We're pleased to announce that The Next Right has a launch date: next Tuesday, May 27th.

Since announcing this project, the response has exceeded our expectations in every way. Some of the savviest analysts we know have already signed on as writers. And over 1,000 of you have signed up to stay informed on latest developments.

If you want The Next Right right now, you don't have to wait. We've already launched an RSS feed with relevant posts from the site's founding editors, and links to the critical stories we'll be covering on the site. This feed will remain the same after launch.

http://feeds.feedburner.com /TheNextRight

We've also updated our splash site with more information on how YOU can help support the site, with information on how you can be a Next Right writer, advertiser, or help defray our startup costs with a generous contribution.

See you on Tuesday,

Soren Dayton, Jon Henke, and Patrick Ruffini
TheNextRight.com

The Federal Trade Commission has now agreed to consider imposing major restrictions on television advertisements aimed at young children. The primary goal of the proposal is to reduce the amount of sugar children eat. Few people, least of all thoughtful parents, will disapprove of that goal. But the means the FTC is considering are something else. It is a preposterous intervention that would turn the agency into a great national nanny.
[...]
But what are the children to be protected from? The candy and sugar-coated cereals that lead to tooth decay? Or the inability or refusal of their parents to say no? The food products will still be there, sitting on the shelves of the local supermarkets after all, no matter what happens to the commercials. So the proposal, in reality, is designed to protect children from the weakness of their parents — and the parents from the wailing insistence of their children. That, traditionally, is one of the roles of a governess — if you can afford one. It is not a proper role of government. The government has enough problems with television's emphasis on violence and sex and its shortages of local programming, without getting into this business, too.
[...]
But a flat ban on commercials involving, as it would have to, certain judgments a government shouldn't be encouraged to make or enforce, would make parents less responsible, not more.

Since the Federal Election Commission has been rendered defunct by Congress, the hope for something better can be delivered only by the nominees themselves. Surely, a candidate for chief executive of the United States can be expected to show enough executive talent to confront and stifle his or her most out-of-control supporters.

1. They could ask them to stop. (Only a naïve fool would believe this would actually work)


2. They could pass a law to stop them, or push for such a law. (This is clearly a problem)


3. They could use the power of their position to, er, persuade the group to back off by threatening political retaliation. (This is just as problematic as approach #2)

While the candidate once campaigned relentlessly with four or five events a day, she now has two or three. The number of press spokesmen with her is down to one from two, and the press corps barely fills one bus when once it filled two.

As she steps from her plane, Clinton smiles and waves but no crowd actually awaits her.

1. She has a deal to pay off her campaign debts if she continues.


2. She has a bombshell story she can drop on Barack Obama, and she believes it will be enough to swing the superdelegates.


3. She believes that the competitive organizing efforts of both her campaign and the Obama campaign in additional Primary states will help Democrats win the general election in November.

Traditionally, denunciations of speculators come from the left of the political spectrum. In the case of oil prices, however, the most vociferous proponents of the view that it's all the speculators' fault have been conservatives...

Our next step should be to stop the speculation that is driving up prices in world energy markets. Oil company executives have testified recently that oil should be trading for about $55 per barrel, but that a frenzy of speculative investment has driven up its price artificially. That's one reason why I cosponsored the Consumer-First Energy Act.

At Obama's Chicago headquarters, advisers said there was no reason to worry - West Virginia was demographically suited to Clinton and won't be part of their general election plans.

Because of proximity here in Maryland we get occasional exposure to Appalachian stuff. I know it's not nice to say but as a black man in the 21st century it isn't exactly a region I think should be having much say about the future of America. And it isn't.

[T]he suggestion has been made that the minimum wage is really swell because it gets rid of low-productivity jobs that only pay the minimum wage. This sounds lovely—if you are the kind of person who has the skills to get one of the higher productivity jobs. Not so great if you're a high-school dropout with no appreciable credentials. In effect what you're talking about is a massive transfer from the weakest members of society.

I saw Bobby Jindal talk last week at the National Press Club. He's being widely touted as McCain's potential running mate, though I agree with Ross that this would be a mistake—for Jindal. No one should run for office this year as a Republican who doesn't have to.

Mostly I was incredibly impressed. He looks like the president of the high school chess club, so it's something of a shock to my elitist coastal ears to hear a rich good-old-boy southern accent issuing from him. But he's a hell of a talker, and most of what he says actually makes sense.

Earlier this year, Mr. Bush derided a modest plan to provide $4 billion to states and localities to buy foreclosed properties, saying that buying up empty homes helps only "the lenders or the speculators." Actually, it protects entire neighborhoods and local economies from the effects of foreclosures by preventing a greater buildup of unsold homes and a further drop in prices.

Am I the only progressive bothered by making all the members of an entire group of people speak for the actions of all members of that group? [...] Personally, I tried to take a hard line against such stereotyping on Open Left...

[Referring to the individuals who create malicious viral emails] This is the right taking advantage of their authoritarian followers.  It's what they do.  We need to respond.

Put simply, the party, and in many cases, the movement, has lost its moorings. Earmarks exploded ten-fold, and it wasn't under a Democratic Congress. In this winter's primary, we saw the once mighty fiscal-social-national conservative coalition turned in on itself, with economic conservatives pitted against social conservatives. And too many of the "experts" in the Presidential campaigns this cycle failed to modernize the way the party does business, clinging to the old top-down rostrums of direct mail and fundraising-by-cocktail-party in an increasingly networked and crowdsourced world.
[...]
We're calling the site The Next Right because much of this story will be written in the future tense. Our analysis will be as much about looking ten and fifteen years down the road as it will be about dissecting the mechanics of the 2008 contest. What are the coalitions, strategies, and tactics the right needs to win again? How does the party need to change to attract a generation of voters who could very well be lost to us if we don't move fast? Where do we find the candidates who will lead a resurgent right in the 2010 and 2012 elections and beyond?
...
In that spirit, we're opening the doors to anyone who wants to blog on The Next Right. Users will be able to create their own blogs on the site, an ability only a handful of conservative sites offer today. We're also looking for a great stable of front-page writers who can write smart, savvy analysis on a consistent basis - email us if you think you fit the bill. We want to open this up as much as possible.
...
We don't think this alone will solve the activism gap. ... What we're hoping to do is create momentum and an intellectual framework for action - because action ultimately starts with narratives and ideas. We want grassroots conservatives and libertarians to start believing that they can make a difference again - a sense all too many have lost. ... The Next Right is about creating a vision for a 21st century Republican Party and conservative movement.

Peter Mandelson, European trade commissioner, has said the protectionist stances taken by the US presidential candidates risk taking the world trading system back by decades.

In an interview with the BBC's Hardtalk programme to be broadcast on Thursday, Mr Mandelson said: "It is irresponsible to be pretending to people you can erect new protection, new tariff barriers around your economy in this 21st century global age and still succeed in sustaining peoples' living standards and jobs. It is a mirage and they know it."
[...]
Mr Mandelson said that even the rhetoric of protectionism was damaging. "It is very irresponsible in my view to pretend to people that we can disengage from international trade, we can create barriers around our economy and then be surprised when people retaliate by doing the same," he said. "It is going to lead us into a vicious spiral of beggar-thy-neighbour policies which will take us decades back in terms of trade growth."

Speaker Pelosi also said in "A New Direction for America:"

• "Every person in America has a right to have his or her voice heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor.guaranteeing that the voices of all the people are heard."


• "Regular meetings between Chairs and Ranking Members of committees and staff should be held.


• "Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day."

Well, the most recent supplemental appropriation bill is proving that these statements are raging falsities. Instead of allowing an open and transparent discussion on funding for our brave men and women serving this country, Speaker Pelosi would rather send a vital funding bill to the President without the opportunity for amendments.

House Republicans might have their doubts, but Minority Leader Pelosi says a Democratic majority next year would place a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship — and would offer the Republicans minority rights often denied Democrats now.
[...]
In perhaps the biggest break from the current practices of GOP leaders, Pelosi said she would be willing to lose votes on the floor.
"Absolutely," she said. "It's not about a defeat, it's about a decision. I certainly would not say that we can't bring things to the floor because we'll lose ... [Republicans] are afraid of ideas. That's why we can't have amendments, substitutes, and all the rest for the most part."

Operating outside public view, the House Democratic majority is taking extraordinary steps to maintain spending as usual while awaiting a Democrat as president. Remarkably, the supine House Republican minority hardly resists and even collaborates with its supposed adversaries.

There has been little or no public Republican protest over seizure of the appropriating process by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her clique. [...] All Republican leaders voted against [a bill to expand medicaid spending], but their vaunted whip operation was dormant. With a rare opportunity to go on record against entitlements, House Republicans voted 128 to 62 for spending.
[...]
House Republicans had another chance last Thursday to demonstrate interest in restoring anti-waste credentials [by voting for Jeff Flakes proposal to limit direct farm payments]. ... The state of the GOP is indicated by the fact that the 104 to 86 vote by Republicans was seen as progress, while Flake's proposal failed. ... Another motion to lower farm subsidies, by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, was pending Thursday afternoon when the House adjourned for its usual long weekend of fundraising, politicking and recreation. Unchanged in Nancy Pelosi's House is bipartisan devotion to the three-day week.

• "Please, sir, can I have another earmark?"


• "Please, sir, can I have another term?"

The nation's top Democrats are suddenly rushing to appear on the Fox News Channel, which they once had shunned as enemy territory as the nemesis of liberal bloggers. The détente with Fox has provoked a backlash from progressive bloggers, who contend the party's leaders are turning their backs on the base - and lending credibility and legitimacy to the network liberals love to hate - in a quest for a few swing votes.

The problem for the netroots - and Progressives in general - is that, despite both being very satisfactory in important ways, both Clinton and Obama reject the Progressive and netroots movement in some important way.

Fundamentally, what the netroots want is a Fighting Progressive. They want an unabashed liberal who will go toe to toe with the Republicans and punch them in the nose.

But what they have is a choice between a Fighting Pragmatist (Hillary Clinton) and a Kumbaya Progressive (Barack Obama).

If Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his former disciple, Barack Obama were white, this would not be a story. [...] White pastors have been spewing hateful bile and filth for generations. But it's white bile, and that makes all the difference.

Prayerfully, we have called upon the wisdom of all past generations of suffering [Whites] for guidance in fashioning an instrument of [White] self-determination, the [White] Value System.
[...]
These [White] Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever [Whites] are gathered. They consist of the following concepts:
[...]
2. Commitment to the [White] Community. The highest level of achievement for any [White] person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the [White] Community.
3. Commitment to the [White] Family.
[...]
4. ... Basic education for all [Whites] should include Mathematics, Science, Logic, General Semantics, Participative Politics, Economics and Finance, and the Care and Nurture of [White] minds.
[...]
6. Adherence to the [White] Work Ethic. [....]
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect. ... Self-discipline, coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of [White] Progress and a model for [White] Youth.
[...]
9. Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the [White] Community.
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting [White] Institutions.
11. Pledge Allegiance to All [White] Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the [White] Value System.
12. Personal Commitment to Embracement of the [White] Value System. To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the [White] Community and the Advancement of [White] People towards freedom.

Visiting Heritage scholar Wendell Cox has a new paper out titled "How Smart Growth Exacerbated the International Financial Crisis" in which he praises New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's prescience on diagnosing the role of land use regulation in driving the housing bubble.

"Completely ... Whining"

"Completely honest ... Republicans"

The Democratic National Committee has produced two TV ads against McCain, hoping to soften him up while the party figures out who its own presidential nominee will be.

• One ad shows selected portions of McCain's comments that a 100-year U.S. presence in Iraq would be "fine with me." The ad uses dramatic images of war and violence, and omits any mention that McCain was speaking of a peaceful presence like that in Japan or Korea.


• An earlier ad attacks McCain for saying the nation's economy is "prosperous" and "better off overall" than eight years ago. The ad uses a couple of incorrect statistics to argue otherwise. It says the country has lost 1.8 million jobs when, in fact, it has gained nearly 5.4 million, and it says gasoline prices have risen 200 percent, when the actual figure is 139 percent.

When the returns from Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary rolled in last week, they cast a ray of hope into, of all places, the doleful offices of the people plotting this year's Republican congressional campaign.
[...]
Their calculation is that, if the Clinton vs. Obama contest drags on for months more, with each senator working to damage the other in search of an advantage, both will end up bloodied and bruised no matter which one is awarded the nomination.

"We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?" she asked.

But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you'd think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.

EMILY BOURKE: David Karoly from Melbourne University's School of Earth Sciences is outraged.

DAVID KAROLY: This is misinterpretation or misrepresentation and miscommunication of the factors that influence global temperature. It appears to be an opinion of Phil Chapman and he's welcome to his opinion, but in terms of climate variations and an approaching ice age, he is sadly misinformed.

EMILY BOURKE: He argues the figures have been misinterpreted and he dismisses the theory.

DAVID KAROLY: Yes, the climate system did cool from January 2007 to January 2008 quite dramatically. That cooling was associated with changes in the ocean temperatures in the Pacific, a well known phenomenon, the El Nino to La Nina switch. It isn't unprecedented.

EMILY BOURKE: But you're not attributing that in any way to sunspot activity.

DAVID KAROLY: We know it is not due to sunspot activity. Sunspot variations do not lead to the sorts of temperature variations seen from January 2007 to 2008. They don't lead to those large temperature variations, even on an 11-year sunspot cycle.

And so in terms of increasing greenhouse gases, we can also see that effect because the most recent La Nina, the current La Nina, is warmer than earlier La Nina episodes of the same strength. We're actually seeing a warming even in these cool periods associated with La Nina.

"You were the first ones to call it for Hillary Clinton," McAuliffe said, "Fair and balanced Fox. You beat them all."

Emily DeRocco complains that "The April 9 Business article 'Don't Blame NAFTA for Downturn, Many Economists Say' quoted politicians, economists and labor representatives but not a single manufacturer - those at the heart of this wrenching debate" (Letters, April 12).

She's mistaken. Those at the heart of this debate aren't manufacturers (or politicians, economists, or labor representatives). Those at the heart of this debate are consumers. Or, those at the heart of this debate should be consumers. Unfortunately, consumers are too large in number and too disparate in interests to organize effectively for political purposes.