At some point, the political “price” will be more clear to each side. I think Bush can afford to lose the immunity demand. The issue of extra-statutory surveillance goes away as a political cudgel once he’s out of office, and the Democratic president isn’t going to have a pressing need to push the issue (e.g., remove state secret and let the cases move on, or disclose the letters used to order the surveillance) after being elected.

But, in the other direction, to the extent the public accepts the argument that retroactive immunity is vital to obtain security, the DEMs may buckle — figuring that it won’t cost too many votes.

Politicians are ALL about elections and power over the people. “Civil rights” is just a buzzword for getting votes.

water headed down the drain (just like some campaigns).

A definitive ruling from the Commission (bipartisan, etc.) is just another kink in the so-called “straight talk express.” It would raise public awareness of McCain’s deliberate gaming of loan language in light of FEC Advisory Opinions, trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Deans’ complaint creates a further need for formal action, although the FEC had initiated formal action by its own letter. Publicity of the issue is harmful to McCain.

– is there anything new going on with the FISA conferences–and how do you see the timing of anything eventful right now? –

No formal conference, but a bicameral bunch claims to be negotiating “something.” Whatever that is, isn’t public. Reid tried to start a formal House/Senate conference from the Senate side, and was met with objection.

Reid has introduced a couple of PAA-extension bills, which have the nifty effect of erasing the current short term “lapse” by being retroactive to Feb 15 or 16. One of those two is a 30 day extension — 30 days from the day the president signs it into law — the other is an extension until July 2009.

The president’s bill is hung up in the House. There may be other extension, etc. also available in the House, I haven’t checked. Right now, the action is mostly in the political (newspaper) venue.

So what I was hoping you’d help me figure out is how Dean’s complaint is a real problem for McCain.

The problem for McCain is it becomes another example showing that “Mr Clean elections” isn’t.

ballot access and, probably, a loan that otherwise wasn’t secure

Exactly and that’s the problem. If he is fined 25 grand that’s nothing. There are thousands of people who would fight for the “honor” of paying this.

So what I was hoping you’d help me figure out is how Dean’s complaint is a real problem for McCain. He absolutely got ballot access and the loan he couldn’t secure playing the public financing card–but I’m trying to figure out how the FEC does him any real harm if it even functions in time.

BTW is there anything new going on with the FISA conferences–and how do you see the timing of anything eventful right now?

The language in the loan and security agreements is a very thin disguise. And the wonder of it is, that had his campaign faltered, he’d not have withdrawn and the public money would have been forthcoming. Claiming that the loan and security agreement language is NOT security for the loan is a fairly transparent fiction. Why withdraw and come back in, if you haven’t spent so much as to become disqualified?

And once he opts out, as he “has,” he doesn’t care that he’s not receiving matching funds and he doesn’t care if he becomes “disqualified.”

He doesn’t have a corner on doubletalk, I’ll give him that much.

I figure the Republicans in the Senate will continue to object to confirming nominees. But eventually, either Congress disbands the Commission, or staffs it. At some point there will be a ruling. My point was that McCain wants this to happen AFTER his campaign is concluded, however it concludes.

At that point, for 25 grand, he’ll just pay it with some sort of cover letter that says he didn’t do anything wrong. He’ll accurately note that he didn’t take any public money, he’ll lie that he didn’t get any benefit from being authorized to obtain matching funds (but he did, see ballot access and, probably, a loan that otherwise wasn’t secure), and he’ll take the resulting lumps in public opinion.

He’s always been a weasel.