Is it just me, or has proofreading at Salon generally gone downhill lately? I wasn't even wearing my proofreader's hat when I read this, and I still noticed three errors in this one brief entry.

As a tried-and-true Independant I have to admit I too have done a flip-flop . I used to think that, although he is a Conservative, McCain held moderate views that often resulted in his stepping out of line with other Conservatives to take stances on issues nearer and dearer to honest appraisals of tough issues and their effects on us commoners. No more. He has left reality in search of the Presidency thus showing once again power (or chasing it) corrupts. He has lost my vote and more importantly, my respect. How sad.

Moveon.org already has a $5000-per-person limit. At least, that what it says in the text that I have to click "I agree" for when I give money to them.

Self-serving is too weak a word for this Congress, on both sides of the aisle. Hypocritical is closer to the mark, but still doesn't convey the magnitude of the disdain this Congress demonstrates for you and I, the ordinary constituents they're supposedly representing. The last time I checked, to represent meant something like "to appear on behalf of" or "to stand in for". These guys and gals are meant to be in Congress serving as my voice, as your voice, as the voice of all of us. When was the last time that you felt represented in that way? When was the last time that you felt that your congressperson was telling the House what you wanted to say to it? My guess is: never.

And this situation won't turn out any differently. Our congress members, our so-called representatives, are not in Washington to speak for us; they're there to speak for themselves. Does it matter to them whether the playing field is level? Do they have any interest at all in giving the same voice to the cashier who rings up their groceries as they give to George Soros (or Ken Lay)? Of course not. This bill is just another cynical effort to appear to care what the people (that's you and me) have to say while slavishly serving the interests of those with real power (read money). Democrats are no better than Republicans in this regard. "Representatives" from both parties are only seeking to protect the flow of cash into their own coffers while stanching the flow into the coffers of their opponents. With the exception of the two Congressmen mentioned, none of these "voices of the people" are the least bit interested in creating a congress where fairness is the rule of the day.

My question is the same it's been since I first understood the concept of government by elected official: Is there anyone in Washington who does what's right simply because it's the right thing to do?

The answer hasn't changed either.

Farhad, as much as I generaly enjoy your well-researched pieces, I do think you often miss a basic and important point in the story you're reporting. Such is the case here. Democrats are not abandonning their principles in fighting restrictions on 527 groups, because there is a difference between contributing money to an individual (or that individual's party) and contributing money to an advocacy group.

The former buys ACCESS and sets up the expectation of RECIPROCITY. The latter buys the ability to be heard -- harder and harder to do and yet more vitally needed these days if you're not a corporation or lobbyist. The former is about money as power, while the latter is about money as granting the ability for free speech to be heard loudly enough to have the potential to be persuasive.

Persuasion is not a crime, is not unethical -- even if the case it's making is untrue -- and should not be regulated. Moneyed access to individuals who make laws and parties that control houses of Congress (and more), on the other hand, is exactly the kind of class imbalance that democracy seeks to rectify.

Saying the Democrats should be for regulating ALL money that enters the campaign process, no matter who it goes to or what it does, is as much a non-sequitur as Republicans insisting that all tax cuts are equally good.

Manjoo on April 6: Regular readers of this page know I've recently been questioning my stance on McCain. This move is another strike against him.

Manjoo on April 5: I have to say, I feel better. McCain's going to speak at Falwell's university, but he's not going to give the guy a bear hug. The Straight Talk Express has been rerouted through Bullshit Town -- but from the sound of it, it's only a temporary detour. (I think.)

Really, Farhad, this is getting ridiculous. Why do you have to give today's readers the impression that you've been seriously questioning your stance on McCain when a quick look at your conclusion from your previous post painfully and obviously shows how superficial and timid that questioning actually is? After all, you do "feel better," don't you? So that questioning can't be that deep, can it?

I don't mean to split hairs here, but perhaps today's statement might have a little more credibility had you not seemingly breathed a sigh of relief in yesterday's post by telling us everything would be okay between you and McCain because his detour into Bullshit Town is really only temporary.

So which one is it? Are you truly questioning your stance on McCain or, as you wrote yesterday, do you believe the Straight Talk Express will make its detour into Bullshit Town, drive out, and everything will be okay?

Stop hedging, Farhad, and give a straight answer (or statement) for a change. Because for someone who seems to worship at the alter of the Straight Talk Express, your statements are starting to resemble anything but straight talk.

I posted on Monday critizing McCain for his comments on Falwell -- did you read that? That post did seriously question my stance on McCain.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/03/mccain/index.html

I posted on Wednesday saying he'd made me feel better -- though I noted it was slight -- on "The Daily Show."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/03/mccain/index.html

And in this post I say his reversal on this piece of finance reform is a strike against him.

Your questions suggest you think all of these positions are mutally exclusive ("So which one is it?") That's an error on your part, I submit. It's not at all irrational or contradictory to first question someone's statements (McCain on MTP); then to have someone answer those worries in a somewhat satisfactory way (McCain on Stewart); and then to have that same person's actions in a different matter (McCain on finance reform) cause a further appraisal.

Why shouldn't new information prompt new feelings?