were entirely permissible to use in the Texas races – were sent to Texas and used there.

At the time, state parties, the national committees, and any entity accepting both federal and non-federal cash were maintaining multiple separate bank accounts and at no time did the money from these checks co-mingle. As an example of how this was done, we at the NM GOP, maintained seven separate bank accounts – three federal, three non-federal, and one joint (some expenses are paid with a mix of funds and the joint account was the one place they mixed.)

The campaign finance laws clearly allow transfers and contributions from accounts containing permissible funds. The funds used in this transaction were appropriately raised and appropriately spent.

The Muckraker indicates Terry’s role “was crucial, although he hasn’t been charged.” There is a reason he hasn’t been charged – he did nothing illegal. He made legally permissible contributions using legally permissible funds to candidates in accordance with federal and state laws.

Earle alleges TRMPAC gave the money to the RNC as a quid pro quo for those contributions. Unfortunately, the groundwork, and DeLay’s defense against that charge is almost guaranteed by the web of bizarre complexities created by the state and federal campaign finance laws. If the contributions to the candidate were made in accordance with the law, and the transfer from TRMPAC to the RNC was legal, the only charge they have is conspiracy. That’s the charge that has been made.

But that’s not what this is about. This is partisan gamesmanship and nothing more.

Republicans insist they remain united around core principles of smaller government, lower taxes and a strong national defense, but can no longer agree on how to implement that philosophy and are squabbling over their delivery on those commitments.

For any elected GOPers who happen to be reading this, let me offer a few suggestions:

• 1 – Do not believe for a second that price controls and increased regulation make a better market
• 2 – A vote to raise the debt ceiling is a vote to grow government, not to shrink it.
• 3 – The National Endowment for the Arts is a joke. Kill it! Don’t increase its funding.
• 4 – There are two simple truths in life. Education is an issue best dealt with at the local level and some children will get left behind. Plumping the federal government won’t make it otherwise.
• 5 – Medicare was complicated enough. If your plan to reform it requires the creation of a Medicare Drug Plan Locator, it’s too damn complicated. People can’t program a VCR, what makes you think they can master this?

If your big argument is how best to institute a smaller government, you’re doing a pretty poor job.

Why not start with something simple like P.J. O’Rourke’s Law of Circumcision – you can take 10% off the top of anything and it will function just as well.

Start cutting, fellas.

I suspect what we’ll see is passage of regulations that exempt individual speech through a vehicle like blogs, but full reporting and disclosure of advertising run on the web, and payments to bloggers for consulting services, etc.

That’s the way it should be. No one is opposed to counting online advertising dollars. They should avoid any attempt to stifle discussion. That would be the net effect of forcing bloggers to report some or all of the cost of their site should they post a positive story. That would be unrealistic and terribly hard to enforce.

First, keep in mind the post was titled Practical Restrictions. I was talking about two things – larger issues of why the RNC has trouble doing things and a suggestion that people not pillory Patrick Ruffini because he has to do the best he can in the environment of those practical restrictions.

The post was ineloquent. I’ll be the first to admit that. I didn’t expect it to get the attention it has. Had I seen that coming, I would have been more careful with my words.

However, stifling dissent is absolutely not the issue. I can argue that point, and did yesterday.

This has nothing to do with those who comment and everything to do with those who cover the comments. The very fact that I am writing this speaks to the eagerness with which some will attempt to portray dissension in the GOP. I, by commenting on RedState, unwittingly became a part of that.

My point (and the title of the post for that matter) was there are practical realities that impede the GOP’s ability to deliver tools like the ones for which Krempasky was asking. One of those realities is the media views the GOP through a different lens than they do the democrats. This is where I dove into the incident in question.

A story was written based solely on a supporter on the GOP website using the words “private accounts” rather than “personal accounts”. To prevent that story from blossoming, the decision was made to remove the testimonials. I disagreed with that decision, but the practical reality was the tool and the semantics threatened to distract from the message.

If we are worried that someone will mull over thousands of comments to find one where a supporter uses semantics that differ from our talking points, tools that foster open discussion will be problematic. Some in the media will troll the GOP site looking for any sign of dissension, while ignoring the gaping chasm between the centrists and the left in today’s Democrat Party. The GOP will face challenges with tools that generate volumes of information that biased reporters can sift through.

While it may have been less than clear from my post, that’s the reality. Are we silencing discussion, Yes. Are we doing it from a fear of what people will say or an intolerance of discussion? No. Should I have used different words in my comment? Absolutely. Should I have assumed this would get picked up and made my case with greater clarity? Apparently. Am I backtracking from my original comment? Absolutely not.

My comment about changing minds and people in opposition to open systems was meant as a reflection on the personal belief mentioned above – I disagreed with the decision to remove functionality because of a media report. Our “internal tolerance” wasn’t based on dissension, it was based on media coverage.

That was my point about ‚ÄúArguments that restrictions of that nature are ridiculous…” I disagree that we must have semantic cohesion to fend off the bias in the media. I disagree that we must have semantic cohesion at the expense of a vehicle for our supporters comments.

Sure, it takes away the ability of some to use the website as an avenue of attack. But I disagree that limiting functionality is the answer. I think we should open the flood gates. I think we should allow users to use whatever words they choose without concern for the media. The Democrats have gone that route. If you look at some of the comments on the DNC blog or Daily Kos, it’s clear that nobody is looking at their comments as the basis of a story.

When a reporter calls, we need to say, “Guess what, it’s a big world. When Social Security is in crisis, people will use different words to call attention to the problem. The party has its talking points, and we’re using this site to educate people that we’re talking about personal accounts, not social security privatization. Some people may not see the distinction, yet, but we’re working on that. That’s what this site is about ‚Äì fostering the discussion.”

That is the hard sell I referenced Рchanging our tactics when those with an agenda rear their head. Until we do, the practical restrictions remain. Limited functionality prevents those with an agenda from using our site against us. As long as the site functions like a brochure, we’re safe.

There are those who disagree with that concept. Patrick Ruffini, I believe, is one. So I asked that people give him an opportunity to convert some people, to make some believers. I think he can.

Unfortunately, his answers seem to rely on more government, larger budgets, and bigger agencies.

Adding details to past pledges, Chertoff proposed to create a full-time FEMA response force of 1,500 employees, instead of relying largely on volunteers, push “wrenching change” to integrate FEMA within Homeland Security, increase capacity of its disaster registration systems to handle 200,000 people a day, and push claims personnel into the field to serve victims instead of requiring them to use the Internet or telephones.

So despite the fact that FEMA, throughout its history, has been a full-time response agency tasked only with responding to emergencies, the problem is apparently that it needs more people. Why is it government bureaucrat solutions to everything boil down to ‘more people, more money’? Have they never considered, ‘fewer people, leaner management, better communications’?

So our government bureaucracy will become more bloated, fatter, and less responsive. When the next disaster strikes, our response is even worse, and more people are left dead, will we finally realize that adding bodies to the payroll doesn’t prevent bodies in the street? Will they finally figure out no amount of money can topple the bureaucratic hurdles left in place?

“What the American people are hungry to hear from us is, what is the difference?” Mr. Edwards said in an interview. “What will we do? How will we deal with the corruption issue in Washington? How will we deal with the huge moral issues that we have at home? This is a huge opportunity for our party to show what we are made of.”

Others are claiming there’s no rush.

“When you bring it out early, you are going to leave it open for the spinmeisters in Rove’s machine, the Republican side, to tear it to pieces,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois.

…

[P]ointing to the Democratic strategy in defeating Mr. Bush’s Social Security proposal last year, [Pelosi] said there was no rush. “People said, ‘You can’t beat something with nothing,’ ” she said, arguing that the Democrats had in fact accomplished precisely that this year. “I feel very confident about where we are.”

Durbin dragged out that same tired line the Kerry people used last year. The claim that you can’t put forward an agenda because the other side will attack it is ridiculous. Why not get a sack, Dick? Ante up. Get in the game. Washington is a town that’s supposed to do two things – identify problems and find solutions.

If you’re not going to offer an idea because someone may say it’s not good one, you should get the hell out of government.

For example, I have an issue with the depiction of Net Neutrality as an HOV lane.

“We are building a fifth lane on a four-lane highway,” said Dave Pacholczyk, a spokesman for AT&T. “If you offer a high-occupancy lane for certain traffic, it ought to be better for those who remain in the other four lanes.”

The trouble with making that analogy is it’s just not true. Anyone who has traveled in the other four lanes of a highway with an HOV lane knows that their traffic situation isn’t improved at all. (Note: I’m only talking about HOV lanes for motor vehicle traffic at this point.)

As a matter of fact, I have always argued that HOV lanes cause more congestion. When all those cars that have sped past in the HOV lane approach their exit, they now have to careen across 4 lanes of traffic to get to the ramp. Human traffic tendency is to wait until the last possible moment to make that lane change, so they jam on their brakes and attempt to cross four lanes in very short order and cause everyone in those lanes to slow down for them. In doing so, they slow all five lanes.

So that’s a pretty poor analogy for how tiered service would work. Anyone who has sat in traffic watching HOVs go by would argue that’s not a good solution.

A better example would be the special treatment often accorded to buses. When you have a lot of traffic that needs to get to the same place (as in the case of video content) you can bundle it together and give it certain rights (the ability to turn left when other traffic can’t for instance, or the ability to use a certain lane). It’s not a mater of an HOV lane, it’s a matter of giving privileges for a fee.

Further into the article, Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge argues, that carriers “shouldn’t favor those providers [with whom they have other relationships] more than others, because ultimately, the consumer suffers.”

If that’s your concern, then regulate that, not the entire net. To impose a law that prevents managed networks, or even charging for tiered service, because you fear some exclusivity arrangement is foolish. If you fear exclusivity, then pass a law that says carriers are allowed to manage and charge, but they must do so on a non-exclusive basis. That solves your actual problem without creating new ones.

In all, the article isn’t bad. I’ll be curious to see the public discussion after today’s hearing.

I still maintain that McCain will be our best bet in 2008. This is why.

I’ve disagreed with some of his past positions, and questioned the impact of his decisions on our party, but calling out Obama as a typical two-faced, disingenuous democrat flack is awesome. The media has given that guy a free ride… Hell, to read their coverage of him, you’d think he walks on water.

It’s nice to see a colleague shed some light on the real senator from Illinois.