The 2000 version of McCain/ Feingold, which was limited to a soft money ban, was palatable, but the 2001 version, which went much further, has been every bit the free speech disaster many predicted. On domestic issues, McCain seems adrift, and trying to reach a position through triangulation, rather than an issue’s merits (truth be told, this is also what GWB does, but the right seems less annoyed when he does it).

McCain does seem to have a better grasp of foreign policy issues than any other candidate, with the possible exception of Sam Brownback (who would never get elected in a million years). But while Rudy has never sat on the Senate foreign relations committee, he is more effective than anybody at projecting toughness, which is essential in our negotiations with our enemeies and (especially) our allies.

Plus, while a Giuliani/Hillary matchup would probably not put New York in play (barring a popular vote landslide), it probably WOULD put New Jersey’s 14 electoral votes — and maybe even Connecticut’s 8 electoral votes — in play, since a large percentage of the voters in both states work in New York City and saw firsthand how much of a difference Rudy made in that state.

Now, I totally support increased transparency of political contributions, but I don’t think they should be limited, hard or soft…

To me, this debate is exactly why McCain is so frustrating a candidate for me. I give McCain huge credit for actually saying we need to cut spending and names the Medicare and transporation bills as targets. He seems to be the only 2008 candidate speaking so frankly about this, and that makes me inclined to vote for him. But I think things like campaign finance “reform,” while based on the admirable desire to make politicians somehow more free of special interests, is so hopelessly impractical that the only way to make it work is to restrict free speech. I find McCain is like that on a lot of issues; he speaks to me better than any other pol on some topics, but comes off as diametrically opposed to me on others.

Plainly, in Article I, section 4, and Article II, section 1, the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate federal elections. But, just as plainly, that regulation must conform to restraints imposed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. And here, the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that, under the First Amendment, campaign contributions and expenditures are protected speech.

My wallet is not protected by the First Amendment. Get over it, people. This is really freaking absurd.

But Rudy’s already proven he is popular with New Yorkers, just as Hillary has now. The difference is Rudy can point to actual accomplishments, whereas Hillary is one of a hundred senators and thus has a harder time showing New Yorkers how she improved their lives.

At the very least, Rudy puts New York into enough play that the Democrats would have to pour money into a state that they would otherwise consider one of their sure-things. And every penny spent in the expensive New York market (don’t forget, Rudy was also popular among suburbanites in New Jersey, so Hillary will have to fight there too) is a penny that Hillary can’t spend trying to flip Ohio or Iowa or other battleground states.

It seems to me Rudy’s presence adds to the total number of battleground states, but mainly by opening battles on traditionally Democratic turf.

1) No. (No one on the right is likely to forgive McCain-Feingold, the MoU or his arrogant nature. And a lot gun owners are not going to be happy with McCain’s 100% rating from ProgressivePunch on gun control. And thanks for that link, it’s fascinating.)

2) Unknown at this time. (Although if Giuliani’s stands on abortion, gun control and marital fidelity haven’t put conservatives off by now, I don’t what will.)

3a) Perhaps not. (Meaning that we may get lucky and people will be so sick of the Hildebeast two-and-a-half years from now that they’ll vote for almost anyone else just to get rid of her.)

3b) With any kind of luck, we’ll never find out.