Katie's Moment

"The main argument against public financing [of campaigns] is the cost," says the New Republic. "But the cost of public funding must be weighed against the fiscal benefits. According to Nancy Watzman of Public Campaign, public financing of congressional elections would cost about $1.5 billion every two years. By contrast, the current system encourages billions each year in business subsidies and tax breaks that lack any market rationale. And it results in legislation like the bankruptcy, energy, and prescription-drug bills that amount to a transfer of billions from the working and middle classes to businesses and their stockholders. By a modest estimate, an investment of less than $1 billion per year for public financing would free more than $50 billion each year that could be allocated or saved, depending on what Congress, free of the pressures of the system's subtle kinds of bribery, decided."

Glenn Reynolds says he has, too, blogged about DeLay--but just isn't all that excited:

"To the extent that DeLay stood for anything, though, it was the win-at-any-cost, outdo-the-Democrats-in-pork mentality that I think is bad for the country and, for that matter, the Republicans. I can see how people stories like this are a bigger deal to inside-the-beltway types who actually knew DeLay and who followed his activities more closely than I do, but just as I never felt any particular urge to defend DeLay, I don't think his departure matters all that much either."

Chris Matthews is getting mocked by Harry Shearer and other online pundits for some "Hardball" outtakes from a DeLay interview after the Hammer had given him the scoop about his resignation:

MATTHEWS: Have you seen this new focus group stuff on the candidates?

DELAY: No I haven't

MATTHEWS: It's great stuff. I'll send it to you -- it's great -- yeah it's great stuff. Hillary, John Kerry. All these guys, all these Democrats, and how they do. And, uh, Frank Luntz did it . . .

DELAY: who I like

MATTHEWS: . . . and Hillary did not do well. Kerry did well.

DELAY: You're kidding.

MATTHEWS: I am NOT kidding. They didn't like Edwards -- they thought he was a rich lawyer, pretending to care about poor people. . . .

DELAY: Too slick. Too slick.

MATTHEWS: . . . and Hillary was a know-it-all.

DELAY: Nothing worse than a woman know-it-all

[ . . . ]

MATTHEWS: Thanks. I owe you one. I owe you two -- today and last night.

DELAY: No you don't.

MATTHEWS: No, I do.

DELAY: I appreciate it.

I'm sure he does.

Ed Morrissey x"Russ Feingold has decided to embrace the far-left fever swamp in hopes of building momentum for his run at the Presidency in 2008, and yesterday announced his support for gay marriage as another step in that strategy. The Washington Post reports that Feingold blames Republicans for using the controversy as a wedge issue, but also notes that his fellow Democrats have not lined up in support of gender-neutral marriage either:

"Apparently Feingold intends on positioning himself thusly, which is why he went further than the question required. He wants to signal that the far left can absolutely count on him to carry their platform into the 2008 convention. It's not a bad idea in the primaries, and he will be able to harness the money-raising power of the MoveOn and I-ANSWER crowd early enough to be able to keep them from financing any of his more moderate rivals.

"In terms of actually winning primaries, let alone a general election, Feingold has made a mistake, however. Bans on gender-neutral marriage garner large majorities wherever contested, up to 70% of the vote in some places. Feingold can blame Republicans all he wants, but those numbers show a significant number in his own party support the traditional notions of marriage as well."

Finally, blogging can be profitable, at least if you're Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos:

"In a little less than three years," says the San Francisco Chronicle , "he has become one of few full-time political bloggers to earn enough (about $80,000 last year, plus a book advance and cash from pre-sales) to be able to buy a 2,000-square-foot, three-bedroom Berkeley house."