I have a WaPo piece this weekend in their "5 Myths" series about swing states. There are myths.
At Plum Line yesterday, I talked about the apparent Democratic disharmony over the Bush-era tax cuts.
And at PP, I wrote in favor, more or less, of Tom Coburn's initiative to end public financing for the party conventions. I went into it thinking that I'd just propose a trade of convention funding for partial public financing of House elections (and wound up proposing a wholesale trade -- take out the entire, out-of-date presidential funding regime and replace it with partial public funding of House races). But while I would like to see that, the truth is that the more I think about it, the less I can think of any reason to justify public funding of the conventions. That wouldn't have been true in, say, the 1950s, but now? I just don't see the case for it.