One argument against public financing is it gets used for the same cheap-shot sound-bite ads we complain about regularly. Why not instead have the government claim or buy large blocks of time on major media, and full-page spaces in newspapers, for candidates’ use? Might be hard to win the argument against George Will, who thinks the wealthy elite should be able to use any amount of money to buy an election without facing any competition.

We should require that the provided time or space be used as a whole, not broken up. Since the media expect to make beaucoup bucks in a campaign, it would be a hard sell to overcome their resistance to simply claiming time in return for broadcast rights. And it would be fair to point out that cable companies don’t have to lease bandwidth from the government. But in opposition to that is the C-SPAN model.

When we want to limit one kind of behavior, but know it is an uphill fight, we can invite an alternative by making it easier, cheaper, or more effective. In general, if the desired alternative is made attractive enough, it will crowd out the undesirable version. So for election campaigns, we should balance things so the greater exposure of prime-time/major-channel large-block time overwhelms the attack ads. There might be a few attack-dog political enthusiasts that salivate at thinking up new smears, but I would bet most candidates hate looking for money, hate owing access and favors to various interests, and hate having to say, over and over, "I approved this message."

At least one, Jonah Goldberg, says he is, mainly in the person of Mike Huckabee. Writing that he isn't scared of Ron Paul, Goldberg calls Huckabee a right wing progressive, likely to use our tax dollars to do good, while Paul's dogmatism would prevent his wackier ideas  from becoming reality.

It's the doom of a "fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do 'good works' extends to using government -- and your tax dollars -- to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth" that causes unease. Here's an example of the dread future under Huckabee: a federal ban on public smoking.

Who you gonna call? "...there's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog."

Goldberg saves best for last. What's so weird is that "...Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike. " Be afraid, Jonah.

I think it would be a wonderful state of affairs if the Republicans became what Goldberg wants. Then they would stay in the corner, grumbling about entitlements and entanglements forever, while we get some stuff done.

Part of my country, the White House and its friends, insists that we don't torture because torture isn't torture when we do it. The other part, represented by Justice Dept prosecutors, insists that the definition of torture is obvious and not arguable. How to explain the conflict?

Elizabeth de la Vega tells about the case against Charles Taylor, Jr. son of Liberia's former president. He's charged with (boy, does this resonate) torture on behalf of his government's Anti-terrorism Unit. How can we prosecute this case while maintaining we are exempt? The answer is that because we're the good guys we can't do anything wrong, I guess.

De la Vega shows how the White House has been trying to argue that there are too many complications, the issue is too complex, for lay persons to understand. It must be therefore up to the administration to determine (surprise) that we are not guilty of torture. Of course, while the WH tries to do this, its friends, like Alan Dershowitz, are explaining that torture works, so what's the problem?

So we have 1) We don't torture, alongside 2) We should torture, combined, with 3) You can't torture, only us. So much for principle---the Republic, which has been getting more Roman, has been replaced with the Empire.

I'm feeling an exhaustion with the depressing drumbeat of callous contingency. We need something, so anything is OK to get it. The something might be oil, it might be security. Whatever we want, we're entitled to use any means to get it. Anyone who suggests there are consequences is surrendering to someone, take your pick: Oil sheiks, Chavez, terrorists, fascists, Chinese, French---oops, not anymore, they have their own buffoon now.

Funny how we were supposed to be outraged by a technical perjury charge pursuant to a blow job, but can't get any going over the evil we have perpetrated in the search for absolute security.