Semi-Daily Journal

Governor Dean deserves to be whacked for using this issue to bash Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry was correct from the beginning to leave off public funding. Mr. Dean now admits he was wrong. He was also wrong to criticize Kerry.

That said, Mr. Dean seems to be wising up to the realities of presidential election funding. The Bush's specialize in negative campaigning. If a candidate doesn't have enough money to counter their TV ads, they will drive up the negatives of any opponents. The Bushes did it with Dukakis, Clinton in 92, Perot, Bob Dole, John McCain and Al Gore. In 96 Clinton had enough cash to deter Senator Dole from going negative.

The system is broke. Campaign finance reform is not the answer. TV time is too influential and too expensive. Limiting the number of TV minutes would greatly reduce the need for the money. That is the only way I see that the money could be reduced. Maybe we would be better off without the limits but making more of an issue about where a candidate gets the money and who is owed favors.

Anyone following the link to the WaPo editorial in question will be forced to conclude that Matthew Yglesias was kidding.

Highlight:

WE'VE ALWAYS been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in," said Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. That was in March, and the subject was whether the former Vermont governor would abide by spending limits during the primary campaign. Now, buoyed by his fundraising success, Mr. Dean is flirting with the idea of opting out of the public financing system....

Good question. The opponent Mr. Dean is referring to is not any of his Democratic rivals but President Bush, who plans once again to opt out of the public financing system for primaries, under which candidates receive matching funds (for the first $250 of every individual donation) in exchange for their promise to curb primary spending. This time around, Mr. Bush expects to raise at least $170 million -- this for a primary campaign in which he is unopposed. That's compared with the $45 million spending limit (including matching funds) for candidates who operate within the system. (For the general election, the two major party nominees receive full public financing, about $75 million.

Mr. Dean's potential change of heart will open him to some whacks -- and deservedly so -- from his opponents. Back in March, before his candidacy surged to the extent that he could even dream about raising enough on his own to opt out of the system, Mr. Dean warned fellow Democrats (read: Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry) that they would be subject to criticism if they abandoned the limits. "It will be a huge issue . . . because I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform," he said back then.

So, Bush's situation is mentioned in the second paragraph; Bush has not flip-flopped on the issue; Dean has.

Kidding?

Dean could have been a contender, but his pro- Ba'athism has alienated him from pro-western Americans, who are a distinct majority of the electorate. Cf. Henry Wallace in 1948.