Nominations and such...

Various Republican hacks have been attacking Senator Kerry's campaign's tentative plans to not officially accept the Democratic nomination until five weeks after the Democratic convention.

A Fox News analyst claimed over the weekend that "only John Kerry could hold a nominating convention and not nominate anyone."

I got to give it those guys over at FOX, they stay on message.

Republican: Good

Democrat: Bad

New Republic's Noam Schieber gives a bit more of an accurate assessment,

"The indignation at Kerry and the Democrats here strikes me as utterly (and naively) misplaced...The real reason Democrats want more time to raise money is so blindingly obvious it hardly needs pointing out--but apparently not quite that obvious, so here goes: The Republicans are raising well over $200 million for the re-election of George W. Bush. If Kerry doesn't try to establish some rough parity on this front, he's going to get blown out of the water.

To review: Each major party's nominee gets $75 million in public funds to spend as he sees fit the moment he officially accepts the nomination. At that point, he can no longer raise and spend private contributions. Which means that formally accepting the Democratic nomination five weeks before Bush accepts the Republican nomination would force Kerry to spread $75 million in public funds across three months, while Bush would have to make the same amount last for only two months, and would be able to raise and spend private contributions during the five-week period in between the Democratic and Republican conventions. What part of that arrangement strikes Broder as fair? Or, to put it differently, if Kerry accepts the nomination in late July, he will only be able to spend about $25 million per month during each of the last three months of the campaign (despite his demonstrated ability to nearly match Bush on the private fundraising front), whereas Bush could end up spending close to $40 million per month. Does putting it that way make it sound any more fair?"

What is it about leveling the playing field that Republicans hate so much?