On one of the blogs somewhere, I read an insightful comment that the media and the entertainment industry are entirely saturated with Blue America’s view of How Things Should Be, Blue America’s view of Right and Wrong, etc. You can’t escape.

In my family, there was an absolutely sharp divide. The firefighters, cops and veterans were uniformly for Bush (and Bush’s people really should have asked the NYPD and FD rank and file about Kerik; they despise the man). The property speculators and aspiring filmmakers all went for Kerry.

The most ignorant people I know were able to regurgitate chapter and verse of all the arguments against Bush (not for Kerry, you notice.) No, the Dems failed because Republicans got more voters out AND enough truths were forced into the MSM by the blogosphere to preclude the BDS coalition’s win.

1) They’re much better organized, because they’ve had more money for decades to build up the infrastructure. (I have no idea if this is true.)

2) The left is just not as good at advertising, at targeting its message to the right demographics like those eeevil corporations.

(That’s right, there are probably millions of people in the US who never heard of Fahrenheit 911 or never saw any of the dozens of Bush-bashing books or never heard the pearls of wisdom from millionaire actors.)

My family is visiting today from their home state of Denial.

There was not a single Dem candidate who could have both stirred up the entire base with devotion as opposed to negativity and beaten Bush. They HAD to resort to 527 money. With all the MSM support and anti-Bush books and movies, they should have won…but for the blogosphere. Which explains the whining and seething from the left toward bloggers.

David Thomson nails it for me re: Kerry’s inability to defend himself in hard-hitting interviews. Having not released his military records, and with past treasonous acts being circulated on TV and the web, how on earth could he ever have countered the Swifties’ charges? This is where Kaus loses me. Dems are still living in a dream world if they think all Kerry had to do was effectively counter the attacks. It never could have happened because they were true.

It’s amazing Bush came as close to losing as he did, and in a time of war he should have won by 15 – 18%, I believe. Until you factor in the hundreds of million$ spent by the other side in 527 ads, anti-Bush movies, books, and MSM coverage, and BDS running rampant overseas and here. But, while almost any other Dem candidate would have been better (I really wanted Bush to go up against Dean, although as a former Dem I like Lieberman the best) as a candidate, the rabid BDS would likely not have been stirred up as much and more Dems might have stayed home. Certainly the Swifties never would have been heard of. In my book, they and the blogosphere did Kerry in. In the future, I believe the blogosphere will do in any candidate who has as many negatives and failings as Kerry has. I’m looking forward to seeing what it does to Hillary (I pray Frist isn’t her opponent – I can’t stand him).

I guess the bottom line for me is that, in spite of all the 527 money, thanks to the blogosphere the truth came out. Truth still wins. But I would allow all money and all speech to seek its own level and I’d get rid of M-F if I could. Money is speech in a democracy and you can’t damn up the truth.

Of many ironies we can note that for years Democrats have complained about the influence of Big Money, ie pro-Republican money, in US politics. And where was the biggest money of all in 2004? From none other than Mr “I’ll Spend Whatever it Takes” Soros and his confrere Peter Lewis of Ohio.

And then in the supreme irony, it was grass-roots, dare one say working-class, Republican volunteers who out-hustled, out-listened, out-organized the Dems and their money-driven, mercenary bands.

It seems pretty obvious that Kerry would have had better luck if he’d raised only one-third as much money and been forced to rely on volunteers and true grass-roots organization rather than big money and coin-operated union morons flown into other people’s neighborhoods.

David Thomson ó Chris Wallace would have been okay, but one thing I’ve noticed now that I’ve learned to live on blog time is that even pundits I once liked seem to be behind the curve, information-wise. That, or they seem to be too concerned with their place in the press club to aggressively use the information available.

I mean really, what other reason is there to tolerate Juan Williams except to humiliate him with facts or just plain give him noogies on the air?

I think one of the unintended consequences of MF is that it is an aid to incumbents. Incumbents have a built in advanyage and by restricting the amounts and types of money you can raise and spend you make it harder for an unknown to unseat an incumbent. Building name recognition takes money. And I don’t think MF has lessened the influence of corporations and money in Washington.

I think the idea was noble but it was trying to solve a problem that was misidentified. The fact that political advertising has so much influence is the problem of the voters indifference to politics, not money.One mans brutal attack ad is anothers spreading of the truth. Talk to the Move on or the Swift Boat people and they think their ads were tough but they were giving the voters the info they needed to make an informed choice. And the fact that there is no way to restrict a millionaire from spending his own money or for 527′s to be kept away from congressional races makes the legislation pointless.If the party can target local races and flood them with money, or issue ads, the spending restrictions become pointless.

I think at this point with the net as a tool the better rule would be to make all money spent on political campaigns completely transparent and available to all. If some oil company or large corporation gives a candidate a large sum of money it can be a political disadvantage as well as a blessing. Give the voter the info, let the debate be held, and get the arcane restrictions out of it. MF was an example of the boy with the finger in the dike. The money will either find a another hole or just go over the top. If the voters can be bought then they deserve the government they get. If a 60 second commercial can make up a persons mind then no amount of legislation will fix that problem.