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.

On an Obama conference call with reporters Saturday, Gen. Walter Stewart said Clinton's misstatements about her trip to Bosnia as First Lady mean she "lacks the moral authority" to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

• Matt Yglesias and Josh Marshall would have spent the next few days discussing its deeper meaning. Was it a dogwhistle to the base, or a strategy to (fill in the blank with something plausible only to the paranoid).



• Glenn Greenwald would have written 3 very long posts (and maybe a book) explaining why this was a coordinated Republican plot to slander Democrats



• Media Matters would have pinged every media outlet that failed to pick up their press release about it



• Atrios would have worked the phrase "because of the moral authority!" into every 3rd (non-Open Thread) post for the foreseeable future



• And the rest of the Leftosphere would spend the next few days explaining how this was a dogwhistle to the base and the campaign only distanced themselves from the statement to protect McCain from the press.

The Obama campaign is planning to expand its research and rapid-response team in order to repel attacks it anticipates over his ties to 1960s radical Bill Ayers, indicted developer Antoin Rezko and other figures from his past.

The left-wing blogosphere is MUCH more powerful than what you see on the right this cycle and it reminds us of the advantage Bush had in '04. While we all know about that so-called right-wing voice machine, don't forget that there is now a left-wing noise machine (on the internet) as well. And it has found its voice.

1. Messaging - between Moveon.org, the blogs and the many issue-advocacy outfits, the Leftosphere has a very powerful communication mechanism for candidates and issues. They have messaging and distribution capacity and it is well-coordinated with advocacy and awareness elements of their coalition.



2. Money - the Presidential money is high-profile and not every candidate gets a lot of online money, but the Leftroots can move significant sums of money to the challengers that hit the right notes, make the right friends, and jump into the hot progressive issues. They have succeeded in tapping the long tail to move fundraising - and the financial incentive machine - outside of the establishment channels.



3. Mobilization - the Progressives are passionate, energized, over their ideas. They have a story they're excited about, they have effectively tied their stories together and they're tightly wedded to the (dangerous) tactic of populism. They're unified around that mission, so they can and do mobilize people. Again, that moves significant power outside the traditional channels.

"What Milton Friedman said was that government should not interfere," said Allen Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics Inc., a consulting group. "It didn't work. We now are looking at one of the greatest real estate busts of all time. The free market is not geared to take care of the casualties, because there's no profit motive. There's no market incentive to deal with the unemployed or those who have lost their homes."

Now the 2002 Nobel laureate is in reprise mode. "In a democracy, I realize you don't need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels," he said over the weekend, responding to a question from an Israeli journalist who noted that Mr. Carter had been snubbed by most of Israel's top leadership and reprimanded by its president, Shimon Peres. "When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that's the dictator, because he speaks for all the people."

RADDATZ: All during that period — April, May, June, July [of 2006] — when things were really going downhill, people were talking about there being civil war. [...] You were saying, 'We're winning. We have a plan for victory. We are winning,' up through October.
[...]
BUSH: Well, yes. I think we — and I wanted — that's as much trying to bolster the spirits of the people in the field as well as — look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, "It's not worth it," or, "You're losing." I mean, what does that do for morale? I'm the commander in chief of the military as well, obviously, as, you know, somebody who speaks to the country. And if you look at my remarks, they were balanced. They weren't Pollyannaish. [...]

There you have it folks. The president of the United States admitting that his own certainty about th