Brought to you by McCain-Feingold

One of the biggest problems with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) is its crippling effect on national political parties. The law opened the door to the creation of a host of unaccountable groups like MoveOn.org. that further coarsen political debate in this country. My column this week in the Washington Times explores this point. Read it here.

Cato's View on the New Clinton Health Care Plan

This is Cato''s first take

Wide Open on the Republican Side?

That's what Rasmussen says. Read here.  Hat tip to Mark Levin at NRO.

Great Earned Media

Every once in a while a paid political ad takes on a life of its own.  It's every media consultant's dream. You pay to place the ad, but bingo, it start develops a viral nature and before you know it your getting millions in free media.  Think Willy Horton, Harry and Louise, Swift Boats and now.... General Petraeus (betray-us) and MoveON.org.  Matthew Continetti over at the Weekly Standards writes about Giuliani jumping on this moving vehicle in a smart way here.

A Fight the Democrats Don't Want

President Bush and congressional Republicans are itching for a fight over spending.  It's a battle the Democrats don't want.  That's why instead of sending the president annual appropriations bills, Democrats are kicking the can. They won't complete any of the 12 Appropriations bills by the October 1 deadline (the beginning of the FY 08 fiscal year). Word from the Hill is that Democrats will pass a continuing resolution (or CR) in the next couple of weeks to fund the government at current levels until November 16.  This buys them some more time to figure out a way to spend more and somehow avoid or override a White House veto.  I write about the process in more detail in my weekly Washington Times column here.

Democrats, the Media and Special Interests

It's funny how things change when the Democrats are in charge in Washington.  In the old days, when Republicans were in the majority, meetings with lobbyists and interest groups was all part of the "culture of corruption."  Now these groups are considered important "stakeholders."  And when Democrats meet with groups like labor unions, they're just doing their job representing common folk.  Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with elected officials or candidates meeting with any group -- conservative or liberal.  That's a healthy part of our system.  It just strikes me that there is a little bit of a double standard when it comes to Democrats and special interests.  I point this out in this piece I wrote on September 6, 2007 in my weekly Washington Times column, Politics in the City. I quote a piece by Adam Nagourney from the NYT in my column where he cites some Democratic operatives who raise an interesting question.  "When was the last time the NRA "demanded" the Republicans hold a debate at one of their forums?

Good question.  How would the media respond to the next Republican presidential debate being sponsored by the NRA or National Right to Life? I think we know the answer.  And it would be a little different than when the AFL-CIO sponsors a "candidate forum."

Change Envy and the Democrats

This is my piece from last week in the Washington Times Change Envy and the Democrats.