The Parties’ Losses are Moderates’ Gain?

This, along with a number of other changes in political strategies, seems to assume that a changed strategy will produce moderation. I don't know what I'm missing here, but I don't see why that assumption should be made.
How would an increase in the number of groups pouring money into politics produce moderation instead of just more competitive squabbling?

I can't help thinking there is a parallel here with grovernments that have a multi party system. They form unstable coalitions that, in turn, result in unstable governance. I don't see too much moderation in those countries.

Moderation is a state of mind, a culture, not something that can be engineered by adopitng this or that technique., and it can only prevail when a majjority values moderation as a positive necessity for the country's survival and/or progress.

I may be a lone voice in the wilderness, but I think equating speech with money is a cause of our problems, not the cure. To me, this is like returning to the age when only landed gentry or successful businessmen had a say. When funds raised represent influence, extremists have as much, if not more, of a chance to dictate policy, leaving the other groups competing with each other for attention in the dust.

Besides all that, the amount of money being poured into politics seems perverse when I think of all the social benefit that money could finance instead.

Time will tell how this will work out. I hope I'm wrong, and wonderful things will happen. As of now, I just don't see it, though.

I must agree with Domajot here. Paul is, admirably although quixotically, attempting to find a silver lining in some rather nasty thunderclouds.

From everything I have seen, these advocacy groups (such as Moveon.org, the sundry swiftboaters etc.) seem to be "poisoning the well" of political life.

Like Domajot, I have a bad feeling that this will be the nastiest, most vicious election in years.

Liberal groups will devote millions to smearing McCain's war hero credentials in sundry vicious ways.
Obama will likewise be represented as a closet Black separatist and overt racist. Clinton will be...well, that's already been done. If the Democrats nominate her, they will save the 527s the trouble of digging up new material (in fairness, it might be argued for Clinton as a nominee that she is effectively "Fireproof" as there is nothing more that could be thrown at her).

I feel, like Domajot it seems, that more money is just more wood piled on the fire.

Just to add, it may be that an argument could be made that this excites interest and partisan engagement in the process.

I tend to be cynical about these things. However, from what I can see, average people tend to be repelled by viciousness in politics (though going negative often works).

Thus, the President in 2009 may be the one whose side better smeared the other. But the overall percentage of the public voting might be lowered as a consequence.

I don't have much resistance to the amount of money in politics, but rather how it is used to influence public policy. I am fine with aggressive campaigns to educate the public about the problems and choices we face and how particular candidates are likely to approach these issues. There is always the risk of slander and hyperbole, but freedom of speech may be the only effective remedy. The more the public is exposed to different points of view the more we are forced to sort through it and find our own reconciliation. The alternative to this an abdication of the responsibilities of citizenship.

My concern is speech controlled by the few rather than the many. I agree that speech and money should not be identical because one should not have the right to drown out the opinions of another. I read the Web site of the Center for Competitive Politics because I disagree with them and need to understand what they are saying and why.