The Daily Top Five: January 22, 2007

1. The Instapundit likes the links on Danny Glover's Aircongress.com to all the internet announcements of who is in the Presidential Race for 2008 (man it seems so early). Glover sent this email to the Instapundit:

"One thing is certain from all of the activity: Democrats are winning the race online. Their use of technology is much more innovative, and it's evidence of an Internet-friendly strategy partywide."

Whille that may be true now, don't expect it to stay that way for long. A while back I wrote that when it comes to political technology, the Democrats may invent, but the GOP Perfects. I think that in the next say six months, you will see the GOP put proper resources into their online efforts and to use them to the maximum effective extent possible.

2. The media has been fawning over the announcemnets of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton into the Presidential fray. But given Clinton's frontrunner status, did she screw the pooch with her announcement? Sure, she was able to dominate the news cycle for a day or two in advance of the State of the Union, but was it a wise move. I tend not to think so, given its timing, but Philip Mella has a slightly different take. Obama's announcement, and its methodology, was simply a logical extension of his "rock star" status with the media and his team's effort to keep him in the media limelight without exposing him to gnawing questions about policy and positions. Clinton's announcment smacked more than a little of "me-too-ism" and doing it online doesn't match her track record of campaigning old-school style. Mella writes:

The calculated--read staged--warmth and personalized nature of her announcement belies a trove of historical encounters the nation has in its collective memory, and a few of the prominent traits include iciness, shrillness, and an absolute lack of candor. A kind of 21st century Lady Macbeth, but without the charm.

Juxtapose, for example, Lady Margaret Thatcher with Senator Clinton. In Mrs. Thatcher we had a principled woman whose values were telegraphed with absolute clarity in every move she made, and who brought a sense of forthrightness and candor to the office of prime minister. She was politically astute but most often allowed her instincts to guide her and she did so with grace and a sense of historical purpose.

None of that can be said of Mrs. Clinton who, paradoxically, seems more like the clubby, machine bosses of Chicago's Daley fame, which is to say, the consummate political operative, a master of behind the scenes deals, who present a wholly false public persona. One senses in her speeches and public comments an almost morbid preoccupation with political calculation, that every utterance or gesture is designed to elicit a certain response.

Obama may make Howard Dean's "internet" campaigning look positively low-rent as he embraces an online foundation. Obama has the ability to craft himself in a new light since most of the nation simply doesn't know him. Clinton simply looks out of place with her past and as a front runner, you shouldn't be responding to opponents, you should be making them respond to you.

3. In a guest post at Tammy Bruce's blog, Maynard has this to say:

With respect to hating America, isn't it obvious that this nation is far greater than any other nation? People have come here from all over the world to make better lives for themselves. Where we've influenced other regions, we've made them better than anyone else has done. Look at South Korea versus North Korea, West Germany versus East Germany, Taiwan versus mainland China or Vietnam. How can any sane person look at the big picture of history and conclude that Americans owe the world an apology?

This is not to suggest that America — or anyone else — is above criticism. America may be grand compared to the rest of the world, but we fall short of utopia. Of course we need to work on our flaws! Please, let's just not lose perspective.

America is that last superpower around and of course people will envy our power, but as Maynard points out, just because we have the power doesn't mean we should be ashamed of it.

4. The No Child Left Behind Act is up for renewal this year and the policy chum is already building. Some ideas include scrapping the bill altogether or at least drastically reshaping them. In this article post at Edspresso, Andy Smarick adds more fuel to the debate and I fully endorse his approach.

While I don't have a grand solution that will fix all of our troubled schools, two small changes to NCLB can help bring about the fluid, self-improving school systems we need. First, do away with all "restructuring" options available to failing schools. If a school misses AYP for five years it must be closed (or the district loses its Title I funds).

Second, turn the federal charter schools grant program into an engine of new school creation. Its budget should be expanded significantly and its funds should support the start-up of new schools in areas affected by these forced school closures.

In these new school systems, chronically low-performing schools will be regularly shuttered and replaced by new, highly accountable public schools. Students affected by closures will have the choice of attending a new school or a higher-performing existing school. Every year, the NCLB closure provision and charter contracts will close those schools continuously failing their students. The beefed-up charter schools program will ensure that new schools are always on deck, ready to enter the fray.

The only way to get a school district to change its ways is to withhold money. While Title I is not the biggest part of the education funding pie, it does mean a great deal and schools and states rely on the money. But the closing of schools is only part of the problem. Because upon reopening a school, you may still have much of the same staffing issues, that is teachers of lower quality or lower motivation who look upon their job as a sinecure or entitlement. But at least it is a start.

5. Finally, the Supreme Court will hear the Wisconsin Right to Life case on campaign finance law in April. While some have argued that the case will bring about a new era of "campaign finance deregulation," others are speaking differently. Bob Bauer notes:

WRTL, while it is an important case, by no means presages a major Court confrontation with the campaign finance laws as a whole. The advertising ban before the Court was always one of the more tenuous provisions of the new law.

snip

If the Court limits the range of the 30/60-day spending prohibition, by carving out an exception for "grassroots lobbying," it will not have retreated from its evolving infatuation with the virtues of "deferring" to Congress. The theory of deference, whatever may be said for it, holds that Members are experts in campaign matters, knowledgeable about campaign fundraising and its effect on them as officeholders. This begs the WRTL question: which is about whether the kind of advertising before the Court can be classified as "campaign" spending, and it is not a question that Members can be trusted to answer disinterestedly, posing as "experts."

It is a mistake to assume that the Court might seize on WRTL with some plan to weaken the very foundation of campaign finance regulation. The Court might act simply to define the line between regulation within more established, limited constitutional boundaries, and a new and more expansive version that relocates those boundaries in order to put independent, sometimes influential, political speech under government control.

Randall v. Rorrell, the Vermont Campaign finance case, was likewise thought to be a case in which the Court would move to more deregulation of campaign finance, the that case turned out to be little more than an affimation of McConnell. I don't think WRTL will be any different.